Council must act to amend the recommended budget by its second meeting in May – or the administrator’s recommended budget is automatically adopted, a provision of Ann Arbor’s city charter. There are thus possibly two more caucus meetings before council makes its decision on the recommended budget, which contains a number of proposed cuts.

One of the possible functions of council’s caucus is to assemble “caucus questions” – questions from council to city staff about issues they are going to be considering. Some council members have contended that electronic mail is a far more efficient method of communication, and that caucus is not an efficient use of their time.

Recognizing  that the work that would otherwise be accomplished at caucus can achieved via electronic mail, The Chronicle asked all councilmembers and the mayor to forward their caucus questions to us, in an effort to move the more mundane and tedious work of council more squarely into public view. We report below the responses we received, plus the questions The Chronicle has identified in connection with the city’s budget – some of which have already been answered.

Background on Caucus

Attendance at caucus meetings is optional for councilmembers. For the public, the gatherings provide an opportunity to see councilmembers work through questions with each other in an informal public setting. Caucus also provides an opportunity for members of the public and the media to ask questions of councilmembers in a public setting, or to share their views in a publicly accessible back-and-forth conversation – in contrast to the public commentary segments of formal council meetings, when councilmembers do not offer direct responses at the time of the commentary. On occasion, councilmembers will respond to speakers’ sentiments during their deliberations or during the section of the meeting assigned to council communications.

Councilmembers’ Caucus Questions

We heard back from 5 councilmembers in the time frame we set (noon Monday) in response to our request for the questions they’d come up with: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who expressed his support of caucus, but did not forward any questions; Leigh Greden (Ward 3), who said it was a reasonable request, but who also did not forward any questions – he suggested that by waiting until around 3 p.m. The Chronicle could on a regular basis obtain a comprehensive list of the questions, plus responses in the form of the staff memo; Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who said that he had not initiated any questions this week; Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who forwarded a message she’d sent Saturday afternoon to Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer; and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who  sent along some questions.

We’ve interpreted Greden’s comments as a suggestion that we might consider initiating a request to create a future standing procedure whereby staff or councilmembers could forward the staff response memo to The Chronicle. We’ve begun exploring that possibility. For now, we present questions posed by Briere and Hohnke.  First, Briere.

Dear Tom,

I’ve been going over the budget, and I have a couple of questions.

On page 56 of the binder, the figures representing the general fund dollars for Planning and Development Services are:

FY09 $2,104,163 FY10 $2,273,907 FY11 $2,331,658

On Roger’s presentation, these same figures are:

FY09 $2,104,163 FY10 $2,611,699 FY11 $2,592,084

1. Which set of figures is correct?

2. In the first set of figures, the projection calls for an 8% increase for the first year followed by a 2.5% increase for the second year. This is not out of line, when coupled with a projected decline of .5 FTE during the first year and an additional 4.5 FTE for the second year — with VEBA and medical insurance increases factored in.

However, I cannot account for the numbers in Roger’s presentation. This projection calls for nearly a 25% increase for FY10 with a slight (just over 1%) decrease in expenses in FY11. If Roger’s presentation is correct, what accounts for these expenses?

Please break the numbers out in exquisite detail for me.

3. If Roger’s presentation was incorrect, please help me understand how this affects the bottom line and the proposed cuts.

Carsten Hohnke forwarded these questions, which he’d sent to staff in connection to DS-1 on Monday’s agenda. That item relates to a FY 2010 allocation from the general fund to nonprofit entities for human services, totaling $1,268,092 in grants with a $7,652 human services contingency fund. The questions reflect the fact that the allocation is being approved before the budget for that year is adopted.

1. We are acting on this now (as opposed to after consideration of the FY10 budget) due to the requirement for submitting the FY 10 One-Year Action Plan to HUD by the end of April. What are the consequences of approving a budget in May that differs (e.g., increases) from the one assumed here for purposes of submitting the Action Plan? Are mechanisms provided by HUD for amending the AP?

2. The currently proposed FY10 allocation, including contingency, is unchanged from FY09 (and FY08). How does the contingency amount, specifically, in FY10 compare to FY09? Same also?

3. What are the numbers of non-profit entities receiving grants, and the average and median grant amounts, for FY10 compared to FY09?

We’ll follow up with answers to these questions as they become available. Two additional, regularly scheduled caucus meetings could be held between now and the point at which council needs to act on the budget – at its second meeting in May, about a month from now.

Chronicle Questions: Senior Center

Since the April 14 town hall budget meeting, The Chronicle followed up on some questions of our own about the budget, some of which we’ve already reported on in connection with the proposed closing of the senior center in summer 2010. We’ve heard back from city staff that they’re working on getting answers to the items still labeled as “pending answers.” As of this writing, those answers remain pending.

• What will happen to the senior center programming? At the town hall meeting, Fraser stressed that the closing is proposed for the second year of the plan. Built in to the proposal was the assumption that a year would be spent working out a transition for people who are involved at the senior center, Fraser said. Later, mayor John Hieftje contended that no decision needed to be made this year, because there was a year to work through the various issues. Fraser allowed that the network of people was something that could not be replicated with a strategy of finding alternate places for certain activities.
• What will happen to the senior center facility? Answers pending.
• Will there be a citizens committee involved in the transition work? Fraser said that if council were to decide to move forward with the closing, then his assumption was that there would be an advisory group that would work with staff on that transition. [The city's website indicates a Senior Center Advisory Board consisting of  Dean Cole, Mary Hill, Lois Johnson, Lois Tiffany, Nancy Wiernik, Leona Yuerhs and Cecile Frogh.]
• Wasn’t the land for the center donated specifically for a senior center? At the town hall meeting, there were no definitive answers, although Hieftje said his recollection was that there was a connection to the Ann Arbor Public Schools system. [Online archives of council minutes show that on October 2, 2000, city council voted to take over the management of the senior center from the school system, citing the financial difficulty of the school system. On June 3, 2002, council voted to establish the advisory board for the center. A history of the center written in 1985 by a University of Michigan student, Diane Crane, traces the history of the structure as a barn for the horse races in Burns Park, but does not – as far as The Chronicle can discern – include a bequest stipulating the land be used for a senior center.] Answers pending.
• What about the $100,000 gift that was made to the center? At the town hall meeting there was some uncertainty regarding the possibility that the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation might be administering the gift. [This confusion could be due to the fact that James Harmon Flinn, Jr. bequeathed two gifts of $100,000 –  one to the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation and another to the Ann Arbor Senior Center.] Answers pending.

City staff are currently putting together, for publication on the city’s website, the figures on expenses and revenues (class fees and renting out of space) that yield the projected $141,000 cost savings. Further, they’re getting numbers on annual usage of the facility. We’ll update as that information is available.

In perusing the white binder of budget information through the week, we noticed a line item in the section for Financial and Administrative Services Area, Revenues by Fund, showing $5,000 for Senior Center Endowment, which we speculate could reflect interest on the $100,000 gift that was bequeathed to the senior center by James Flinn, Jr.

Chronicle Question: Parks

Under the “Revenues” tab of the white budget binder are proposed fee increases across a variety of services, from dumpster service, to traffic signal studies, to park shelter fees. Park shelter fees vary according to the kind of day – weekdays, holidays, and weekends are charged different rates. Different rates also apply for residents versus non-residents.

As an example, the current fee for an Ann Arbor resident to rent a park shelter for a weekend day is $125. That’s proposed to be increased to $137. City staff offer comparative data that ranges from a low of $125 in the Washtenaw County parks to $181 in Madison, Wisc., to  a high of $600 for four hours in Columbus, Ohio.

