Other agenda items receiving some discussion were the public hearing scheduled on the Google Fiber initiative, plus a contract revision for Recycle Ann Arbor to perform single-stream curbside recycling using automated carts.

Ban on Cell Phone Use While Driving

At its Feb. 16, 2010 meeting, the city council had given initial approval to a proposed city ordinance banning cell phone use while driving. That initial approval – at the ordinance’s first reading before the council– was followed by revisions to the ordinance that were numerous enough that it was presented again as a first reading at the council’s March 1, 2010 meeting. The council again gave the ordinance its preliminary stamp of approval.

On the agenda for Monday is the second reading of the ban on cell phone use while driving, together with a public hearing on the item.

But at the Sunday caucus, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that she’d heard from the ordinance’s sponsor, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), that it would likely be postponed – more revisions had been undertaken to the ordinance language. Mayor John Hieftje confirmed that he’d heard similar news from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Asked if this might mean a third presentation of the ordinance to the council as a “first reading,” Hieftje allowed that it could mean that. He said he saw it as evidence that the process was working – the community was giving feedback on the proposed ordinance that was being incorporated into the language.

Asked if the council might consider – in lieu of passing a local ordinance – passing a resolution calling on the state legislature to take action on a cell phone ban, Hieftje allowed that this was a possibility. He also said that if the ordinance eventually failed to win council’s approval, that it would likely be based – for some councilmembers – on the fact that they see the issue as more appropriately addressed at the state level.

Briere, for her part, said she had a concern about the fact that the ordinance specified it was a primary offense – drivers could be pulled over for cell phone use specifically. Secondary offenses require some other additional reason for a driver to be pulled over. Resident Eppie Potts remarked that she figured if she were pulled over by the police, by the time the officer would approach the car she’d have put the cell phone down.

Resident Jack Eaton, who works as an attorney, indicated that he represented transit unions. Every transit union in the state, he said, has a rule against drivers using cell phones while driving. The difficulty, he said, is that enforcement becomes a he-said-she-said issue. How could a hands-free Bluetooth device be seen under long hair, for example?

Hieftje said he was concerned that when stopping motorists, looking for evidence of cell phone use was one more reason that police officers could use to look around in people’s cars.

Briere said she’d hate to think that we’d be sending police officers chasing after people using cell phones, while acknowledging that cell phone use is seen to be a genuine safety hazard by local traffic enforcement officers.

Briere elaborated on a statement from chief of police Barnett Jones, made at a recent city council meeting, that drivers using cell phones could currently be cited for careless driving, but that a cell phone ordinance would make things cleaner in a court of law. She said it would need to be shown that the cell phone was in use at the time of an accident, and that it would need to be demonstrated that such cell phone use caused the accident.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that the use of various hand-held electronic devices would only proliferate. He cited a demonstration of voice-activated commands for such devices that he’d witnessed as two tech people had squared off – one with a voice-activated smart phone and the other without – as they’d tried to find the answer to the question he’d posed: When was Budweiser founded? The guy with the voice-activated device was faster.

Google Fiber

The city council is holding a public hearing Monday evening on the city’s proposal that Google choose Ann Arbor as a site for installation of a fiber-to-the-home network. The council will be considering a resolution urging Google to select Ann Arbor as a site and promising “to take all lawful measures to expedite and accommodate the safe and efficient installation of the Google FTTH network.”

Though the Google Fiber network has been widely discussed as cost-free, the language of Google’s request for information (RFI) specifies that homeowners would be offered Internet service “at a competitive price” and this is reflected in the city council resolution.

Asked what they would consider to be a “competitive” price, Hieftje, Briere and Anglin required some time to noodle through what they currently paid to Comcast for their high-speed access, plus TV and phone. Consensus put that number between $60 and $100.

Asked how many residents of Ann Arbor they thought would be adopters of fiber and at what price, councilmembers were not sure. Hieftje said that Ann Arbor was one the most wired communities in the world.

Hieftje reported that he’d been included on a conference call with someone in the governor’s office the previous Friday in the wake of Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s trip to California to lobby Google to choose a Michigan city as a location for their fiber network. Based on his understanding from that phone call, he said, Google’s goal is to see the federal government take the lead on installation of fiber networks – their initiative would be a pilot to demonstrate how successful it could be. In Google’s view, said Hieftje, fiber optic access to the Internet should be like a utility.

On the question of competitive price, resident Jack Eaton speculated that the actual dollar amount would be comparable to Comcast, but that the Google fiber network would compete on quality and speed of service.

With respect to the service, Briere said she’d heard from constituents that they were already at the point of needing the kind of bandwidth that fiber offered (100-times faster than typical cable service), even if many people were not. She said in the next decade, she thought that video conferencing via fiber networks [an extremely high-bandwidth application] would play an increasing role.

On the question of neighborhood reaction to any hardware that might need to be installed external to houses, Briere offered her view that in light of the potential benefit, the aesthetic concerns could come later, not now.

Single-Stream Recycling

Late last year, the city made several decisions setting in motion a switch to single-stream curbside collection of recyclable materials from the current two-tote system – one for paper and the other for containers. The council heard a presentation at its Oct. 12, 2009 work session on the approach, which will include incentives for residents to set out their new single-stream carts for collection.

At their Nov. 5, 2009 meeting, the council authorized upgrades necessary for the materials recovery facility (MRF), and at their Dec. 21, 2009 meeting, they authorized the purchase of four new trucks plus 33,000 carts equipped with RFI (radio-frequency identification) chips.

At the Sunday caucus, resident Eppie Potts contended that most people didn’t know anything about the new single-stream system, and that when she told people about it they were shocked. She said that she did not want to dump the containers, which she rinsed out, on top of the paper she collected, out of concern that it would contaminate the paper. This was something the single-stream system would do anyway.

Potts wondered if the old recycling totes could be recycled. Hieftje said he would get an answer for her on that. From The Chronicle’s report of the council’s Nov. 5, 2009 meeting: “The new carts will be available in June/July 2010. The old totes can be recycled.”

Potts questioned the amount of public money spent on the project, which included, she said, $1.4 million for the carts, $1.2 million for trucks, and $3.2 million for upgrades to the facility.

Hieftje told Potts that the payback on the investment was estimated to be around six years and that money from the city’s solid waste millage had been set aside incrementally to be able to pay for those investments.

On the subject of the solid waste millage, resident Jack Eaton put the investment in single-stream recycling in the context of the cost-cutting measures for the solid waste fund being contemplated in this year’s budget planning. Those measures include elimination of curbside holiday tree pickup, as well as elimination of loose leaf collection. [Chronicle coverage: "Budget Round 4: Lights, Streets, Grass"]

The benefits of single-stream recycling, contended Eaton, would still be there when the time came, even if its implementation were delayed. He wondered if it might not have been wiser to delay that implementation.

Briere responded to Eaton by noting that the cost savings of eliminating the leaf collection and holiday tree pickup were relatively small. The question to ask about single-stream recycling, she said, was not just what it costs, but rather also what Ann Arbor gains.

On the solid waste millage, however, Eaton suggested that now, when the city is short of cash, the solid waste millage rate could be reduced, instead of investing in a single-stream system. Eaton suggested that with a reduction in the solid waste millage, the city could make a stronger case to voters that they should approve a Headlee override – which would restore property taxes to their original rates, before the Headlee amendment rolled them back.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who co-sponsored a new ordinance banning use of cell phones while driving or bicycling. The ban does not apply to driving one's council chair before the meeting starts. (Photos by the writer.)

But it was approved without the support of the measure’s two sponsors, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). The version adopted by council specified a 3% minimum cut in compensation packages, taken over the aggregate of non-union workers. By the time the resolution was passed, it had also shed a “whereas” clause that Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) called “self-laudatory.”

In development news, The Moravian – a planned unit development (PUD) proposed on East Madison Street – received unanimous council support at its first reading. Approval at two readings is required for final approval. But Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) responded to a resident request made at the previous night’s caucus to give some clue at the first reading as to how councilmembers were thinking about the project: “I’ll be voting against it at second reading – so there’s no question in the community’s mind.”

