The council’s unanimous vote to postpone consideration of the lease agreement came at its Aug. 18, 2014 meeting, after a brief discussion. The council will take up the item again at its first meeting in October – on Oct. 6. The lease came to the council with a recommendation of approval from the park advisory commission, given at its July 15, 2014 meeting. The council now wants PAC to take another look at the agreement.

Map of parking lots at Fuller Park that are leased to the University of Michigan.

The existing lease expires on Aug. 31, 2014. Given that the lease is expiring, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about the implications of postponing until October. Mayor John Hieftje indicated that the lease renewal came to the council later than it should have.

The three lots are: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks (Lot A); (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot B); and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot C). The lots are used by UM during restricted hours.

The city has leased Lot A to UM since 1993. Lots B and C have been leased since 2009.

Annual revenue of this lease would be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. [.pdf of proposed lease agreement] [.pdf of staff report]

The hours that UM can use these lots are stipulated in the agreement:

• Lot A: 4 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
• Lot B (paved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, beginning the day after Labor Day through the Friday before Memorial Day, excluding holidays.
• Lot C (unpaved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

At PAC’s July 15 meeting when the lease was recommended, parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that the revenue from these three lots is significant for the parks and recreation operating budget. The current agreement – which was approved by the council in 2009 and extended by two administrative renewals – is essentially the same as the agreement that will expire, Smith told PAC.

The main purpose of the lots is for the parks, Smith explained. That’s reflected in the hours when UM can use the lots – on weekdays, prior to 4-5 p.m. The outdoor pool and soccer fields don’t need the quantity of parking during the winter or off-season. “It’s an asset within the parks department that we can either have sit there, or we can lease it for a significant amount of revenue that obviously helps us provide other programs,” he said. If the city doesn’t lease those parking lots, “I am absolutely certain that people will park in it anyway,” Smith added.

Two residents who had raised concerns about the lease at PAC’s July 15 meeting – Rita Mitchell and George Gaston – also addressed the city council on the same issue on Aug. 18. Their commentary is reported in The Chronicle’s live updates of that meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

Land use and development is set up to be a dominant theme of tonight’s meeting, as it frequently is for many of the council’s meetings. An additional highlight will be initial consideration of a change to the city’s taxicab ordinance – in response to the entry of services like Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market.

A report from the city administrator on options for deer management has led to a resolution on the Aug. 18 agenda appropriating $20,000 for the development of a deer management program.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber includes Braille.

Among the land use items on the Aug. 18 agenda is one related to use of city-owned land – three parking lots at Fuller Park: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks; (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park; and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park. The lots are used by the University of Michigan during restricted hours.

The council will be considering a two-year lease with one additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue from this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. The item was forwarded to the city council from the park advisory commission with a recommendation of approval.

Private land development items on the Aug. 18 agenda include final approval of the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027-square-foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

Also on the agenda for final approval is the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which is also on the council’s Aug. 18 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive.

Rezoning for 121 W. Kingsley Street for a private development is getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

Getting initial consideration by the council at its Aug. 18 meeting are changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. The companies offer the arrangement of rides through mobile networks with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Both companies have ignored cease-and-desist orders from the city.

Uber has sent its Ann Arbor customers an email asking them to sign an online petition supporting Uber’s continued ability to operate here.

One ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall. The other ordinance would require that all drivers for hire – whether they are taxicab drivers or drivers who work for Uber or Lyft – register with the city, maintain proper insurance for their vehicles and acquire commercial plates.

The Aug. 18 agenda also includes an item to confirm the re-appointment of Bob Guenzel to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

Fuller Park Parking Lease

The council will be considering a possible four-year extension on a University of Michigan lease of three parking lots at Fuller Park. The lease comes to the council with a recommendation of approval from the park advisory commission. The commission gave that recommendation at its July 15, 2014 meeting.

Map of parking lots at Fuller Park that are leased to the University of Michigan.

The existing lease expires on Aug. 31, 2014. The three lots are: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks (Lot A); (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot B); and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot C). The lots are used by UM during restricted hours.

The city has leased Lot A to UM since 1993. Lots B and C have been leased since 2009.

The proposal, which requires city council approval, is for a two-year lease with one additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue of this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. [.pdf of proposed lease agreement] [.pdf of staff report]

The hours that UM can use these lots are stipulated in the agreement:

• Lot A: 4 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
• Lot B (paved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, beginning the day after Labor Day through the Friday before Memorial Day, excluding holidays.
• Lot C (unpaved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

At the PAC meeting when the lease was recommended, parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that the revenue from these three lots is significant for the parks and recreation operating budget. The current agreement – which was approved by the council in 2009 and extended by two administrative renewals – is essentially the same as the agreement that will expire, Smith told PAC.

The main purpose of the lots is for the parks, Smith explained. That’s reflected in the hours when UM can use the lots – on weekdays, prior to 4-5 p.m. The outdoor pool and soccer fields don’t need the quantity of parking during the winter or off-season. “It’s an asset within the parks department that we can either have sit there, or we can lease it for a significant amount of revenue that obviously helps us provide other programs,” he said. If the city doesn’t lease those parking lots, “I am absolutely certain that people will park in it anyway,” Smith added.

State Street Village

On Aug. 18, the council will consider final approval of the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda for approval is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

Aerial view of State Street Village site.

