A BIZ is a self-assessment district that can be established under Public Act 120 of 1961 by agreement of a sufficient number of property owners in the district – to generate sufficient funds to pay for additional services not provided by the city. If it’s established, the South University Area BIZ would be the second such district in downtown Ann Arbor. In 2010 such a district was established for a three-block stretch of Main Street, between William and Huron streets – to provide sidewalk snow clearing, litter pickup and poster removal. [See Chronicle coverage from 2009: "Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ Clears Hurdle"]

The Ann Arbor DDA also provided a grant to assist with the formation of the Main Street BIZ, voting on April 1, 2009 to award $83,270 to defray various costs associated with the formation of the BIZ. Those included accounting, auditing, operations and legal services.

At that time, DDA board members reflected on the fact that they did not necessarily want to be signaling – through their support of the Main Street BIZ – that the DDA would be inclined to support all other subsequent efforts to establish business improvement zones in other areas of the downtown. Partly to address that concern, the board asked that the Main Street BIZ produce a “blueprint” for the formation of a BIZ, which could be used by other groups to help navigate the lengthy required process.

At a May 29, 2013 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee, South University Area Association executive director Maggie Ladd and consultant Betsy Jackson pitched the grant to the committee. Jackson, president of The Urban Agenda Inc., told the committee that while the blueprint was a useful fill-in-the-blank document, it was important to have someone with sufficient expertise to fill in those blanks. Jackson was also the consultant hired for the Main Street BIZ.

At the DDA board’s July 3 meeting, board member Joan Lowenstein also described the considerable legwork that’s required for deciding on the method of assessment for any specific BIZ.

According to the DDA board resolution, South University property owners are contributing a total of $25,000 toward the start-up costs.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301 where the DDA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) explains the work of the RFP review committee for the Library Lot proposals, as Sabra Briere (Ward 1) listens. (Photos by the writer.)

At the same time, the council’s representatives to the RFP committee – Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – told their colleagues that they would bring to the committee the suggestion of re-including two already-eliminated proposals.

That idea will be floated to the committee when it next meets, on Friday, Jan. 8 at 9 a.m.

In other business, councilmembers grilled the city’s transportation program coordinator about revisions to the city’s bicycle and pedestrian ordinances to align with the Michigan Vehicle Code. Despite that, council sent the revisions on to the next step towards final approval.

The council also authorized a vote to be held among property owners to establish a business improvement zone (BIZ) on Main Street between William and Huron streets. That’s the next step in a multi-step process for establishing the BIZ, which allows property owners to levy an additional tax on themselves to use for specific services.

The council also heard a presentation on the city’s snow removal policy from Craig Hupy, who’s head of systems planning for the city. Councilmembers heard little enthusiasm from city administrator, Roger Fraser, for any deer removal program for Ann Arbor.

Fraser also announced that the city’s community services area administrator, Jayne Miller, would be leaving her city post to head up the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, which oversees regional metroparks, sometime in the next month.

Resolution on Library Lot Proposals

At the city council caucus the previous evening, conversation focused almost exclusively on the request for proposals (RFP) process for the city-owned property known as the Library Lot. The focus was on the possibility of gathering additional information from proposers whose projects had been eliminated from consideration.

Two proposals meeting the deadline for submission, but subsequently eliminated by the RFP review committee, both envision the top of the underground parking garage under the Library Lot to be predominantly open space.

Two other proposals did not meet the deadline for submission and are not being considered. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Library Lot: Choice Between Apples and Pears?" and "Two Library Lot Proposals Eliminated"]

The resolution considered by the council on Monday read in its original form as follows:

Whereas, The RFP advisory committee is charged with making a recommendation to the entire City Council about the proposals submitted in response to the RFP involving the “Library Lot”;

Whereas, The City Council has the right to accept any proposal or reject all proposals; and

Whereas, The City Council should therefore have equivalent information about all six proposals;

RESOLVED, That City Council requests that any proposers eliminated by the RFP advisory committee submit all relevant financial information about their projects to the City Council at their earliest convenience; and

RESOLVED, That any proposers eliminated by the RFP advisory committee be prepared to respond to questions from the City Council in advance of City Council’s consideration of any recommendation the RFP advisory committee may make.

Near the start of the council’s Monday meeting, during the communications section, mayor John Hieftje said he’d spoken with Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who serve on the RFP review committee.  He reported that they were not averse to the idea of leaving the two previously eliminated proposals in the mix for the 90-minute interviews of each proposer, to be held on Jan. 20. Hieftje said that Teall and Rapundalo would be bringing that idea to the RFP committee when it meets on Friday, Jan. 8.

Public Commentary on Library Lot Resolution

Four people signed up to speak about Library Lot proposals during time reserved for public commentary at the start of the meeting.

Lily Au criticized the idea of building a hotel on the lot when there was no daytime warming center for the homeless. She noted that the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library, located next to the Library Lot, was a de facto warming center. Au cited cases of three homeless men who had been arrested on charges of trespassing, when they were simply looking for a place to sleep. [One of the men, Caleb Poirier, had his case dropped by the prosecution on the day following the council's meeting.]

Libby Hunter rendered her commentary in the form of a song with a melody from Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” and lyrics that compared a conference center at the Library Lot location to a “white elephant.”

Jack Eaton, who had attended the previous night’s caucus, encouraged more council members to avail themselves of the opportunity of caucus. [None of the councilmembers up for re-election in November, except for Mayor Hieftje, are regular attendees of the Sunday caucus, which the city's website bills as "meetings of the mayor and members of council to discuss and gather information on issues that are or will be coming before them for consideration."] Eaton said that in light of the mayor’s remarks about Rapundalo and Teall bringing the idea to the RFP committee of re-including the two open space proposals, he’d be abbreviating his comments. He stressed the importance of the parcel to the whole community and the need for a full sense of public participation in the process.

Alan Haber waits his turn to speak at public commentary. Kudos to readers who can identify both blurry city staffers in the background.

Alan Haber greeted the council by saying, “Hello, again!” He’s spoken frequently on the topic and has sent councilmembers many emails. He allowed that the open space proposal he’d helped to draft and submit as a part of the RFP process [one of the proposals that has been eliminated] was “a little informal,” but that it sought to answer the question: “How can the creativity of the community be brought to bear on that space? “That’s the place for the heart of the community to begin beating,” he suggested. There were other places where  high density and affordable housing could be put, he said.

Council Deliberations on Library Lot Resolution

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who’d sponsored the resolution, led off by saying she was “very cheered” by the mayor’s remarks earlier in the meeting. The mayor had indicated the willingness of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) to float to the RFP committee – on which they  serve – the idea of re-including the open space proposals in the interview process.

However, Briere said she was not certain that it met the council’s needs. It wasn’t about whether there was a public hearing, or whether a particular proposal was included at a point in the process, she explained. It was about the council having complete information – in the event that the council chose to consider some other proposal than the one eventually recommended by the RFP review committee. The resolution, she said, would provide all councilmembers with an equal amount of information about all the proposals.

In subsequent deliberations, Teall questioned what options the council had in considering the RFP committee’s recommendation. She suggested that the council could only vote the recommendation up or down, and then perhaps start a new RFP process. Briere cited the mayor’s statement at the Dec. 20 caucus that the council could bring back any proposal it wanted, which Hieftje confirmed by saying that a six-vote majority of councilmembers could resolve to undertake what it liked with the various proposals. [Chronicle coverage: "Mayor: 'Council can bring back any proposal it wants.'"]

Rapundalo, who’s chairing the RFP review committee, said he would not be supporting the resolution, though he was quite willing to take the suggestion to the committee of including the two open space proposals in the interview process. The work of the committee thus far, he said, was a straightforward application of best practices as they related to RFP reviews. If the committee had failed anywhere, he said, then it was only in not articulating clearly what the steps were that it had taken.