Based on the Sunday caucus, The Moravian will face a protest petition, which raises the bar for approval from six to eight votes.

The council also wrangled through a proposed ban on cell phone use while driving and bicycling – at a level of detail unusual for a first reading. The measure had undergone enough revisions since it was approved at the council’s previous meeting that its status Monday was reset to a first reading. Dissent on the ban came from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who questioned whether it should be undertaken at the local level – as opposed to the state. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) also dissented, pointing to the fact that the ban did not include hands-free phones.

The council also transacted a variety of other business, including a repeal of the city’s bicycle registration program, which is to be replaced with a new system after further consultation with stakeholders. The bicycle registration program, as well as other business and announcements, will be wrapped up in Part 2 of this report.

The 3% Budget Directive

Before the council on Monday was a resolution that gave the city administrator, Roger Fraser, direction on preparing the city’s budget. Fraser must, per the city charter, submit a budget to the council by its second meeting in April – this year, that’s on April 19. By May 17, their second meeting in May, the council must vote to adopt the budget with any amendments they choose to make. If the council does not adopt a budget, then the budget proposed by the city administrator is adopted by default.

The resolution before the council on Monday night requires Fraser to report back on the directives by April 1, which is before the budget proposal is due.

The resolution before the council differed from an earlier version, which had called for a 3% reduction in the “base salary” of non-union workers. The version before the council on Monday called for a minimum of a 3% reduction in their “compensation packages.”

Budget Directive: Amendment on Travel Allowance

The resolution before the council eliminated a $1,000/year travel allowance for the mayor and a $560/year travel allowance for councilmembers.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) proposed an amendment to keep the mayor’s travel allowance, saying that it’s important for the mayor to go forward throughout the state to represent the city. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) agreed, saying that he’d been unaware that councilmembers had a travel allowance, and that he didn’t need one. However, said Anglin, the mayor is the symbol of the city.

Outcome: The amendment to keep the mayor’s travel allowance was approved, with dissent from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

Budget Directive: Amendment on Self-Laudatory Language

The resolution included a “whereas” clause that listed off councilmembers who had voluntarily committed to giving back 3% of their council salaries as having demonstrated leadership. [Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Council Delays Vote on Pay Cuts"]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), whose name was listed, said that for his part he felt the clause was “self-laudatory” and did not see the need for it. An accompanying “resolved” clause called on all councilmembers to commit to the 3% give-back. Independently of whether it was possible for the council to compel the action of individual councilmembers, said Taylor, he felt it was not proper as a body to mandate something that is voluntary by nature.

Outcome: The clauses involving city councilmembers’ 3% salary give-back’s were deleted, with dissent from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

Budget Directive: Amendment on Percentage for Administrator and Attorney

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) proposed an amendment to a “resolved” clause that singled out the city attorney and the city administrator among the non-union workers targeted by the resolution for a minimum 3% reduction in compensation.  The attorney and the administrator are positions that report directly to the council, and the council sets their salaries.

Calling the 3% artificial, Briere said she felt the top of the pay scale could take a bigger hit: 5%.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), however, said that she was encouraged by the word “minimum” and thought that it allowed enough flexibility, so she didn’t support specifying 5%.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know what the implications were numerically – the compensation packages covered salary, benefits, and vacation days. As much as he wanted the top administrators to show leadership, said Kunselman, he hesitated to use a broad brush.

Foreground to background: Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who had sponsored the resolution, said that the April deadline provided an opportunity to give additional direction before the final budget is proposed by the administrator.

Mayor Hieftje noted that council sets the pay of the city administrator and the city attorney, and could do so at their next performance review.

Higgins also noted that the resolution was a way to give public notice of the expectation and to give the two top administrators the “platform” to make changes.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) noted that the 3% reduction was what they’d asked staff in general to accept and that the language specified a minimum, so he was not supportive of the amendment. He allowed, however, that if the amendment passed, he would be contributing an additional 2% of his council salary back to the city to bring his total up to 5%.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), however, said he felt that 5% was the proper place for the bar to be set.

Outcome: Briere’s amendment that reduced the city attorney and the city administrator’s compensation by 5% – instead of a minimum of 3% – failed, with support only from Briere and Taylor.

Budget Directive: Amendment on Collective versus Distributive

For linguists who specialize in the sub-field of semantics focusing on the the interpretation of English plurals, Monday’s council meeting would have been a welcome respite from their usual fodder, which tends to focus on pianos and the men who lift them.

Consider, for example, the following sentences about some men, say, Smith, Jones and Green:

1. The men ate cake.
2. The men gathered in the kitchen.
3. The men lifted a piano.

Sentence (1) is true just when Smith, Jones, and Green each ate cake. That is, the meaning of sentence (1) requires the eating of cake to distribute over each of them: Smith ate cake, Jones ate cake and Green ate cake. For sentence (2), Smith, Jones and Green each have to be in the kitchen together in some event of gathering, but the sentence is not about the men as individuals – it’s about the men collectively. That is, the meaning of the sentence does not require that Smith gathered, Jones gathered and Green gathered.

Sentence (3) is the one that applies to the discussion at the city council meeting. It’s a sentence that has a distributive meaning – it could be about Smith lifting a piano, Jones lifting a piano and Green lifting a piano. Or it could have a collective meaning – it could be about Smith, Jones and Green, who worked together to lift a piano. On the collective meaning, it’s not the case that Smith lifted a piano, and Jones lifted a piano and Green lifted a piano.

At issue was the following “resolved” clause in the budget resolution:

RESOLVED, That beginning July 1, 2010 the compensation packages for all non-union employees will be reduced by a minimum of 3%;

Replace “the compensation packages for all non-union employees” with “the men” and replace “be reduced by a minimum of 3%” with “lift a piano” and you get something like sentence (3).

Councilmembers debated whether the resolution meant that the total of compensation packages summed over all employees had to be reduced by 3% – maybe Smith got a 1% cut but Jones got a 4% cut – or rather that it meant each employee had to get at least a 3% cut.

The Chronicle asked Peter Lasersohn, a professor of linguistics and specialist in the semantics of plurals at the University of Illinois, to weigh in on that question. His response was unambiguous:

Sentences with plural definite subjects are systematically ambiguous between collective and distributive readings, so I think the “RESOLVED” clause can be interpreted either way. I feel bad for Jones …

At the city council meeting, it was Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who brought up the question of the distributive versus the collective understanding of the sentence. He’d begun his questioning by asking if the city administrator was “compelled” by the resolution to deliver a budget as described by the resolution. City attorney Stephen Postema allowed that this was the intent of the resolution, but that it was the budget process itself [see section introduction] that compelled the kind of budget the council wanted.

As Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wraps up his point about the aggregate interpretation of the budget directive, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) raises her hand to ask to speak.

Hohnke wanted to know if the 3% reduction applied to each person. Turning to Fraser, he asked: “How do you understand this?” Fraser replied that the resolution did not specify how to do it and that his staff’s job was to come back with their suggestion as to how to do it.

About the idea that it was each employee who had to have at least a 3% cut, concluded Hohnke: “That’s not what I’m understanding you to understand.” Otherwise put, Hohnke was on the same page with Fraser that it did not require a minimum 3% reduction of each employee’s compensation.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) weighed in, saying that it was fine if the intent was to allow for an aggregation that amounted to a 3% reduction, but contended that was not what the resolution said. “If Jones is not reduced, then it’s not consistent,” he said. Taylor then proposed an amendment that added the phrase “in the aggregate.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) objected, saying that what Taylor was doing was changing the words to something that Fraser already understood the resolution to mean, and that they would have an opportunity to make any adjustments in April.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) characterized the change as a grammarian’s correction, which she appreciated. City attorney Stephen Postema weighed in, saying that Higgins was correct about the opportunity in April, but allowed that Taylor’s suggestion of “in the aggregate” was useful.

When Sandi Smith (Ward 1) attempted to end the deliberation on Taylor’s proposed amendment by “calling the question,” the motion to end deliberations narrowly failed with only five votes – those of Smith, Briere, Rapundalo, Higgins, and Hohnke.

So Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who sponsored the original resolution, weighed in. The intent, he said, actually was to set a baseline, with the idea that Fraser could adjust that.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) observed that Fraser and Taylor had a different interpretation of what the resolution said – so it was worth addressing – and wondered if deleting the word “all” would help. Taylor didn’t think so, saying that it was useful for highlighting the aggregate.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) took the “grammatical quibbling” to illustrate the futility of the process. By “process” he meant the idea that the council would express a budget directive in the form of a resolution. He’d weighed in earlier during the deliberations against the idea of doing that, and asked Higgins, who was one of the most senior members of the council, if that had been done in the past. Higgins affirmed it had been done.

Also on the subject of process, earlier in the deliberations Rapundalo had said that in the past the budget committee had given budget directives that had “never seen the light of day.” Passing a resolution of the council was a way to make it public and transparent, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje gave a nudge to wrap up the discussion by saying that if they were spending that much time on this amendment, then the budget decisions themselves were going to be “fun.”

Before they voted on Taylor’s amendment, Hohnke picked up on the topic of process, and noted that Fraser had asked the council for direction, and that the resolution provided that explicit direction.

Outcome: The amendment inserting “in the aggregate” succeeded, with Anglin, Briere, Derezinski, Taylor, Kunselman, Teall and Hohnke voting for it.

Overall final outcome: The council passed the 3% budget directive resolution as amended, with dissent from Derezinski, Rapundalo and Higgins.

Ban on Cell Phone Use While Driving

Before the council was an ordinance that prohibits use of cell phones while driving or bicycling.

Cell Phones: Public Commentary

At the conclusion of their meeting during public commentary general time, two speakers addressed the council about cell phone use. One speaker was concerned about allowing exceptions for certain people involved in emergency preparedness exercises – that set a bad precedent, he said. He encouraged the city to allow the issue to be addressed at the state level.

A second speaker asked the council to at least consider the cost of informing the public that such an ordinance would be enforced in the city, noting that there were numerous access points into the city, where signage might be required.

Cell Phones: Council Deliberations

The ordinance had already won the support of the council at its previous meeting. But it had undergone changes that were numerous enough that an additional first reading was warranted, said one of the measure’s sponsors, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), on Monday. The changes were not really substantive, he contended, but their sheer number created enough red lines that it gave “the appearance thereof.”

Paul Green, a research professor at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, provided some expert testimony on cell phone use while driving.

The changes, he said, were the result of various communication with other councilmembers and community members. Rapundalo called to the podium Paul Green, a research professor at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, whose research focuses on driver distraction and driver workload.

One of the key research findings that Green explained to councilmembers was the idea that the problem with cell phones is not the object held in the hand, but rather the distraction of the conversation. The proposed ordinance would also make it illegal to do “destination entry” for GPS devices – Green explained that the distraction of a GPS device use was in the attention required to do that data entry, not in reading the map or listening to directions.

Why, asked Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), was talking on the phone different from talking to a passenger? Green explained that the key difference was that the passenger is also aware of the driving situation: you come to a stop, then look left and right – your passenger also looks left and right. The person on the other end of a cell phone conversation with a driver, Green said, will continue to “blab on until they hear a crash.” Listening to the radio, Green said, is completely discretionary, whereas the demands of a phone conversation are not – it’s rude not to take one’s regular conversational turn.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wanted to know whether the ordinance made cell phone use while driving a primary or secondary offense. It’s proposed to be a primary offense, which means that police officers would be able to pull over a driver just for cell phone use. Secondary traffic offenses are only enforced if there is some other reason to pull a driver over.

Responding to a question from Rapundalo, chief of police Barnett Jones said it was important that it be a primary offense, because it would allow them to begin to “harden the community” against the behavior. Jones cited a 2003-04 statistic that attributed 24,000 traffic deaths nationwide to cell phone use while driving. He characterized it as a major safety hazard.

Chief Jones allowed that he himself has switched to hands-free Bluetooth technology for use while driving. Taylor picked up later on the hands-free versus hand-held distinction, and pointed to Green’s research conclusion that the distraction arises not because the hands are occupied, but because the mind is occupied. So Taylor wanted to know how the ordinance might be enforced, if the exception for hands-free use were not made in the ordinance. [The ordinance language provides for a number of exceptions, hands-free devices among them.]

Jones said that without the exception, it would put officers in a very prohibitive position. In that case, he said, they should consider going the whole way, and address people applying lipstick and eating cheeseburgers as well.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said that if it was about safety, then “let’s go all the way.” She took a shot at the overall clarity of the language, asking, “Was this written up by the attorney’s office?” When city attorney Stephen Postema acknowledged that it had been written up by his office, she told him that she had to break down the paragraphs to understand what it meant.

Higgins asked Jones if other non-driving tasks were prohibited under other aspects of the vehicle code. Jones allowed that something like applying lipstick while driving could be enforced as “careless driving.” Higgins wanted to know why use of a cell phone while driving could not be handled the same way. Jones said that having an ordinance with specific language addressing cell phones made it “cleaner in a court of law.”

Higgins also asked about the burden of proof. In the case that a driver offers a defense that they were using a device in a hands-free manner, the burden of proof falls to the driver.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered what the difference was between holding an iPhone with a map displayed on it – which seemed to be prohibited – versus holding a paper map. Green clarified that the ordinance as written allowed someone to look at an iPhone map, but not to enter the destination.

Taylor came back to the data entry question by focusing on the “or otherwise operate” phrase in the ordinance. If the concern was typing, he said, they should talk about typing. Green clarified that the “or otherwise operate” phrase was meant to prevent the pressing of the various buttons to select “points of interest” from the map, which entailed reading through detailed menus of options.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she had trouble with the ordinance – she’d prefer to see it done at the state level. She said she appreciated the efforts and the work of those who’d put time into the ordinance, but she felt it should happen in the context of the Michigan State Vehicle Code. Rapundalo had mentioned earlier that violations of the local ordinance would not result in points added to a driver’s license – because there’s no analogous state statute.

Hiefte said he thought that the work on the ordinance, with the changes that had been made to the ordinance since its first introduction, was a good example of the process working to produce a better piece of legislation.

Outcome: The ordinance banning cell phone use while driving or cycling was approved on first reading with dissent from Higgins and Smith. Enactment will be contingent on approval at a second reading.

Planned Unit Development (PUD): The Moravian

Planned unit developments are requests for rezoning of a parcel to accommodate projects that offer a public benefit in exchange for the rezoning. They are, stressed Stephen Kunselman on Monday night, discretionary on the part of the city council. They contrast with “by right” proposals that meet all aspects of city code. Kunselman also offered a tweak of the interpretation of the letters PUD – “promises until developed” – an allusion to the fact that a number of PUDs have been granted, but never built.

The Moravian is an almost 75,000-square-foot, four-story building over one level of parking containing 62 dwelling units, with a combined total of 150 bedrooms, and 90 off-street parking spaces. Twelve of the 62 proposed dwelling units are to be for affordable- to lower-income households. The project is located on East Madison Street, between Fourth and Fifth avenues.

Moravian: Public Comment

Several people signed up to comment during reserved time at the start of the meeting, but not all of them appeared. Speculation called out from the audience suggested some might have had problems finding parking or that they thought their speaking time was at the end of the meeting.

Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, touched on a number of points speaking in opposition to the project. She contended that since the year 2000, 41 projects had been approved by the city that had not begun construction – for example, 601 S. Forest, Ann Arbor City Apartments, Broadway Village, and Kingsley Lane. She noted that there was a high percentage of vacancy in developments targeting student renters – 411 Lofts and The Courtyards, for example.

Strassmann also emphasized that South Fifth Avenue is a major commuter artery and that it needs to flow smoothly. The addition of 150 more bedrooms and 90 parking spaces, she feared, would cause ingress/egress problems. She was also concerned about the net effect on affordable housing, saying that while The Moravian offered 12 units of affordable housing, 19 units would be lost.