Action on the initial approval came at the city council’s July 21, 2014 meeting. A recommendation for the rezoning was given at the June 17, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

At that meeting, commissioners recommended approval of the site plan, development agreement and rezoning for the project.

The front part of the site is currently a surface parking lot, and is zoned O (office). The rear parcel – 4.5 acres – is vacant, and zoned M1 (limited industrial). Residential developments are permitted in office-zoned areas. [.pdf of staff report]

The development will include 114 parking spaces in the rear of the site and 13 spaces for the front. Another 22 spaces in the surface parking lot will be shared by the existing office building just south of the site.

In addition, 44 covered bicycle spaces and 8 enclosed bicycle spaces will be provided near the entrances of the apartment buildings and 2 hoops will be placed near the entrance of the rental office building.

Instead of making a $48,360 requested donation to the city for parks, McKinley has proposed two 8×10-foot grilling patios with picnic tables and grills.

According to the staff memo, the footing drains of 18 homes, or flow equivalent to 71.91 gallons per minute, will need to be disconnected from the city’s sanitary sewer system to mitigate flow from this proposed development.

North Maple Estates

To be considered for final approval by the council at its Aug. 18 meeting is the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which has been shifted to the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive.

The Ann Arbor planning commission recommended all three items for approval at its June 17, 2014 meeting. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning at its July 7, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The project is part of a major renovation effort by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission of several of its properties. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The units in the eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex are proposed to have a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms.

The project would include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings would be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

The project also requires the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, so if the right-of-way vacation is approved, the land would become part of the housing commission property. In a separate vote, the planning commission also recommended approving that request.

When the project was in front of the planning commission, planning staff noted three issues that need to be resolved before the project gets approval from city council:

The parcel containing two duplex buildings also owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission in the northeast corner of the site must be combined with the subject site, forming a single parcel as a requirement for issuance of any permits.

The legal description and comparison chart data must be confirmed to include the duplex parcel.

The northern-most parking stall, nearest the connection to Vine Court, must be relocated outside of the minimum front setback area.

According to the staff memo, after June 3 the city’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed new connection from Seybold Drive onto Dexter Avenue, and concluded that sight distances from all approaches are acceptable. He suggested that the pavement markings on Dexter should be refreshed.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is part of an ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

121 Kingsley West

Rezoning for 121 W. Kingsley Street for a proposed new development is getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

The rezoning is on the council’s agenda, but the site plan will not come before the council until the zoning is considered for a second and final vote. The Ann Arbor planning commission’s recommendation of approval for the site plan and the rezoning came at its July 15, 2014 meeting.

Rendering of 121 Kingsley West project, looking south from Kingsley. The existing building is in the left foreground.

Developers are Tom Fitzsimmons, Peter Allen and Mark Berg. The architect is Marc Rueter.

There would be 29 parking spaces below the buildings – though only two spaces are required, based on residential premiums that the project is seeking. The premiums give the project additional floor area, compare to what’s allowed by right. An elevator for each building will be accessible from the parking level. The parking level of the east building will include a bike room with 14 spaces.

According to a staff report, the project’s development agreement will address “easements for encroachments onto the City right of way by the existing building, onsite stormwater management, verification of LEED points, six required footing drain disconnects, future façade alterations, and the contribution to Parks and Recreation Services.” [.pdf of staff report]

Planning commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning, site plan and development agreement. However, only five commissioners on the nine-member body were present, and the commission’s bylaws stipulate that approval requires six votes. So the project was forwarded to city council for consideration with a recommendation of denial from the commission. Wendy Woods, the commission’s chair, assured the developers that city council would be informed that the project secured unanimous support from all commissioners who were present.

The project is on the same site as a previously proposed project by Peter Allen called Kingsley Lane. That had been envisioned as a larger development with 46 units in a complex with two “towers” – at four and nine stories. According to a 2006 Ann Arbor News article, pre-sales of the units were slower than expected because of the struggling housing market, and ultimately financing fell through. At a July 9, 2013 planning commission work session, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the developers had lost the property to the bank, but subsequently secured the land and were expected to submit a new site plan.

Taxicab Ordinances

Getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18 are two changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. The companies offer the arrangement of rides through mobile networks with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Both companies have continued to operate in Ann Arbor, despite cease-and-desist orders from the city. [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Lyft] [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Uber]

The vote to recommend the ordinance changes came at the July 24, 2014 meeting of the taxicab board.

These issues were also discussed at three monthly meetings of the taxicab board prior to that, on April 23, 2014, May 22, 2014 and June 26, 2014.

One ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall.

The current structure for fare regulation already allows for the adoption of a maximum rate to be adopted by the city council. Currently the maximum rate in Ann Arbor is $3 to get in, $2.50 per mile, and 40 cents per minute waiting time. Those maximum rates were last adjusted upwards three years ago, on May 16, 2011, in response to gas prices that had nudged past $4 per gallon. At that time, the taxicab board indicated it did not anticipate considering another rate change until the gas prices were over $5 for at least two consecutive months.

So the taxicab board’s thinking is not being driven by gas prices, which are currently between $3.75 and $4 in the Ann Arbor area. Instead, a possible increase in allowable fares is based on concern that the taxicab industry in Ann Arbor might not be able to survive unless taxis are allowed to charge more.

