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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the Ward 3 candidate forum below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Members of one of the Pioneer High School marching band drum lines practiced on the evening before Election Day. Already in place was the yellow sign indicating that no campaigning is allowed beyond that point. Pioneer High serves at the polling location for Precincts 4 & 8 in Ward 4. (Photo illustration by The Chronicle.)

This year voters in the primary will be confronted with a single issue – a city council race. Ann Arbor city council seats have contested Democratic primaries in just two of the five wards. No Republican candidates are on the ballot.

Voters in Ward 3 will choose between incumbent Stephen Kunselman and Julie Grand. In Ward 4, the choice is between incumbent Marcia Higgins and Jack Eaton.

For all of you procrastinators who are still researching the candidates, here’s a link to Chronicle coverage of the Democratic primary races for Ann Arbor city council this year.

Not sure where to vote? To find your polling place and view a sample ballot for your precinct, visit the Secretary of State’s website.

Check back here throughout the day for briefs filed from the field, or add a comment with your own Election Day observations. 

7:15 a.m. Ward 3, Precinct 8 (Pittsfield School, 2543 Pittsfield Blvd.) As I roll up, poll worker Joseph Bones opens the door to the elementary school. In a loud, booming voice, he declares the polls open for all the world to hear. One person was there that early to vote. Two more arrive shortly after that. Among the reading material brought by poll workers: “Evil” by David Baldacci.

7:20 a.m. Ward 3, Precincts 1 & 2 (Michigan League, 911 N. University) Outside, there are 16 campaign signs for Julie Grand posted around the perimeter of the Michigan League – but so far, none for Stephen Kunselman. Poll workers expect an extremely slow day. They’re taking bets on the number of voters who might show up, with estimates ranging from 34 to 75.

This is a polling station for a combined precinct, and one of those precincts, 3-1, is primarily University of Michigan student housing, including the East Quad dorm. Poll workers recall that they were busy in November of 2012. “That was fun,” one of them says. One of the poll workers brought chocolate cookies to share. Another one brought carrot cake. They are well stocked for the long day.

7:49 a.m. Ward 4, Precinct 1 (Michigan Union, 530 S. State St.) The small polling room on the union’s first floor is stuffy – both the heat and the AC are on, poll workers report. One person has voted here so far. Because this is also a heavy student precinct – including the South Quad dorm – workers don’t expect more than a trickle of voters. They’ve brought reading material.

8:08 a.m. Ward 3, Precincts 6 & 9 (Scarlett Middle School, 3300 Lorraine St.) Approaching the Turnberry neighborhood through a cross-lot path, there’s a small sign in a front lawn: “US War Dead: 6,745.” The polls are set up in the gym. The two doors are propped open to the outside, but the air inside remains heavy with the smell of old gym wood floor varnish. A banner indicates that Scarlett athletes compete as the Roadrunners. Other middle schools: Cougars (Clague), Trojans (Tappan), Vikings (Forsythe), Golden Bears (Slauson), and Pandas (Ann Arbor Open). No Wile E. Coyotes in the mix. About a dozen people have voted so far. As she’s leaving, one tells the poll workers: “Thanks for doing this, you guys!”

8:27 a.m. Ward 4, Precinct 3 (UM Coliseum, Fifth Ave. & Hill St.) Voter No. 2 this morning just walks in – Graydon Krapohl, a member of the city’s park advisory commission. We chat after he finishes voting, and he reports that he’ll be putting out campaign signs here for incumbent Marcia Higgins. Signs for Jack Eaton are already posted in the appropriate spots. A few more voters show up, and most seem familiar to the poll workers. One worker is sewing red cloth baskets – she has three on the table. Others are doing more traditional time-killing activities: Reading and chatting. Voter No. 8 has now arrived.

And now voter No. 9 – Ned Staebler. He points out that voters no longer have to sign the statement saying they are a U.S. citizen. “I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on Facebook,” he jokes. Staebler also observes there are no longer any paper poll books – all precincts use electronic poll books now, and he clarifies that candidates can look at those. One of the poll workers asks: “Who are you?” He explains that he previously ran for office here, and has worked on other campaigns. Most recently, in 2010 he ran for state representative in District 53, but lost a very close race in the Democratic primary to Jeff Irwin.

8:35 a.m. Ward 3, Precinct 5 (University Townhouses Center, 3200 Braeburn Circle) The speedbumps leading to the polls are substantial. Poll workers are disappointed that I am not here to vote. Three people have cast their ballots in person so far. There’s not typically a morning rush, they explain, but around lunchtime and evening when people get off work, they expect to see a few more voters. Poll workers sort through the scheduling for their lunch breaks.

9:02 a.m. Ward 4, Precinct 2 (Mary St. Polling Place, 926 Mary St.) Here at the city’s historic polling station – the only building that’s still used for its original purpose – the smell of bleach doesn’t quite mask the underlying scent of bird excrement. Most of the year, this small one-room structure is used by the Bird Center of Washtenaw County. There have been three voters here by 9 a.m., including one of the poll workers. The precinct chair, Richard Holmes, points out the new window air-conditioner that’s been installed. But unlike most August primaries when the weather is hot and humid, the AC is hardly needed today. At nearly every polling station, workers remark on the pleasant weather this year – they caught a break.

9:13 a.m. Ward 3, Precincts 4 & 7 (Allen School, 2560 Towner Blvd.) The road to Allen Elementary is called Easy Street, which competes with Goat Fell for the best street name in the city. The pervious pavers on the east side of Easy Street have sunken a bit, making cycling a bit of a challenge. Poll workers exhibit a bit of precinct pride in reporting that 48 people have voted so far. At one point, four people were in line, and two of the voting booths were occupied at the same time. They’re happy the lighting in the school has been upgraded, making it easier to see than in past years. They offer me a spot to observe, situated between the flag of the state of Michigan and the American flag.

9:32 a.m. Ward 3, Precinct 3 (Tappan Middle School, 2251 E. Stadium Blvd.) When I arrive, 64 people have voted. During the next 15 minutes, another 10 people show up to vote, but never enough to create a wait. On her way out, one voter says, “Well, that was really easy!”

City attorney Stephen Postema walks in and introduces himself to poll workers as a member of the city’s election commission. He arrives at the same time as Ward 3 councilmember Christopher Taylor and two other voters. Outside, two volunteers for Julie Grand – wearing her purple campaign T-shirts – are handing out literature and talking to voters on their way in. These are the first campaign workers I’ve encountered so far at a polling station.

10:08 a.m. Ward 4, Precinct 6 (Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard St.) Large cutouts of fruits and vegetables along Packard indicate the farmers market, which runs from 4-7 p.m. at this location today. At the polls, a ballot jams in the machine. Could be the humidity. In any case, it results in a spoiled ballot. And the tabulator appears to be wrecked. Poll workers decide to have subsequent voters put their ballots in the auxiliary bin in the voting machine on the lower left side of the machine. The second voter who was asked to use this secondary procedure is Liz Margolis, Ann Arbor Public Schools communications director. Her comment to poll workers on placing it in the auxiliary bin: “As long as it counts.”

A few minutes later, the poll workers break out the manual for opening up the tabulator to clear obstructions. “You want to take one and try it again?” It appears that one of the wheels that pulls in the ballots is not grabbing properly. It’s pulling on one side but not the other. A technician is called. He’s now on site. Wire cutters are located. Current count is verified. Power is switched off. Tabulator is removed from top of machine. Replacement is installed. Poll workers engage in verification procedures. Ballots are fed successfully through the new tabulator. Technician leaves with defective tabulator.

City attorney Stephen Postema has arrived. He’s approaching each poll worker, introducing himself and thanking them for their service, working the room as a candidate running for office would. This is his custom, as a member of the city’s election commission, to visit the polls, introduce himself and shake hands with as many people as possible. So it’s not necessarily analyzable as a soft launch to his campaign for 22nd Circuit Court judge in 2014. Still, according to some members of the Washtenaw County legal community, he’s told them that he’s decided to run in 2014 for the judgeship that Donald Shelton will leave open when Shelton is “aged out.” Other possible candidates include Cedric Simpson and Erane Washington.

11:56 a.m. Ward 4, Precinct 5 (Clare Church/Temple Beth Emeth, 2309 Packard) So far 53 people have cast ballots here. The designated public area for this precinct includes a table and a chair, making it the very best precinct in the city from the perspective of a working journalist. Campaign sign count outside is Eaton, 5; Higgins, 3.

This polling location is on an AAATA bus route. Bus #479 [vehicle number] has just pulled into the stop heading southeast on Packard [Route #5]. A family arrives – parents, teenage daughter, and two younger kids. About the older daughter, mother announces: “This is her first time voting!” After voting, she declares: “That’s exciting.” “I voted” stickers are handed out all around.

2:12 p.m. Ward 4, Precincts 4 & 8 (Pioneer High School, 601 W. Stadium Blvd.) Voter No. 123 walks into the Pioneer gym, which is empty except for the four poll workers. “How will you handle this big crowd?” she jokes. One worker reports that turnout is better than expected, and has been steady.

Soon there’s a mini rush of sorts, with about five voters showing up. The gym is a little stuffy – one of the big stationary fans isn’t working, and the school electrician is enlisted to see if it can be fixed.

Also making an appearance is Howard Scheps from the city clerk’s office, with some paperwork for a poll worker to fill out. One of the workers calls out: “Get two pieces of ID from this guy!”

2:37 p.m. Ward 4, Precinct 9 (Lawton School, 2250 S. Seventh St.) To get to the polling room here, you have to navigate a twist of hallways, though there are plenty of “Vote Here” signs to guide the way. Even so, one voter that I encounter has gone into a darkened room by mistake, so I point her in the right direction. Turns out we interrupted someone’s nap.