Among the steps that Rapundalo drew out was the fact that two proposals had been eliminated even before they’d reached the committee – because they failed to meet the deadline. He also pointed out that additional questions had been formulated for each of the proposers, including the two open space proposals, asking for additional clarity on particular elements. The formulation of those questions had taken place, Rapundalo said, in advance of any decision to eliminate the proposals from further consideration.

Later in deliberations, Briere would note that “a question unasked remains unanswered.”

Rapundalo questioned whether it was fair to give certain proposals a “second chance,” saying that it reminded him of how human services money was formerly allocated – when those who did not receive an allocation would come “tugging on a councilmember’s sleeve.” [Rapundalo oversaw a revamping of that process that led to an objective scoring metric to guide those allocations.]

Responding to Briere’s call for “equal” information, Rapundalo said that the equalizer was the RFP itself in the information that it requested.

Saying that there had been no predetermination by the committee of what proposal would be selected, Rapundalo allowed that there was something that had been predetermined: that something would be built and that it would not be only open space on the area. On two different occasions, he said, the council had made clear for the record that something would be built.

By way of historical background, one of those occasions was the resolution the council passed on Nov. 5, 2007. That resolution directed the Downtown Development Authority, which is building the underground parking structure, to prepare a written recommendation for its construction at the Library Lot. From the set of “Resolved” clauses:

The underground parking garage shall be designed to support above ground, in the short-term, surface public parking, and in the long-term, development which could include, but is not limited to, a residential, retail, and/or office building(s) and a public plaza along either Fifth Street or the newly constructed street;

The same language was part of the resolution approved four months later, on Feb. 4, 2008, that authorized the DDA to design and construct the parking garage. It was a somewhat different membership of the council then, but there is much overlap. At that time, the council consisted of [those currently serving in bold]: Ronald Suarez, Sabra Briere,  Joan Lowenstein, Stephen Rapundalo,  Stephen Kunselman, Leigh Greden,  Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins,  Christopher Easthope, Mike Anglin, John Hieftje. [Who served when? Try ArborWiki.]

During Monday night’s deliberations, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) suggested that if the commitment to build something had been constraining, then it would have been built into the RFP itself. While he said he was glad to see that by casting as wide a net as possible, they’d elicited some exciting proposals, for him, it boiled down to process. And he did not want to make the playing field unlevel, he said, thus he did not support Briere’s resolution.

Teall echoed Rapundalo’s sentiments, saying there was both a need to maintain a sense of objectiveness for the RFP process, plus a need to be efficient with time and resources from the DDA. [The Downtown Development Authority will likely authorize funding for a consultant to help evaluate the proposals at its next meeting, on Wednesday, Jan. 6.]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) suggested an amendment to the second “Resolved” clause to make it mirror the first one, which was accepted as “friendly,” thus did not require a vote. Taylor said that he was sensitive to the work done by the committee, and said that the fact that the committee found two of the proposals “wanting” was an important data point. He said the resolution would not override the committee’s work.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she could not support the resolution but appreciated the desire to consider the eliminated proposals – the council had the prerogative, she noted, to do so. She said, however, that the resolution was now premature. She then ticked through the public processes that had included planning for the Library Lot: the Central Area Plan, the Calthorpe process, the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan, and the Downtown Plan. “We’ve asked and answered this question,” she said. The conclusion had been, Smith continued, that the lot has to have adequate-sized open space, but that it also had to have buildings on it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) remarked that his opposition to public-private development, which most of the proposals entailed, was well known. As for the resolution, he said, “It’s just information. We don’t need to be fearful of it.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5), possibly responding to Smith’s contention that there’d already been public process surrounding the Library Lot, asked when it was that community members had brought forward their ideas – he hadn’t been there, he said. [By this he meant it hadn't happened, not that he was absent.] Anglin stressed that the community owned the property and that citizens needed to be involved in the process.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) focused on the question of process, noting that the RFP review committee included two of the council’s own members, and that changing the process after proposals had been prepared in good faith sent the wrong message.

Mayor John Hieftje essentially echoed the sentiments of Rapundalo in concluding that the information mentioned in Briere’s resolution had been requested in the RFP. Hieftje said he did not see what the resolution did to evolve the council’s understanding of the proposals.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ended deliberations when she called the question [a procedural move to end debate], but not before delivering a lambasting of the proposed resolution. “There are members of council who don’t trust the committee to do its work,” she said. Instead of the resolution the council was considering, Higgins declared, the council should just call it what it was and consider a resolution to disband the committee.

Outcome: The resolution failed to pass, winning support only from Briere, Taylor, Kunselman, and Anglin.

Bicyclists and Pedestrians

Before the council were two resolutions affecting bicyclists and pedestrians. One of them revised city ordinances on bicyclists and pedestrian behavior, while the other revised the bicycle registration fee. This was the first reading of the ordinances, which means that they’ll need to come back to council for final approval.

Public Commentary on Non-Motorized Issues

At the time allotted for public commentary at the end of the meeting, two people spoke on issues related to bicycles and pedestrians. And one of those made comments related, tangentially, to a third public speaker, who’d addressed the council during reserved time at the start of the meeting.

Kathy Griswold told the council that her New Year’s resolution was to speak at every council meeting and to use the full three minutes allotted – that was less time than it took for traffic to clear at the mid-block crossing near King Elementary School, she said. Griswold has spoken at multiple meetings through the fall and early winter on the need to move that crosswalk to the intersection from its current mid-block location. Griswold pointed councilmembers to a website she’d set up – SeeKids.org. The site provides information on steps the city could take to improve Ann Arbor’s current rating by the League of American Bicyclists to the platinum level achieved by Boulder, Portland, and Davis.

Kathy Griswold’s draft of notes for her public speaking turn at the end of the meeting.

Portland and Boulder has also been mentioned by John Floyd during his turn at public commentary at the start of the meeting. Floyd thanked Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) for clarifying at the council’s Nov. 16, 2009 meeting that Hohnke saw Seattle, Portland and Boulder as models for Ann Arbor to emulate. Floyd then asked Hohnke if he thought that Ann Arbor should change to resemble Seattle and Portland by increasing its population to upwards of half a million people.

During her turn at public comment, Vivienne Armentrout related to the council her experience as a bicycle commuter in Madison, Wisc., where the bicycle registration served as a possible mechanism for enforcement. In Madison, she said, registration included issuance of a small metal license plate, which could be used to help identify a cyclist who’d committed an infraction like sideswiping a pedestrian on a sidewalk.

Armentrout’s comments came partly in response to some pointed questioning from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) of city staff about a perceived failure by the city to educate bicyclists about their responsibilities and the enforcement of laws concerning them.

Council Deliberations on Non-Motorized Issues

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led things off by asking the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to summarize what the council was being asked to consider. Cooper noted that the repeal of multiple city ordinances regulating bicyclist behavior reflected updates to the Michigan Vehicle Code, and was essentially an administrative revision.

Front to back, Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

The revision to the pedestrian ordinance extended pedestrian rights from crosswalks at intersections with traffic signals to those without traffic signals, Cooper said.

Hohnke would observe later in deliberations that the city still had work to do on the issue of pedestrian rights – which currently begin only on entering a crosswalk, as opposed to approaching a crosswalk.

The problem had been well-documented, mayor John Hieftje would later add, in a video produced by an Ann Arbor resident [Matt Grocoff's YouTube Video: "Pedestrian Crossings in Ann Arbor"] Hieftje also described plans to begin enforcement of pedestrian rights, but stressed that it was important to lead up to that with adequate education and conversation with the magistrates who’d be asked to uphold the citations.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d like to see an educational outline. She hoped that Ann Arbor could eventually get to the same point as other cities she’d visited where cars stop as soon as pedestrians even think about crossing the street.

The new bicycle registration policy, Cooper explained, would replace an $8 lifetime registration with a $3 fee good for five years, plus one complimentary five-year extension.