Also proposed to increase are the daily rates for renting a Farmers Market Stall [Farmers Market is administered through Parks and Recreation Services]. They currently range from $2.57 to $3.67 a day, and are proposed to be increased to $3.09 to $4.41.

Question: For many of the proposed fee increases, there’s a column indicating the anticipated impact on revenue. But for park shelter fees and for Farmers Market stalls, no column for those numbers is included. As a matter of public policy, how are are these items typically evaluated – with respect to their revenue potential, with respect to comparative communities, with respect to an assumption that revenues should cover some fraction of cost?

The regular meeting of the Park Advisory Committee takes place on Tuesday, April 21, at 4 p.m. in council chambers in county board of commissioners chambers at the County Administration Building, at 220 N. Main St. when PAC will be considering the proposed budget.

Chronicle Follow-up: Debt Coverage Ratio

At the town hall meeting, held last Tuesday to introduce the budget, one resident asked about the city’s overall debt. Neither the question nor the response were included in our original report, because both seemed vague enough that reporting just the words exchanged would not serve Chronicle readers’ interest in clarity. On the night of the town hall, we put the general issue to Tom Crawford, chief financial officer for the city of Ann Arbor, and he followed up by tapping the city’s treasurer for a more detailed answer.

The city treasurer’s memo [scanned .pdf] discusses the question of the city’s overall debt in three ways: (i) the legally allowable debt, (ii) the  “debt coverage ratio” and (iii) bond ratings by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s rating indices.

The state of Michigan sets a legal limit on how much debt the city can incur. This legal limit is expressed in terms of the  state equalized value (SEV) of all the property that the city taxes: 10%. The city’s tax assessment roll, as of 2008, has an SEV of a bit over $6 billion. That means that legally the city of Ann Arbor could take on up to around $600 million worth of debt.
-

The City may not issue qualifying debt in excess of 10% of the SEV
(state equalized value) of its assessment roll.  Some forms of bonds,
such as revenue bonds for water and sewer, do not qualify.

2008 SEV                                $6,077,168,500
Debt limit                                 607,716,850
Debt subject to limit                      108,740,000
Additional debt that could be incurred     498,976,850

-
The law applies to certain kinds of debt and not others (like water and sewer revenue bonds). The roughly $100 million worth of city debt to which the law applies reflects 17.9% of the city’s legal debt capacity. If all debt, not just the qualifying debt, were included in the calculation, the city would be at 36.7% of its legal debt capacity.

The Chronicle has not  explored in detail how Ann Arbor stacks up against other communities in Michigan with respect to its percentage of legally allowable debt. The only city’s numbers that came up on a cursory internet search was Troy, Michigan, which has debt equal to about 7% of its legal capacity.

Relevant to the evaluation of the city’s debt burden in terms of its legal limit are city staff projections for the SEV, which is expected to decrease at least over the next two years. As the SEV value of the city’s tax rolls decreases, the legally allowable debt, expressed as 10% of that number, also decreases.

The blue line shows projections for the SEV of the city's tax rolls. SEV stands for state equalized value. TV is taxable value. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

A second way of evaluating certain kinds of debt is the debt coverage ratio: (net income before debt)/(debt service requirements). A number less that 1.0 would indicate that there is insufficient revenue to cover the debt service. The treasurer’s memo states that this number is generally not assessed in aggregate across the entire municipality, but rather by individual fund. The treasurer’s memo lists out examples for debt coverage ratios for different funds in the city of Ann Arbor.

-

Water         1.7
Sewer         4.5
Storm Water  15.9
DDA Parking   1.9

-

The final way that the treasurer’s memo evaluates the city’s debt burden is terms of rating services, which assess the quality of the city’s bonds.

On Standard & Poor’s rating scale, the water, sewer, and city bonds are rated AA-, AA+ and  AA+, respectively.

On Moody’s scale, ratings for water, sewer, and city bonds are rated Aa3, Aa3 and  Aa2, respectively.

In the chart below, we provide those ratings in order of best to worst of investment grade ratings.

-

S & P's             Moody's           

AAA                 Aaa
AA+                 Aa1
AA                  Aa2
AA-                 Aa3
A+                  A1
A                   A2
A-                  A3
BBB+                Baa1
BBB                 Baa2
BBB-                Baa3

-
The scales extend lower into C and D ratings, but these are considered speculative grade ratings.

Chronicle Question: Local Development Finance Authority

Richard King, chair of the Local Development Finance Authority, which contracts with Ann Arbor SPARK to provide economic development services, will be making a presentation to council during the Introductions section of its April 20 meeting. He’ll be presenting the LDFA’s annual report and budget proposal. By way of background, the LDFA is funded through a mechanism similar to the Downtown Development Authority – capture of the taxes on the increased value of property.

Question: How much additional economic activity has been generated locally as compared to the economic activity the area would have seen absent any investment of tax money in this way? What are the range of ways that the LDFA measures the notion of economic activity?

Municipal Facility (Police-Courts)

Three members of the public appeared in order to express their opposition to the construction of the police-courts facility. On the council agenda for Monday is a resolution to approve the $35.87 million contract with Clark Construction, which carries a guaranteed maximum cost of $38,148,745. Construction would begin later this month and be completed in the spring of 2011.

The arguments against it from the public included an analysis of what the community would be sacrificing financially in other areas in order build the project. These members of the public also provided the view based on professional experience on the engineering side, that the “value engineering” process in which city staff are currently engaged always cuts cost to the client, but never cuts profit to the builder. One person compared the situation to a dysfunctional family where one of its members has expensive habits – drugs, alcohol and gambling. When that member is in a bind and has no money for heat in the wintertime, he said, a sob story gets told in order to get relatives to donate money to the cause. In this case, the sob story is that the city of Ann Arbor won’t have money for police and fire protection or trash collection, and the expensive habit is the police-courts facility.

Those members of the public found sympathetic ears in the form of councilmembers Sabra Briere and Mike Anglin, who have long been on record as opposing the project. As an aside, Anglin has already taken out petitions for his re-election and he circulated them Sunday night. On Sunday, Anglin expressed his disappointment that the project had come this far and said he was not in favor of proceeding: “You can’t predict the future, but you can act on the present.”

But it was councilmember Marcia Higgins who led off councilmembers’ discussion of the municipal facility and seemed to express a certain weariness by rubbing her eyes. She said that she’d be pushing for a resolution from council to eliminate the new public meeting space and council chamber from the design: “I would like to suggest that we give Roger [Fraser, city administrator] direction that we don’t spend any more on design.” She stressed that council had never said that this additional space would be paid for out of the bond, and that this was why she was surprised to hear councilmember Leigh Greden (not present on Sunday) suggest at a previous council meeting that it could be – if the bids for the rest of the project came back low enough. The idea that the new space for council chamber and public meetings will not be built is consistent with the memo accompanying the agenda item for Monday’s meeting approving the construction agreement: “As the base project will require virtually the entire budget, we do not recommend further consideration of the New Community Meeting Room alternate.”

Briere said she would not vote for the building but would vote for the elimination of the construction of new council chambers, noting that she had not seen a contingency plan developed.

Stimulus Package and Other Major Construction Projects

The new municipal center project also came up in the discussion of the federal stimulus package wish list.  Briere noted that the city of Ann Arbor’s wish list included the new municipal center ($65 million), plus the waste water treatment facility renovations ($94 million), projects for which the city had budgeted and for which the council had been informed there was money to fund. She said that to ask for money for those projects would make Ann Arbor look greedy, and that she was dismayed by the list. After caucus, Briere clarified that she was not against asking the federal government for money, but that in choosing to list projects for which we’ve said we can pay for ourselves, we miss the opportunity to fund other projects.