There have been 150 voters so far, and poll workers cheer when they hear that their number is higher than the Pioneer High polling station. They talk about a relatively easy wrap-up after polls close at 8 p.m., given the relatively low number of voters and the simple ballot – especially compared to November 2012. One woman who took less than a minute to vote says “That’s my kind of ballot!”

3:19 p.m. Ward 4, Precinct 7 (Dicken School, 2135 Runnymede) The polls have been open 8 hours when voter No. 200 walks into the gym at Dicken. Poll workers have been here since 6 a.m., and have five more hours until the polls close – not that they’re counting.

The elderly couple who are voters No. 199 and 200 walk arm in arm. The woman tells poll workers that “I used to work here many years ago.” The man says he’s glad it’s a short ballot. He puts the “I Voted” sticker on his forehead, and paraphrases General MacArthur as he walks out: “I shall return – in November!”

And that wraps up the tour for this year.  The polls close at 8 p.m. The earliest results could be available within a half hour or so after the polls close. We’ll publish initial, unofficial results – based on voting machine tapes generated at the close of polls – in the Civic News Ticker. The Washtenaw County clerk’s website for election results will also have unofficial tallies.

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

A sign directing voters at Angell Elementary School, where two precincts for Ann Arbor's Ward 2 are located. As of 7:05 a.m., five voters had arrived. It's unlikely the one-voter-per-minute pace will continue, but poll workers expect a higher turnout than the 68 people who voted here in the August primary.

If you’re still researching the candidates for the school board or for the city council, check out Chronicle coverage of the candidate forums.

City of Ann Arbor voters will also be presented with three ballot proposals, two of them involving approval of taxes for street and sidewalk repair. Proposal 1 would renew an existing street repair property tax at a rate of 2 mills. [A mill is $1 for every $1,000 of a property's taxable value.] Assuming Proposal 1 is approved, Proposal 2 would levy an additional 0.125 mills – for sidewalk repair. If Proposal 2 is approved by voters, the city would not start a new 5-year inspection cycle. Under that inspection program, property owners are formally notified that sidewalks adjacent to their property need repair and then must undertake those repairs themselves.

Attitudes of city council challengers towards the sidewalk millage are negative. Some current city councilmembers have offered only reluctant support for the sidewalk millage or else have a complete lack of a position on the question. Mayor John Hieftje, who is not up for re-election this year, has clearly stated his lack of a position on the sidewalk millage.

Proposal 3 is less controversial, enjoying solid support among councilmembers and challengers. It would change the makeup of the retirement system’s board of trustees so that fewer beneficiaries of the system are included on the board.

Polls are open today from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. A good place to get partial unofficial results (that are as close to official as you can get) is the Washtenaw County clerk’s office election results website.

To find your polling place, type in an address on the My Property page of the city of Ann Arbor’s website, and click on the Voter tab.

The Chronicle has established somewhat of an Election Day tradition: We tour as many precinct locations as we can through the day and file mini-reports from the polls. So we’re off – check back throughout the day for updates, appended after the jump. Add your own observations from the polls in the comments.

7:35 a.m. Ward 3, Precinct 3 (Tappan Middle School, 2251 E. Stadium Blvd.): So far 12 voters have passed through – including two who were waiting outside when the polls opened at 7 a.m. That’s a brisker pace than the August primary, which averaged about 15 voters per hour, according to the precinct chair. But now, there’s only one voter in the school cafeteria, where the polling place is located. She was allowed to bring in her dog, since there was no one else around to possibly disturb. The dog, Kiley, seemed somewhat disinterested in exercising its democratic rights.

8:07 a.m. Ward 1, Precinct 3 (Community High School, 401 N. Division): Among the other standard signs planted in the lawn is a handwritten campaign sign for Larry Murphy, in child’s handwriting. It invites people to “Vote for my dad.” Claire Dahl, precinct captain, says that voting in person is “good for your soul.” Two people have voted so far. A third arrives. Small talk among poll workers includes weather (“Is it still raining outside?”) and the merits of lining baking pans with parchment paper versus aluminum foil.

8:15 a.m. Ward 3, Precinct 4 & Ward 3 Precinct 7 (Allen School, 2560 Towner Blvd.): Continuing a trend spotted at Tappan, a voter brought his dog along to the polls – Daphne is watching other voters enter the school as her owner reviews a sample ballot before going in to cast his vote. About three dozen voters have showed up during the first hour – one of the more recent voters to pass through is former city councilmember Leigh Greden.

8:37 a.m. Ward 2, Precinct 9 (Thurston School, 2300 Prairie St.): Sign in the elementary school hallway leading to cafeteria, where polls are set up, admonishes that directions given by adults are to be followed the first time they’re given. Voter nearly leaves without receiving “I Voted” sticker. As the 8:45 bell goes off (wonder if that’s recess already?) 50 voters have cast their ballots here. Standard election inspector joke: “You can vote at any booth you like, except one that someone’s already standing in.” Election inspectors experiment with turning off the lights to save energy, but decide that it leaves things too dim for voters to read their ballots.

8:40 a.m. Ward 4, Precinct 5 (St. Clare Church/Temple Beth Emeth 2309 Packard St.): No voters are here – it’s been slow, poll workers say, with 21 voters so far. They expect it will pick up later in the day, when people get off work. One worker points out that this precinct, which includes a stretch of South Industrial, covers a large section that’s not residential. To kill time, one poll worker is knitting a scarf. “It’s boring,” she says, describing the relative challenge of her handiwork. The same description likely applies to the roughly 11 hours left until polls close at 8 p.m., unless turnout improves.

9:19 a.m. Ward 1, Precinct 9 & Ward 2, Precinct 6 (Clague Middle School, 2616 Nixon Rd.): Before leaving Thurston, overheard arriving voter say he’d initially gone to the wrong precinct – Clague Middle School, which is just behind the street where he lives. On Praire Street, between Thurston and Clague, about a dozen signs for Rapundalo, zero for Lumm. Not surprising, given that it’s Rapundalo’s home turf. Woman with dog responds to query about whether it’s registered to vote with a deadpan: “No. But she is very interested in sidewalks.” The woman departed before it was properly parsed as a joke (which it clearly was … sidewalk repair millage …). At this combined precinct location, 122 people have voted so far.

A tow truck driver hooks up an illegally parked car in front of the Mary Street polling place in Ann Arbor. Three spaces are reserved for voters on election day, and three cars parked in those spots had been ticketed after receiving warning notices over the past few days.

9:35 a.m. Ward 4, Precinct 2 (Mary St. Polling Place, 926 Mary St.): Two tow trucks are on site – three cars have been parked in the spaces reserved for voters in front of this polling location. Multiple warning notices over the past few days are evidenced by soggy green, yellow and red flyers stuck under the vehicles’ windshield wipers. One young woman walks up just as the tow truck driver has hooked up her Jeep. She gets her vehicle, but has to pay the ticket and a hook-up charge – still, it’s less than the impoundment fee. There’s far less action inside the polling station, where three people had voted so far out of the 840 registered voters in this precinct. The place smells like bleach. Normally it’s used by the Bird Center of Washtenaw County, and is scrubbed down by the center’s volunteers before election day. This small building is the only remaining city polling place that’s still in use for its original purpose.

10:04 a.m. Ward 2, Precinct 8 (St. Paul’s Lutheran School, 495 Earhart Rd.): Retracing route along Prairie Street southward from Clague, two Lumm signs spotted – how were they missed on the way north? Here at St. Paul’s, Ren Farley invites a voter to “feed the monster” – insert the ballot into the machine. So far, there have been 76 voters.

10:29 a.m. Ward 2, Precinct 7 (King School, 3800 Waldenwood Ln): So far 84 people have voted. Election inspector volunteers that there are 2,260 registered voters in his precinct – she’d looked it up for someone earlier, not that she carries that information around in her head. Signs are being added inside the school building for people who wander in through an entrance that was anticipated to be locked. Child care that’s being offered resulted in that door being unlocked. Poll worker comments on the durability of his phone, which will stand up to being dropped off a roof.

11:04 a.m. Ward 2, Precinct 1 (Northwood Community Center, Family Housing, 1000 McIntyre Dr.): Discussion between pair of young people in the lounge outside the smallish voting room centers on the rules for Twister. Are there teams? How many can play at a time? Will people naturally laugh while playing? Inside the voting room, nobody is playing Twister. So far 37 people have voted.

11:45 a.m. Ward 2, Precinct 5 (Ann Arbor Assembly of God, 2455 Washtenaw Ave.): Minor confusion between mother and son. Responding to him, she insists it doesn’t smell bad in the precinct. He explains that he’d said something about “voting” here, not that it’s “moldy” here. Business is brisk right now. So far 172 people have voted. Woman arrives with three kids and a dog. The canine Coco sits properly and is well behaved. Qualifications for voting are explained to the kids as “you have to be a grownup.” No one takes advantage of that opening to make a joke. Kids all receive stickers. Time it took to vote from start to finish was under five minutes.

1:20 p.m. Ward 1, Precincts 1 & 2 and Ward 4, Precinct 1 (Michigan Union, 530 S. State St.): These two polling stations are by far the best smelling – scent of flavored coffee from Amer’s in the lobby, and warm meat from The University Club. Out of 1,286 registered voters, one person has showed up so far for Ward 4, Precinct 1. Around the corner and down the hall in another room, the combined precincts of Ward 1 have by comparison been super busy – with 13 voters, out of around 4,000 registered. Poll workers note that most students don’t ask to be removed from the registered voter lists after graduating and leaving town.