At its July 24 meeting, taxicab board members discussed the possibility of delaying their recommendation on the ordinance changes until the board could also make a specific recommendation on the price point for a very high maximum rate. But ultimately board members felt that a recommendation on a price point for a new maximum rate could come later – especially because ordinance changes require a first and second reading in front of the council. There would be a window of opportunity between those readings to make a recommendation on the higher maximum. The taxicab board’s next meeting is scheduled for Aug. 28 at 8:30 a.m. at city hall.

The other ordinance change to be given initial consideration would require that all drivers for hire – whether they are taxicab drivers or drivers who work for Uber or Lyft – register with the city, maintain proper insurance for their vehicles and acquire commercial plates. Commercial plates would require that the commensurate commercial insurance is carried.

And the absence of commercial plates on a vehicle that is observed to be used for picking up or dropping off passengers would provide a primary reason for a traffic stop by Ann Arbor police. At the taxicab board meetings over the last few months, representatives of the taxicab industry argued that the state statute regulating limousines already gives the city the ability to enforce against Uber and Lyft drivers.

Deer Management

Attached to the Aug. 18 city council agenda is a report from the city administrator outlining issues and options for management of the urban deer herd in Ann Arbor. Based on that report is a resolution, sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), that would accept the report and appropriate $20,000 from the general fund for development of a “community endorsed deer management plan.” [.pdf of Aug. 14, 2014 deer management options report]

The council had directed the preparation of the report on various options in a resolution approved at its May 5, 2014 meeting. The report was to have been delivered to the council by July 31.

Fall 2015 is the earliest date identified in the report as a possible timeframe for a culling of the herd.

Before developing a specific plan – that could involve killing deer or not – input from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and the University of Michigan would be sought. And the Michigan Department of Natural Resources would need to approve any plan for deer management. The Aug. 14 report includes descriptions of deer management plans in other Michigan cities that range from ordinances prohibiting the feeding of deer to culling programs that shut down city parks and prescribe shooting lanes for archers.

City of Ann Arbor staff estimate that six months would be needed for public engagement. That public engagement could start within 45 days of city council approval to proceed.

Estimated staff time to develop the specific plan is 160 hours, according to the Aug. 14 report. Contractual public engagement and support to develop a management plan are estimated at $20,000.

Other facts included in the plan are the fact that neither city parks nor golf courses have had vegetation damage by deer. The cost to the city for disposing of deer carcasses in fiscal year 2014 was $5,850.

Estimated cost to kill 40-50 deer in the city of Ann Arbor is $25,000-$27,000 per year. That amount includes city staff administration cost in the amount of $14,000.

All deer-car accidents in Washtenaw County from 2004 through 2013 are plotted in the dynamic map below. Map is by The Chronicle with data from michigantrafficcrashfacts.org.

3:50 p.m. Agenda questions. Now available are the city staff’s written responses to questions about agenda items submitted by councilmembers. [.pdf of Aug. 18, 2014 agenda responses]

3:59 p.m. Public speaker lineup. Two speakers and one alternate are signed up to talk about the Fuller Park lease agreement: Rita Mitchell, George Gaston and Larry Baird (alternate). Two speakers and one alternate are signed up to talk about the taxicab ordinance changes: Anne Choike, Scott Sanders and Michael White (alternate). Five speakers are signed up to talk about deer management: Maurita Holland, Mary Avrakotos, Trocy Grogan, Judy Cohen and Nicholas Avrakotos. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about electing Mark Schauer and affordable housing.

6:33 p.m. Two large groups are congregating – one outside city hall by the Dreiseitl fountain and one inside the lobby. They’re drivers for Uber and Lyft, respectively.

6:36 p.m. Two people are here in chambers so far. Both are here because they’re interested in the new taxicab ordinance revisions. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has already arrived and is sitting at the council table.

6:44 p.m. Color coding for the TV viewing audience: Pink T-shirts are for Lyft; blue is for Uber. About 40 people total so far. Two AAPD officers are also here. One of them talks with Mozhgan Savabieasfahani and Blaine Coleman about the seating.

6:53 p.m. City attorney Stephen Postema and city administrator Steve Powers are here. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has arrived.

6:53 p.m. Chief of police John Seto and deputy chief Greg Bazick were in the hallway on the second floor, outside council chambers. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) arrived earlier.

6:57 p.m. One guy in the back row has both pink and blue T-shirts draped over his shoulders. He drives for both Uber and Lyft.

6:59 p.m. Savabieasfahani calls supporters of the “Boycott Israel” contingent to sit on the north side of the chambers. Thomas Partridge responds by saying, “This is a city council meeting, not a rally!”

7:01 p.m. Chants of “Boycott Israel” begin. The council meeting has not yet been convened.

7:01 p.m. And we’re off.

7:01 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance.

7:02 p.m. Roll call of council. Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4), and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) are absent at the rollcall.

7:02 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the evening’s agenda without amendment.

7:05 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers is talking about the closing of the Ann Arbor senior center for safety reasons. It will be open again in early September. Applications for the city fire chief position will be accepted through Sept. 15. The city’s bond rating has been confirmed as AA+.

Powers doesn’t mention the deer management report that has been submitted to the council. It’s attached to the council’s agenda as a communication. [.pdf of Aug. 18, 2014 deer management options report]

7:05 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Two speakers and one alternate are signed up to talk about the Fuller Park lease agreement: Rita Mitchell, George Gaston and Larry Baird (alternate). Two speakers and one alternate are signed up to talk about the taxicab ordinance changes: Anne Choike, Scott Sanders and Michael White (alternate). Five speakers are signed up to talk about deer management: Maurita Holland, Mary Avrakotos, Trocy Grogan, Judy Cohen and Nicholas Avrakotos. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about electing Mark Schauer and affordable housing.