During caucus discussion, Briere said that Mayor John Hieftje had given her a wish list of Ann Arbor environmental projects to convey to Michigan representatives on her trip to Washington, D.C. After caucus, she said that she’d managed to talk about the projects with Rep. John Dingell’s staff, Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s staff, as well as Lt. Gov. John Cherry.

One project that Higgins would have liked to have seen on the wish list was the replacement of the Stadium Boulevard bridges across State Street and the railroad tracks. She said that a very recent inspection of an exposed beam on the State Street bridge would necessitate a $0.5 million repair. This, after a plan to replace both bridges, incorporating non-motorized amenities, had been delayed due to lack of funding.  Higgins said she was frustrated that a “basic bridge” had never been designed as part of the city’s approach to the need to replace the State Street bridge. This means that it doesn’t appear on the stimulus wish list – which contains “shovel ready” status columns for 90, 120 and 180 days. Higgins said that Sue McCormick, the city’s director of public services, had told her it would take up to 8 months to design the bridge.

The Stadium bridge has had its weight-carrying capacity reduced over the years as part of a strategy to deal with the fact that it needs to be replaced, Higgins said, but now we needed to begin to face up to the possibility that lack of action would result in closing the bridge. Higgins said she was not happy with McCormick’s response to her query about contingency planning for emergency response, in the event the bridge is closed on the major east-west corridor. Higgins characterized the response as, “We’ll get to that.”

Higgins also indicated at caucus that there would be a motion to table the resolution for the Farmers Market renovation project indefinitely. Its budget had grown from less than $1 million to over $2 million.  She noted that it was important that people understood that the $600,000 that had been described as a “grant” was actually a low-interest loan. The money would go towards the cleaning of storm water retained at the site. At its last meeting, council voted to postpone the resolution.

Fiscal Policy: Capital Improvement Plan and the Budget

Higgins clarified her lone “no” votes at last council meeting on the capital improvement plan and a resolution authorizing the use of around $250,000 of storm water fund money for a tree inventory. She said that she had been working over the last five years or so to make the capital improvement plan a part of the budgeting process, because the CIP is such a huge driver of budget decisions. Now it’s a separate process.

Other matters that Higgins said she wanted to see included in the budgeting process involved fees – storm water rates, sewer rates, water rates. She said that she wanted any fees that were not for recreational activities (which required separate consideration mainly so that publicity materials could be prepared with the accurate amounts printed in them) to be a part of the budget process. Council will be considering a modified fee schedule for golf courses at Monday’s meeting. Briere concurred with the idea that it was important to understand the impact of fee increases on the budget.

Higgins also clarified her vote at the last council meeting against the use of around $250,000 out of the storm water fund to supplement a $25,000 grant to inventory city trees. She said that she would prefer to see that money spent directly on storm water, not on a tree inventory. Briere said that for $25,000, “we could hire Boy Scouts – I’m not kidding.”

Also related to fiscal policy was a question Higgins asked people to start thinking about: Should Act 51 money be tapped to fund street barricades for community events (non-exhaustive list: Rolling Sculpture, Dancing in the Streets, Oktoberfest, 4th of July Parade, Festifools, Taste of Ann Arbor, Art Fairs, Take Back the Night, Summer Festival). She said that state law had required new types of barriers, and that the overhead to transport them from the Wheeler Center had increased slightly, with the overall impact that the cost to community groups for barricading the public right of way had roughly doubled. Tapping Act 51 (transportation) funds was one possibility she saw to help defray those costs.

One Percent for Art? Really??

Higgins also called into question the need for construction projects to allocate a full 1% for public art, noting that around $1 million had already accumulated in the fund in the year since the program was adopted. She wondered if perhaps a half percent would be a more appropriate level.

Councilmember Christopher Taylor noted light-heartedly that “A Half-Percent For Art!” just doesn’t have quite the same ring. But on a more serious note he suggested that monies are being accumulated faster than they’re being allocated because a mechanism for distribution is still getting up and running.

Zoning: Area Height and Placement

Discussion among councilmembers at caucus actually began with consideration of a planned project on the agenda for the Wintermeyer Office Building at 2144 and 2178 South State. Briere reported that the existing setback is 37 feet, what is required by current code is 25 feet, and the developer is asking for 15 feet. The proposed setback would be consistent with the revised area, height, and placement standards on all non-downtown and non-residential properties that  came out of planning commission, but which were sent back by council for more public input. So Briere wondered if city planning staff were pushing developers to build to a new standard that had not yet been approved. Along the same lines, Higgins expressed her frustration that planning staff might be saying to developers that council would be approving the new standards and that they should go ahead and build based on them.

Taylor ventured that the new standards had been “vetted to some degree,” but Briere quickly objected that they hadn’t. Taylor rephrased by saying that the standards were not “fresh from the air.” He said that in a situation where the standards are in transition, it seemed reasonable that a developer might hew to the standard that might be approved, if it allowed him to achieve the innovation he had in mind for his project.

Because the project does not meet existing standards, said Higgins, it’s coming before council as a planned project, something that she said council had repeatedly asked planning staff not to do. Planned projects are similar to PUDs in that the city applies certain criteria to projects that do not conform to existing code. But Higgins said that planned projects offer much less flexibility in negotiation than PUDs.

It’s unlikely that lack of interest in the subject matter on the agenda affected attendance. Council’s agenda indicates that it will receive an annual update from the AATA’s board chair David Nacht. He will likely have something to say about WALLY (the proposed north-south commuter rail), the north-south high-capacity connector in the Plymouth-State corridor, progress on the search for an executive director, discussions about the future of the Blake Transit Center, fare increases, and perhaps he’ll also mention the roll-out of the new fare boxes set to occur later this month.

Council will also hear from Sue McCormick, director of public services area for the city of Ann Arbor, about the environmental assessment process for airport improvements.

There are also three site plans for residential projects on the agenda, each of which received a unanimous recommendation from planning commission, all by the same developer: 1012 Hill St., 833 East University, and 808 Tappan St. The three sites involve alteration of an existing structure that does not currently conform to zoning.

On Tuesday, council is also scheduled to hold a final vote on a proposed graffiti ordinance, the language of which has been altered since the initial vote.

Also on the agenda, an easement for public utilities from the Ann Arbor public schools for the Miller-Maple transmission water main project, which is located at Forsythe and Wines schools. Mayor John Hieftje had asked that it be postponed at the last council meeting, citing his curiosity about the public school’s apparent resistance to having an electrical conduit installed along the easement.

But likely counting among the reasons for Anglin’s solo performance on Sunday night is the revised council meeting schedule due to the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, which shifts the meeting to Tuesday from Monday. Also, at least two councilmembers are traveling to Washington D.C. to attend the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States – Sabra Briere and Tony Derezinski.

Briere’s absence marked the first time since she began service on city council in November 2007 that she had not attended caucus – a streak The Chronicle can verify first-hand from April 2008 until now. (We began attending in April 2008, though coverage did not begin until September of that year.)

Her absence may have factored into others’ non-attendance as well, because Briere always brings homemade chocolates to caucus, which she hands around to colleagues and the public – think truffles and similar confections. As time permits, she may file a report for the Chronicle from D.C.