1:23 p.m. Ward 5, Precinct 1 (Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.): Arriving at the bicycle racks, Newcombe Clark – an Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member and Ward 5 independent council candidate one year ago – is spotted. He and a colleague from MyBuys are the 19th and 20th voters at the library. The 21st voter is inside the polling station, which is on the bottom floor of the building. Adorning the walls are pieces from the Michigan Quilt Artist Invitational Exhibit, which runs from through Nov. 29. One of the quilted pieces of art includes this saying: “Wear pearls with your apron, you’re dressed up enough.” Poll workers are organizing their staggered lunch breaks.

Cherry Westerman outside the UM Coliseum polling station.

1:45 p.m. Ward 5, Precinct 6 (Eberwhite School, 800 Soule Blvd.): A minor glitch in the voting booth – the pen doesn’t work. Solution was easy – to remove the cap. So far 97 people have voted. Poll workers characterize that tally as “slow.” Small talk among the poll workers includes a side-by-side comparison of travel coffee mug technology. Also: thermostat settings. A strategy by one worker of 65 F during the day and 58 F at night is rejected by another as “too cold.” As temperatures outside the school approach the mid 60s, it’s now slightly cooler inside the gym.

2:10 p.m. Ward 4, Precinct 3 (UM Coliseum, Fifth Ave. & Hill St.):  Unlike the August 2010 primary, this polling station is no longer sweltering inside. Poll workers report they’ve had 91 voters, but very few students.

Outside, Cherry Westerman is collecting signatures for a petition drive – the effort is to force a referendum election to repeal Michigan Public Act 4 of 2011, better known as the emergency fund manager act. If successful, it would put the issue on the November 2012 ballot for voters to decide. She’s collected 16 signatures in the 2.5 hours she’s been outside the polling station, which she figures is a fairly high percentage of the voters who’ve passed through. Westerman is a retired teacher – her husband is the first cousin of Scott Westerman, former superintendent for the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

2:50 p.m. Ward 4, Precincts 4 & 8 (Pioneer High School, 601 W. Stadium Blvd.): About 220 people from two Ward 4 precincts have voted in the small gym at Pioneer – a poll worker describes the pace as steady. She still has time for a crossword puzzle, though – she says it’s easier to be interrupted from that than from reading a book. The six doors that serve as entrances to the gym have different words etched in frosted glass above each door. The word over the door that’s open is “team.”

David Zinn sidewalk art.

5:25 p.m. Ward 5, Precinct 2 (Bach School, 600 W. Jefferson St.): It’s dusk. A guy is taking photographs of something on the sidewalk, just outside the entrance to the school. That “something” turns out to be sidewalk chalk art, and the “guy” is David Zinn, whose work has been noted previously in The Chronicle.

He hopes to use the photos for his Christmas card, and was working against the threat of rain. Missed an obvious opportunity to ask him what he thought about the sidewalk millage. Inside, the line is four voters deep – about 230 people had come through so far, out of about 2,600 registered voters.

5:50 p.m. Ward 5, Precinct 4 & Ward 5, Precinct 5 (Slauson Middle School, 1019 W. Washington): The school parking lot is packed, but it turns out there’s another event going on – not all these vehicles are carrying voters. Inside, the polling station with combined precincts has logged over 525 voters today – a precinct chair estimates that’s about 15-20% of registered voters.

However, she cautions that the percentage is difficult to estimate, because a certain number of registered voters no longer live in this area but are still in the books. The day is winding down as it began, with sprinkling of rain.

That’s it from the polls for today, which are open until 8 p.m. If we have any results to share before they’re posted to the Washtenaw County clerk’s office election results website, we’ll make them available on our Civic News Ticker.

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

Republican candidate for Ward 4 city council Eric Scheie, before the League of Women Voters forum on Oct. 5. On Scheie's website, he gives the pronunciation of his name, which is pronounced "Shay." During small talk among LWV members before the start of the meeting, they drew upon a character familiar from American history to help remind themselves of the pronunciation: "It's 'Shay' as in Shay's Rebellion." (Photo by the writer.)

This report focuses on the forum for candidates in Ward 4, where Republican Eric Scheie is challenging Democratic incumbent Marcia Higgins. A replay of the forum is available via Community Television Network’s video on demand service. [Ward 4 CTN coverage]

Higgins did not attend the forum, sending her regrets in a written statement, which was read aloud: “I’m confirming that I will not be in attendance tomorrow evening due to a family commitment on Oct. 5. I appreciate the league’s focus on debating the issues and time spent on bringing debate to the public. Thank you for the invitation to participate.” The LWV indicated that holding the forum without Higgins would be consistent with its “empty chair” policy.

Higgins began her city council career as a Republican, first winning election to the council in 1999. She changed parties to become a Democrat in 2005. Many observers believe it’s not possible to be elected to the council as a Republican in Ann Arbor’s current political climate.

At the LWV forum, Scheie explicitly addressed the issue of party membership, saying that he was running as a Republican precisely because of the lack of opposition politics in Ann Arbor – “Republican” has become a dirty word in Ann Arbor, he said.

The council is an 11-member body, with two representatives from each ward, plus the mayor. All members of the council, including the mayor, serve two-year terms. In a given year, one of the two council seats for each ward is up for election. In even-numbered years, the position of mayor is also up for election.

This year, the general election falls on Nov. 8. Readers who are unsure where to vote can type their address into the My Property page of the city of Ann Arbor’s website to get that information. A map of city ward boundaries is also online.

Scheie responded to LWV questions on the street/sidewalk repair millage, the proposed Fuller Road Station, high-rise buildings, human services and public art.

Opening statement

Scheie had a minute to give an opening statement.

Scheie said he’d lived in Ann Arbor for three years. The reason he’s running is that the biggest problem he thinks the city faces is a lack of opposition. Overwhelmingly, he said, city council measures are unanimously or nearly unanimously approved. He wants to see diversity in government, he said. He described himself as a reluctant candidate.

The reason he’s running as a Republican is that he’s discovered that in Ann Arbor, “Republican” is a dirty word. He said that going door-to-door, he’s had people practically chase him off their porch. One woman looked him in the eye and told him she didn’t think Republicans should be running for office in Ann Arbor. So that’s why he’s running, he said. He also noted that there are a number of issues in Ward 4 that are of particular concern – the East Stadium Boulevard bridges, potholes, sump pumps and Georgetown Mall.

Street Repair Millage

Question: Proposal 1 on the Nov. 8 ballot requests up to 2.0 mills for street and bridge reconstruction. Proposal 2 allows an additional 0.125 mills for sidewalk repair outside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority TIF district. Please explain the mechanics of the two proposals’ interdependent passage. Tell voters in your ward how you plan to vote.

Street Repair Millage: Background

At its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved language for the Nov. 8 ballot that would renew the street and bridge reconstruction millage, at a rate of 2.0 mills. It was last approved by voters in November 2006 for five years beginning in 2007 and ending in 2011. A tax rate of 1 mill is equivalent to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value.

As a separate proposal on the ballot, voters will be asked if they support an additional 0.125 mill to pay for sidewalk repair. Up to now, sidewalk repair has been the responsibility of property owners.

The ballot language for the street repair millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax up to 2 mills for street and bridge reconstruction for 2012 through 2016 to replace the previously authorized tax up to 2 mills for street reconstruction for 2007 through 2011, which will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $9,091,000?

The ballot language for the sidewalk portion of the millage will read:

Shall the Charter be amended to authorize a tax increase of up to 0.125 mills for 2012 through 2016 in addition to the street and bridge resurfacing and reconstruction millage of 2 mills for 2012 through 2016, which 0.125 mills will raise in the first year of levy the estimated additional revenue of $563,000, to provide a total of up to 2.125 mills for sidewalk trip hazard repair in addition to street and bridge reconstruction and resurfacing? This Charter amendment shall not take effect unless the proposed Charter amendment to authorize the levy of a tax in 2012 through 2016 of up to 2 mills for the purpose of providing funds for the reconstruction and resurfacing of streets and bridges (Proposal 1) is approved.

The sidewalk repair portion of the millage would be levied only if the street repair millage were also approved by voters. But the levy of the street repair millage is not dependent on the authorization of the sidewalk repair millage.

If both millage proposals were to be approved by voters, the money would be collected under a single, combined millage – but accounting for reconstruction activity would be done separately for streets and sidewalks.

The separation of the question into two proposals can be explained in part by a summary of responses to the city’s online survey on the topic of slightly increasing the street repair millage to include sidewalk repairs. Sidewalk repairs have up to now been the responsibility of property owners. The survey reflects overwhelming sentiment from the 576 survey respondents (filtered for self-reported city residents) that it should be the city’s responsibility to repair the sidewalks.

The survey reflects some resistance to the idea that an increase in taxes is warranted, however. From the free-responses: “Stop wasting taxpayer money on parking structures, new city buildings, and public art. You are spending money like drunken sailors while we’re in the worst recession since the Great Depression.” Balanced against that are responses like this: “I strongly endorse the idea of the city taking responsibility for maintaining the sidewalks and am certainly willing to pay for it in the form of a millage in the amount cited in this survey.” [.pdf of survey response summary]

An amendment to the resolution approved by the council on Aug. 4 directs the city attorney to prepare a change to the city’s sidewalk ordinance relative to the obligation of property owners to maintain sidewalks adjacent to their property.

Street Repair Millage: Scheie

Scheie said he planned to vote no on both the street and sidewalk repair proposals. The city was not using the funds it had, he said. The city spends money on art – $750,000 for art in front of city hall, which was a project awarded to a German artist. He said he loved art and local artists, but the prioritization should be done differently.