Mayor John Hieftje is reviewing the rules about how many people can speak at a time and where signs can be held.

7:05 p.m. Rita Mitchell tells Hieftje that she is electing not to speak.

7:08 p.m. George Gaston is addressing the council on the topic of the Fuller Park lot leases. In an email sent to council members over the weekend, he explained how he’s calculated revenue to the University of Michigan from the Yellow and Blue permits issued for the lots. Gaston’s calculations put the UM’s revenue at a total of $521,956 annually, compared to the $78,665 amount in the lease. [.pdf of Gaston's Aug. 15 and Aug. 17, 2014 emails]

He tells the council that he’d spoken to the park advisory commission [at its July 15, 2014 meeting]. He asks the council to delay approval of the lease until they’ve reviewed the figures. Lot A was supposed to be a temporary lot, 20 years ago, he says. The lots are Yellow and Blue lots in the UM parking system, he says. Yellow permits are much cheaper, he says. The council should insist on compensation from the UM based at least on the cost of Yellow Blue permits. Gaston is reciting the history of the leasing of the lots, which involved an interest in preserving bur oak trees. [Briere has now arrived at the table. So has Warpehoski.]

7:12 p.m. Anne Choike tells the council she recently moved to Ann Arbor to teach at the law school. She is speaking in her personal interest in support of Uber and Lyft. She’s arguing for the services based on an interest in less reliance on car ownership. She relies on the bus system, Uber and Lyft, and shared rides with friends. She recites reasons why taxicab service is inadequate. She describes how she is able to spend money on local businesses, instead of on car ownership.

7:16 p.m. Scott Sanders says he’s a homeowner, with two kids and the husband of a professor. Two kids means that it’s a challenge to find a way to earn extra money. Driving in a ride-sharing service is a way to do that. He describes this as an opportunity to grow the transportation business. Instead of fighting for a smaller piece of the pie, people should be thinking about growing the size of the pie: “Coopetition.” This makes transportation more efficient and more accessible, he says. Every time he picks up riders, they express the attitude that: What did we ever do before this? He asks the council not to use a heavy hand. His remarks conclude with applause from the audience, like the previous speaker did.

7:18 p.m. Maurita Holland is speaking for various plants that have been harmed by deer. She’s also speaking for the Washtenaw Citizens for Ecological Balance. She calls for immediate action because the problem is doubling every year, she contends. The deer population in Washtenaw County is 12.5 times the recommended density, she says. “We have to do something,” she says.

7:19 p.m. Mary Avrakotos is speaking as a homeowner on the problem of deer management. She calls deer an increasing menace. She wants the council to decide quickly on a deer management plan and to insist that the city administrator adhere to a timeline on implementation.

7:22 p.m. Tracy Grogan says that spending money on a deer management plan would be money well spent. He likes deer, but deer in urban areas are nervous and tentative, he says. The problem is complex and subject to debate. Ann Arborites are thoughtful, peaceful and caring, he says. But the deer situation is brutal and costly. He wants the discussion to be elevated aggressively. The resolution tonight is an important step forward, he says. He allows that the general fund balance is a precious resource, but we owe it to ourselves to develop a plan that reflects the values of the city. His remarks draw applause.

7:25 p.m. Judy Cohen is also here to talk about the deer issue. It’s not just a matter of whether the deer are eating lilies and decimating your garden. The dollar value of the damage is high, she says. She says that Matthaei Botanical Gardens has cages around the trees to protect them from the deer, but most people don’t want cages around their own trees. She’s describing her personal close calls with deer in her car and actual accidents in her car.

7:27 p.m. Nicholas Avrakotos tells the council that we do have a problem with deer. The most severe winter in many years has not diminished the deer population, he says. He’s describing overpopulation of rabbits on an island – which has become a refuge for rabbits. He says that’s what’s happening here with respect to deer. He wants the council to acknowledge there is a problem.

7:29 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls for the election of Mark Schauer as governor and Gary Peters as U.S. Senator. Hieftje tells Partridge that he had signed to talk about agenda item F-5 and wants him to do that. Peters would have a platform that would help eliminate homelessness and provide affordable housing, Partridge responds.

7:30 p.m. Hieftje disallows Baird as an alternate speaker, saying that Mitchell was here but chose not to speak.

7:30 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of two slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:32 p.m. Taylor conveys regrets from Teall, who is caring for older family members. Eaton announces a neighborhood meeting for the Packard Square development on Sept. 4.

7:33 p.m. MC-1 Confirmations. The council is being asked tonight to confirm nominations made at the council’s Aug. 7, 2014 meeting: Bob Guenzel as a reappointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; Stephen Raiman to the energy commission to replace Dina Kurz; and Nora Lee Wright to a vacancy on the housing and human services advisory board.

7:33 p.m. Outcome: All nominations have been confirmed without discussion.

7:33 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Anna Ercoli-Schnitzer is being nominated to fill a vacancy on the Commission on Disability Issues. Tamara Burns and Dick Mitchell are being nominated to be reappointed to the design review board. Sofia Franciscus is being nominated to fill the vacancy on the planning commission due to Paras Parekh’s resignation. And John Splitt is being nominated for reappointment to the Downtown Development Authority board. Votes on their confirmation will take place at the council’s next meeting.