Pre-meeting entertainment

Commissioner Barbara Levin Bergman was in the administration offices prior to the 5 p.m. meeting start, and used a computer there to show The Chronicle a YouTube video that her 9-year-old grandson had alerted her to: Barack Obama Is Irish! The chorus goes, in part: “From the old Blarney Stone to the green hills of Tara, there’s no one as Irish as Barack O’Bama.” And we’d be remiss if we didn’t note that Bergman was inspired to belt out a chorus or two – even though her clogs (bought at Mast Shoes) were decided orange, not green.

Administrative briefing

Joanna Bidlack of the county administrator’s office led the briefing. Before she began, Sizemore said he’s asked county staff members to make sure they notify commissioners when they hold meetings in their districts. He wants to make sure that if the county is involved in discussions with other officials or residents of a district, the commissioner representing that district is informed. Bergman said she hoped the process didn’t get too baroque. Commissioner Kristin Judge, participating by speaker phone, said she thought having the invitation was important, even if it’s as minimal as being in an email loop.

Bidlack said that the Jan. 21 meeting would include a presentation of the “Ecology of Place” art presented by the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair. The project is a collaboration between fair organizers, the Washtenaw Land Trust and local artist Leslie Sobel, and the group hopes to exhibit the finished work in one of the county buildings, Bidlack said.

Also on the agenda:

• An agreement to receive FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) pass-through funds of up to $72,808 to pay for the salary and fringe benefits of Mark Breckenridge, the county’s emergency management director. In previous years, the county has received far less than that, Bidlack said. In 2007-08, they received $51,686 in funding.
• An agreement to accept a Homeland Security grant of $1.2 million, to pay for disaster preparedness, and emergency planning and coordination, among other things.
• An agreement to receive $14,464 in federal funds from the Department of Homeland Security for Community Emergency Response Team training. Responding to a commissioner’s query, Bidlack said that last year, about 24 citizens were trained, and that any Washtenaw County citizen is eligible.
• An agreement to award $256,548 in county matching funds for a Community Corrections Program, administered by the Washtenaw County Trial Court and designed to provide alternative sentencing options. Those funds have already been allocated in the 2009 budget.
• An agreement to accept $103,944 from the state’s Safe Communities grant, to pay for overtime hours related to enforcing underage drinking laws, safety belt laws and other enforcement.

Finally, Bidlack reminded commissioners of a photo shoot set for Monday, Jan. 26 at 5 p.m. to take the board’s official group portrait as well as individual shots. Commissioner Mark Ouimet quipped, “We need to get some better-looking commissioners.”

Appointment causus

The newly installed board – sworn in last week – had to fill board positions on 33 county committees, councils and boards. Appointments are officially made by the chair (Sizemore) and voted on by the board, but the process on Wednesday night was collaborative. Commissioners had previously sent Sizemore their preferences for committee appointments, and he began the caucus by saying “I want to make this as easy as possible.” For the most part when more than one person asked for the spot, they quickly worked out who had the most interest in serving without any overt arm-wrestling.

It became clear as they worked through the list that some committees held much more weight than others. For example, the Solid Waste Management Consortium never meets, according to commissioner Ken Schwartz. Ditto for the Drug Forfeiture Committee, which commissioner Jeff Irwin says has never met in the 10 years he’s been on the commission. Irwin’s revelation led to a discussion of what the state-mandated committee does, or should do, and an apparent consensus that it would be good to find out what was happening to drug forfeiture funds. [Editor's note: A search of the county's website found reference to a meeting of the committee in October 1999, when Ron Schebil was sheriff. It is set up to allocate funds from crime-related forfeitures generated by the Livingston and Washtenaw Narcotics Enforcement Team, known as LAWNET.]

Leah Gunn, Sizemore and Irwin are tentatively tapped to serve on the Emergency Telephone District Board. Discussion of that appointment  prompted Irwin to note that the county has seven 911 call centers, when it should probably only have two. Conan Smith and Wes Prater both had interest in serving on the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study Committee (WATS) – Smith saying he’d like to align local efforts so that the county would be eligible for more federal funding, and Prater because he saw a good fit with being the Road Commission liaison, a position to which he’ll likely be appointed. Smith deferred to Prater.

The appointments expected to cause some friction are those to the Police Services Steering Committee: six commissioners – Jeff Irwin, Barbara Bergman, Kristin Judge, Mark Ouimet, Rolland Sizemore and Ken Schwartz – are interested, but only four positions are available. This committee was formed in 2006 to discuss issues related to the price of contract policing by the county sheriff’s department and to address the kind of police services the county should provide. In the past it has been at the nexus of a split between commissioners representing urban districts – which pay for their own police services as well as supporting the county sheriff’s department – and rural districts, which rely on the sheriff’s department for public safety services.

Sizemore said he planned to talk with each commissioner individually about the appointments before presenting them at the Jan. 21 meeting. At that meeting, he will make his recommendations, and the board then votes to accept or reject them.

Prater brought up the fact that in total, there are more than 60 county committees, councils and boards, and asked whether it might be time to pare down the ones that weren’t active. Sizemore said that Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporate counsel, was reviewing the committees and that they’d likely make decisions based on that review.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Jeff Irwin, Kristin Judge (by speaker phone), Mark Ouimet, Wes Prater, Ken Schwartz, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith

Next board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 21 at 6:30 p.m. at the County Administration Building, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date] The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

• Historic District Study Committee – a resolution to appoint a study committee to determine the suitability of establishing a historic district called Germantown, which would include roughly the area bounded on the north by William Street, on the west by Fourth Avenue, on the south by Madison Street and on the east by Division Street.
• Graffiti Ordinance – a resolution to amend the city’s code to set forth punishments for graffiti, both for applying it and for allowing it to remain in place.

Discussion of the historic district study committee was driven by attendance at caucus of interested parties to the decision. Those parties included several residents of the neighborhood as well as a developer who has a project located inside the district of the proposed study. That project (City Place) is currently being considered by council.

William Street and Fourth Avenue looking southeast. The view takes in a large part of the area for which a historic district study committee is proposed. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Historic District Study Committee for Germantown

By way of background, in order to establish or modify a historic district, a study committee must first be appointed, with the scope and nature of that committee’s work strictly defined by code. Council recently considered and rejected the request from a property owner on Huron Street, who sought to have a study committee appointed. The property owner wanted to see the Old Fourth Ward Historic District modified to exclude his property. The issue before council for Monday’s Dec. 15 meeting is whether to appoint such a committee to study an area south of William Street between Fourth Avenue and Division Street for the purpose of establishing a new historic district there with the provisional name Germantown. The city’s Historic District Commission requested the appointment of the committee in a letter to council dated Sept. 11, 2008, a week after the city’s planning commission had voted against recommending approval of a PUD (City Place) located in the area of proposed study.

Around a half dozen residents who live within the area of proposed study for a historic district attended caucus, some expressing mild surprise that council was having such a meeting. [Editor's note: Sunday night caucus preceding Monday council meetings is a regular event. In the 8 months The Chronicle has attended caucus, which are entirely optional for councilmembers, Sabra Briere has been present for all of them, and has each time offered around homemade chocolates to her colleagues and to the public. Out of the selection this past Sunday, The Chronicle enjoyed a piece of English toffee.]

Residents who spoke at the caucus cited their choice to live in the neighborhood and talked about what made it enjoyable to live there. Some of that included the range of different people who lived there, from very young people to very old people, and the sense of neighborhood and place. One gentleman noted that his accent revealed him to not have grown up in the proposed Germantown, but rather in Switzerland. And he said that having grown up in a 500-year old house, where his parents still lived, he knew that if a house is properly maintained, it can last a really long time. Most of the residents who spoke cited their own investments in their homes to keep them properly maintained.