As far as sidewalk repair, his understanding was that the city would do the repairs, and then the citizens paid the city for the repair. [Editor's note: That's one scenario that could unfold under the city's sidewalk repair program that it has run for the last five years. The city first inspects and marks problematic slabs, and notifies property owners. If property owners do not arrange to have the work done themselves, one option is to allow to the city to do the work – the owners would then be billed for it.] Scheie said people had complained to him that they had paid money and the repairs had not been done. He did not think at this point that the city could be trusted with the money it would collect under the millage.

Transportation

Question: The Fuller Road Station will require parkland for the purpose of providing a parking structure, which will be used primarily by the University of Michigan. For this the city will pay 22% of the initial cost. Down the road, how will the parking revenue be split? Who will pay the maintenance? Who will provide safety measures and protection? How do you personally feel about the project? What is the long-term vision for this station and the probable timeline?

Transportation: Fuller Road Background

The introduction of the Fuller Road Station concept to the public can be traced at least as far back as January 2009, when the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, presented a concept drawing at a meeting of neighbors at Northside Grill. At the time, the city was trying to encourage the University of Michigan to reconsider its plans to build parking structures on Wall Street.

The city’s strategy was to get the university to consider building its planned parking structures on the city-owned parking lot, just south of Fuller Road, near the intersection with East Medical Center Drive. It would allow the university to participate in the city’s hoped-for transit station at that location. The university has leased that parking lot from the city since 1993.

The transit station is envisioned as directly serving east-west commuter rail passengers. A day-trip demonstration service that was to launch in October 2010 never materialized. But an announcement earlier this year, that some federal support for high-speed rail track improvements would be forthcoming, has shored up hopes by many people in the community that the east-west rail connection could become a reality. That hope has been further strengthened by the recent acquisition of the track between Dearborn and Kalamazoo from Norfolk Southern by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation.

The council has already approved some expenditures directly related to the Fuller Road Station project. It voted unanimously on Aug. 17, 2009 to approve $213,984 of city funds for an environmental study and site assessment. Of that amount, $104,742 was appropriated from the economic development fund.

On Nov. 5, 2009, on separate votes, the council approved additional money for the environmental study and site assessment and to authorize a memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan.

Controversy on the project includes the status of the land where the proposed Fuller Road Station would be located. It’s designated as parkland, but formally zoned as public land (PL). In the summer of 2010, the possible uses for land zoned as PL were altered by the council, on recommendation from the city planning commission, explicitly to include transportation facilities. Any long-term use agreement with the university is seen by many as tantamount to a sale of parkland. A sale should, per the city charter, be put to a voter referendum.

Recent developments have included an indication from mayor John Hieftje that a work session would be scheduled to update the council. When the city council subsequently added a July 11, 2011 work session to its calendar, it left the expectation that the topic of that session would be Fuller Road Station. However, that session did not include the proposed transit station on its agenda.

A letter from Hieftje sent to constituents in late July 2011 reviewed much of the information that was previously known, but appeared to introduce the possibility that the University of Michigan would provide construction costs for the city’s share of the parking structure up front, with the city’s portion of 22% to be repaid later.

Transportation: Scheie

Scheie said his understanding is that there’s a plan to put the Amtrak station on city parkland. He felt that should be put before voters. He noted that the city said it’s not bound by the city charter in this instance. For that kind of dramatic change in the use of parkland, he said, it should should be put before voters.

It’s also his understanding, said Scheie, that the rail traffic the station is supposed to serve is not yet there. It’s connected up to Detroit, he said, and what they’d be doing is putting in a station and hoping that trains eventually begin to run. That seemed foolish and short-sighted, he said. It’s also undemocratic, he added – people should have a right to vote on it.

High-Rise Buildings

Question: What is the current acceptable standard for building height in the central city? Do you know if the student enrollment has substantially increased or is there simply an appetite for luxury apartment living? Please speak to the occupancy rate in university dormitories, older housing and new units coming on the market. Do you think the numbers are working to fill the buildings?

High-Rise Buildings: Background

By way of background, the D-1 zoning for core downtown allows for buildings as tall as 180 feet. That was enacted as part of the city’s A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) rezoning initiative. A2D2 was given final approval by the city council in November 2009. [See Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Planning Process Forges Ahead." For a timeline of the process, see also "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review?"]

High-Rise Buildings: Scheie

Scheie said he did not think the numbers worked. He’d read there’s a substantial vacancy rate. And in spite of that, new high-rise buildings were being approved – for example, The Varsity Ann Arbor, which would stand 13 stories tall. He thought that was short-sighted. He described Ann Arbor as a small-scaled city of older homes.

Scheie did not think you could tear down older buildings and putting up a high-rise and expect that you can fill up the new building. He did not think that was going to happen – given the existing vacancy rate. Why would you want a high-rise? He wondered why developers would do that. What he’d read, he said, is that developers are in partnership with the city and there are tax advantages.

Human Services

Question: The proposed Washtenaw County budget includes major cuts in human services. The Delonis Center homeless shelter will suffer from this. Is the city prepared and able to make up the shortfall? If not, it would seem to exacerbate the problem of homelessness in the city, particularly downtown.

Human Services: Background

For background on the recently-proposed budget for Washtenaw County, see “Proposed County Budget Brings Cuts.”

The city’s support for human services is allocated in coordination with other entities: the United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County and the Washtenaw Urban County. For background on the coordinated funding approach, back when it was still in the planning stages: “Coordinated Funding for Nonprofits Planned.”

Human Services: Scheie

Scheie said nobody wants a problem with homelessness. Right where he lives, there are homeless people trying to squat, Scheie said. He’s called the police, but they say they’re understaffed. He said he’s very compassionate about that, but at the same time many of the homeless people in Ann Arbor are not from Ann Arbor. He said he would not want to see anyone denied services, particularly if it’s an Ann Arborite. Spending money on people who may come from other parts of the state needs to be looked at – with compassion, but also with an eye towards priorities, he concluded.

Public Art

Question: The city council is reconsidering the previously approved Percent for Art program, which sets aside 1% of each capital improvement project to be used for public art in the city. The process appears to be slow in producing art. Should it be reconsidered? Do you have suggestions for improvement?

Public Art: Background

At the city council’s Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, councilmembers voted to place ballot language before voters for a street repair and sidewalk repair millage. Before the meeting, some councilmembers had indicated they were prepared to modify the ballot language to make explicit that millage funds would not be subject to the public art ordinance. The ordinance, which establishes the Percent for Art program, stipulates that 1% of all capital improvement projects must be set aside to be spent on public art.

Mayor John Hieftje effectively preempted that conversation by nominating Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) as a replacement for Jeff Meyers on the public art commission and assuring the council that the question of public art could be taken up at the council’s Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

However, at the Sept. 19 meeting a proposed revision to the public art ordinance, brought forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), was postponed until after a working session to be held on Nov. 14, after the election on Nov. 8.

The proposed revision would change the Percent for Art program by explicitly excluding sidewalk and street repair from projects that could be tapped to fund public art.

Some councilmembers had previously understood the public art ordinance already to exclude replacement of sidewalk slabs from its definition of capital improvement projects. But based on additional information from the city attorney’s office, the proposed ordinance revision was meant to spell that out explicitly.

On two previous occasions in the last two years (Dec. 21, 2009 and May 31, 2011), the council has considered but rejected a change to the public art ordinance that would have lowered the public art earmark from 1% to 0.5%. The city’s Percent for Art program was authorized by the council on Nov. 5, 2007. It is overseen by the city’s public art commission, with members nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council.

The most recent regular Chronicle coverage of the city’s public art commission is “Art Commission Preps for Dreiseitl Dedication.”

Public Art: Scheie

Scheie said he loves art and he’s a patron of the arts. He’s learning how to weld, to create metal sculpture. He does like art, he said. However, he doesn’t particularly like the orange trees in West Park [which were the first project completed through the Percent for Art program].

Scheie’s problem with the public art ordinance is that it might possibly be illegal. It concerns public money, he said, that is supposed to go to other purposes like roads and bridges. People who are voting for millages for those purposes are not voting to pay for art. People should have the right to weigh in on that.

Basic services should come ahead of art, Scheie said. He is not against art, but the city’s approach is just not an appropriate way to fund it. Scheie rejected the defense of the public art program that the city is bound by the law to designate 1% of capital improvement projects to art – the city council passed that law and could rescind it, he said.

Closing statement

Scheie had two minutes to give a closing statement.

Scheie said he hadn’t had a chance to talk about the issues relevant to his ward. That included the East Stadium bridges project, which he described as dragging on forever. He said it’s more than a bridge project – the city is reconstructing a whole neighborhood. He described how some of the streets will be partly closed – people who live on Golden Avenue are very upset, he said, because of the closure of White Street. Scheie said that everybody is talking about potholes – it’s almost comical. Ann Arbor has the third worst roads in the state, he said.

There’s also a sump pump problem, Scheie said. He’d talked to several ward residents who said they’d never had a problem with basement flooding until the city forced them to get a sump pump. He described it as intrusive, busy-body government that people don’t like. [For background on the sanitary sewer disconnection program, see "DDA Preps Downtown Ann Arbor Process"]

People are also worried about the site that is the former location of the Georgetown Mall – he’s afraid it’s going to be another Broadway Village. Crime is increasing, Scheie contended, and police has been cut 35%. The city should focus on basic services, stop extravagant spending and end one-party rule.

We need opposition politics in this town, Scheie said. Republicans would never be the majority, he said, no matter what. Maybe the solution is not Republicans, maybe it’s independents like Jane Lumm, he said. But the city desperately needs some opposition.