Hohnke elicited from Cooper the clarification that bicycles are not “classified as vehicles” under the Michigan Vehicle Code but rather in places are “treated as vehicles.” That explained, Hohnke said, why the wording of the city’s proposed ordinance revision on bicycle lanes made sense: “A person shall not operate a vehicle on or across a bicycle path or a bicycle lane, …”  That is, bicycles are not prohibited on bicycle paths.

The typical pattern for each bicycling ordinance proposed for repeal is that there’s a corresponding section in the Michigan Vehicle Code. An example of such a pair, on brakes:

[City] 10:172. Brakes.
Every bicycle shall be equipped with at least 1 effective brake.
(Ord. No. 46-61, 8-14-61; Ord. No. 26-74, 8-19-74)

[State] 257.662 Bicycles or electric personal assistive mobility device; equipment; violation as civil infraction.
(2) A bicycle shall be equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make the braked wheels skid on dry, level, clean pavement.

Not included in the council’s meeting packet were the contents of the city’s ordinances and the corresponding Michigan Vehicle Code equivalents. [The Chronicle's set of the respective city-state pairings is available as a text file: statecitybicycle.txt.]

The lack of specificity about the material effect of the proposed ordinance repeals and revisions left some councilmembers wondering what was being proposed.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) led off with an expression of frustration by noting that the set of ordinances were described in the packet as addressing bicycles riding on the sidewalk, but asked: “Where is it?” Cooper summarized the content of the Michigan Vehicle Code requirement by saying that it essentially establishes that “bicycles are guests on sidewalks.” By way of background, the specific language of the MVC reads:

[State] 257.660c Operation of bicycle upon sidewalk or pedestrian crosswalk.

(1) An individual operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a pedestrian crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian.
(2) An individual shall not operate a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a pedestrian crosswalk if that operation is prohibited by an official traffic control device.
(3) An individual lawfully operating a bicycle upon a sidewalk or a pedestrian crosswalk has all of the rights and responsibilities applicable to a pedestrian using that sidewalk or crosswalk.

Teall told Cooper she still had concerns about bicycles on sidewalks and complained about almost being run over on occasion. Cooper allowed that if she’d almost been run over by a bicyclist, then that fell outside of proper use of a bicycle per the code. Teall replied that by then, it was too late.

Cooper then described some efforts the city would be undertaking, using federal stimulus money, to educate the public on such issues. The implementation would include signage addressed to bicyclists to yield to pedestrians and to walk their bicycles on sidewalks.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) allowed that he was also confused about what was being proposed. “Do I need a brake on my bicycle?” he asked.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) then weighed in, criticizing the fact that the information explaining what was being proposed was not in the council’s packet but rather in another document – the Michigan Vehicle Code. She then cited her own experience watching bicyclists weave in and out of cars, then shoot across intersections against the light. She concluded that there was an “educational disconnect.”

Higgins then launched a criticism of a lack of clarity on plans for educating cyclists about their responsibilities, saying she wanted to know how the money was being spent.

Hohnke would later point out that Cooper had previously presented the council with an outline of the educational plan, suggesting that Higgins had perhaps not attended the meeting when that occurred. Higgins rejected Hohnke’s suggestion that she had not attended, saying, “I was there!”

She then complained that the educational efforts always focused on the drivers of cars and that the approach should include everyone. She contended that by now, we should be seeing some kind of shift in behavior. But since they weren’t seeing a shift, she contended, the needed to address the disconnect.

Cooper offered that part of the challenge was the “enormity of the problem.”He then began to describe a program of collaboration with the Washtenaw County Public Heath department, but was cut off by Higgins, who declared, “I’m less interested in the county. What are we doing in the city?”

By way of background, if Hohnke meant to reference two meetings of the council in June 2009 when Cooper described the specifics of the educational program, Higgins is correct in saying that she was there. However, those presentations did address – at least in part – the concerns she was raising. From The Chronicle account of the June 1, 2009 meeting:

During the introductions section, Eli Cooper, transportation program manager with the city of Ann Arbor, gave a presentation announcing the launch of a transportation safety campaign. It’s based on the premise that whether we walk, bicycle, ride the bus, or drive, we are all human beings who are entitled to a safe and attractive journey.

From The Chronicle account of the June 15, 2009 meeting:

The campaign itself, which has already been developed, will include brochures, radio spots, and video spots. Higgins noted that there had been an ongoing discussion about how to accomplish the educational component. She noted that deputy chief of police Greg O’Dell had previously worked with bicycling groups on the topic. She wanted to know if the city had ever heard back about how that worked. Hieftje noted that the previous effort had never actually been funded. He cited the statistic that at any given time, the majority of people on the road in Ann Arbor don’t actually live here. So the outreach campaign had a certain challenge in reaching the population. Signage would be key, he said. Higgins stressed that she felt it was important that education be provided for cyclists about their responsibility for using the road.

Hohnke asked Cooper to explain how the various constituencies would be engaged through the campaign. Cooper cited the slogans themselves as reflective of targeting all users of the roadway, not just motorists: “Share the road” and “Same road same rules.” He described the brochure that had been developed as a tri-fold that when opened displayed a motorist on the left and a cyclist on the right.

In reviewing the Michigan Vehicle Code as background for this report, The Chronicle noticed a section that’s tangentially relevant to a possible city ordinance on cell phone use while driving. At the council’s  Aug. 6, 2009 meeting, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) mentioned  a resolution he and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) had asked the city attorney’s office to develop, prohibiting cell phone usage while driving. At the time there was some speculation about whether the new ordinance would apply to bicycles.

There is already a section of the MVC that would seem to preclude cell phone use while bicycling:

257.661 Carrying package, bundle, or article on bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, moped, or motorcycle.

A person operating a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, moped, or motorcycle shall not carry any package, bundle, or article that prevents the driver from keeping both hands upon the handlebars of the vehicle.

Outcome: Both resolutions on bicycle- and pedestrian-related ordinances were approved on first reading.

Business Improvement Zone (BIZ)

Before the city council was a resolution authorizing the city clerk to hold an election among the property owners between William and Huron streets on Main Street to determine if they wanted to establish a business improve zone (BIZ). A BIZ is a mechanism for property owners to levy an additional tax on themselves in order to pay for services that would otherwise not be provided.

During the public hearing on the resolution, two people spoke.

Thomas Partridge said that he hoped such an effort would be coordinated with all other areas needing improvements throughout the city and county.

Lou Glorie said she’d heard that the revenue would be used to employ greeters, Wal-Mart style, and wondered if Ann Arbor citizens could be issued badges identifying them as residents so that they wouldn’t be pestered by the greeters. [No such greeters are identified as a part of the BIZ plan. Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ Clears Hurdle"]

Glorie asked why Ann Arbor’s Downtown Development Authority funds were not being used for the services that the BIZ was proposed to provide. She said that downtown merchants were already stressed enough, and hoped that the cost of the additional tax levy would not be passed along to merchants.

Outcome: The BIZ was approved unanimously without discussion by council.

Snow Removal

One of the primary services to be offered by the BIZ is snow removal – on downtown sidewalks, which is above and beyond what the city provides. The city council had scheduled a presentation from city staff on snow removal citywide at the start of its Monday meeting, during the introductions section.

Face in the sand. Sand/salt mixture at 721 N. Main maintenance yard, cited by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) as a useful resource for residents to maintain their driveways and sidewalks in winter.

The snow removal presentation was handled by Craig Hupy, head of systems planning, and Sue McCormick, public services area administrator.

The presentation generated many questions from the council, some of which are answered in the complete slide presentation, which is available online [Snow Removal Presentation 3 MB .pdf].

Hupy presented a subset of those slides to the council.

We eschew a comprehensive summary in favor of some key points that emerged:

• Safe travel at a reasonable speed, not bare pavement, is the goal.
• 4 inches of snowfall is the threshold for a straight time versus overtime approach.
• Salt is spread only on designated routes; residential streets are sanded only on hills, corners and icy intersections.
• Residents are required to clear sidewalks adjacent to their property. [City of Ann Arbor Sidewalk snow removal regulations]
• It’s illegal for private parties to plow or blow snow into the street.
• Permeable pavement, such as will be installed on Sylvan Avenue, requires less winter maintenance due to thermal gain – water soaks through instead of remaining on the surface and refreezing.