In making the case for the authorization from council to appoint a study committee, residents cited the stability that a historic district would bring to this area immediately adjacent to downtown and pointed to the economic benefit both to themselves as homeowners, but also to the city as a whole. Part of that benefit, they said, was related to the potential appeal of Ann Arbor as a location for shooting movies. [Editor's note: The point has some merit based on two movies shot partly in the area in the summer of 2008, with news of another film starring Hilary Swank to be shot here in the near future.]

As for the potential burden on city staff time that such a study committee might impose, they made the point that as taxpayers, they deserved at least equal parity with developers, who were afforded staff time and resources in connection with any proposed project.

Developers were also represented at caucus in the form of Alex de Parry, whose City Place PUD application will at some time in the near future be heard in a second reading by council. The City Place project along South Fifth Avenue sits squarely in the middle of the area of proposed study. Scott Munzel, legal counsel on the project, addressed caucus not on the historic district study committee per se, but rather on the merits of the City Place PUD as it relates to various planning documents and reports.

Munzel began by citing his credentials as a friend of historic preservation in the form of his own home in Ward 5, which he had chosen to renovate as opposed to knock down and rebuild from scratch, which would have been cheaper.

He noted that the city’s Central Area Plan [.pdf] has six major themes and noted that no project could meet the goals specified in all of the thematic areas. Those major themes are the following:

• Housing and Neighborhoods
• Circulation and Parking
• Development/Redevelopment
• Downtown
• Parks, Open Spaces and Public Area
• Historic Preservation

On the first of these themes, having to do with housing and neighborhoods, Munzel said that the point was to protect residential uses against commercial encroachment, which City Place did. Munzel cited the diversity of incomes for which the units had been designed. On the circulation element, Munzel said that the inclusion of underground parking onsite, plus proximity to downtown for the downtown workers for which the units of City Place were targeted, meant that it met the goals of reducing commuter traffic into downtown and reducing the burden on downtown parking structures. On the development/redevelopment element, Munzel said the project met the goal of increasing density both in and near the core of downtown, and that there was no requirement that all new development be of the same form as the existing neighborhood. On the downtown component, Munzel said that although the proposed project was 50 feet outside the DDA boundary, it supported the central area plan goal of supporting and promoting pedestrian activity downtown. With respect to land use, Muzel said that the multi-family dwelling unit was appropriate for the edge of downtown.

Munzel said that his concern was that the planning staff’s report, on which planning commission had partly based its recommendation against approval of the City Place PUD, focused on the form of the building to the exclusion of how the project met the goals of the central area plan. But the form, Munzel said, was also an appropriate urban form (brownstone style), even if it was different from the house-driveway-house-driveway pattern along South Fifth Avenue. Asked to wrap things up by John Hieftje, the city’s mayor, Munzel ticked through the ways that City Place supported the goals of the greenbelt program and met the city’s environmental goals through the building itself as well as its proximity to the likely work locations of its residents.

Councilmembers’ discussion included continued back-and-forth between them and residents, and at one point prompted developer Alex de Parry to shed his jacket and ask, “Can I talk?” De Parry had not signed in on the list and council had moved to its own discussion, but Briere replied cheerily, “You certainly can!” What had moved him to participate resulted from councilmember Carsten Hohnke’s query about possible opposition to the appointment of a study committee. From residents came a description of some of the petitions signed by those who objected as containing duplicated signatures. De Parry confirmed the duplication of names, but clarified that they corresponded to different properties. That is, if a single person owned three properties, their name appeared three times on the list. Briere noted that this was a point that she was just about to make.

Residents wanted to know if they needed to submit their own list of supporters, to which Briere replied that a list would be appropriate at a later time.

The question of the individual designation of many of the homes arose during discussion. Some of those homes still bear plaques attesting to their historic significance. Briere wanted to know how many of the homes in the proposed district formerly enjoyed status as individually protected structures and lost that status along with many others in the early 2000s. Although no one had an answer to that question, it gave an opportunity to Hieftje to note that it was an Ann Arbor court case that determined that individual buildings designated as a historic district in the way, many of them in Ann Arbor, did not meet the standard of a district. The Chronicle believes the relevant case to which Hieftje alluded was Draprop v. City of Ann Arbor [.pdf], in which the State of Michigan Court of Appeals ruled:

Because we conclude that defendant was without authority under the LHDA to establish the Individual Historic Properties Historic District, we need not reach the merits of plaintiff’s constitutional claims. The ordinance creating the district is invalid. Defendant’s historic preservation ordinance, specifically § 8:406, provides that the designation of an historic district is by local ordinance pursuant to the LHDA. Plaintiff’s properties are not part of a legally recognizable historic district. Defendant did not act within the ambit of the LHDA and its own historic preservation ordinance in designating plaintiff’s buildings as historic properties, and thus the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant was improper.

Councilmember Marcia Higgins asked the residents to explain the urgency they felt now, given that some of them had indicated they had lived in their homes for several years. Part of the urgency was accounted for when it emerged that they understood this to be their only shot. That is, they believed that if council rejected the authorization to appoint the committee, then the opportunity would be lost forever. Hohnke wondered if that was really the case, something that Briere clarified: it could be brought back again, even if it failed this time around. Hohnke then asked the residents if they would be comfortable with postponement to give them a bit more time to organize. Residents said that they couldn’t say definitively yes, because they were not sure of the ramifications.

One resident in particular said that really what concerned him was that he just wanted to know when a definitive decision was being made about the neighborhood in which he lived. He noted that he’d heard about the possibility of a historic district being established around a year ago, not from the city … but from Alex de Parry. De Parry acknowledged that he and the resident had known each other for over thirty years.

Higgins had a question on the timing between the authorization by council to appoint a study committee and the actual appointment of the committee that would specify its members. Briere weighed in based on her experience serving on two such study committees, saying that these were separate events. There was a time gap between authorization and actual appointment, she said.

Councilmember Margie Teall raised a question of great practical interest: Is there a moratorium on demolition in the area to be studied, if a committee is authorized to be formed? Hohnke said that that was a separate action. Briere said that a study committee, after it was formed, could request a moratorium, and that Kevin McDonald, with the city attorney’s office, had written an opinion on that.

Graffiti Ordinance

Germantown, graffiti-style.

Councilmember Sandi Smith expressed concerns about the position that the proposed ordinance put property owners: it made the victim of a crime subject to a fine. Smith noted that at her own place of business, the remedy for graffiti removal was sandblasting, which was required around six times a year at a cost of $500 per blast. She said that especially in the current economic climate she did not want to put business owners in the situation of having to choose between removing graffiti or making payroll.

In a relevant part to council’s caucus discussion, the proposed ordinance reads:

(2) No person shall apply graffiti to any surface or structure.

A violation of this subsection shall be a misdemeanor punishable by one or more of the following:

(a) Community service that is as relevant and appropriate to the violation as possible;

(b) Restitution;

(c) A fine of not more than $500.00 plus costs.

No person who owns or otherwise controls or manages any property shall permit or allow any graffiti to be or remain on any surface or structure on the property beyond the time indicated in a notice, which shall be no less than two (2) days after the notice is posted on the property or delivered to the property owner and no less than four (4) days if the notice is mailed. If removal of the graffiti by the date set in the notice is not possible due to weather or other reasonable cause, then on or before the date set in the notice the person to whom the notice is issued or his or her agent shall contact the City as indicated in the notice to request an extension.