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

In Ward 2, Stephen Rapundalo received 232 absentee votes (60%) compared with Tim Hull’s 155. In Ward 3, Stephen Kunselman received 159 absentee votes (56%) compared to 120 and 7 for Ingrid Ault and Marwan Issa, respectively. And in Ward 5, Mike Anglin received 298 absentee votes (72%), compared with Neal Elyakin’s 117.

Absent voter count board totals reflect absentee voting totals across all precincts in the ward. Those totals are thus not as susceptible to reflecting an advantage a candidate might enjoy that is peculiar to just one precinct. Still, to a certain extent, these voters self-select to vote using an absentee ballot, and as a group are not a random sample of voters in the ward. So some caution is warranted in drawing conclusions based on these totals.

The other two city wards did not have contested Democratic primaries. No city ward had a contested Republican primary.

Stuart Berry received 2 votes – he was the only choice on the Republican side of the ballot.

Top 100 word frequency clouds for Ward 5 city council candidates. (Image links to high resolution .pdf. Clouds from Wordle.net)

This report focuses on Ward 5, where incumbent Mike Anglin is seeking re-election for his third two-year term on the city council. [See also previous Chronicle coverage of the 2011 Democratic primary: "Ann Arbor Ward 5: Democratic Primary 2011"]

Anglin is retired from a teaching career, and is now an owner of a bed and breakfast on the city’s Old West Side. He was first elected in 2007 after winning a Democratic primary against incumbent Wendy Woods. Neal Elyakin, an administrator in the Washtenaw Intermediate School District, is also seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination. The winner will face Republican Stuart Berry in the Nov. 8 general election.

In response to the alternating questions offered by the LWV moderator, neither candidate offered comments that were terribly dramatic.

Anglin took the occasion to talk about a familiar range of topics: the smaller issues he enjoys helping residents solve; his opposition to the proposed Fuller Road Station; his belief that parks need to be defended against their possible sale; his criticism of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority as a non-elected government entity; and his view of Ann Arbor as a small town that happens to be home to the University of Michigan.

Elyakin spoke of retaining the small-town feel of Ann Arbor (describing specific parks where his children used to play) while at the same time envisioning responsible, reasonable growth that would rely on a regional approach, investments in transportation systems, and an important planning role for the DDA.

After the jump, our coverage includes: an annotated verbatim transcript of the candidates’ remarks at the LWV debate; paraphrases of the questions posed to them; and some highlights from the candidates’ remarks broken down in a bit more detail.

The transcript formed the basis of the top-100 word-frequency analysis shown in the Word Cloud 1 and Word Cloud 2. Close observers of Ann Arbor city politics may be able to match candidates with clouds, without scrolling past the jump.

Implicit Critique

It’s not typical for candidates at the Ann Arbor League of Women Voters debates to criticize each other in any explicit way.

But Elyakin’s characterization of his own strengths could be understood as an implicit criticism of Anglin’s recent performance at the city council table. In response to a question about why he, as a loyal Democrat, would be challenging the incumbent, Elyakin included among his reasons [emphasis added]: “… I believe I can be very well-prepared when sitting at the council table to make decisions that are thoughtful, that are future-oriented, that help the city move forward, in real and intentional, productive ways.”

At the council’s July 5, 2011 meeting, Anglin essentially conceded that he had not been well-prepared at the council’s previous June 20 meeting. At that meeting he’d voted – along with the rest of the council – to approve a $1,216,100 construction contract to Hoffman Brothers Inc. That project involves relocating a sanitary sewer south of Fuller Road, and east of the Maiden Lane and East Medical Center Drive intersection. Anglin indicated he had not realized at the time of the original vote that the site of the planned sewer system work was the same site as the planned Fuller Road Station, which he opposes.

So on July 5, Anglin asked his colleagues on the council to reconsider that previous vote – which is an allowable parliamentary step. Councilmembers – all fellow Democrats – voted unanimously to go along with Anglin’s request to rediscuss the issue, but no one was willing to change their vote.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is often an ally of Anglin’s on council. But on that occasion she made clear how she felt about being asked to reconsider her vote: “I knew what I was doing,” said Briere.

The re-vote on the sewer project was recorded as 8-1 (two councilmembers were absent), with Anglin’s vote the sole voice of dissent.

Implicit Defense

The fact that he sometimes finds himself in a small minority position was acknowledged by Anglin at the LWV debate, when he said in his opening statement: “And at times my decisions have not been with the majority of people on council, but I think they have expressed a strong rational minority position that many people do agree with.”

Because explicit criticism is rare at LWV debates, candidates will sometimes offer implicit defense against non-explicit criticisms made at the debate or heard elsewhere. One criticism of Anglin that has begun to trickle through Ward 5 is that Anglin, in his nearly four years of service on the council, has simply registered dissent without successfully getting traction at the council table to convert his position into the majority that’s needed to affect an outcome on policy issues. At the LWV debate, that criticism could be heard in Elyakin’s statement: “A few naysayers – while I applaud every person’s right to speak up and speak out – should not hold the city hostage, whether they are in the audience or sitting on council.”

Anglin’s remark about having a rational minority position could be understood as an implicit defense to that critique. Later, in his closing statement, Anglin focused on his role of simply bringing ideas forward – as opposed to taking those ideas and translating them into successful policy initiatives. “And I feel that I am just their voice, trying to listen to them …”

When Anglin did discuss a translation from input into action, it was essentially in the councilmember-as-community-ombudsman role: “… taking phone calls and working with people for some of their smallest items that they bring forward … I think some of the most satisfying part of my service on city council is working with the residents and trying to work on their particular issues.”

Anglin is not unique in identifying that ombudsman role as essential and enjoyable. At the Ann Arbor city Democratic Party forum in June, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) described some of his strongest supporters as those whom he’s helped with their “end-of-the-driveway-type issues.” In a 2008 interview, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) talked about solving issues one-on-one with constituents as a satisfying aspect of his council service.

Past Attendance Issue

Anglin contended at one point during the LWV event that he’d served on almost every commission in the city. (The claim, given the roughly 90 different boards and commissions that exist in the city, is likely somewhat overstated.) His contention, together with a light-hearted turn by Anglin about attending the city council’s meetings (“I attend them all the time”) may have reminded some in the audience of an issue in the 2009 Democratic primary, which was contested between Anglin and Scott Rosencrans.

That year Rosencrans accused Anglin of failing to attend any meetings of the park advisory commission (PAC) – a body to which Anglin had been appointed to serve as an ex-officio council representative. Anglin then produced attendance records that showed Rosencrans had vastly overstated the case – up to that point, Anglin had attended 11 out of 16 PAC meetings. And for regular council meetings, to that point, Anglin had missed only one out of 41 meetings.

However, Anglin’s attendance for two other council committee appointments was not up to the same standard: 3 out of 10 Washtenaw Area Transportation Study meetings; and 1 out of 5 city environmental commission meetings. That attendance rate was low enough that the council’s administration committee privately chastised Anglin about his poor attendance and impressed upon Anglin the importance of attending those meetings – according to Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), in response to a Chronicle query at the time. As a result of his poor attendance, according to Rapundalo, Anglin was not reappointed by the council to the environmental commission.

At the LWV debates, Anglin’s mention of his attendance at council meetings came in the context of a question about how to improve communication from the city to the citizens. He suggested that people watch city council meetings as one means of learning what’s going on at the city. “I know they are very interesting – I attend them all the time,” he quipped.

Opening Statements

Each candidate was given a chance to make an opening statement. Their statements and responses to questions are provided here verbatim, in the order in which they answered.

Elyakin’s opening

Yes, thank you. Thank you, everybody, for being here. Thank you to the people who are watching on television.

I especially want to thank Mike for sitting with me here at the table. This is a forum for the city council and I’m running for the Fifth Ward.

I believe in this city – I believe in Ann Arbor. And I have a passion and I care very deeply about the future of this city. I care about our collective future and what our future is going to look like. I believe in certain things and will get into them as I answer the questions later on. But I believe in reasonable growth in the city, to be able to look to economic stability and the future of our city. I believe in regional leadership.

I believe in transportation and mass transit. I believe in bringing business into the city. I believe in protecting our city and keeping our city safe, and keeping our children safe.

I believe that partnerships should be developed with the city, whether they are to help benefit our city or benefit the region in general. I’m sure we’ll get into more later, but I just saw my [timekeeping] sign go up.

Anglin’s opening

Welcome to the citizens of Ann Arbor and thank you to the League of Women Voters for having us here this night for this brief debate.

When we look at the principles that guide the city, the health, safety and welfare of the city should be a primary umbrella that we put over all the issues that we face as a city. And in light of that through my experience on the city council for the last four years, I have used that as a guiding principle. And that principle is to have those as the guides for every decision that I make.

And at times my decisions have not been with the majority of people on council, but I think they have expressed a strong rational minority position that many people do agree with. I’m a business owner, so I know the business, the obstacles that the business community affects and I have also been in the public sector. So using that experience I bring to council.

How would you improve communication?

Question: [The LWV moderator referred to an article reporting that most Ann Arborites are still not following a new city ordinance that mandates stopping at crosswalks when pedestrians are present.] Taking this only as an example, would you please explain how the population is to know what laws have been passed or changed or what decisions have been made, without communication from the city to its citizens? What will you, as a member of the Ann Arbor city council, do to improve this?

By way of additional background, the pedestrian ordinance in question was given final approval at the council’s July 19, 2010 meeting. A further revision to the new ordinance was prompted on that evening of deliberations by a suggestion from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). She suggested replacing somewhat vague language (“yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield,”) with the clearer directive to motorists to “stop and yield.”