Shirley Zempel characterized The Moravian as “huge.” The building goes right up to the sidewalk on three sides, she said – Fifth Avenue, East Madison Street, and Fourth Avenue. She echoed the point Strassmann had made about the impact on traffic along Fifth, saying she’d have difficulty pulling out of her own driveway.

Kim Kachadoorian stressed the idea that The Moravian was not in downtown, but rather near downtown. She cautioned the council that some of the renderings provided by the developer showed surrounding houses with 5-6 stairs leading up to their front porches, when in fact they had 3-4 stairs. This left the impression that the houses were taller than they are, she said. Kachadoorian also contended that one rendering of The Moravian depicted the 5-story building as the same height as a 3-story University of Michigan building across Fourth Avenue from The Moravian. She cautioned against giveaways for developers.

Claudius Vincenz also stressed that The Moravian was not in downtown, but rather near downtown. He characterized the city staff report as deficient and biased. He said that when reading through the staff report, he thought it was the developer’s application. He objected to the fact that the planning commission had referred to some houses in the the neighborhood with the word “dumps.” He allowed that they are not mansion-type houses, but that they are affordable.

Richard Jacobson spoke during public commentary general time at the conclusion of the meeting. He stressed that based on the PUD review standards, a request should not be granted if the request is made in order to circumvent existing zoning. Jacobson contended that the project, in fact, was an attempt to circumvent existing zoning standards. He characterized the housing offered as “private dorms.”

Anne Eisen also spoke at the conclusion of the meeting. She asked the council to read carefully the planning commission minutes. What the developer characterizes as support from neighbors is, in fact, not support, she said.

Kyle Mazurek, vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke on behalf of that organization as well as himself, a young professional living in Ward 5. He ticked through a number of benefits provided by the project: higher density development of the downtown area, expansion of workforce affordable housing opportunities in the downtown area, removal of blighted structures and obsolete industrial buildings, floodplain mitigation, property tax revenue to the city, enhanced housing options for young professionals, encouragement of alternative modes of transportation, enhancement of downtown area businesses and energy efficiency.

At the conclusion of the council meeting, speaking during public commentary general time, the developer of the project, Jeff Helminski, addressed the council saying that he recognized the challenge they faced in analyzing such a complex project, which had taken two years to bring to this point. He encouraged the council to rely on the city’s professional planning staff as well as the PUD standards of review. Responding to Strassmann’s concerns about approved projects that had not yet been built, he said he was confident that he could bring the project to fruition.

Responding to a report Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had given during his communications that he’d found studio apartments in the neighborhood that rented for $760 including utilities, Helminski stated that the affordable units in The Moravian would rent for no more than $690, and that their affordable status was assured in perpetuity through the supplemental regulations of the PUD. Addressing concerns about the FEMA flood maps that had not been finalized, he contended that the data was final and that The Moravian had been planned based on that data. What they were waiting for, he said, was the final publication of the maps based on the data.

Moravian: Council Deliberations

At the caucus held the previous evening, on Sunday, Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, indicated that a protest petition would be submitted against The Moravian. That would raise the bar for council approval from six to eight votes out of 11.

Jeff Helminski, developer of The Moravian, chatted with Margie Teall (Ward 4) before the council meeting started.

On Monday, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) responded to a resident request made at the previous night’s caucus to give some clue at the first reading as to how councilmembers were thinking about the project: “I’ll be voting against it at second reading – so there’s no question in the community’s mind,” he said.

At the council table on Monday, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) made remarks that could fairly be interpreted to mean their support at second reading is uncertain. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) read from two contrasting passages in the city’s central area plan to illustrate the conflicting concerns that surround council’s evaluation of the project.

Council deliberations began with Hohnke alluding to another project in roughly the same neighborhood, Heritage Row – which began life as City Place. The council had voted down the City Place PUD a little over a year ago. Hohnke said he imagined that residents were getting a bit weary. He characterized the conversation about what kind of development is appropriate for the neighborhood as a “long slog.”

On the question “What is downtown?” Hohnke said it was clear for him: The downtown boundary is William Street. That meant, said Honhke, that the neighborhood under discussion – which lies south of William – is not downtown. So Hohnke said that many of the considerations for added public benefit offered by The Moravian – based on what’s called for in the downtown (e.g., added density) – did not carry a lot of weight with him. Hohnke concluded that the benefits required of a PUD were a significant threshold that had to be met, given that the city would be setting aside the existing zoning on the site.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reported that there had been an extended discussion at the previous night’s caucus and that he had a whole series of questions that he would be circulating by email. Among his concerns: statements by neighbors that had been misrepresented by the developer; the number of projects in the city that had been approved, but not started; flood maps that had not yet been issued.

During his communications time earlier in the meeting, Anglin said he’d walked the neighborhood and found a house with three studio units for rent: $760 including utilities. He questioned whether it was possible to build new construction that was equally affordable.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) picked up on the issue of flood maps, and Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, confirmed that no permits could be pulled until the FEMA flood maps were finalized, which would potentially be within the next year.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d vote yes at first reading so that the dialog could continue. She allowed that the Downtown Development Authority‘s taxing district is one way to define downtown. But she noted that the neighborhood in question was near downtown. She noted that there’d been a lot of time spent discussing what is appropriate in a near downtown neighborhood. One of those issues, she said, involved whether parking meters were appropriate there. [Smith has worked since last year to forestall installation of parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown, which were seen as a potential revenue source.]

Smith noted that they were getting pushback from people who also objected to development in the center city – they wanted the top of the Library Lot to be established as a park.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted that the role of the first reading was to introduce a topic to the public, but that in this case, “it’s like introducing Methuselah.” Derezinski, who serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, had already seen the project in a fair amount of detail when it was reviewed by that body. Derezinski stressed that the city’s professional planning staff had put a lot of time into the project. He said that you have to pay serious attention to staff recommendations – city staff had recommended approval, and the planning commission vote was 7-1 in favor. He urged his council colleagues to really read the staff report so that the project got a fair hearing.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed Derezinski’s sentiments, saying that the DDA boundary was artificial – the site in question was an urban neighborhood in an urban setting, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) suggested that for a project to take two years to come forward, it meant that there was likely something wrong with the project. He said he thought the project was out of context and character for the neighborhood and did not do much for “more doors on the street.” He felt that it was geared towards students. It was like taking The Courtyards housing development on the north end of Broadway, he said, and “plopping” it near downtown. He said he’d vote for it at first reading, but would oppose it at the second reading.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she was not quite as definitive – she said she’d hate to cut off debate this early. She said she’d not looked at the project in detail, yet. Instead, she said, she’d oriented herself to the city’s central area plan and the PUD regulations [.txt file of PUD review standards].  She’d done that, she said, as a response to the challenge that had been made at the previous night’s caucus by Eppie Potts to give some clue what the council was thinking. Briere said it had caused her to reflect on what one should say at a first reading, when the council is just moving the process forward.

The standards for PUD review referenced by Briere, contained in the city code and presented here in severely abbreviated form, are as follows:

(6) Standards for PUD zoning district review. The commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial, and City Council shall approve or deny the proposed PUD zoning district based on the following standards:

(a) The use or uses, physical characteristics, design features, or amenities proposed shall have a beneficial effect for the City, in terms of public health, safety, welfare, aesthetics, or convenience, or any combination thereof, on present and potential surrounding land uses. …

(b) This beneficial effect for the City shall be one which could not be achieved under any other zoning classification and shall be one which is not required to be provided under any existing standard, regulation or ordinance of any local, state or federal agency.

(c) The use or uses proposed shall not have a detrimental effect on public utilities or surrounding properties.

(d) The use or uses proposed shall be consistent with the master plan and policies adopted by the City or the petitioner shall provide adequate justification for departures from the approved plans and policies.

(e) If the proposed district allows residential uses, the residential density proposed shall be consistent with the residential density recommendation of the master plan, or the underlying zoning when the master plan does not contain a residential density recommendation, unless additional density has been proposed in order to provide affordable housing for lower income households …

(f) The supplemental regulations shall include analysis and justification sufficient to determine what the purported benefit is, how the special benefit will be provided, and performance standards by which the special benefit will be evaluated.