A violation of this subsection shall be a civil infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00 plus costs, and/or equitable relief, and/or any other penalty available under the law, including but not limited to a court order requiring the defendant to remove the graffiti. Each day upon which graffiti is present upon a property constitutes a separate violation of this section. For a first offense, the fine shall be $100.00, plus costs and all other remedies available by statute. For each additional or subsequent offense within a 2-year time period the fine shall be not less than $250.00 and up to $500.00, plus costs and all other remedies available by statute.

Councilmember Teall, who is co-sponsoring the ordinance along with councilmembers Leigh Greden, Carsten Hohnke and Christopher Taylor, clarified that the spirit of the ordinance was more along the lines of a notification to property owners, and that it was consistent with the current clean communities program that recognized the importance of timely cleanup to prevent further proliferation. She referenced the work that had been done on development of the ordinance with Susan Pollay, executive director of the Downtown Development Authority. Hohnke noted that he brought the perspective of a business owner to the issue and represented the point of view that it was important that there be adequate enforcement against graffiti in the first place, if a business owner faces a potential fine for leaving it in place. But he said that he felt this had been addressed by the police department. He echoed the view that grafitti – if left in place – has a negative impact.

Acknowledging the potential negative impact, Smith said she wanted to make sure there was information on removal techniques made available, because the ordinance made it a real possibility that the victim of a crime could be fined as harshly as the perpetrator. Hieftje stated that if graffiti stays, the effect is to invite someone else to graffiti nearby properties.

Teall expressed some surprise that sandblasting was required as a technique. In light of her conversations with staff at the city and at the university, she said, it seemed to be a seldom-used technique. Smith noted that this was “what I need to know,” alluding to her earlier comment on the need to have information available on removal techniques.

Councilmember Higgins saw this ordinance in the context of the new zoning currently under development by the city, and said that at the following evening at council’s meeting she’d ask that Kevin McDonald in the city attorney’s office be looped into the discussion.

Councilmember Briere brought the perspective of the nonprofit she works for, which had repainted its building only to find that two months later someone came along and spray-painted the whole side of the building. The remedy – which was to repaint as opposed to clean it – represented a considerable expense, because the paint was special historic paint consistent with the location of the building in a historic district. “This is not cheap!” Briere wondered if there was any kind of emergency fund that could be tapped for business owners who don’t have ready cash to deal with graffiti, and stressed the need to address the funding issue.

Present: Sandi Smith, Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, Mike Anglin, John Hieftje

Transfer of Class C Liquor License to Quickie Burger

The question of whether to grant a transfer of a Class C liquor license to Quickie Burger, located at 800 S. State Street, had been postponed from the last council meeting on Nov. 6, and it had previously been postponed from Aug. 18, a fact that in the course of discussion caught the attention of Derezinski, who was concerned that the issue not be simply pushed down the road. Higgins clarified that the Aug. 18 postponement was not so much a postponement as an acknowledgment that the application was not ready to be brought before council, and was not actually discussed at that meeting.

Hohnke got things rolling by asking what the nature of councilmember Stephen Rapundalo’s reservations were regarding the transfer of the license to Quickie Burger, which he had voiced at the last council meeting. Higgins clarified that Rapundalo’s concerns had to do with the fact that in the immediate geographic area, there were not other liquor licenses of this kind – for restaurants and bars (although there are package liquor stores in the neighborhood). And a further concern of Rapundalo’s, said Higgins, was that the population living in the immediate vicinity were mostly students.

Smith said that she felt that it was somewhat arbitrary to decide where a liquor license should go, given that all other criteria were met. Later in the discussion, Smith would reiterate much the same sentiment, saying that she questioned whether the density of students in the area was enough to say that Quickie Burger cannot complete their business plan. It’s a line that we can draw, she said, but wondered if we want to draw it based on “the typical occupancy of homes in the area.”

Higgins stated that it was definitely within the jurisdiction of council to decide geographic allocation of liquor licenses. And she said that other businesses she’d heard from did not support the license transfer – not because of the fear of competition, but rather because they were concerned about the negative impact it could have on the character of the neighborhood. Higgins, who represents Ward 4 where Quickie Burger is located, put the possible transfer of the liquor license in the context of an area where she said there was an ongoing problem. She saw the addition of a liquor license to Quickie Burger to be “just one more thing to deal with in trying to get the area to be more stable.”

Briere said that it was somewhat frustrating to her to hear of the concerns only when the issue came before council at the last meeting, and wished that any concerns had been discussed by the liquor committee itself so that councilmembers would have had advance opportunity to formulate questions and get them answered in a timely way. Further, she said, because Rapundalo did not attend caucus that evening, she was unable to get answers at that meeting (Note: Caucus gatherings are optional for members of council).

Briere said she had not reached any conclusions yet, but had identified some reasons that could not be reasonably used to object to the license transfer, as well as some that could be used to object, without committing herself to objecting for those reasons. Not possible reasons for objection: (i) students might drink (ii) students might drink at late hours. Possible reasons for objection: (iii) ease of passing alcohol to underage drinkers in a sidewalk location (which Quickie Burger is seeking) (iv) creation of different business climate due to lucrative nature of serving alcohol.

Hohnke said that he felt it was unlikely that there would be a flood of businesses seeking liquor licenses in the area, because it fell outside the DDA boundary, and they would not be eligible for the numerous redevelopment licenses that are available inside the DDA area. They would therefore have to compete for the relatively scarce Class C licenses.

Derezinski offered the historical perspective of Dominick’s immediately adjacent to UM Law School, which he said he recalled from his law school days was not allowed to serve alcohol. It was, he said, regarded as a kind of Maginot Line guarding the South University area. When a liquor license was granted to Dominick’s, service of alcohol extended to the South University area. From his perspective, said Derezinski, this had not led to problems. Higgins said that there were any number of ongoing problems.

Councilmembers identified some key questions they would seek clarity on before and during Monday’s meeting, which will likely include a closed session with Mary Fales of the city attorney’s office to request legal advice on the issue. The questions:

• How late would Quickie Burger be able to serve alcohol if the license were transfered?
• Does city council have the option of separating out permission to serve alcohol inside the establishment versus in the sidewalk serving area?

Facts for Government Geeks

On city council’s Monday agenda is a resolution determining the order of succession for the office of mayor. The resolution is a list of names as opposed to an algorithm, but Higgins explained the algorithm during caucus discussion: after mayor pro tem, members of council are sorted first by date of their start of current council service, and then alphabetically. The list of names on the agenda assumes that Higgins will be elected mayor pro tem at the meeting, and unless Christopher Taylor makes a move to take that spot, he will be last in the succession order. (D comes before H comes before S comes before T). Higgins also indicated that she would be asking for the creation of a rules committee to clean up some of the language from a recent major revision effort. Derezenski and Briere said they would volunteer to serve with Higgins on that committee.

Hohnke raised a question about three very similar agenda items involving a request of the county drain commissioner to construct drainage projects in various locations.

• On the Pioneer High School Grounds to Reduce Downstream Flooding and Improve Water Quality ($4,414,300 Project Amount; $4,211,242 City Share) (Roll Call Vote Required)
• At the Ann Arbor Farmers Market to Reduce Downstream Flooding and Improve Water Quality and to Appropriate Funds for these Stormwater Management Improvements ($599,600 Project Amount;
  $572,018 City Share) (8 Votes Required) (Roll Call Vote Required)
• Along Stadium Boulevard to Reduce Downstream Flooding and Improve Water Quality ($736,200 Project Amount; $702,335 City Share) (Roll Call Vote Required)

Why does the second of these require eight votes when the others do not? Higgins supplied the answer. We’ll leave comments open for readers who’d like to prove their government geek mettle by giving the explanation.