Communications from Council/Administrator

During the agenda slots for communications from councilmembers and the administrator, a few different topics received brief discussion.

Ann Arbor’s Deer Herd

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) asked city administrator Roger Fraser about an increase in “deer-car interactions.” Fraser indicated that Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) had also inquired and that in each of the last two years there had been more than 30 such interactions.

Derezinski reported that he’d looked a bit into the issue and that the nearby village of Barton Hills had some experience through the Department of Natural Resources of culling the herd, but had not done so in the last two years due to complaints about the sound of gunshots.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that she’d inquired with the Humane Society and that birth control for deer had not yet been perfected. She suspected that would be the only effective solution.

This is not the first time deer have come up for discussion in the last year or so. From The Chronicle’s Nov. 30, 2008 caucus report:

Derezinski raised the issue of deer and the possible need to cull the herd. Higgins expressed some skepticism that they were actually a problem, asking if anyone had heard of someone hitting a deer in the city. She said she thought people basically enjoyed looking at them. She said she was not in favor of killing them. Briere said she didn’t want to kill them, either. Derezinski said he wasn’t necessarily in favor of killing them, but thought there were other options like tranquilizing them and relocating them.

Fraser put the problem in perspective for the council. He suggested that while 30 incidents might seem like a lot, in the community where he worked just prior to coming to Ann Arbor – a similar-sized community geographically to Ann Arbor – they had 150 incidents a year. He expressed little enthusiasm for implementing a program to cull the deer herd.

Parking in Parks

Ward 4 representatives Margie Teall and Marcia Higgins indicated that they would be opposing any attempt to allow football Saturday parking in Allmendinger and Frisinger parks. [Chronicle coverage "Parking in the Parks, Art on the River"] That came in response to remarks made during public commentary reserved time by Charlie Cavell, who’s a college student home on winter break.

Cavell lives directly across from Allmendinger Park, he said, and provided evidence of the opposition by neighbors to the idea of football Saturday parking in the park with 160 signatures on a petition. He described how parents of children and other members of the community used the park on football Saturdays and suggested that the estimated additional $30,000 in revenue was not worth it, despite the tough budget times.

City Administrator Announcements

Roger Fraser announced that the city’s community services area administrator, Jayne Miller, would be leaving her city post to head up the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority sometime in the next month.

Fraser told the council that their work session next Monday, Jan. 11, would focus on a briefing on how the city’s Housing Authority would be revamping its business operations.

On Tuesday, Jan. 12, he said, city offices would be closed starting at 9:30 a.m. due to a meeting for all city staff from 10 a.m. to noon at the Michigan Theater. The meeting will focus on the budget.

The layoff of 14 firefighters, which was to have been effective on Jan. 4, Fraser said, had been postponed, with the negotiated agreement with the union to be put to a vote next week. If approved, Fraser said, the council would be asked to approve the arrangement at its next meeting, on Jan. 19. [Note that this is a Tuesday, not the usual Monday meeting day, because of the Jan. 18 Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.]

Other Public Commentary

Nine speakers signed up in advance to speak during public commentary at the start of the meeting. Besides those whose remarks are already reflected in other sections of this report, the following people addressed the council.

James D’Amour: D’Amour introduced himself as a member of the executive committee of the Sierra Club Huron Valley Group. He expressed opposition to the council’s greenlighting of the Fuller Road Station project, saying that the city land on which the parking structure was to be built was designated as parkland, though it had been used as a parking lot for many years. The arrangement between the city and the University of Michigan, he said, would amount to a permanent lease, which was essentially a sale of the parkland – which required a vote of the people. He also characterized the project as inconsistent with environmental goals, noting that only 200 of the parking spaces had been allocated to a possible train station. [Chronicle coverage of the Fuller Station project: "Trains, Trash and Taxes"]

Henry Herskovitz: Herskovitz described how he’d been walking with a woman down Ann Street towards Fourth Avenue on Nov. 21, 2009 when they’d been assaulted by a noise so loud that it had caused the woman to grab his arm. It had caused parents to try to reassure their children that things were okay, but the children had been inconsolable. The loud noise, he explained, had come from Michigan National Guard jets that had buzzed Michigan Stadium on the day of the UM-Ohio State football game. He reminded councilmembers that the children of Palestine experience that kind of noise on a daily basis, and that it was causing a psychological crisis in Gaza. That terror, he concluded, continued to be funded by American citizens.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County Democrat who was a potential candidate this election year. He called upon other potential candidates and elected officials to put forward a democratic, progressive agenda to advance the causes of human rights, education, housing and transportation. He noted that while the council had heard a presentation on snow removal, there were people in the Ann Arbor area who did not have a place to live.

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

Next council meeting: Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date] [Note that this is a Tuesday, not the usual Monday meeting day, because of the Jan. 18 Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.]

Map of proposed BIZ area: Main Street from William Street in the south to Huron Street in the north. (Image links to complete .pdf file of the Main Street BIZ plan.)

On Wednesday, a cold and rainy evening, a group of downtown Ann Arbor property owners gathered in the city council chambers for a public meeting gaveled to order by the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry.

They were there not to discuss rain, but rather snow. At least in part.

On their agenda was consideration of a plan for a business improvement zone (BIZ) on Main Street – bounded by William Street to the south and Huron Street to the north – which would assess an extra tax on owners of property in the zone.

That plan for the BIZ includes snow removal as one of three main categories of services to be paid for through the BIZ. The other two categories of service in the plan are sidewalk cleaning and landscape plantings.

The plan was approved on a roll call vote of the property owners in attendance on Wednesday night, but not without some dissent. And the approval of the plan on Wednesday is not the final step before the BIZ can be implemented. Still ahead lies a formal public hearing by the city council, a vote by the city council, followed by another vote by property owners – this one by mail.

Background on the Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ

Almost exactly a year ago, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority‘s partnerships committee reported out to the full board at its Dec. 3, 2008 meeting that Ed Shaffran and Ellie Serras had expressed an interest in creating a self-assessment zone centered on Main Street. They’d inquired about start-up funding, which would entail mostly a consultant and some legal work. Shaffran is a local developer and former chair of the DDA board. Serras is former executive director of the Main Street Area Association.

Ann Arbor city clerk Jackie Beaudry chaired the public meeting for property owners to vote on the business improvement zone proposed for Main Street between William and Huron. (Photo by the writer.)

And four months later, at its April 1, 2009 meeting, the DDA board authorized $83,270 to support the creation of a business improvement zone (BIZ) on South Main Street. The amount included roughly $75,000 plus a 10% contingency. A series of public meetings were held to pitch the idea to downtown property owners, including one at Conor O’Neill’s in June. [Chronicle coverage: "In the Business Improvement Zone"]

The series of public meetings resulted in submittal of a petition to the city clerk supporting the creation of the BIZ, signed by at least 30% of property owners in the district, where each signature is weighted based on the value of the property owned.

That weighting applies to all votes of property owners on matters related to the BIZ. The Ann Arbor city council also heard a presentation at an October work session on the proposed Main Street BIZ. [Chronicle Coverage: "Work Session: Trains, Trash, and Taxes."]

With the 30% petition submitted and a work session under its belt to get familiar with the notion of a BIZ, the city council then voted at its Oct. 19, 2009 meeting to move the BIZ along to the next step of its creation: the city clerk provided written notice to property owners of a public meeting to vote on the plan –  which includes the budget and the formula for assessing property owners.

It was this vote that took place on Wednesday evening. It required a majority of property owners in attendance to pass – weighted based on the value of property they own. [For the state enabling legislation for a BIZ, see Public Act 120 of 1961].