(g) Safe, convenient, uncongested, and well-defined vehicular and pedestrian circulation within and to the district shall be provided and, where feasible, the proposal shall encourage and support the use of alternative methods of transportation.

(h) Disturbance of existing natural features, historical features and historically significant architectural features of the district shall be limited to the minimum necessary to allow a reasonable use of the land and the benefit to the community shall be substantially greater than any negative impacts.

The passages from the city’s central area plan, which Briere read aloud, were these:

[page 21] Finally, the current zoning does not provide guidelines for what is appropriate density in relationship to the area, and it does not reflect density differences between the various neighborhoods.  The ordinance allows more bulk and density than many neighborhoods want or consider appropriate.  Conversely, the City Council and Planning Commission have steadily decreased allowable density since the 1960s, making it difficult for residential infill development to occur, resulting in nonconformities.

[page 41 ] In various locations around Ann Arbor, houses are overshadowed by larger commercial, residential or institutional buildings that are out of scale with existing surrounding development. In addition to being aesthetically displeasing, out-of-scale construction alters the quality of living conditions in adjacent structures by blocking air and light and by covering open green space with excessive building mass.

Outcome: The Moravian was given approval on first reading. Final approval would need to be given at a second reading.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, March 15, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Jim Mogensen, speaking about the University of Michigan shouldering a half-million-dollar cost for the Central Campus Transit Center that the city would ordinarily have paid: "Look, it's not free." (Photos by the writer.)

The approval of a contract extension for the city’s public art administrator generated a great deal of discussion – partly concerning the dollar amount of the contract – and was passed despite dissent from three councilmembers.

But the council postponed a resolution that would have cut the base salaries of the city administrator and the city attorney by 3%, and would have directed the administrator to cut the salaries of non-union employees by 3% as well.

Another prominent theme of the meeting was real estate and infrastructure. Council approved the acquisition of a property within the city limits – a portion of the Black Elk’s site on Sunset Road – using greenbelt millage funds. They also approved the capital improvements plan (CIP), modified to delete an item for the extension and shifting of a runway at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

The council also appointed members of a citizens committee on Georgetown Mall, the former location of a Kroger grocery store, to provide input to the city’s nuisance committee.

City administrator Roger Fraser reported in his communications to the council that the University of Michigan would be shouldering a $450,000 cost associated with the construction of a transit center on the central campus – a cost that would ordinarily be carried by the city.

The real estate and infrastructure theme included UM in another way: The council approved a lease agreement with the university for 18 parking spaces next to Riverside Park, but not without some complaint from councilmembers about the dollar amount on the lease, which they felt was too low.

Those parking spaces also provided a connection to the budget theme unrelated to the dollar amount on the lease – the spaces were originally used by a Motor Meals program in the mid ’80s, operating out of Kellogg Eye Center. A representative of the program, know called Meals on Wheels, spoke at the public hearing on housing and human services needs.

Motoring with meals would presumably still be allowed even after final approval of a city-wide ban on cell phone use while driving. The council gave initial approval to that ban on Monday night. In order to take effect, the ban would need approval at its second reading before the council. The ban also prohibits cell phone use while bicycling.

Also on Monday, the council voted to discontinue the city’s bicycle registration program. The council had tabled a proposed revision to registration procedures at its previous regular meeting.

Budget

Several items on the agenda related directly to the overall budget climate.

Budget: The Directive

Before the council was a budget directive, in the form of a resolution, that would have cut salaries for the city administrator and city attorney by 3% and would have directed the city administrator to cut salaries of non-union workers by 3% as well. The pay cuts in the resolution would be effective starting July 1, 2010. It would also have eliminated the $560 travel budgets for each councilmember and the $1,000 travel budget for the mayor.

The measure was added to the agenda on Friday, after the Wednesday publication of the agenda on the city’s website.

Among the “whereas” clauses:

Whereas, The following members of city council have taken a leadership role in returning 3% of their base pay to the City of Ann Arbor:

John Hieftje, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Rapundalo,
Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins and Carston [sic] Hohnke;

Not on the list is Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – though she told The Chronicle that she gave Fraser a check on the night that some others had also announced their commitment to return 3% of their council salaries to the city.

The parallel between a 3% voluntary council pay cut in 2010 is not perfectly parallel to a 3% pay cut for the two officials whose salaries the council has the power to set – the city administrator and the city attorney. Since 2007, the council has awarded one-time lump sum “bonus” payments to the two, leaving their base salary unchanged. But in December 2007, the city council voted to accept a recommendation from the local officers compensation commission to increase their own base salaries 3% each year in 2008 and 2009.

In terms of base salary, then, councilmembers would need to make a 9% sacrifice in order to make their own situation parallel to the city administrator and the city attorney.

While the city council’s authority to set those two employees’ salaries derives from the city charter, the “resolved” clause committing all councilmembers to give back 3% of their salaries to the city does not seem to have any legally binding basis:

Resolved, That all City Councilmembers commit to returning 3% of their base pay to the City of Ann Arbor;

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who sponsored the resolution with Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), opened deliberations by saying he’d be moving for a postponement. The intent of the resolution, he said, was to give clear direction to the city administrator regarding the budget. Briere seconded the motion to postpone.

When the resolution comes back for consideration, it could be more than a 3% that is put forward for discussion. A recent memo from CFO Tom Crawford to councilmembers, responding to questions from them, puts the savings to the general fund from a 5% reduction in the top three management tier salaries at $78,000. With a 10% reduction, the savings would be $157,000.

Outcome: The resolution giving the city administrator direction on the 3% pay cuts was postponed.

Budget: Housing and Human Services Needs Public Hearing

Representatives from several nonprofit agencies addressed the council, stressing the importance of funding for the missions of their agencies. Carolyn Grawi, of the Center for Independent Living, reminded the council that one-fifth of Ann Arborites have some form of disability – 20,000 people.

Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living

Danielle Mack spoke as a board member on behalf of Michigan Itinerant Shelter System-Interdependent Out of Necessity (MISSION) and a volunteer at Camp Take Notice. Ruth Blackburn spoke on behalf of Food Gatherers, pointing out that 88% of the food distributed by 150 agencies comes from Food Gatherers.

Beth Adams represented Meals on Wheels, which delivers meals to the homebound from Monday-Saturday. She said the UM Health System provided the majority of funding, but that it was contingent on matching dollars. Ellen Schulmeister spoke on behalf of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, asking the council to make replacement of the housing units lost at the old YMCA building a priority.

Carolyn Hastings, of the Housing Bureau for Seniors, told the council that the housing bureau would be merging with the Meals on Wheels program. Kimberli Cumming spoke on behalf of the Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan – their wait list in January of this year of 67 people was the highest it had ever been, she said.

Michael Appel of Avalon Housing said they owned and managed 324 units of affordable housing in Washtenaw County, 282 of them in Ann Arbor. When they opened their wait list in 2009, he reported, Avalon received 505 applications in two weeks for 30 available units. He emphasized the importance of leveraging matching funds.

Citizens at large also addressed the council during the public hearing.

Jim Mogensen noted that around this time of year, when allocations to human services are made, he typically makes the point with his “red-ribbon” presentation that it’s only 1.7% of the city’s general fund. He noted that while sometimes human services are criticized for spending money on administration instead of services, there are only 12 people who work in the city/county office of community development – he observed that there were 12 people sitting around the table in front of him. Human services, Mogensen stressed, had been outsourced to nonprofit agencies. With regard to the frequent suggestion that various nonprofits consolidate and merge, he adduced the metaphor of an all-in-one business machine that faxes, emails, phones, prints, and copies. When they work, they’re great, he said, but when they don’t, you can’t do anything.

Thomas Partridge shared with the council the fact that he was elected president of his high school class in the same year that John F. Kennedy was elected president. He said that he supported what all the other speakers had said, but he would go further – by asking for a “bill of rights” for affordable and accessible housing, health care, transportation, and education.

Budget: Contract for Public Art Administrator

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had asked that an agenda item – extending the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator, Katherine Talcott – be pulled out of the consent agenda for separate consideration. The extension runs from Feb. 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010, and amounts to $21,800, of which $19,800 is for fees and $2,000 for travel expenses.