At a caucus yesterday to discuss the upcoming appointment to the 3-member body, Irwin said that Fuller had been attending road commission meetings, had the necessary technical expertise, and understood the balance between maintenance and building, the management of an organization under the board of commissioners’ oversight, and the connectivity between public resources. Fuller’s cover letter sent with his application says that he was tapped by the road commission to serve on the Zeeb Road task force in 2006. Fuller ran unsuccessfully in the August Democratic primary for Scio Township supervisor.

Fuller was one of 15 applicants for the position, which opened up a little less that two years into the 6-year term of former road commissioner Wesley Prater, who resigned this past summer after declaring himself a candidate for the county commission’s 4th District seat in the Democratic primary. That resignation was made necessary by the Hatch Act, which bars state, county and municipal appointees from running for public office in a partisan race if their job duties are connected to programs financed in part by federal grants and loans. Voters in the 4th District this November will choose between Prater and Republican Owen Diaz.

Of the 15 applicants to replace Prater, Irwin said he personally sat down with the five that he thought “fell above the fold.” In chronological order, he said he met with Kathy Knol, John Bulmer, Lee Gorman, Douglas Fuller, and Carl Girbach. This prompted a discussion of process, which remained the focus of the duration of the caucus. The meeting was attended by commissioners Mark Ouimet, Ken Schwartz, Jessica Ping, Karen Lovejoy Roe, Leah Gunn, Conan Smith, and Jeff Irwin.

Process Discussion

The discussion was free-flowing and amicable.

Ping first pressed for details about why Irwin had met with only five of the 15 applicants. The process followed here, said Ping, is not specified in the rules and regulations. Irwin explained that those conversations were in addition to the process – that’s how you make appointments, you talk to people, it doesn’t need to be enshrined in the rules in order to undertake that kind of outreach. Smith expressed his view that it should be enshrined.

Ping said to protect the board of commissioners, that process should be specified in the rules and regulations, possibly through an amendment. Ouimet said that the process should be laid out explicitly (steps one, two and three, and then the chair of the board of commissioners makes a recommendation) especially now as the possibility is explored of expanding the road commission from a 3-member body to a 5-member body. Irwin said that this kind of specification of the process within the rules and regulations could be undertaken at the beginning of the year when the new board of commissioners is in place or it could be undertaken sooner if there was a consensus to do that. Irwin said that it made most sense to consider an explicit process for road commission and the parks commission, as it was these two bodies that are responsible for oversight over expenditure of significant amounts of taxpayer money.

Ping underscored her concern that the board be protected by a rigorously spelled-out process, saying, “We all get blamed for the road commission.” Ouimet weighed in for the revision to rules and regulation by the new board next year versus some of the current commissioners who may or may not be here then. Gunn stressed that the current rules don’t preclude anyone from talking to any of the applicants and that other commissioners had been free to undertake such conversations as well. Irwin said he was trying to make the process as robust as possible and as visible as possible, stating that pursuing interviews with five applicants “doesn’t impeach the process we engaged for this.”

Lovejoy Roe said that in her estimation, another engineer (like Fuller) is not what we need on the road commission. She said she’d heard he was the candidate of choice for the controlling faction of the board before any applications came in, but said, “That’s okay, that’s the reality. Whatever process the chair wants to use is fine.” Lovejoy Roe expressed the view that every applicant would be interviewed unless it didn’t matter what was said in those interviews.

Responding to Lovejoy Roe’s concerns about lack of diversity in professional background, Irwin offered that diversity on the road commission is of interest with respect to not just experience, but also with respect to gender, geography and ideology. Irwin continued by pointing out that the term for Fred Veigel (who currently serves on the road commission along with David Rutledge) expires at the end of 2008, and that it is no secret that there have been discussions of expanding the commission from a 3-member to a 5-member body, thus there were additional opportunities in the near term to achieve additional diversity. Schwartz said that the board needed to nail down the process for the appointments.

Ping asked what the point of the caucus was that they were having now. Irwin said that it was part of his attempt to make the process as open as possible. Gunn then expressed appreciation to Irwin for digging through applications and talking with the five applicants that he interviewed. Ouimet asked Irwin whether he thought he had the six votes on the commission for Fuller. Irwin said, “I believe in putting his name foward, it will have six votes.”

Complete list of applicants: Paul Ajegba, Christopher Brown, John Bulmer, Jonwaine Collins, James Drolett, Douglas Fuller, Carl Girbach, Lee Gorman, Kathy Knol, Maryann Noah, Carol Kovalak, Stephen Pontoni, Russell Sackett, Frank Wadenstorer, Jack Myers.

601 S. Forest

Councilmember Stephen Rapundalo first gave residents an update on discussions that he and Councilmember Joan Lowenstein had been having with the project developers, which dated back to August of this year. As of late Friday (Oct. 3) evening, Rapundalo’s understanding is that the developer intends to alter significantly the proposal and will be afforded time at the beginning of Monday’s (Oct. 6) public hearing during the city council meeting to present the revised proposal. Some key features of the revised proposal:

• The parcel will be sliced in half, with a phased development, the first phase of which would have a footprint identical to the current proposal – an L-shaped building.
• Though having the same footprint, the height of the building would be 12 stories above a 2-story base for a total of 14 stories. The number of beds would be in the 500-600 range, though this number has not been fully modeled.
• Parking spaces would remain, with something around 90 spots and two levels underground.
• The project would remain a “by right” development.
• The second phase of the development on the second parcel (if any) would start “from scratch” with the planning commission and be subject to full site plan review.

The plan for the current phase is to continue the public hearing to the Oct. 20 council meeting, at which time city council could decide whether to approve the site plan. Rapundalo cited the city’s charter as granting authority to city council to approve site plan revisions and said that a preliminary communication from the city attorney’s office indicated that it is not necessary to put the revisions before the planning commission. However, Rapundalo said, all the revisions would require sign-off from the relevant planning staff.

Councilmember Sabra Briere got clarification from Councilmember Marcia Higgins on the question of whether the zoning board of appeals would need to be re-engaged, given that a variance had been granted for the project. Higgins explained that a variance was associated with land, not a project, and therefore whatever variance had been granted would still apply.

Citizens expressed their appreciation for the work of Rapundalo and Lowenstein in carrying forward the discussions (Rapundalo stressed that these were not “negotiations” because they were in no position to offer any kind of quid pro quo – they had nothing to offer). But citizens had many remaining concerns. Among them:

• Given that planning staff had recently rejected a request for administrative review of revisions to the Metro 202 project, thus requiring full review by planning commission, why was the planning commission being skipped here? Response: Metro 202 is not necessarily a good standard of comparison, because it had already been approved, and was a planned project (not a “by right” development). In any case, the initial communication from the city attorney’s office was not the final verdict.
• What opportunities beyond the public hearing on Oct. 6, to be continued on Oct. 20, would be afforded the public to engage the developer in discussion about the revisions to the project? Response: Councilmember Leigh Greden is setting up a meeting with interested neighbors and the developer has expressed a willingness to be present and available to answer questions.
• What is the status of the brownfield request, and was this used in the discussions as leverage? Response: The brownfield committee will be meeting on Oct. 13 to consider whatever request the developer makes, but at this time it’s unknown what that specific request will be. The brownfield request will be considered independently of the site plan.
• If the developer were to pursue a second project on the second parcel that is a “mirror image” to the current phase, it would be even worse than a 25-story building. So, what is the potential for development on the second parcel? Response: It’s impossible to say except that it will be subject to whatever zoning is in place at the time.