Services Planned Through the Main Street BIZ

The services to be paid for through the Main Street BIZ are divided into two categories – those that are analyzed as providing a “direct benefit” to a property owner and those providing a “common benefit” to all property owners. The distinction between direct and common benefit services is important for the calculation of the tax owed by each property owner.

But first, what are the services?

The direct benefit services are sidewalk snow removal (budgeted at $60,000 per year) and sidewalk cleaning (budgeted at $10,000.) The common benefit services are landscape improvements and maintenance (budgeted at $12,000 a year).

Stephen Kelly questioned whether the cost of the snow removal was reasonable. (Photo by the writer.)

In response to a question from property owner Stephen Kelly and other property owners about what they perceived to be the excessively high cost allocated for snow removal, Ellie Serras explained that in getting estimates from potential snow removal contractors – names they had solicited from property owners in the proposed zone – they had specified: “We want Main Street to be like a hospital zone.”

More specifically, the snow removal service is triggered by accumulations of 1 inch or more, with provisions for the  major accumulations of snow to be physically removed from the downtown area, not just shoveled into the street. The budgeted $60,000 covers up to 40 snowfalls per season.

The warm-weather equivalent of snow removal to be provided by the BIZ is sidewalk cleaning – weekly vacuuming of the sidewalks and semi-annual power washing. In addition, handbills will be removed weekly from public surfaces, and graffiti will be removed on demand. [For Chronicle coverage of Ann Arbor's relatively new graffiti ordinance: "Council OKs Graffiti Law, Questions AATA"]

The landscaping services – categorized as a common benefit – consist of contributing funds (budgeted at $12,000 per year) toward the maintenance of the 44 planter boxes within the district.

Calculating the Tax Owed: Direct versus Common Benefit

In addition to the common benefit service of landscaping, in the BIZ plan budget there are organizational expenses also categorized as common benefits to property owners of the district. Those organizational expenses are budgeted at $36,848 per year.

Broken down in terms of common benefit and direct benefit costs, then, the BIZ plan budget looks like this:

Direct Benefit
Snow removal          $60,000
Sidewalk Cleaning     $10,000
Total Direct Benefit:           $ 70,000

Common Benefit
Landscaping           $12,000
Organizational        $36,848
Total Common Benefit            $ 48,848

Total BIZ Budget                $118,848

-

The assessment formula is designed to generate the $118,848 for the BIZ budget by considering the direct benefit costs and the common benefit costs separately.

Despite appearances, this is not a "lineal foot." Its owner did, however, attend the BIZ public meeting and voted yes on the BIZ plan. (Photo by the writer).

Direct benefit costs, so goes the reasoning, is a function of the amount of frontage along the area where the service is performed, measured in lineal feet. So the cost per lineal foot is calculated by taking the $70,000 in direct benefit costs and dividing by the 3,349 lineal feet of frontage in the zone to get an assessment rate of $20.90 per lineal foot.

The organizers of the BIZ reason that the common benefit costs are a function of the square footage of a property. So the cost per square foot is calculated by taking the $48,848 in common benefit costs and dividing by the 575,998 commercial square feet in the zone to get an assessment rate of $0.0848 per square foot.

So to calculate the tax owed by a property owner in the zone, the formula is:

Tax Owed = [Lineal Feet]*$20.90 +[Commercial Square Feet]*$0.0848

The average BIZ assessment of property owners in the zone, said Ed Shaffran, would be around $2,200.

Concerns Expressed by Property Owners

Besides the high costs associated with the snow removal, a concern was raised about the fairness of the distinction between direct costs and common costs. One point of confusion was whether the tax imposed by the BIZ would change based on changes in property value through time – the BIZ is specified to have a term of seven years. The BIZ tax uses the commercial square footage in its calculation, but not the assessed values of that commercial square footage. The role played by the commercial square footage owned by a property owner merely establishes the percentage of the total BIZ burden shouldered by that property owner.

Beyond the actual mechanics of how the BIZ would be administered, the main worry expressed by a few property owners was that the extra tax burden would be passed along to tenants – retailers on Main Street. The retail environment was repeatedly described as “fragile” and the fear was expressed that even a little extra burden could make the difference between surviving and failing.

One Tenant’s View

It was a tenant who actually argued most energetically for the BIZ – Chris DeRuyver of Affinity Wealth Solutions, a commercial tenant at 122 S. Main. DeRuyver would serve on the board of directors of the BIZ.

Chris DeRuyver describes how clients cancel appointments on snowy days. (Photo by the writer.)

He described how snowy days inevitably led to cancellation of appointments – his clients would call to cancel, saying they didn’t want to trudge through the snow.

“Downtown is like a ghost town on snowy days,” DeRuyver said. He compared his previous experience working out of the 777 Building on Eisenhower, saying he never had cancellations due to snow, because the snow was always removed from the parking lot all the way to the door.

So DeRuyver said the BIZ would address a specific obstacle to the economic success of the Main Street area.

As for the concerns that some property owners had expressed about the additional expense of the tax threatening fragile businesses, he offered this advice: “In a down economy, you can’t be expense-driven; you have to be revenue-driven.”

The Vote

The Chronicle scored the roll call vote read out by city clerk Jackie Beaudry as 26 votes for the BIZ plan, with 2 votes against. Given that the votes had to be weighted by the value of property owned, the city assessor, David Petrak, was on hand to verify that the weighted majority had been achieved.

The next step is for the city council to hold a public hearing and a vote again on the BIZ – likely to happen in January 2010. Assuming approval by the city council, a final vote among property owners conducted by mail would then likely happen in February 2010. The first BIZ assessment would then be made in June 2010 and appear with the July tax bill. BIZ operations would commence in July 2010.

Leigh Greden, who chaired the meeting as fourth in the line of mayoral succession, did not at any point abuse the temporary power by saying, "Everybody show me your hands!" Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) are in fact sussing out which version of the Argo Dam resolution the city clerk had circulated. (Photo by the writer.)

Ann Arbor City Council meeting (Oct. 19, 2009): A city council whose ranks were reduced by four members – due to family medical issues and personal illness – tabled a resolution on Argo Dam that would have expressed the body’s intent to keep Argo Dam in place and to perform necessary repairs mandated by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

The tabling came only after long deliberations, which included a recess, and focused mainly on the question of tabling versus postponing until a date certain.

Several people spoke during reserved public commentary time on the issue of Argo Dam. But the dam question was somewhat overshadowed for some in the audience by a presentation on homelessness at the beginning of the meeting from Mary Jo Callan, who’s director of the combined county-city office of community development. Said one speaker during public commentary: “After hearing the stats on homelessness, I’m ashamed to be standing here talking to you about Argo Dam.”

The presentation on sheltering the homeless – especially during the winter – included a specific call to action from Ellen Schulmeister, director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County. She asked community members to start conversations at their churches, synagogues, mosques or other community groups about how they might be able to provide volunteer support and space to expand the current rotating shelter program. Schulmeister asked that the conversations begin now, “So that when we ask, you’re ready to go.”

In other major business, the city council authorized the expenditure of $100,000 for removal of five failing beams on the East Stadium bridge over State Street – beams which run under a portion of the bridge currently closed to traffic. The work is scheduled for Sunday, Nov. 15 through Tuesday, Nov. 17 and will require the closing of State Street during the work.

The council also approved the next step in the creation of a Business Improvement Zone (BIZ) along Main Street between William and Huron streets.

“These people are not strangers. They are our neighbors.”

Background to the presentation on the homeless

Mary Jo Callan’s presentation to city council on the specific strategies that are under consideration to increase sheltering capacity short-term – as well as to increase the number of affordable housing units in the longer term – came in a context of recent heightened community awareness of the plight of the homeless population in and around Ann Arbor.

Slide from a presentation given at city council's Oct. 19 meeting showing the faces of the homeless.