7:35 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Four public hearings are scheduled tonight. Two of them relate to an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project on North Maple that involves demolishing some units and re-building them. [For additional background see North Maple Estates above] The other two public hearings relate to the McKinley project on State Street called State Street Village. [For additional background see State Street Village above]

Hieftje tells the Boycott Israel contingent to hold their signs over to the sides. They respond by exiting. In leaving some make statements: “You care more about deer than people.”

7:35 p.m. PH-1 Ann Arbor Housing Commission North Maple Road.

7:37 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls for more affordable housing.

7:37 p.m. PH-2 Seybold Drive street vacation.

7:38 p.m. No one speaks on this public hearing.

7:38 p.m. PH-3 State Street Village rezoning.

7:40 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls for more consideration of the most vulnerable.

7:40 p.m. PH-4 State Street Village site plan.

7:42 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls for public access by everyone, including seniors and the disabled.

7:42 p.m. Approval of minutes. Outcome: The minutes of the council’s previous meeting have been approved.

7:42 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Approve the member services agreement into the Keenan Pharmacy Purchasing Coalition ($60,000 for 2014 and $60,000 for 2015).
• CA-2 Approve July 24, 2014 recommendations of the Board of Insurance Administration.
• CA-3 Street Closure: Maynard Street on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 for the Barracuda Networks BBQ.
• CA-4 Approve agreement with the Washtenaw County Road Commission for the resurfacing of Newport Road (City Limits to Bird Road) ($90,000).

7:43 p.m. Councilmembers can pull out any item on the consent agenda for separate consideration. Briere pulls out CA-4.

7:43 p.m. Outcome: The consent agenda has been approved except for CA-4.

7:43 p.m. CA-4 Approve agreement with the Washtenaw County Road Commission for the resurfacing of Newport Road (City Limits to Bird Road) ($90,000).

7:44 p.m. Briere is thanking staff for working with the Washtenaw County Road Commission to make this happen.

7:44 p.m. Outcome: CA-4 has now been approved from the consent agenda.

7:44 p.m. B-1 Ann Arbor Housing Commission North Maple Road Rezoning. The council is considering for final approval the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which has been shifted to the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive. [For additional background see North Maple Estates above]

7:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the North Maple Estates rezoning.

7:45 p.m. B-2 State Street Village rezoning. The council is considering the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda for approval is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State. [For additional background see State Street Village above]

7:45 p.m. Briere notes that office (O) zoning was the most flexible zoning for this site. She assures members of the public that every site plan is vetted for access to transit by all users.

7:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the State Street Village rezoning.

7:46 p.m. C-1 121 Kingsley West rezoning. This is the initial consideration of the 121 W. Kingsley Street project. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million. The rezoning is on the council’s agenda, but the site plan will not come before the council until the zoning is considered for a second and final vote. [For additional background see 121 Kingsley West above]

7:46 p.m. Outcome: Without discussion, the council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning for 121 Kingsley West.

7:46 p.m. C-2 Taxicab ordinance amendment: Rates. Getting initial consideration tonight are two changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. This ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall. [For additional background see Taxicab Ordinances above]

7:47 p.m. Outcome: Without discussion, the council has voted to give initial approval of the taxicab ordinance change on the maximum rate.

7:47 p.m. C-3 Taxicab ordinance amendment: Register drivers for hire. This is the second item recommended by the taxicab board. It would require the registration with the city by all drivers for hire, including those who work for Uber and Lyft. Key requirements are the affixing of commercial license plates to a vehicle and maintaining commensurate insurance. [For additional background see Taxicab Ordinances above]

7:50 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is noting that he sits on the taxicab board. The board has been working to bring up the city’s laws up to date with the changes to the marketplace. The speakers tonight have not addressed the issue of public safety, he says. This ordinance will require insurance of vehicles as commercial vehicles, he notes. This will make all drivers comply with the same rules, Kunselman says. He notes that this is the first reading of the ordinance. Some items might need to be removed, but he would like that to happen at the second reading.

7:51 p.m. Kunselman compares the issue to Selma Cafe. Everyone thought it was great, and then came the annoyances from all the neighbors because of the parking in the neighborhood. Relying on personal insurance won’t work, Kunselman says, because that puts the consumer at risk.

7:52 p.m. Hieftje is reviewing the two-step process for changes to ordinances – first reading, followed by second reading with a public hearing at a later date. Lumm is thanking the city attorney’s staff for their work.

7:54 p.m. Lumm asks about the division of responsibility between the state and local municipalities with respect to taxicabs and limos. Assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom tells Lumm that her understanding of the state of Michigan’s position is that Uber and Lyft services meet the definition of a limo. There’s movement among legislators to make amendments to the state limo act, she thinks.

7:57 p.m. City CFO Tom Crawford, who serves on the taxicab board in an ex officio capacity, responds to a question from Lumm about mechanics and inspections.

7:59 p.m. Briere wants to know what the financial impact will be on drivers for Uber and Lyft. Crawford says that there’s a distinction between a limo company, the drivers and the vehicle. He says that the drivers for Uber and Lyft are 1099 workers. Briere says that this is not what she’s concerned about. She wants to know who bears the cost. How does the proposed change share responsibility? she asks.