Pedestrian safety traffic controls have been an ongoing issue at one intersection located in Ward 5, at Seventh and Washington streets. Upon installation of a traffic island and sign, motorists initially tended to drive right over the island and the sign. In recent months, reports of the sign’s recurring demise have ceased.

Anglin on communication

I think there’s many means that the citizens can use to find out information about the city, and I think the most important one is the money that you all spend as taxpayers on the television, the CTN [Community Television Network, which broadcasts many public meetings], and as well as the city website. Going to that will often keep you informed as to what the city has been doing.

In addition, if you were to watch the council meetings – I know they are very interesting, I attend them all the time – and I’m sure that if other people continue to watch them, they will find that they’ll learn the characters, they’ll learn the issues relatively quickly. And I think that’s the most important way that the message goes out, including the newspapers. I would not go into a crosswalk unless I made eye contact with the driver. I would caution people that while we get this new law, be cautious about it.

Elyakin on communication

Yes, thank you. I believe communication is the foundation of how we operate as a city. I believe that having excellent communication skills and excellent customer-service skills is what the city should be about. And I use the word “excellent” purposefully. I believe that looking at enhancing the website – it is a little difficult to wade through that website sometimes to find things. I believe in looking at customer-service training for people who work in our city and for our city, as well as for city councilmembers. I believe it’s never too late to have some professional development in being able to be a good communicator.

I do agree that sometimes communication is a lack in the city. And I believe that some people feel as if the city doesn’t communicate at all with them. I believe that having ward-level meetings using social media – you know, this is the 21st century. We’ve got to look at new ways to be able to communicate with all of our residents.

Does the DDA benefit the city?

Question: What is the role of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority? Would you please explain its relationship with the city council and with the Ann Arbor citizens. Are the DDA members volunteers or paid? How are they chosen? Who’s in charge? Is the DDA a net benefit to the community?

By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor DDA has been the focus of heavy Chronicle coverage over the last year, including recent months. One reason for that focus is the recently renewed contract between the city and the DDA, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system. That’s a contract that was negotiated in public view for over the last year and finally ratified in May 2011.

However, the DDA’s raison d’être is not to administer the public parking system, but rather to make “public improvements that have the greatest impact in strengthening the downtown area and attracting new private investments.” The streetscape improvements that are currently nearing completion on Fifth and Division in downtown Ann Arbor are one example of the kind of projects the DDA can undertake.

The funding mechanism for those improvements is tax increment finance (TIF) capture in the downtown district. In broad strokes, the taxes on an increment – between the initial value of a property and the value after new construction – are captured by the DDA, instead of being distributed to the authorities that levy the taxes. Those taxing authorities include the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County and Washtenaw Community College.

This spring, city staff noticed that the ordinance establishing the Ann Arbor DDA provides a kind of cap on the amount of taxes that the DDA is allowed to capture in its TIF district. Up to this point, that cap had not been observed. When that aspect of the ordinance was highlighted, it resulted in a repayment by the DDA of over $400,000 to other taxing authorities. That repayment could increase, depending on how the ordinance is interpreted. [See Chronicle coverage: "Column: Tax Capture is a Varsity Sport"] The newly observed cap, plus the conditions of the new parking agreement  – which call for transferring 17% of gross public parking revenues to the city of Ann Arbor – have put the DDA under considerable financial stress.

DDA board members are nominated to four-year terms by the mayor, and must be confirmed by the city council.

Elyakin on the DDA

Downtown Development Authority. I believe that the Downtown Development Authority has been around since the early ’80s. I have not looked into the history of it, but I do believe that it serves an enormous function in the city – in looking at how we develop our city and how we look at the importance of development in our city. The fact that the DDA operates the parking lots or the parking structures is a small part of what they do – and I believe that we get caught up in a little controversy, without looking at the larger issue.

And one of the larger issues that the DDA can help the city with is the idea of reasonable, intentional, measured, future-oriented growth of the city. We can do that without losing the small town sense of what Ann Arbor is. But we have to work together. Again, going back to communication, going back to how we communicate between the authority and the city council and the rest of the city.

Anglin on the DDA

The DDA, its mission is to promote businesses and economic development within their geographical area. When the council did establish the DDA, they turned the parking lots, which is city assets, over to them. And in return they run them for the city, giving us $2 million a year plus about 16% of the revenues. [Editor's note: The DDA was not assigned responsibility for the city's parking system until 1992, 10 years after it was established. The new contract calls for a transfer of 17% of gross revenues to the city. In the prior contract, there was a provision for a "meter rent" payment of up to $2 million per year.]

What the public needs to know is that all new building that takes place in the DDA area is subject to a TIF – tax increment financing – so the amount of money that is collected in the DDA area for additional taxes stays with the DDA for future projects that they have. And from that, the TIF is actually taken from education – Washtenaw Community College – things that we support as a community. So in turn while we develop our downtown, we are also developing a base of a different type of government, a non-elected government.

City parkland

Question: As a member of the Ann Arbor city council, how would you view and manage parkland? Are parks available for lease or sale as needed? Also, what are your thoughts on the quality of park safety and maintenance? How important is that, and whose responsibility is it?

Anglin on parks

I serve on the parks advisory commission and have since I have been on city council for the last four years. I think the running of the parks and the safety that exists in the parks is outstanding. We passed as a city, our idea was to not sell parkland. [Editor's note: This is a reference to a city charter amendment, passed in 2008, stipulating that the sale of parks would be subject to a vote of the general electorate.] Now, part of that agreement that we made with the public was not to sell the parkland, but also “reuse” I think might have been implied in that vote that the people did take. So I am not one wanting to repurpose the parks for other reasons.

I think if it is done, that has to go to a vote of the people. And we have seen that happen with the Huron Hills Golf Course this year. We have seen it happen with Argo Pond. And now are seeing it happen at Fuller Park also. [Editor's note: What Anglin means by "we have seen that happen" is not that voters have weighed in on the sale or reuse of a park. Rather, these are cases in which some residents felt the city was moving effectively to sell parkland, without putting the question before voters.]

So I would be very hesitant about moving forward with that, because it does contribute so much to the community’s health through recreation and things of that sort – relaxation and a thing of beauty. We’re very lucky to have our parks. It has taken all these years to develop them.

Elyakin on parks

Thank you. I love our parks. I was so excited to see West Park reopen. It’s in our ward – it’s a beautiful, beautiful park, and it looks beautiful now. I encourage you all to go out and visit West Park. But that’s not the only park we have. My children used to go and walk around the neighborhood and go down to Mixtwood Park and hang out in a little tiny – I guess some people call it a pocket park. It’s a very small park, right in the neighborhood – it’s lovely. People are always there walking their dogs past it. [Editor's note: Mixtwood Pomona is a lesser-known park: Google Map provided by city of Ann Arbor of all city parks]

It’s right near a few homes, and the parents are always out watching the kids. The parks are our treasures – we should protect our parks. We should keep them for as long as we can possibly keep them. In tough economic times – and people will say this – everything needs to be on the table. And I understand that everything needs to be on the table in tough economic times. But I would love to be able to protect all of our parks in perpetuity, if we can.

Fuller Road Station

Question: Some very well-situated Ann Arbor parkland is being considered for the Fuller Road Station, which right now looks to be a very large parking structure on Fuller Road. The primary occupier of the proposed space is the University of Michigan. Please explain the current status of the Fuller Road Station project to our viewers and your arguments for or against its continued development.

By way of additional background, the introduction of the Fuller Road Station concept to the public can be traced at least as far back as January 2009, when the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, presented a concept drawing at a meeting of neighbors at Northside Grill. At the time, the city was trying to encourage the University of Michigan to reconsider its plans to build parking structures on Wall Street.

The city’s strategy was to get the university to consider building its planned parking structures on the city-owned parking lot, just south of Fuller Road, near the intersection with East Medical Center Drive. It would allow the university to participate in the city’s hoped-for transit station at that location. The university has leased that parking lot from the city since 1993.

The transit station is envisioned as directly serving east-west commuter rail passengers. A day-trip demonstration service that was to launch in October 2010 never materialized. But a recent announcement earlier this year, that some federal support for high-speed rail track improvements would be forthcoming, has shored up hopes by many people in the community that the east-west rail connection could become a reality.

The council has already approved some expenditures directly related to the project. It voted unanimously on Aug. 17, 2009 to approve $213,984 of city funds for an environmental study and site assessment. Of that amount, $104,742 was appropriated from the economic development fund. Per the city charter, as a budget appropriation, the measure required eight votes. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) were recorded as absent at that meeting, leaving only nine councilmembers in attendance. If Anglin had been able to persuade one other colleague on the council to vote with him against the expenditures, that part of the project would not have gone forward that evening. However, Anglin voted with the other eight councilmembers to approve the expenditure.

On Nov. 5, 2009, on separate votes, the council approved additional money for the environmental study and site assessment and to authorize a memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan. Anglin was among the councilmembers who voted unanimously to approve those resolutions.

The controversy on the project involves the status of the land where the proposed Fuller Road Station would be located. It’s designated as parkland, but formally zoned as public land (PL). In summer 2010, the possible uses for land zoned as PL were altered by the council, on recommendation from the city planning commission, explicitly to include transportation facilities. Any long-term use agreement with the university is seen by many as tantamount to a sale of parkland. A sale should, per the city charter, be put to a vote of the people.

The city’s park advisory commission, on which Anglin serves as an ex-officio member, has expressed some objections to the project, and has asked that the advisory body be kept informed as the project moves along.