That awareness has come in part from publicity surrounding a tent community, Camp Take Notice, which was evicted in September from its location behind Arborland, as well as from an area just north of the park-and-ride lot at Ann Arbor-Saline and I-94, where it had re-located. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Laws of Physics: Homeless Camp Moves"]

The city council has also heard from advocates for the homeless at public commentary during some of its recent meetings. And a public demonstration in front of the Delonis Shelter last week called attention to the arraignment of a homeless camper on charges of trespassing. [Stopped.Watched. item: "Delonis Center on Huron"]

Callan’s presentation stemmed in part from a series of at least three meetings held in late September and early October among key community leaders and staff to explore alternatives to address the situation. The meetings included Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Ellen Schulmeister (director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County), Susan Pollay (executive director of the Downtown Development Authority), Jennifer L. Hall (housing program coordinator in community development), Andrea Plevek (human services analyst), Deb Pippins (program administrator for PORT), and Mayor John Hieftje.

Camp Take Notice, which hews to a principle of self-governance, has asked local churches to sponsor the camp in the form of land use. Discussion at the series of meetings reflected some of the obstacles to the support of encampments as part of a community strategy of sheltering those without homes. Besides concerns about the necessary sanitation infrastructure (chemical or composting toilets) and fire hazards arising from attempts to heat tents, there are worries about legal liability. Still, at least one congregation locally is exploring the possibility of responding to the camp’s request.

Callan’s presentation to council acknowledged the homeless camps in and around town, putting the total estimated numbers at anywhere from 30 to 80 people. The residents of such camps had a variety of histories, Callan said. Some people have been through the existing shelter system and are still homeless, while others are unwilling to follow program guidelines on sobriety, and still others do not want to participate in a shelter program at all.

The strategy that Callan presented was not centered around homeless camps. After sketching out a fairly grim statistical picture, Callan described some short-term expansions of the existing shelter system, plus longer-term affordable housing solutions. Total estimated cost of the short-term solutions could reach close to $200,000 for a full year of implementation.

Statistics on the growing crisis and existing capacity

Callan projected numbers on the wall showing the increased demand on area shelters: The number of single adults has increased 20% from 919 to 1,106; the number of chronically homeless adults has grown 33% from 179 to 238; and the number of families has risen 29% from 368 to 474, which reflects an increase in total family members from 1,162 to 1,359.

Those numbers have had an impact on organizations that provide shelter. The Interfaith Hospitality Network has received a 16% increase in calls for shelter, but perhaps more significantly, the group has seen a 52% increase in length of shelter stay. SOS Community Services has seen a 22% increase in requests for housing crisis services. The Salvation Army has served 11% more people at its shelter and seen a 30% increase in assistance requests for the newly unemployed. The Shelter Association of Washtenaw County has served 44% more people.

The current local shelter inventory presented by Callan includes 159 beds and 50 places for single adults in the winter only:

Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
     Delonis Center – 50 beds (individual adults)
     Delonis Center – 25 chairs serve as warming center
     Winter Rotating Shelter – 25 overnight spaces (individual adults)
Salvation Army: 35 beds (families and individual adults)
SOS: 6 family units/24 beds (families only)
Interfaith Hospitality Network (IHN):  6 family units/24 beds (families only)
Ozone House: 6 beds (youth only; ages 10 to 17)

-

Proposed short-term action

The proposed short-term actions, which Callan acknowledged are only temporary, have as a goal to keep more people safe during the approaching cold weather. As Ned Staebler put it later in the meeting, the effort is partly to make clear that “This is not the kind of place where we let people freeze to death on the streets.” [Staebler, who recently announced his candidacy for state representative in the 53rd District, chairs the Housing and Human Services Board.]

There are two components to the short-term strategy – one for individuals and one for families.

The first is to increase by 50 spaces the sheltering capacity for individual adults. This is proposed to be accomplished, Callan said, by (i) increasing the number of winter rotating shelter spaces from 25 to 50, and (ii) adding 25 beds to the Delonis Shelter. The increase in Delonis beds would be accomplished by moving the warming center to community kitchen space through the winter.

Cost for the single-individual component of the short-term strategy would be $25,000 for the winter, or $55,000 for the full year.

The second component of the short-term strategy is to provide housing vouchers (a rent subsidy) for 10 additional families. Callan explained the conceptual difference in the approach to families versus individuals by pointing out there is no equivalent to the Delonis Center for families. So there’s no existing family shelter facility where some additional space can be eked out. A temporary shelter-type response would entail creating a new group shelter space and support structure. [One possibility considered and rejected in the course of the three meetings of community leaders and staff was to remodel the Ann Arbor Community Center].

Instead of temporarily sheltering families for a short time all at one location, the idea of vouchers is to allow families to provide for the potential of longer-term stability in housing that could be permanent – at least through a complete school year, so that children would not need to switch schools. The cost of rent vouchers for 12 months would be similar in cost to a group shelter for 4 months, Callan said. She described the plan to work with the nonprofit Avalon Housing, the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, and private landlords to fill vacant rental units.

Cost of the family component of the short-term strategy would be $45,000-$55,000 for the winter, or $140,000-$155,000 for a full year.

In responding to Callan’s presentation, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who also serves on the Housing and Human Services Board, asked Callan to address the other increased costs that are incurred with increased numbers of homeless people. Callan said she could not offer a dollar amount, but that there were additional costs associated with public safety, incarceration, and mental illness interventions.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) drew out for emphasis the part of Callan’s presentation where she discussed the longer-term measures that the city had undertaken: Since 2005 there had been 58 new units of supportive housing created, and 161 units maintained. Greden asked her to explain what “supportive housing” is. Callan clarified that while “affordable housing” meant that it was accessible to poor people, “supportive housing” was accessible to those who had more challenges related to housing stability than just financial issues. Supportive housing, she said, was for people who needed help through life skills training, case management services, or psychiatric services.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), in addition to clarifying what the cost of the proposed short-term solutions would be, drew out the specific ways that community members can provide their assistance to meet the immediate short-term need. Ellen Schulmeister, director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, identified the rotating shelter expansion as an area where community volunteer help would be needed. Currently, congregations at different churches take one-week shifts staffing temporary warming shelters at their churches. The Delonis Shelter checks in people before they’re transported to the churches.

Ned Staebler, who spoke to council in his capacity as chair of the Housing and Human Services Board, responded to Smith’s question of specific ways people could help by suggesting that they look to whatever nonprofit or community group they were members of. Staebler, in his previous remarks to the council, had characterized the homeless population this way: “These people are not strangers. They are our neighbors.”

A funding request for the short-term proposal could come before the city council at its Nov. 5 meeting.

Artist's conception of what the Huron River would look like if Argo Dam were removed. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Argo Dam

Eight of the 10 speakers who signed up for reserved time to speak during public comment at the start of the council meeting addressed the issue of Argo Dam. [For preview Chronicle coverage, see "Finally a Dam Decision on Argo?" ] Notable among those who spoke in favor of keeping the dam in place was Bob Johnson, former Ward 1 representative to the city council. Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, spoke in favor of the dam’s removal and for a formal public hearing by city council on the issue.

Rubin showed the council an artist’s rendering of the river with the dam removed. That prompted some commentary from speakers who weighed in for keeping the dam, who questioned whether the river would follow the same course downstream from the dam that it currently does.

For council’s part, their deliberations focused exclusively on the question of process, as opposed to the dam-in/dam-out question. At the beginning of the meeting, the dam resolution was moved forward on the agenda, to the slot just after the consent agenda, in consideration of the many attendees who were in council chambers for that item alone.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), one of the sponsors of the resolution, began by indicating he’d be moving to postpone it until the first council meeting in December. But before making the motion for postponement, he said he wanted to set the record straight with regard to some specific issues. On the question of adequate public input, he recalled how the subject has been talked about for nine years, and ticked through the various points of public process along the way, summarizing by saying that there’d been “quite a lot of dialogue.”

Sue McCormick, the city’s director of public services, had delivered an update to council at its Sept. 8 meeting. Rapundalo reported that after that update, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who was the lead sponsor of the resolution, had begun communications with himself and the mayor to try to be proactive about addressing infrastructure issues identified by the MDEQ – the toe drains in the earthen berm, which needed repair or replacement.