Smith asked Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, if Talcott was handling more than just the one public piece of art to be installed as part of the new municipal building, or if rather it was “all about Dreiseitl.” Herbert Dreiseitl is the German artist who was commissioned to design the piece for the municipal building.

McCormick explained that it was not just the one main Dreitseitl sculpture that Talcott was handling – there were two other pieces that Dreiseitl had designed for the inside of the new building that still might be installed. There was also an additional $250,000 allocated for public art as a part of the building. In addition, there would be a public art component for the Fuller Road Station, McCormick said, as well as a project in West Park, for which an RFP recently was issued.

McCormick confirmed for Smith that Talcott was a 1099 independent contractor, referring to her tax status. Asked by Smith to elaborate on the travel expenses, McCormick said it was intended to go towards a once-a-year professional gathering, but would need to be approved by McCormick. The travel money would not be automatically awarded, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that in light of another item on the agenda, which directed the city administrator to cut non-union salaries by 3%, he wanted the public to be aware that the art fund is being used to pay for labor [Talcott's] and that it draws on funds that pay for other labor – for example, solid waste, the parks acquisition and maintenance millage, and the street repair millage. Kunselman noted that he voted against the award of a contract at the council’s Dec. 21 meeting. “The art program is not so benign that it doesn’t have an effect on other funds,” Kunselman warned.

Kunselman concluded by telling mayor John Hieftje that he wanted a roll call vote on the item. [Some agenda items require a roll call vote, e.g., items changing the city budget or a vote to go into closed session. But for any item, any councilmember can insist that a roll call vote be taken.]

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she supported the contract. She said that was simply what it took to bring a significant piece of art to the city. Installing a piece of art like that into a building required the expertise of someone who’s done it before, she contended. Teall confirmed with McCormick that the authorization of the travel budget did not mean that the money would necessarily be used.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) conceded a certain level of ignorance about the contract, but noted that Talcott – at an average of 32 hours per week – was expected to work more than half time. Briere said that seemed excessive because there were not that many opportunities for installation of art projects. Why, she asked, was 32 hours per week needed? McCormick replied by saying that some weeks Talcott would work more and some weeks less. In response from a follow-up question from Kunselman, McCormick said that the six-month-at-a-time contract approach – as opposed to a three-year contract, say – was part of a “feel-it-as-we-go-along approach.”

Kunselman also inquired of the city attorney about a directive that the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission (AAPAC) had received from staff that no art program money could be spent on website design. From Chronicle coverage of the art commission’s Jan. 12 meeting:

The issue of city rules came up again during a report from the public relations committee, which had been working on AAPAC’s website. The committee – Cathy Gendron and Marsha Chamberlin – had been hoping to redesign the AAPAC website, which is separate from its page on the city’s website. However, city officials have told them that no Percent for Art funds can be used on website design, so they’re focusing their energy on how to revamp the city web page. “It won’t be elegant – or anything like we envisioned,” Gendron said.

City attorney Stephen Postema told Kunselman that he was not aware of the directive.

Outcome: The contract for the part-time public art administrator was approved, with dissent from Briere, Kunselman and Higgins.

Real Estate and Infrastructure

A raft of different items were tied together by the theme of real estate and infrastructure.

Infrastructure: Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)

After a long discussion at the council’s previous meeting on Feb. 1 concerning the capital improvements plan – which resulted in the plan’s second postponement – the council approved the plan Tuesday with no discussion. At the Feb. 1 meeting, the council had approved an amendment that deleted a runway extension project at Ann Arbor’s municipal airport from the plan.

Outcome: The CIP was adopted – and thus did not include the runway project.

Greenbelt Acquisition: Black Elk’s Property

At their Feb. 1 meeting, councilmembers had voted to postpone the authorization of the use of greenbelt millage funds to acquire part of a parcel belonging to the Black Elks. [The parcel can be looked up on the county's GIS system under parcel number: 09-09-20-404-004.]

Black Elks property north of Sunset Road, from the county's GIS system. It is only the western portion of the parcel that is being acquired by the city. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

The postponement had come amid concerns that the appraisal had not been done recently enough. On Tuesday, there was no council discussion at the table.

Outcome: The authorization was approved, with dissent from Stephen Rapundalo. [Marcia Higgins, who had raised the concerns about the appraisal at the previous meeting, had left the meeting by this point.]

Real Estate: Riverside Park Parking Spaces

Before the council was a lease agreement with the University of Michigan for 18 parking spaces next to Riverside Park, totaling $10,998. The rent for each of the 18 parking spaces is equivalent to the rate the university charges for its “Blue” employee parking permits ($611/space), which are located in the vicinity of Riverside Park and the Kellogg Eye Center.

Riverside Park parking spaces. (Images links to higher resolution file)

By way of background, in FY 2009 UM paid the city of Ann Arbor a total of $29,890 in property rental. Of the nearly $9 million total received by the city in payments for services from UM, the largest part is due to basic services – $3.9 million and $3.4 million for water and sewer, respectively.

The 18 parking spaces next to Riverside Park had been on council’s agenda back in July 2009 – for a total lease amount of $2,232 – but was deleted. [Compare the July 2009 lease to the version approved on Tuesday: July 2009; Feb. 2010]

Opening remarks on the resolution by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) put that nearly five-fold increase in perspective, however. She stated that UM charges a low amount for parking – only $50 per month for a blue sticker. She said that 18 spaces would not make or break anything, but she wanted it to be a piece of the dialogue when the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s parking report was presented to the city council in April.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked why the city was not getting the equivalent of a service vehicle parking space – the amount the university charged its own departments was $749 for service vehicles, not $611. He moved an amendment to change the amount to $749, but withdrew it after city administrator Roger Fraser weighed in. Fraser said the city had negotiated the agreement in good faith – going back to UM at this point would make it difficult to maintain that good faith. Fraser asked that the council approve the resolution “with encouragement to do better next time.”

The parking spaces have a history related to the Meals on Wheels program. From the memo accompanying the resolution:

The University of Michigan received approval from the City in 1985 to construct a short-term parking lot at this location for a Motor Meals program operating out of the Kellogg Eye Center. In exchange, the University provided funds to the City for improvements to Riverside Park to help solve riverbank erosion problems.

Real Estate/Infrastructure: Central Campus Transit Center

In his communications to council, city administrator Roger Fraser said that in connection to the UM Central Campus Transit Center, around $450,000 in costs that would ordinarily be carried by the city, would instead be paid by UM, with no expectation that it would be repaid. The item is part of the city’s capital improvements plan, which the council approved the same night. In the CIP it’s described as “desirable,” with $1.9 million in non-city funding required.

The Dec. 8, 2009 meeting meeting minutes of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s planning and development committee describes progress on the transit center this way:

Chris White reported that design of the Central Campus Transit Center is nearly complete and construction is scheduled to begin in May. The University of Michigan is preparing a joint use agreement between the University and AATA which was expected to be received any day.

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Jim Mogensen addressed the topic of the new Central Campus Transit Center. He noted that the UM Regents would be meeting on Thursday, but because of changes to the bus schedule, it would be hard for him to attend. Referring to Fraser’s announcement that UM would be paying a $450,000 cost that the city ordinarily would be paying, Mogensen said, “Look, it’s not free. The UM invests.” Mogensen warned that some of the urban service would likely be re-allocated to serve the transit center, noting that his usual bus stops at the Michigan League, but not the Blake Transit Center.

Referring to budget materials the council had been provided, Mogensen noted that UM seemed to expect the city to be happy that they actually paid for their water and sewer services. He advised the council that UM was not completely omnipotent – they’d forgotten to install an autoclave on one occasion and had been fined by the Department of Environmental Quality.

Real Estate: Georgetown Mall Committee

The council appointed members of a citizens committee on Georgetown Mall, formerly anchored by a Kroger grocery store, to provide input to the city’s nuisance committee. The mall has been vacant since the fall of 2009 and neighbors are concerned about the potential negative impact on the area.

Georgetown Mall, looking west from Packard Street.