The developer’s presentation at council should provide more detail on the revised site plan. And more clarity on the procedural sequence should also be available.

Fourth Avenue Alley

A resident of a six-condo downtown building (with residential units having their sole entrances off a walkway/alley with an opening onto Fourth Avenue) weighed in on two issues. The first was the new installation by the future Blue Tractor restaurant of an HVAC unit on a raised platform in the alley. It had degraded quality of life on account of its noise as well as its visual impact. Second, there is an intent to provide dancing at the venue, which the resident feels will exacerbate the public sanitation issue associated with vomiting, urinating and defecating already attested in the alley on a regular basis. The lack of a water faucet in the alley limits clean-up efforts to throwing a bucket full hot sudsy water on the problem.

Councilmember Rapundalo noted that the Blue Tractor’s application for a liquor permit is coming before the liquor commitee, on which he serves, and asked the resident to state their concerns in writing and send them to the city clerk with attention to the liquor committee.

Left are residential entrances. Right are the newly installed HVAC units. According to the speaker, the DDA had made the "alley" more like a "walkway" by installing cobbled strips into the pavement (one of which is visible just before the blurred out vehicle).

The Courtyards Easement

Jim Mogensen, a regular commenter at public meetings who often notices the connections between apparently separate issues, called council’s attention to a recent communication from the University of Michigan to the owner of a local development – a communication which has now been filed with the city clerk. The Courtyards is a residential development at Plymouth and Broadway, which required an easement through university property for access. The condition the university placed on the granting of the easement was that 70% of the residents must at all times be UM students. Mogensen pointed out that if the percentage of students fell below 70%, the Courtyards could not legally discriminate against non-students in order to meet the 70% threshold. But if the Courtyards did not discriminate against non-students in order to meet the 70% threshold, they risked losing the easement. Without the easement, there was not the necessary access into and out of the site to ensure public safety. Said Mogensen, the university is effectively using its considerable economic and political clout to have other parties violate our city’s non-discrimination ordinances on its behalf.

What’s the connection to anything else? The connection is to 42 North, 133 Hill, 601 S. Forest, among other developments targeting a student rental market. Mogensen contends that planning must necessarily include a provision for the maximum occupancy and the associated infrastructure demands, not just the hoped-for demands associated with student occupancy – because we cannot legally require that only students live in a project.

Parks Ballot Language and Fiscal Concerns

Stew Nelson asked council to confirm that the ballot language printed on the ballots matched the resolution passed by council, which is intended to place restrictions on the sale of city park land. Nelson also called on council to start examining every expense in light of the current economic climate. He noted that municipal bond sales had dramatically slowed and that it’s not going to be business as usual with respect to large capital expenditures.

Present: Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins, Joan Lowenstein, Stephen Rapundalo, Ron Suarez.

Next caucus: Sunday, Oct. 19 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave

1. Sidewalk Repair Program: Residents along Second Street reported a variety of problems with adequate notification – including invoices sent from the city after work had been completed, work begun by the city without adequate notification, and lack of adequate marking. Under the rules of the program, property owners are supposed to make arrangements with private contractors to complete the work, with the city only undertaking the work when a property owner does not comply. During a period of low activity for the sidewalk program, council suspended it temporarily between November 2007 and March 2008 so that an ad hoc council committee could implement a clearer set of communication guidelines. Problems along Second Street this year could be remnants of ineffective communication beginning last year.
2. 133 Hill St.: Council heard from Dan Williams and Scott Munzel, who described a project at 133 Hill St., which would entail taking down the existing structure and constructing a three-unit (6 bedrooms per unit) building with a market as a student rental. They are hoping for site plan approval Monday night in order to meet leasing and construction schedule goals. Staff recommendation was for approval, with planning commission voting 3-2 for the project, which still counts as a rejection. Williams and Munzel highlighted the planned LEED certification and the copious amounts of bicycle parking, including some covered bicycle storage that would be afforded the 18 residents through ground-floor storage units accessible from outside.
3. Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corp. and Avalon Housing Inc. Merger: Michael Appel of Avalon previewed for councilmembers the request for $295,000 in initial funding from the Ann Arbor Housing Trust Fund to support the merger of AHI and WAHC. The total budget for roughly a year’s worth of merger-related activity comes to almost $600,000, but as Appel stressed, the city of Ann Arbor would not be Avalon’s only partner. Among other things, the money would pay the hiring of a merger manager and a construction manager, along with various attorney and accounting fees.
4. City Place PUD: Council heard from Alex de Parry that he intends eventually to submit to council the City Place PUD (along Fifth Avenue south of William Street), which was rejected by planning commission. The preview included a map of Ann Arbor, from which had been subtracted the historic districts, Allen Creek corridor, UM buildings, city property, county property, sororities and fraternities, churches, as well as other large buildings like Ashley Mews. The area where greater density could be achieved was leftover: a thin white smile in one corner of which the City Place project is nestled. Councilmember Briere distilled the discussion to a single question: “What exactly makes it a PUD?” Otherwise put: Where does the project need variances from the existing R4C zoning. Answer: It’s a little too tall (but still not taller than the trees); a little too dense (20 bedrooms more), and is missing some setbacks in the rear and on one side. City Place is not on the agenda for this evening’s (Sept. 22) meeting, but council received an early preview at the request of specific councilmembers.

Set of steps from sidewalk hatch previously leading to a basement.

These old wooden stairs likely pique the curiosity of passersby, whether they are longtime residents or first-time visitors. For one thing, they don’t lead anywhere. The Chronicle had previously corresponded via electronic mail with the owners of the steps about their history.

And two Sunday evenings ago when we spotted two people emerging from the office space in front of which the stairs are mounted – armed with schematic drawings affixed to large pieces of foam core – we figured they were headed the same direction we were: to Sunday night caucus at city council chambers in the Larcom Building.

So we took the opportunity to make face-to-face introductions, and to get the story behind the steps. It turns out that the stairs’ original home was in the “sidewalk hatch” of the building immediately to the north of their current location. The steps located underneath sidewalk grates were used in the olden days to accept deliveries directly into basements of buildings – along this block and elsewhere. The extreme wear on these particular steps was attributed to the kegs of beer that used to be rolled down them into the basement of an Irish pub there. But the stairs’ owner allowed that this could be an apocryphal tale. In a cursory check of AADL online historical resources for Ann Arbor, The Chronicle could find no evidence bearing on the question.

As we crossed Fifth Avenue to the Larcom Building, the stairs’ owner explained that 8-10 years ago the next-door building had undergone some renovations, and that he had spotted this set of stairs sitting inside the dumpster. After inquiring with the building owners and getting their okay to rescue them from their fate, he recruited a couple of other guys help him, climbed into the dumpster, and wrestled them free.

Wondering where this is and who we were talking to? Some readers might already know, but here’s another detail that gives some additional folks a shot before we straightup tell you: the stairs’ owner was headed to caucus to make a brief presentation on the proposed African American Museum to be located in the Polhemus House on Pontiac Trail – which was to come before council for approval as a PUD rezoning the following evening on Sept. 8. That project enjoyed the recommendation of planning commission and was approved by council that evening.

So who was that guy we hounded all the way from Fourth Avenue and Huron to the Larcom Building? Richard Mitchell of Mitchell and Mouat Architects, Inc.