The desire to fix the basic infrastructure and to “clear the decks” with the MDEQ had been the only motivation behind the resolution, Rapundalo said. He expressed discomfort with the idea of going to court with MDEQ, saying that there were many higher priorities for the city to deal with, such as the approaching budget season. [At the budget and labor committee meeting immediately prior to the council meeting, councilmembers and Tom Crawford, CFO for the city, began calendaring the process, with the idea of slotting in certain elements slightly earlier than last year. For example, the council's budget retreat may be convened in December instead of January, as it was last year.]

Rapundalo also indicated that he wanted a public hearing attached to the meeting when the resolution would be considered.

There was mild confusion when Rapundalo expressed some frustration that the most recent version of the resolution was not reflected in the council’s packet, despite assurances from staff that it had been updated. Subsequent sleuthing at the table indicated that the version he’d sent via email 20 minutes earlier was accurately reflected in the online packet.

When it appeared that the updated text would not be read into the record, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) weighed in to point out that the newly revised council rules on electronic communications required that the language be read aloud, and Rapundalo then did so.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who was a co-sponsor of the resolution, then addressed the issue of whether there should be a public hearing on it. She said that from her point of view, the expectation of a public hearing had always been attached to a resolution on the dam-in/dam-out question – which this resolution was not. This resolution, she contended, was not meant to decide the longer-term issue, but was meant to address the shorter-term maintenance issue.

Based on the original text of the resolution posted with Friday’s agenda addition – which meeting attendees may have had in mind – Smith’s contention could have been somewhat confusing. But given the revision that Rapundalo read aloud, her remarks make more sense. Here’s the revised version with some emphasis added:

Resolution Pertaining to Argo Dam [Revised]

WHEREAS, The City of Ann Arbor has for years owned and maintained several dams along the Huron River, and
WHEREAS, Studies of the Huron River have raised the question of the need to manage the river and each of the impoundments created by these dams, and
WHEREAS, The Argo Dam and Argo Pond have recently become the focal point for considerable discussion about the “pros and cons” of keeping the Argo Dam in place, and
WHEREAS, The Ann Arbor community enjoys many recreational opportunities and environmental attributes created by the existence of Argo Pond within the Huron River system, and
WHEREAS, The best interests of the Ann Arbor community will be served by preserving the Argo Dam at this time given its sound structural integrity, and
WHEREAS, The Argo Dam includes several associated structural features, including the “headrace embankment”, which has drawn the concern of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for safety reasons related to the adequacy of toe-drains which are designed to drain seepage from the headrace, and
WHEREAS, Repairs to the headrace embankment could be completed for a small fraction of the cost of removing the entire dam, and therefore be it

RESOLVED, The Ann Arbor City Council declares its intent to maintain the Argo Dam and Argo Pond for the time being and allow staff to develop and implement specific strategies to mitigate any infrastructure deficiencies with the headrace embankment and thereby satisfy the MDEQ’s requirements, and
RESOLVED, The Ann Arbor City Council directs the City Administrator to take actions in support of this declared intent, including identifying a timetable and necessary funding sources to support the infrastructure improvements.

The original resolution differs mostly by ordering and the lack of temporal qualifiers:

Resolution Pertaining to Argo Dam [Original]

WHEREAS, The City of Ann Arbor has for years owned and maintained several dams along the Huron River;
WHEREAS, Studies of the Huron River have raised the question of the need to manage the river and each of the impoundments created by these dams;
WHEREAS, The Argo Dam and Argo Pond have recently become the focal point for considerable discussion about the “pros and cons” of keeping the Argo Dam in place;
WHEREAS, The Ann Arbor community enjoys many recreational opportunities and environmental attributes created by the existence of Argo Pond within the Huron River system;
WHEREAS, The Argo Dam includes several structural features, including the “headrace embankment”, which has drawn the concern of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for safety reasons related to the adequacy of toe-drains which are designed to drain seepage from the headrace;
WHEREAS, Repairs to the headrace could be completed for a small fraction of the cost of removing the entire dam; and
WHEREAS, the best interests of the Ann Arbor community will be served by preserving the Argo Dam and all the amenities associated with the dam,

RESOLVED, The Ann Arbor City Council declares its intent to maintain the Argo Dam and Argo Pond and directs the City Administrator to develop specific strategies to mitigate any infrastructure deficiencies with the headrace embankment to satisfy the MDEQ’s requirements, and to take actions in support of this declared intent, including identifying a timetable and necessary funding sources to support the work.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked for a recess in order to adequately assess the language of the resolution, pointing out that the most recent revision had been emailed only 20 minutes ago, and that even the original text of the resolution had come relatively late – on the previous Friday.

Hohnke’s request for a recess was granted by Leigh Greden, who chaired the meeting in the absence of Mayor John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), and Margie Teall (Ward 4), who precede him in the line of mayoral succession.

On return from the recess, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) weighed in against the idea of postponing, saying that tabling the resolution instead was the proper thing to do.  The resolution as it was written, Taylor contended, clouded the intended effect, which was to decouple the issue of the dam-in/dam-out question from the issue of needed repairs to the earthen berm. Instead of decoupling those two issues, Taylor said, the language of the resolution intertwined them.

Taylor was concerned that by postponing the resolution to the first meeting in December, there would not be an opportunity to alter the language so as to make clear to the public what the language would be for the resolution on which the public hearing would be held. He sketched out how the tabling would allow council to bring back the resolution at a subsequent meeting, revise the language in a way to clarify that the two issues of dam-in/dam-out versus the need to repair were decoupled, then postpone to a certain date with the attached public hearing – something he allowed was a “tortured process.” But, he concluded, “That’s what happens under circumstances such as these.”

In a  follow-up to an emailed query after the meeting, Taylor wrote to The Chronicle that what he had in mind was a single resolution for a future council meeting that would achieve alteration of the language in a way that would be transparent as to council’s intent concerning the fate of the original resolution: “I think there should be a single resolution to de-table [the original resolution], amend, postpone to a date certain and hold a related PH [public hearing] on that date. This resolution should appear in the initial packet [of meeting materials].”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) echoed Taylor’s sentiments, saying that by postponing the resolution, the issue of whether to keep the dam in the longer term was coupled with the intent to repair the berm. She said she’d rather not see those issues coupled.

In light of Taylor’s comments, Smith then clarified with city attorney Stephen Postema that it was possible to amend the language of the resolution in the future, whether it was postponed or tabled. [Taylor's point, however, had seemed to be about the timing of the alteration of the language, not about the possibility of altering the language per se.] She then said she felt she’d rather vote down the postponement and vote down the resolution itself, and then bring back a different resolution with clearer language.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) queried Smith about her preference: Did she want to decide the resolution tonight? Answer: Yes. Smith said she’d vote no on tabling, postponing and the resolution itself.

For his part, Hohnke said that his preference was to table the resolution, saying that the phrase “for the time being” was incredibly unclear for a resolution of this magnitude.

Rapundalo, arguing for the postponement instead of the tabling, suggested that to achieve the timing of the alteration of language that Taylor wanted in advance of a public hearing, a second postponement could be moved. Tabling it, Rapundalo contended, makes it “out of sight, out of mind. We want to keep it on the front burner … The greatest failure is that council hasn’t acted.”

City attorney Stephen Postema advised that to execute Rapundalo’s suggestion of two successive postponements – one to get the language right, and the second to postpone to the date when council planned the public hearing and its vote – it would be best to unlink the public hearing from the postponement that council was at that moment considering.

Rapundalo was able to unlink the hearing from the postponement, only because Briere moved to suspend the council rules to allow him to speak a third time. Typically, motions to suspend the rules apply generally to all councilmembers, but this one was specific to Rapundalo, which prompted him to quip, “I feel honored!”

Greden weighed in last saying he was against the postponement, adding that the council should either table it or vote on the resolution and vote it down. The roll call vote had only Rapundalo in support of postponing to December.