Elyakin on Fuller Road Station

As I said in my opening statements, I truly believe in mass transit and public transportation. I believe that the city of Ann Arbor will only be enhanced by an enhanced transportation system – a regional transportation system that includes transportation hubs throughout the city that allows people into and out of the city in an easy way. Wouldn’t it be fabulous if we could go from the city out to another area of our county to spend the day without using our vehicles, without engaging in a – increasing our carbon footprint? [Editor's note: A countywide transit master plan has been adopted by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which is working to expand bus and other transit services throughout Washtenaw County. The master plan includes development of east-west rail service.]

I believe that the Fuller Transit Center is situated for the future to be a great resource to our city in bringing people into the city, allowing people to leave the city. I believe that with the right level of support and with the regional future looking, I think we could do a really, really good job in expanding our transportation system in the city and in the region.

Anglin on Fuller Road Station

When this was first thought of years ago, back as early as ’06, the city was starting to take appraisals on that property. So this has been around for some time – this idea of either the university purchasing it, etcetera.

I like to explain it as we have a four-page document in front of us. The first two pages deal with the university’s parking structure. Those are full. That means, they are written. The next two pages are the transit center. They are blank. On page four you are asked for your signature of approval. In your personal life, you would not sign page four unless pages three and four were filled in. That’s where we are now.

There are promises, there are hopes, but the money isn’t there. So I would recommend that we move cautiously. We do have a train now, it services us to Chicago, and there will be improvements on the trains. I would put my money more on the AATA as we expand.

Downtown: Design Review Board

Question: Recent proposals for a private university dormitory – The Varsity at Ann Arbor – were presented to a new city design review board. Can you tell us and your viewers your thoughts on the purpose and function of this new entity? For example, are members paid or volunteers? Are they decision-making or advisory? What are your thoughts on the contribution the design review board makes to the city.

By way of additional background, the design review board (DRB) was established at the council’s June 6, 2011 meeting. Review by the DRB of new projects in the downtown area will come prior to a developer’s meeting with nearby residents for each project. The meeting with residents is already required as part of the city’s citizen participation ordinance. While the DRB process is required, conformance with the recommendations of that body is voluntary.

Anglin on the Design Review Board

Since I’ve been on council, one of most important things we’ve been trying to do, led by council member Marcia Higgins, was to work out new zoning for the city, which we have spent a great deal of time on, with a great deal of citizen participation. We now know what we want our downtown to look like – at least we know zoning-wise what we’d like it to look like.

As part of that, there was concern that should we have a mandatory or voluntary design review board. And this was mostly brought up by the architects and engineers and city planners, and these are all volunteers who give their time to Ann Arbor for that purpose. The developer enters freely into this discussion, and therefore starts to receive an idea of how we are going to proceed, what is expected of them, before they go through a process and find out to their chagrin that other things were expected of them and they’re disappointed and so are we.

Elyakin on the Design Review Board

Yes, thank you. I was talking with a resident a while back, who was complaining that he was trying to repair something on his house. And he kept getting information that was contradictory from various different people when he called the city. And was complaining. And one of the things that struck me as he was talking to me was, wouldn’t it be great if the city had a manual, a brochure, something that they could give out to people when they purchase property in the city so that they know what is expected of them. The design review board is what that is.

It allows our developers, it allows people who are coming in to come up with ideas for the city, to know in advance what we are expecting, to know in advance what the outcomes are going to be, to know in advance, so that no surprises are going to come up. I think it’s a great idea. I applaud the volunteers who work with it. I applaud the idea.

Why you?

Question: What qualities and accomplishments make you the better council member for Ward 5? You’re running against an incumbent (or as an incumbent). Why have you chosen to do that? What advantages would you bring?

Elyakin on why he’s challenging

Okay. I am a challenger. I’m running against a very nice fellow here, who has been in office for four years as a councilmember. My opinion is that I can represent the ward and be a responsible city councilmember who is very pro-Ann Arbor, working for the future of the city in very positive ways.

I support regional transportation. I support a dense downtown. I support possibilities based on futures for our city. I believe I can be very well-prepared when sitting at the council table to make decisions that are thoughtful, that are future-oriented, that help the city move forward in real and intentional, productive ways.

Anglin on why he’s earned another term

During the past four years, I have been very heavily involved in ward issues of all kinds, supportive of taking phone calls and working with people for some of their smallest items that they bring forward.

We deal with issues, we get phone calls about barking dogs, we get phone calls about serious things like flooding conditions. We get phone calls about police protection. I think some of the most satisfying part of my service on city council is working with the residents and trying to work on their particular issues. I’ve always believed that a strong neighborhood and a strong community makes a strong town.

It’s a fabric that’s woven together and it’s very delicate. We shouldn’t alienate any citizen or make them feel that they’re not part of this city and appreciated. The more we do that, the stronger we will have a town that adheres to its fundamental principles.

What are the strengths and challenges of Ward 5?

Question: What challenges do you see as unique to the Fifth Ward? How do you propose to address them in the primary and general election campaigns, and then later as a member of the city council?

Anglin on Ward 5 specifics

The strengths of the Fifth Ward are its citizens. We get a heavy volunteerism and involvement in the city. The problems of the Fifth Ward have to do with maintaining diversity of those types of populations that live in the Fifth Ward. How do we keep the prices of things down and make the city affordable as we move forward? You can expect progress, but it comes at a price. And the price will be that people who can’t afford it may have to leave. That may not be something that we as a city want to encourage, strongly encourage.

This is a small Midwestern town with a big university with it – that’s how I view our area and the Fifth Ward. The biggest problem ecologically is the Allen Creek, and the flooding conditions, and the Gelman pollution in the Fifth Ward. All those things are serious issues which we have worked on for the last four years and continue to address council, making them more aware to the rest of council that these still exist and we need to move forward on them. [Editor's note: Allen Creek runs through the Fifth Ward – a citizens group mobilized several years ago to push for a greenway that roughly follows the creek, which now primarily flows underground through drainage pipes. A task force formed by the city in 2005 issued a report on the greenway in 2007. "Gelman pollution" refers to 1,4 dioxane underground contamination from a former Gelman Sciences manufacturing plant in Scio Township, subsequently purchased by Pall Corp. For recent Chronicle coverage of the cleanup efforts, see "Residents Frustrated by Dioxane Decision"]

Elyakin on Ward 5 Specifics

I have been a Fifth Ward resident for 26 years, first living on Maple Ridge right by West Park and now living up near Forsythe school. I have a list of things that I think resonate with me and with people that I have spoken with, as I have walked around the ward and learned more about some of the pockets of beauty that exist in our area. Our parks – we have lots of parks in the Fifth Ward and they are beautiful. I would want to save them, I would want to keep them vibrant, I would want to keep them accessible to all of our children.

The Old West Side, the homes – where Mr. Anglin lives – they’re beautiful homes. They are absolutely gorgeous. I would want to keep them in a way that benefits all of our city. The businesses on Stadium and Maple, the Maple/Jackson traffic flow – we’ve got to do something about that corner. The Jackson corridor – I would like to be able to help that Jackson Road corridor that goes out from Mallek’s out to that area. Street repairs, crosswalks – those kinds of things are important to our ward.

Closing Statements

Each candidate was given the opportunity to make a closing statement.

Elyakin’s closing

First I want to thank everyone who is here. I want to thank Mr. Anglin. I want to thank you all at the League of Women Voters and especially the people who are watching this, whether it is live now, streaming on AnnArbor.com – thank you very much, AnnArbor.com – or taped. I know that we can keep the small-town feel.

Neal Elyakin

I know that we can keep that homey Ann Arbor attitude and still have the big-city infrastructure that attracts world-class opportunities. There is absolutely no reason why we can’t move forward, based on a shared vision of this city, one that we get through active participation of our citizenship. A few naysayers – while I applaud every person’s right to speak up and speak out – should not hold the city hostage, whether they are in the audience or sitting on council.

I believe that the city needs visionary work – people who can build a vision through collaborative cooperation and move toward it. We have serious issues out there. Michigan is not recovering quickly enough. It may never fully recover. For us to think that we can rely on anyone but ourselves and our partnerships that we can build and attract to keep this city vibrant. I am running now because I believe my skills in thinking creatively about the future, my skills and understanding and working with a diverse set of people will be crucial on the city council as we move ahead in these uncertain economic times, developing new revenue ideas and expanding our regional approach as needed, to keep Ann Arbor thriving economically.

We need a future economy here in Ann Arbor that supports job creation and economic growth, so our kids can plan on building their future here. I would love it if my daughter, who starts college next year, could decide to relocate back to Ann Arbor, when she is done with college. We need to have those opportunities for the next generation so we don’t lose them to other places.

Anglin’s closing

My time on city council is limited, like all of us who serve in the public for the public.

Mike Anglin

Keep in mind that our town is a combination of 150 years of others like myself and Mr. Elyakin, who are serious about making this town wonderful – we are just part of it. And as we move forward to the challenges that are particular to our time, to approach those challenges with openness and with a great deal of discussion amongst the community as to how we should move forward, rather than timelines guide us, decisions should be made based upon good fact and good information. And I see that happening all the time in Ann Arbor. I am very pleased with the things we do.

I live here, I love the town. I have been very happy since 1992 when I came here, and my family has prospered here, and I have made many friends. In the past four years I have made more friends. I’m surprised there are so many people I meet in the community who I respect a great deal, and they are as passionate about their town as the people who are elected officials. And I feel that I am just their voice, trying to listen to them, the business community, the judicial community, police department, so many different factors come into it, many of which I was not aware of when I started council.

I’ve served on almost every commission there is in the city – one that even spoke of regional cooperation, which is the most difficult thing we have here in Michigan – cooperating regionally. These are goals that we are always striving toward, and as time goes by, maybe we will get closer to them. But again, it’s a process, and I’m pleased with what the present council has done, and I am very proud of the city, and I thank the League of Women Voters and others who have given us this opportunity.