Members of the committee are: David Porter (King George area), Frank Schwende (Page Avenue), Mary Krasan (King George), Jeanne Horvath (Georgetown Condo Association), Catherine McClary (Washtenaw County Treasurer).

The Georgetown Mall area had been a campaign issue in the Ward 4 November 2009 elections – it was the topic of a question at a candidate forum in which Hatim Elhady and Marcia Higgins participated.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wondered if the six-month time period for the committee’s work was enough. Margie Teall (Ward 4), who’d helped bring the resolution forward, said she thought the time could be extended if necessary. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was concerned that the property did not become “the next Michigan Inn” – a reference to an abandoned property on Jackson Road, which only recently was demolished, with plans for redevelopment.

Outcome: The Georgetown Mall committee was appointed with unanimous support of the council.

Infrastructure: Stadium Bridges

During his communications, city administrator Roger Fraser expressed his hope that the following day, the U.S. Department of Transportation would announce an approval of Ann Arbor’s TIGER grant application for $21 million to replace the East Stadium bridges. Depending on the outcome, Fraser said, “we’ll either fall flat on our faces, or stand up and run around the block a few times.” [The following day, it was announced that Ann Arbor did not receive TIGER grant funding for the bridge project. TIGER is an acronym that stands for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery.]

During public commentary reserved time, Arnold Goetze addressed the East Stadium bridges problem. He suggested that the city could save $10 million out of the road fund by building an at-grade crossing at the State Street and Stadium Boulevard intersection, instead of rebuilding the bridges.

Goetze expressed skepticism that the city would be awarded a TIGER grant for the bridge replacement, noting that nationwide there had been $50 billion worth of applications for just $1.5 billion in available funding. He’d sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation about Ann Arbor’s TIGER application, he said, and didn’t think that Ann Arbor would be “getting that TIGER by the tail.”

Responding to skepticism that the Ann Arbor Railroad would allow an at-grade crossing, he suggested that eminent domain could be used to force the issue. He pointed out that even though the savings would not accrue to the general fund, but rather to the city’s road fund, that was still taxpayer money, which if saved, could be returned to them.

In response to Goetze’s comments, Margie Teall (Ward 4) called Sue McCormick, public services area administrator, to the podium for rebuttal. She said the city had actually made quite a bit of effort at communications with the railroad and that they’d put in writing that they would not allow an at-grade crossing at that intersection. She said the city did not believe that eminent domain was a legal possibility in this case. She cited timing and signalization issues as another main obstacle to an at-grade crossing, concluding with “it’s not an option that’s available to us.”

Real Estate: Library Lot Development

Two people spoke on the Library Lot RFP process during public commentary time: Alan Haber, who used reserved time at the start of the meeting, and John Floyd, who spoke during open time at the conclusion of the meeting.

Alan Haber: Haber said he was persevering on the question of the Library Lot development. [Haber helped put together a proposal, the Community Commons, in response to the city's issuance of a request-for-proposals on the lot.] The Ann Arbor Democratic Party had passed a resolution, he said, addressing concerns about the process for determining the future of the lot, which had not been transparent or responsive to the citizens. He alerted the council to a League of Women Voters event on Feb. 24 to be held at the Ann Arbor City Club from 7-9 p.m. On Saturday, Feb. 20, Haber reported, there would be a meeting at 4 p.m. at Hathaway’s Hideaway, where the possible merging of the two open space proposals for the Library Lot would be discussed.

John Floyd: Floyd thanked the council for their decision on the capital improvements plan, and said that he appreciated the concerns for process that Tony Derezinski and Stephen Rapundalo had expressed during deliberations on the CIP at the council’s Feb. 1 meeting. Referring then to the city’s RFP process currently underway for the development of the Library Lot, Floyd asked Rapundalo about meetings between members of one of the proposers – Valiant – and city officials a year before the RFP was issued. Floyd wanted to know what effect those meetings had on the integrity of the process. [The last scheduled meeting of the RFP committee, on Tuesday, Feb. 16, was canceled.]

During his communications, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reminded everyone that the Library Lot does not belong to the library. Alluding to the two remaining development proposals under consideration by the RFP review committee – both hotel/conference centers – Anglin said that hotel occupancy in the area is around 45-50% and that increasing hotel capacity would amount to moving money around. It would be damaging one business, Anglin said, to help another.

Use of Cell Phones While Driving, Cycling

The council considered two bicycle-related issues: (i) a ban on driving/cycling while using a cell phone and (ii) a discontinuation of the city’s bicycle registration program.

Cell Phones

The council considered and approved on first reading an ordinance that would ban cell phone use while driving and bicycling in the city. To take effect, the ordinance would need to be approved at its second reading, which will likely take place at the council’s March 1 meeting, along with a required public hearing.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) who had worked to bring the measure before the council with his Ward 2 colleague, Tony Derezinski, stated that it “truly is a public safety issue.” He noted that seven states have a ban, as well as several localities, including Detroit. Seventeen states, Rapundalo continued, have bans against bus drivers using cell phones, and 21 states have bans against cell phone use by novice drivers. Rapundalo reported that there were over 50 peer-reviewed scientific studies showing that there were a wide range of risks associated with cell phone use while driving.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had some concerns about the wording of the ordinance that addressed the use of GIS devices. Rapundalo assured her that it had been modeled on language from other communities. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) expressed some concern about the inclusion of bicycling in the ban, raising the possibility that kids on bikes would be cited under the new ordinance. Rapundalo indicated that he thought police officers would exercise reasonable judgment.

By way of background, hand-held cell phone use while bicycling is already against the law, so officers are already exercising their judgment on this. From The Chronicle’s report of the Jan. 4, 2010 city council meeting:

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: The ban on cell phone use while driving and cycling was passed on first reading. Passage at second reading is required before enactment.

Bicycle Registration: Repealed

At the council’s previous meeting, a resolution that would have revised the city’s bicycle registration program was tabled amid concerns about the program’s value:

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) reported that some additional data called the actual value of the registration program into some question, and he convinced his colleagues to table the measure. The additional information was this: From September of 2007 to the present, 39 stolen bikes had been recovered and returned to their owners – but in none of those cases had the bicycle registration program been instrumental. The return of those bicycles had been the result, Hohnke reported, of regular police work.

On Tuesday, the council considered and passed on first reading a repeal of the city’s bicycle registration program. In scant discussion of the item, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he had some bicycles in his “bone pile” he’d like to check registration numbers on before all the records were destroyed.

Outcome: The resolution that repealed the city’s bicycle registration system passed unanimously. To take effect, the resolution will need to be approved on second reading as well, after a public hearing.

Other Council Business

Google Fiber

In his communications to the council, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) announced that in response to an initiative by Google to conduct experimental “fiber-to-the-home” projects in various communities, there had been a lot of excitement and that “we are not immune to that excitement.” He indicated that Ann Arbor SPARK, the University of Michigan and councilmembers were putting together a response to Google’s request for information (RFI). [It's possible that Taylor's reference was to a meeting described on Twitter involving former UM president Jim Duderstadt.]

From Google’s corporate blog:

We’re planning to build and test ultra high-speed broadband networks in a small number of trial locations across the United States. We’ll deliver Internet speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today with 1 gigabit per second, fiber-to-the-home connections. We plan to offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people.

Liquor License for Packard Pub

The council considered the award of a liquor license to BW&R Go Blue LLC, which does business at 640 Packard Street as Packard Pub. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), chair of the city’s liquor committee, reported that the petitioner had addressed the concerns the committee had raised.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated that he did not believe the neighborhood would benefit from a proliferation of licenses and that he would be voting against it.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who also serves on the liquor committee, described the move as “pro-business,” with Packard Pub employing 30 people. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he appreciated the concerns expressed by Taylor, and had shared them previously with respect to other establishments, but that problems had not materialized. He said he was excited that a restaurant was going into the space, and that he remembered the old South Side Grill that used to be in that spot.

Outcome: The liquor license for Packard Pub was approved, with dissent from Taylor.