8:03 p.m. Kailasapathy ventures that answering the cost question is challenging, and Crawford agrees. Petersen says that the real hurdle is the insurance, not the chauffeur’s license.

8:06 p.m. Anglin agrees that it’s important to understand the cost. Kunselman responds by saying the reason that Lyft and Uber can make a profit is that they are “cheating” the law. What about the companies that are complying with the law? Kunselman asks – like Ann Arbor’s taxicab companies. The reason Uber and Lyft can charge less because they aren’t carrying the associated cost of business, he says. About the use of a family car for a ride-sharing business, Kunselman says: “Lord help us all if that family vehicle gets in a wreck,” and the family goes into bankruptcy.

8:07 p.m. Anglin doesn’t want to jump into anything rapidly.

8:10 p.m. Taylor says that the solution proposed is for a problem that does not exist. Uber and Lyft provide safe service, he says. They allow Ann Arborites to maintain a carless lifestyle. These business models provide for full insurance, he contends. Drivers are taken care of by the insurance of Uber and Lyft when they’re driving. He’ll vote against this, he says. Instead he’ll be working with Briere to bring forward a resolution directing the city administrator to develop an operating agreement with Uber and Lyft. His remarks are met with applause. Hieftje says “Applause is not appropriate during the body of the meeting.”

8:13 p.m. Eaton asks a question of the city attorney’s office. He asks if there’s anything about the state limo act that prevents the city from asserting control over the same subject matter. Warpehoski gets clarification that Ann Arbor does not limit the number of taxicab licenses. He’s comparing Ann Arbor to New York, and its taxicab “cartel.” He says it’s a matter of threading the needle, balancing the right amount of regulation.

8:15 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll vote for this at first reading, but if the text is the same by the time the ordinance comes back for second reading, he’ll vote against it at that time.

8:15 p.m. Petersen says she’ll take Warpehoski’s advice from a couple of meetings ago: If you’re going to vote against it at second reading, vote against it at first reading. She wants to support Taylor’s efforts to develop an operating agreement.

8:19 p.m. Kunselman notes that the Detroit operating agreement is for a short time, while the law is worked out. All this ordinance does is make everyone follow the same laws, he says. If councilmembers think that Uber and Lyft can self-regulate public safety, then they should vote this down and let it be a free-for-all, he says. They’re making money because they’re not paying the full cost of the business model. They’re using public streets to make a buck, he says. With Selma Cafe, everyone was having a great time going to breakfast at someone’s house, he says, but then it had to be shut down.

8:19 p.m. Kunselman says he doesn’t use Lyft and Uber because he doesn’t feel they’re safe.

8:21 p.m. Briere is describing how many cities are developing operating agreements while the state laws are sorted out. The operating agreements can address who pays for what, she says. The agreement being considered in Lansing would define an amount for which the company is responsible for insuring, she says.

8:23 p.m. Briere ventures that such operating agreements could eventually be extended to standard limo companies. She doesn’t imagine ever needing to know who every driver is, but thinks it’s rational to expect that a list be maintained – so it’s fine if Lyft and Uber maintain that list.

8:26 p.m. Lumm says the ship has left the dock and there’s no stopping it now. Even though there’s a cease-and-desist order, Uber and Lyft are continuing to do business, she says. It’s about ensuring safety for passengers, she adds. Detroit had left undefined who the “third party” is who can inspect vehicles. Lumm is talking about the fact that Uber and Lyft drivers are rated by customers, but she wonders what happens if there’s a series of bad ratings. Lumm asks that Taylor and Briere work with the taxicab board, if the ordinance revision doesn’t pass at first reading. She notes that the chair of the taxicab board [Michael Benson] had sent the council an email asking the council to support the changes.

8:29 p.m. Crawford describes himself as conflicted about the ordinance. He says that he doesn’t see Uber and Lyft as competing with taxicabs so much as with limos. The Uber and Lyft business models are designed for those who have smartphones, he notes. They have ways to rate passengers and drivers, he says, so if you have give drivers a bad experience, you might not be able to get a ride.

8:32 p.m. Kailasapathy is drawing an analogy to renting a house. If a landlord was skirting requirements on fire inspections, would the city opt to come up with operating agreements with them? Is the city council there to revise ordinance that apply to everybody, or when people break the rules, do we scramble to create operating agreements to fit their business models? For her it’s a governance issue.

8:35 p.m. Eaton says he’ll support the ordinance change. He notes that Kunselman has stated he’s willing to compromise on some of the language. Eaton says that he is sensitive to the idea that a company will self-regulate for safety. He says that the same offer of an operating agreement would need to be offered to taxicab companies. Eaton can’t imagine letting an entire industry arise under the guise of self-regulation.

8:36 p.m. Petersen says she’s not opposed to ordinance amendments, but she doesn’t think that these are the right set of amendments. She says that Kunselman should go back to the drawing board. Public safety, health and welfare is paramount, but she doesn’t think that these are insurmountable barriers.

8:39 p.m. Anglin is talking about the transportation that the AAATA’s shared taxi service provides. Briere moves to waive the council’s rules on speaking times, which the council agrees to.

8:40 p.m. Kunselman is going through the requirements in the ordinance change and asks other councilmembers if they have objections to each of them. “Does anybody have a problem with that?” is the question he poses for each requirement.