[Word Cloud Note: Cloud 1 is Elyakin. Cloud 2 is Anglin.]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of elections to public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

As of 8:45 p.m., the unofficial final tally from Ward 3, provided from a passed around phone from a noisy Dominick’s, has Kunselman by six votes.

And as of 9:45 p.m., the unofficial results from Ward 5, based on the tally posted  on the wall at Anglin’s after-election gathering at the Firefly has him winning by a little less than  a 2-1 margin.

WARD 3             Bullington  Greden   Kunselman

Precinct 3-1,3-2      3         20        45
Precinct 3-3         92        160        96
Precinct 3-4,3-7    148        159       137
Precinct 3-5         25         32        23
Precinct 3-6,3-9     64         75       118
Precinct 3-8         47         59        92

Totals              379        505       511 

WARD 5            Anglin      Rosencrans

Precinct 5-1        26           8
Precinct 5-2       174          83
Precinct 5-3        85          56
Precinct 5-4,5-5   288         148
Precinct 5-6       106          69
Precinct 5-7        37          13
Precinct 5-8        63          57
Precinct 5-9       151          88
Precinct 5-10      112          30
Precinct 5-11      259         142

Totals            1301         694

Bonnie Bona, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission, leads the commission through discussion of the 322 E. Kingsley property. On the map projected behind her, that's the light blue sliver to the east of the thick dashed line. The dashed line is the DDA boundary.

At its Tuesday meeting, Ann Arbor’s planning commission voted to adopt a downtown plan that was different in significant ways from the one they’d previously adopted just three months ago. A small D2 (interface) in the South University area has been carved out, when none previously existed on the planning commission’s map. And  a one-parcel-wide expansion of the D2 area has been undertaken to include a property owned by Zingerman’s Deli.

Why was the commission considering the changes? Since the plan’s previous adoption, the city council had undertaken revisions to the proposed city zoning ordinances that had rendered the downtown plan inconsistent with those ordinances.

While the city council has final say over the ordinances, the council and planning commission must agree on the adoption of the same downtown plan. [See previous Chronicle coverage of the commission-council relationship on this issue.]

The planning commission’s action taken Tuesday night does bring its adopted downtown plan closer to consistency with the city council’s proposal for Ann Arbor’s new downtown zoning, but a significant incompatibility in the South University area remains. Before planning commission met, the revised downtown plan was scheduled to be presented for action by council at its June 15, 2009 meeting, with consideration of the final vote on the zoning package on July 6, 2009.  Now that time frame could change, depending on the path taken by council. More on possible outcomes after the break.

Planning commission was working from an affirmative resolution to adopt a downtown plan – changed in ways recommended by city staff – that conformed to the zoning changes made by city council at its April 6, 2009 meeting. The “amendments” referenced in the staff report reflect differences between planning commission’s originally adopted downtown plan and the downtown plan as it would need to be changed in order to be consistent with council’s zoning.

Text Amendments

Planning commission did not deliberate on the text amendments to the downtown plan, which addressed the fact that the city council had introduced specific height limits as a part of its zoning package. But in relevant parts, planning commission’s downtown plan adopted Tuesday night now reads:

[page 28] Incorporate recommended land use and urban design objectives, including the  consideration of height limits, into overlay zoning districts for the review and approval of projects in the Core Areas.

[page 53] Properties in the Downtown Interface district should have a minimum height of two stories and a maximum height of up to 6 stories. Placement standards should  require a small amount of open space to be maintained and limit the building coverage to 70-80% of the lot. Additional building massing and setback  requirements for Downtown Interface properties should be set by the character  overlay districts.

Map Amendments

Revisions to two different maps were considered: (i) the future land use [core/interface], and (ii) base and overlay zoning map [D1/D2].  Three geographic areas were involved: East Huron Street, 322 E. Kingsley, and South University.

Huron Street: For Huron Street, only the zoning map was at issue. City council had split the East Huron character area into East Huron 1 and East Huron 2. For the East Huron 1 area, which is the north side of Huron Street between North Thayer and Division, the building height limit is proposed by council to be 150 feet. That contrasts with the rest of the D1 areas, which have a height limit of 180 feet. The key point is that the council left the zoning as D1 in both of the Huron Street character areas. Because D1 zoning translates as “core” for the future land use map, that map – which doesn’t reflect character areas – didn’t require revision. The base and overlay zoning map reflects character areas, and thus needed revision.

During the public hearing, some residents of Sloan Plaza and of One North Main weighed in for designation of that section of Huron Street as D2 – an interface zone that would limit the height of buildings to 60 feet. That would be a more dramatic height reduction than the East Huron 1 character district provides, which has a maximum of 150 feet – 30 feet reduced from the 180 foot maximum in other D1 areas. The planning commission spent little time deliberating on this particular issue, essentially agreeing with one representative of a property owner in the affected area, who spoke at the public hearing about the various compromises that had already been struck – no further compromise was required, he said.

South University: Both maps came into play for the South University area. During the public hearing, planning commissioners heard arguments on both sides that will have been familiar to them from the years-long process that’s now drawing to a close. On the one side: residential areas need a buffer, don’t make South U. a “dumping ground for density.” On the other side: increased density is essential for economic sustainability, and a D2 zoning, with its 60-foot height limits, would amount to a “taking” of property value.

We focus on the future land use map, because it’s visually a bit more accessible than the cross-hatching used by the city in the zoning map – the two maps mirror each other in a straightforward way. Although planning commission had originally proposed the entire South U. area as “core,” the city council revised the proposed zoning at its April 16, 2009 meeting so that there’s a D2 transition area on the southern portion that wraps upward along the eastern edge:

Excerpt from the Downtown Plan Future Land Use Map as it would need to be drawn to be consistent with city council's proposed zoning at its April 6, 2009 meeting. This map was extracted from city documents. The heavy dashed line is the DDA boundary.

The planning commission did not eliminate all of the transition area implied by council’s zoning proposal, leaving the southeast corner of it intact:

Excerpt from the Downtown Plan Future Land Use Map as it would be drawn by planning commission at its May 19, 2009 meeting. This depiction of planning commission's map was drawn by The Chronicle – any errors are ours. The heavy dashed line is the DDA boundary.

The vote was 5-2, with Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods, Kirk Westphal, Tony Derezinski and Jean Carlberg voting for the re-introduction of the “core” designation for most of the area. Eric Mahler and Ethel Potts voted against that. [Evan Pratt and Craig Borum were absent.] Mahler said he found the claim of a “taking” to be “a little bit over the top,” and was concerned about designating areas as “core” that are outside the DDA area. On the prevailing side, Carlberg said that the area they were designating as “core” would be appropriate for high-density student developments.

322 E. Kingsley (Zingerman’s): At its April 16, 2009 meeting, city council changed the proposed zoning for the parcel at 322 E. Kingsley from R4C to D2. Zingerman’s Deli owns the parcel, located directly behind their operation at 422 Detroit St. Zingerman’s would like to incorporate the property (where there’s currently a fire-damaged building) into its operations, thereby removing some of the stress on its current buildings. Any rennovation to the 322 E. Kingsley property would be subject to review by the Historic District Commission, because it lies within the Old Fourth Ward historic district.

During the public hearing, the  planning commission heard from several speakers who objected to the assignment of the D2 designation to the property, on the grounds of  “fairness” and “favoritism” – everyone loves Zingerman’s, themselves included, they said. But that didn’t translate into changing the zoning, just because Zingerman’s asked for it.

They also heard from representatives of Zingmerman’s about why the D2 zoning was requested, as well as from a speaker who noted that he’d just witnessed two hours of “serious participation” by citizens who were engaged, and had been properly noticed, and concluded that the notion of fairness had not been violated.

The vote on the commission was 4-3 for following council’s lead in assigning D2 zoning to the parcel. Voting for the D2 designation were: Eric Mahler, Tony Derezinski, Jean Carlberg, and Wendy Woods. Voting against it were: Bonnie Bona, Kirk Westphal, and Ethel Potts. Mahler, responding to an argument made by Peter Pollack at the previous week’s work session, said that the option of pursuing a PUD for a particular project (as an alternative to having the D2 zoning) would, in his opinion, be difficult. For a PUD, Mahler said, a public benefit would have to be demonstrated – and from what he could tell, the kind of project Zingerman’s was contemplating would most likely be for Zingerman’s benefit.

Westphal did not cite “fairness” in voting against the D2 designation, but rather a respect for the long, extended process of community participation that had extended over a few years – none of which had included discussion of the 322 E. Kingsley parcel.

Next Steps: The potential area of conflict between city council and planning commission has been reduced to the South University area. If on June 15, 2009, city council is presented with the downtown plan that’s been newly adopted by planning commission, and it chooses to adopt that plan, it will still need to contemplate changing the zoning proposal it considers on July 6.

The current status of that zoning proposal is that it’s been approved on its first reading before council, with the reading on July 6 counting as the second and final reading. At that meeting, if  council changes the zoning ordinance to match the downtown plan’s maps in the South University area, then the question becomes: Is that change substantial enough to require that the ordinance be given another first reading?  That’s a question that will likely be put to assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald, who specializes in land use and planning matters.

If council declines to adopt planning commission’s newly-revised downtown plan at the June 15 meeting, then the document would cycle back to planning commission for reconsideration. It’s possible that the A2D2 oversight committee – Marcia Higgins (city council), Roger Hewitt (DDA), and Evan Pratt (planning commission) – would provide some coordination between the two bodies so that an endless ping-ponging of the downtown plan would not result.