Taxicabs

Speaking during the public hearing on the revision to the taxicab ordinance, Thomas Partridge called for an amendment to ensure greater accessibility of services to seniors and handicapped people. He called for a “bill of rights” for transportation riders.

The revision to the taxicab ordinance would require that large companies – operating more than 10 cabs – be full-service. Here, “full service” means that service needs to be provided 24 hours round-the-clock, that a lost-and-found be available, and that it be possible to file a complaint with someone other than the driver during regular business hours from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the revision to the taxicab ordinance.

In a related item, Margie Teall (Ward 4) made a plea for new members to the taxicab board – two or three are needed, she said. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was assigned to be the city council’s current representative, but is unable to attend its meetings, which are scheduled during the workday. [Kunselman's day job is energy management liaison at UM.] But in order to change the meeting time, the board needs to meet and must achieve a quorum to make the decision to change the meeting time.

Sandwich Board Signs

The council considered an ordinance that would have regulated, through a permitting system, the placement of sandwich board signs. The idea was to provide a legal framework for the signs, which many businesses already use.

Speaking during the public hearing, Kathy Griswold raised concerns about possible interference of such signs with sight distances. If the system were to be complaint-driven, she warned, there could be delays in getting signs removed that obscured sight lines.

Also during the public hearing, Susan Pollay, executive director of the Downtown Development Authority, read a brief statement on behalf of the DDA, saying that sandwich board signs are part of what makes for a vibrant downtown experience. She suggested that the system be adopted without permits and then reviewed after one year to determine if there was adequate compliance.

Carolyn Grawi of the Center for Independent Living pointed out that sandwich board signs can pose a problem for people with disabilities – for the blind, the signs are in unexpected places, and for those who use wheelchairs, the signs can pose access issues. Grawi cautioned that vibrancy did not necessarily mean cluttering.

Opening council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who sponsored the resolution, told her colleagues that it had been a long time getting before the council, but that she felt it was still not ready for public review. The effort had started with good intentions, she said, but did not end there. She told her colleagues that she would like the measure to be defeated so that the question of signs in general could be examined, not just sandwich board signs.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) agreed with Briere, and cited as most prominent among his concerns the potential problem posed to people with disabilities in navigating the signs. He recommended that the full body of the city’s disability commission be engaged as the matter was considered in the future. He also wondered how much opportunity business owners had had for input. Rapundalo’s conclusion: “Not ready for prime time.”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) concurred in objecting to the ordinance, saying there were too many opportunities for unintended consequences. He asked about signage not related to a business – it raised free speech issues, he cautioned.

What would the effect of defeating the measure be on those who were already using such signs? The city attorney’s office is recommending that the ordinance – which does not allow use of such signs – be enforced. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) expressed her concern that business owners be made aware that there would be enforcement efforts starting.

Outcome: The sandwich board sign ordinance was unanimously defeated.

Special Parking Rate: Payment on Entry

The council heard a brief presentation from Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and deputy chief of Ann Arbor’s police department, John Seto, on a proposed new pre-paid parking rate for special events and busy evenings. Pollay explained that the special rate – which would allow a motorist to pay $5 on entrance to a structure/lot – would reduce delays on exiting.

Susan Pollay and John Seto, speaking about a proposed pre-paid parking rate. The special rate would be used only during special events, anticipating that at large number of people would likely try to leave at the same time.

The pay-on-entry system could also be implemented after 9 p.m. as needed. Pollay described how sometimes patrons trying to exit the Maynard Street structure might be lined up to the third story of the structure trying to exit – not a pleasant way to conclude what was likely an otherwise pleasant evening.

Seto was on hand to attest to the idea that congestion and frustration at not being able to leave smoothly had a potentially negative effect on public safety. On some occasions, Seto said, the gate arms at the Fourth and William structure had simply been lifted in the interest of more rapidly dissipating crowds leaving at 2 a.m. at the conclusion of Studio 4′s night. Pollay described how the system would be implemented: Signage would be posted explaining the $5 entry fee, with information about available nearby alternatives. After 9 p.m., the gate arm would go up automatically on exit.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wanted to know what the actual mechanics of the after-9 p.m. implementation would be like: If someone arrives at 8:30 p.m., they take a ticket as usual, so what happens at 11 p.m. when the driver exits? Pollay’s answer: The gate arm would just go up. The typical motorist entering after 9 p.m., Pollay said, pays about $4.75 – it is not conceived as a revenue generator, but rather as a customer service.

Planning and Development Staff

Roger Fraser introduced Ralph Welton as the city’s new chief development official, and Lisha Turner-Tolbert as project & programs manager.

Wendy Rampson and Roger Fraser.

Wendy Rampson will be taking over as planning manager. The reorganization of planning and development eliminates one full-time management position – the job formerly held by Mark Lloyd. Rampson’s previous responsibilities in systems planning – the service unit headed by Craig Hupy – will be filled by Connie Pulcipher, who previously worked in planning and development.

Other Public Commentary

Aaron Miller: Miller introduced himself as a senior at the University of Michigan and the liaison between the Michigan Student Assembly and the city council. He reported that he’d met with the city’s public services area administrator, Sue McCormick, as well as Nancy Stone, the public services area communications liaison. He said they’d explored the possibility of having students serve on various committees. He said he was looking forward to a meeting with city administrator Roger Fraser. Miller said that many students were interested in seeing Ann Arbor continue to grow and prosper.

Kathy Griswold: Griswold said she was making a formal request that a meeting be held on the King’s School crosswalk issue – the situation involves a mid-block crossing that could be moved to a four-way stop, if a short section of sidewalk were installed. [Griswold has requested such a meeting at multiple council meetings and caucuses over several months.] She stated: “Everyone involved looks a little stupid.”

Tom Partridge: Partridge delivered an “open message” to President Obama, the U.S. Congress, the Michigan delegation, and all elected officials, to come home to Michigan and stand up for the Midwest, and for the most vulnerable among us – seniors and disabled people. He reminded people that John F. Kennedy had visited the University of Michigan and had been followed by Lyndon Johnson. He called for a commitment to a new Great Society – one that would support affordable housing, transportation, health care, and education.

Sacha Platt: Platt brought complaints about policies and practices at Avalon Housing units and what he contended was the refusal of Avalon staff to document problems. He described his experience in dealing with staff as “If you’re not happy with our organization, you can move.”

Lily Au: Au spoke in support of building affordable housing. She criticized the failure of the city to provide replacement housing for the 100 units that previously existed in the old YMCA building at Fifth and William. She indicated that the residents of Camp Take Notice – a homeless tent camp – had recently been visited by Michigan State Police with the possibility that they would need to move their location again.

Likely in response to Au’s remarks, Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, was asked to the podium to give the council an update on the efforts that had been undertaken this season to provide additional shelter for the homeless. Shulmeister said that 25 “permanent resident beds” had been added to the warming center at the Delonis Center, bringing the total to 75 beds, and that 25 beds had been added to the rotating shelter sponsored by local faith communities for a total of 50 beds. She said that on average about 35 people used the rotating shelter.

Blaine Coleman: Coleman began by saying that everyone knows why he carries a sign that says “Boycott Israel” – Israel had recently massacred 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza. He was there, he said, to ask the city council to pass a resolution boycotting all Israeli products. He stated that he knew the council would eventually do this. He asked councilmembers how they felt about having appointed Neal Elyakin to the city’s human rights commission, when Elyakin was a member of the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces. He queried Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Sandi Smith (Ward 1), and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) individually. [Councilmembers do not typically engage in back and forth with speakers during public commentary.] Coleman then suggested that perhaps members of the media present might have better luck at getting answers from councilmembers.

Mozhgan Savabiesfahani: She began by thanking mayor John Hieftje for correctly pronouncing her name. She noted that there’d been no response yet to her and others’ requests that the council pass a resolution to boycott Israel. She wondered what it would take to get council’s attention. She declared that she would try singing a song. She described the content of the lyrics as including the pride of the Palestinians, how they miss their vegetable gardens and how they carry their lives in their hands every day. After concluding the performance of the song, she declared that she knew that the city would boycott Israel. She wondered what else she could do to get the council’s attention – next time she might dance.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, March 1, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]