8:42 p.m. Kunselman comes to “the one that probably scares Uber and Lyft the most,” which is that they would have to comply with state limo act. He asks if councilmembers are willing to allow a company to operate in violation of state law. If so, then “have at it,” he says.

8:44 p.m. Briere calls Kailasapathy’s comparison to renting a house interesting. She extends that to the hotel industry and bed and breakfasts, and is now talking about Airbnb-type models.

8:47 p.m. Briere says she wants the company to bear the burden. The city would be adding an incredible burden to something that is a casual relationship. She thinks the city can be more creative in regulating this issue. Since April, she’s been convinced that an operating agreement is the way to go.

8:49 p.m. Lumm thinks that the requirements in the ordinance are really basic. She asks for the representative from Uber, Michael White, to explain which elements of the ordinance he objects to.

8:52 p.m. White says that there’s no need for commercial insurance on a vehicle that’s being used for three hours a week for this service, he says. Uber’s insurance covers those vehicles when they’re being used to drive for Uber, he says. If there were a safety issue, he says, it wouldn’t be just a national issue, it would be an international issue, he says.

8:54 p.m. Eaton asks which requirements White objects to. He objects to each driver having to complete the requirements.

8:55 p.m. Kailasapathy is asking about the insurance policy. It’s a liability policy, White explains.

8:57 p.m. Briere asks if White can share data about safety. Not today, he says. Briere asks if he can get it. Complaints come in as a stream, he says. Briere wants to know about percentages – out of 20 vehicles, how many complaints are there?

9:00 p.m. White says that their drivers have an average star rating of 4.6 stars out of 5.0. Briere says she’s not asking about satisfaction, but about safety. Petersen wants to know how that data is used by Uber. White is providing the standard Uber marketing message to the council.

9:01 p.m. Petersen asks if Uber can suspend a driver before they discover that people aren’t requesting rides from them. Based on White’s response, it’s not clear.

9:02 p.m. Lumm is following up with questions about the rating system.

9:05 p.m. White is taking the opportunity to explain the various advantages that Uber offers to riders.

9:07 p.m. Lumm is going back and forth with White about what he’d be willing to put in an operating agreement. He’d be willing to put a requirement in an Ann Arbor operating agreement that required the vehicle inspection to be done by a licensed mechanic.

9:12 p.m. Warpehoski has some back-and-forth with White.

9:12 p.m. Kunselman asks White if Uber would be willing to accept six points as a maximum. White says that they evaluate the nature of the violations. He’d be happy to discuss various issues. Kunselman says White has been vague. Kunselman asks if Uber would allow a felon to be a driver. No, White says. The city council had recently approved a policy on that, Kunselman notes. [Earlier this year, the city eliminated the requirement that job applicants disclose past criminal records – except for police and fire department applicants.]

White says that an English requirement would effectively arise from having to be able to go through the application system. And if they did manage to be activated as a driver, their ability to deliver quality service would be hampered by a lack of English. And that would show up in the feedback the driver would get.

9:14 p.m. Kunselman asks about possible discrimination against riders with disabilities and about red-lining. White says that studies have been done that show in Chicago, undesirable and underserved areas are much better served by Uber than by existing transportation options. Kunselman asks: Do you think that we should disband the taxicab industry in Ann Arbor?

9:20 p.m. Hieftje says there have been a lot of good comments. He mentions pipelines as a self-regulated industry, in some ways. It’s long been a goal of his to make it possible for people to live without owning a car, he says. The bike lane system has been expanded, he says. The bus system has been expanded. Ride-sharing apps are a way to expand ride-share options. So he won’t support the ordinance change tonight. He doesn’t think there’s any reason to think that Uber and Lyft aren’t concerned with safety.

9:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected the ordinance at first reading on a 5-5 vote. Voting against it were Hieftje, Briere, Petersen, Lumm and Taylor.

9:24 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

9:37 p.m. We’re back.

9:37 p.m. DC-1 Appropriate $20,000 to develop a community-endorsed deer management plan. This item is based on the Aug. 14 report from the city administrator on options for managing the deer population. Before developing a specific plan – that could involve killing deer or not – input from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and the University of Michigan would be sought. And the Michigan Department of Natural Resources would need to approve any plan for deer management.

The Aug. 14 report includes descriptions of deer management plans in other Michigan cities that range from ordinances prohibiting the feeding of deer to culling programs that shut down city parks and prescribe shooting lanes for archers. City of Ann Arbor staff estimate that six months would be needed for public engagement. That public engagement could start within 45 days of city council approval to proceed. Estimated staff time to develop the specific plan is 160 hours, according to the Aug. 14 report. Contractual public engagement and support to develop a management plan are estimated at $20,000. The report indicates that to cull 40-50 deer per year, the cost to the city would be about $25,000. According to Michigan Department of Natural Resources records 6,608 deer were taken by hunters in Washtenaw County. [For additional background see Deer Management above]

9:39 p.m. Lumm is thanking city administrator Steve Powers and community services administrator Sumedh Bahl. Lumm is reading aloud a written statement. The plan to be developed is supposed to include metrics for success, she says. The MDNR is the critical partner, she says.

9:42 p.m. Lumm allows that the problem might be concentrated in Ward 1 and Ward 2, but she hopes that the council will support it. Briere says that the problem is growing in Ward 5 as well. Briere says she doesn’t have an interest in seeing the deer slaughtered, but there are few ways to control the deer population. The problem might not be only the overpopulation of deer, she allows. She supports moving the process forward.