Smith then moved to table the resolution.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to table the resolution on the Argo Dam.

Stadium Bridges

A recent report from a engineering consultant, who was asked to perform an extra inspection of the East Stadium bridges, recommended removal of five beams supporting the section of the bridge (the southern lanes) that has been closed to traffic. They are no longer performing their designed function, the report states, and leaving them in place poses the potential hazard of falling pieces of concrete to traffic traveling on State Street under the bridge. The winter freeze-thaw and the use of de-icing salts would tend to exacerbate that potential hazard.

Before council were two resolutions concerning the bridges. One was to authorize the city administrator to enter into a construction contract to remove the five beams (up to $100,000) and the second was for an agreement to relocate power lines near the bridge to be out of the way of construction cranes ($340,000).

Michael Nearing, a city engineer and senior project manager, explained to the council that the beam removal was out for bid with three different companies.

Homayoon Pirooz, project management manager with the city of Ann Arbor, apprised the council that the beam work was planned in a way to have a minimal impact on Stadium Boulevard traffic. Pirooz indicated that it was planned for a Sunday through Tuesday. [It's now planned specifically for Sunday, Nov. 15 through Tuesday, Nov. 17] After the work is done, the traffic pattern on the bridge will be the same as it is now. What will be different is that concrete barriers will prevent cars from driving off the new southern edge of the bridge, as opposed to the current orange barrels that provide a visual cue not to traverse the southern lanes.

At Mike Anglin’s (Ward 5) request, Pirooz reminded the council of the funding possibilities. The TIGER grant for which the city has applied could fund the entire $21 million cost, but there’s intense national competition for those grants. [TIGER stands for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, a federal program.] Notification on the outcome of the TIGER grant application will come no later than Feb. 17, 2010, but it could come sooner. There’s a  federal highway re-authorization bill that has support for earmarks from Ann Arbor’s Congressional delegation. And finally, the state’s Local Bridge Program offers a chance for as much as $2-3 million, Pirooz said. There’s a meeting on Nov. 5 of the Local Bridge Program administrators – Ann Arbor will make a presentation at that meeting, and funding will be determined then.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) added that there are also various other alternative funding sources the city is exploring with the help of state Rep. Rebekah Warren.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve both resolutions related to the Stadium bridges.

Ed Shaffran, who's one of the leaders of an effort to establish the BIZ on Main Street. (Photo by the writer.)

Business Improvement Zone

[See previous Chronicle coverage on the proposed BIZ between William and Huron streets on South Main, based on last week's city council work session: "Trains, Trash, and Taxes"]

Before the council was a resolution to support the creation of a business improvement zone by authorizing the city clerk to begin public notifications associated with the next phase in the process, which city administrator Roger Fraser described as “not one of the most swift,” saying that he admired the perseverance of the people involved.

Two people spoke during time reserved for public commentary at the beginning of the meeting. Bob Dascola, who owns a barbershop on State Street, said that his family had been in business in Ann Arbor for more than 70 years. In support of the BIZ he cited the example of Boulder, Colo., where a business improvement district, which is similar to a BIZ, had so well enhanced the downtown area that it had put a mall out of business on the edge of town.

Lee Adams introduced himself as a masters of urban planning student at the University of Michigan who had interned at a BID in Washington, D.C. He spoke in favor of the council’s initiation of the next step in the process for creating a BIZ on Main Street. He said the fact that Main Street was iconic – as evidenced by the recent American Planning Association designation as a Great Street – meant that it was worth continued investment. A BIZ would help business retention and growth, plus provide a unified voice for business owners, as well as economies of scale for services.

Leigh Greden (Ward 3) noted that supporters of the BIZ in the audience “looked content.” They were not asked to the podium to answer questions, nor did they wish to communicate additional information to the council.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize the next step in the creation of the BIZ on South Main.

Planned Unit Development (PUD) Proposals

The council considered two different PUD rezoning proposals. The first related to a Briarwood Circle location where two four-story hotels, consisting of 227 rooms and 227 parking spaces, are proposed.

The second, for Casa Dominick’s, concerned a consolidation of properties under one zoning classification on Monroe Street, and addresses existing zoning nonconformities. The expanded PUD district comprises four areas (A, B, C and D) for regulation purposes. Areas A and B will permit restaurant; residential; grocery, prepared food and beverage sales; classroom and educational instruction; beauty salon; general, medical and dental office uses. Area C will permit hotel and residential use. Area D will permit artists and craft studios with sales and residential use.

Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge: Partridge spoke at the public hearings on both PUD proposals. He asked the council not to approve any zoning changes until there were ordinance changes and amendment to the PUDs to assure access to public transportation to the sites and a requirement that developers pay into a fund to finance development of affordable housing on adjacent sites.

Earl Ophoff: Ophoff, of Midwestern Consulting, spoke in connection with the Briarwood Circle hotel project, essentially just to establish that he was present and available to answer questions when the council took up the matter for a vote.

John Barrie: Barrie spoke on behalf of the owner of Casa Dominick’s. He described the zoning revision as addressing the land’s transitional function between the University of Michigan campus, which surrounds it on three sides, and the residential neighborhood to the south. The rezoning, he said, would allow for slightly greater density and would consolidate all of the restaurant uses on one property.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved both PUD proposals.

Communications from Council

In his communications from council, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that council’s recent revisions to its rules didn’t constitute an ethics policy. He indicated that in the next couple of weeks, there would be a policy brought forward to fill that gap.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) called attention to a fundraiser for Meals on Wheels to be held at the Big Boy on Plymouth Road on Nov. 5 from 5-9 p.m. The public can participate by going to the restaurant and eating during that time period, with tips going to the nonprofit.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) reported that the Ann Arbor Skatepark Action Committee had held a workshop the previous day, which was facilitated by skatepark designer Wally Hollyday.

Public Commentary: End of Meeting

Often there are no members of the public who choose to address the council at the end of its meeting. At this meeting, however, five people made remarks to the council.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge noted that he’d called repeatedly for the last decade for the city to join with other municipalities to facilitate regional transportation, but had repeatedly been disappointed by the 7-member Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board. He alluded to the “AATA’s war against disabled people,” and said that the focus should not be on high-speed rail or service to the airport, but rather on basic bus service.

Tim Hull: Hull introduced himself as a graduate student in the school of information at the University of Michigan and expressed concern about the proposed changes in bus service as a result of the new Plymouth Road park-and-ride lot. He told council that while the AATA is proposing to continue weekend service on Route #2 on Green Road as far south as the park-and-ride lot, the weekend service on Route #2 on Green farther south and on Glazier Way and Earhart is proposed to be discontinued. He asked council to consider a focus by the AATA on residents as contrasted with commuters, and suggested that they look for future AATA board members who lived within the AATA service area.

Kathy Griswold: Griswold thanked councilmembers for the work they’d done so far on getting a crosswalk installed at the intersection of Waldenwood and Penberton drives, which would move it from its current mid-block location. She asked that action be taken within the next few weeks, while the concrete season lasts.

Jacob Djakovic: [spelling unconfirmed] He described an outdoor architectural tour beginning and ending at Liberty and Maynard streets, which he’d like to offer people for a fee. He was trying to make sure that in setting these tours, he did not violate any local laws. He’d heard some reaction that Nickels Arcade, for example, might not be a suitable location through which to lead a tour. He asked for any advice on relevant policies that might help him prepare.

Edward Vielmetti: Vielmetti told the council that on Oct. 6 he’d requested under the Freedom of Information Act all records related to sidewalk repair, including communications with the homeowner, for an address on Gott Street. He thanked the city staff, saying that the sidewalk had been repaired about 10 days after he’d made the request.

Present: Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Leigh Greden, Carsten Hohnke, Stephen Rapundalo, Sandi Smith, Christopher Taylor.

Absent: Tony Derezinski, John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall.

Next council meeting: Thursday, Nov. 5, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]