9:44 p.m. Hieftje says his central concern is that it be a comprehensive solution. He reports that he saw a buck walk past his front porch, even though there are no natural areas in the area.

9:47 p.m. Lumm asks Bahl to come to the podium. Powers responds first. He notes that the partners involved “aren’t quite there yet,” and the DNR has recommended that there be a community process. That comment comes in response to some public input to the effect that the city was not moving fast enough.

9:50 p.m. Lumm asks if there will be more data collected on environmental data. That will take some time, Bahl says.

9:51 p.m. Lumm is now reading aloud an email from a NAP volunteer. Young oak trees don’t survive unless the volunteer fences the trees, the email states.

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to appropriate $20,000 to develop a deer management plan.

9:52 p.m. DC-2 Community Events Fund Disbursements. This item was added late to the agenda by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). The council rule on the subject reads as follows: “Council members may add items to the agenda at any time, but will use best efforts to do so prior to 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the next Council meeting.” The two constitute the council committee for distribution of community events funding. They met at 10 a.m. today (Monday) for a meeting that was announced through the city’s notification system at 4:06 p.m. last Friday.

About half of the events to receive funding this year have already taken place. The disbursements are for a total of $55,000, including $10,000 for the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair and $25,000 for the Summer Festival.

9:54 p.m. Warpehoski apologizes for the late addition to the agenda. Some of the events that been allocated funding turned out not to be happening and so adjustments needed to be made late. The full amount is not being allocated, he says, so that late applications might be accommodated.

9:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the disbursements from the community events fund.

9:54 p.m. DB-1 Seybold Drive vacation. This item is related to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s North Maple Estates project the zoning for which the council voted on earlier in the meeting. [For additional background see North Maple Estates above]

9:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the vacation of Seybold Drive.

9:54 p.m. DB-2 State Street Village site plan. The council voted on the rezoning for the project earlier in the meeting. [For additional background see State Street Village above]

9:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the State Street Village site plan.

9:54 p.m. DS-1 Approve extended policy with EyeMed Vision Care ($305,828). The policy period is four years. The policy requires the city to pay a set monthly premium. The monthly premiums are $4.53 for single, $8.61 for two people, and $12.64 for a family from July 1, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2014. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, due to the fees imposed onto insurers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the premiums will be adjusted upward on January 1, 2015. The new monthly premiums will be $4.67 for single, $8.87, for two people, and $13.02 for a family from Jan. 1, 2015 through Dec. 31, 2018.

9:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the extension with EyeMed.

9:55 p.m. DS-2 Approve Fuller Lot lease with University of Michigan. This item would extend the lease by the city to the University of Michigan for three parking lots at Fuller Park: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks; (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park; and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park. The lots are used by the University of Michigan during restricted hours. Annual revenue from this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. The item was forwarded to the city council from the park advisory commission with a recommendation of approval. [For additional background see Fuller Park Parking Lease above.]

9:57 p.m. Hieftje says that he thinks it would be useful to postpone the question.

9:58 p.m. Eaton asks that if this is sent back to the park advisory commission (PAC), then he wants the commission to review the relevant planning documents.

10:00 p.m. Briere moves to postpone until October. Lumm asks what happens, given the expiration of the current lease. Hieftje ventures that this is coming to the council later than it should have.

10:01 p.m. Anglin is concerned about the inclusion of a mention of future uses of the property.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the Fuller Park lot lease with the University of Michigan until the first meeting in October.

10:01 p.m. DS-3 Appropriate emergency management performance ($42,582) This item will accept $42,582 in grant funding from the state for emergency management. It will pay for part of the salary for the city’s emergency manager.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the acceptance of the emergency program grant funds.

10:02 p.m. Communications from the council.

10:05 p.m. Kailasapathy is pointing out that the council rule regarding public commentary is that if someone vacates their reserved time, it shall be assigned to the alternate speakers. Larry Baird was the alternate who was denied an opportunity to speak. Hieftje says that he will take a look at that. But he says that the rules are under a great deal of scrutiny to make sure that the rules are followed. “Maybe I was too careful.” He was concerned that someone might bring that up to the council. Kailasapathy reiterates the point of the rule. Hieftje says he’ll look into that. Warpehoski notes that everyone has a responsibility to note the error at the time it’s made.

10:06 p.m. Clerk’s Report. Warpehoski says he’s happy to see the inclusion of accessory dwelling units in the planning commission’s work plan, which is part of the clerk’s report of communications.

10:08 p.m. Warpehoski says that if the council wants to see things move forward, they need to make the necessary resources available.

10:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has now accepted the clerk’s report.

10:08 p.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:10 p.m. Thomas Partridge says that despite the council’s vote on the taxicab ordinance, the city still needs assurances that transportation will be safety. He says the city is not making the kind of progress it needs to on affordable housing.

10:13 p.m. Kai Petainen is addressing the council on the topic of Ann Arbor SPARK. Here’s a .pdf of his remarks: [.pdf of Petainen Aug. 18, 2014]

10:16 p.m. A Lyft driver is addressing the council. He says he’s been living here for 14 years. He says that the council makes the city better and better every day. He wants them to continue to make Ann Arbor’s transportation system better.

10:18 p.m. A second Lyft driver, who’s been working with that service since May 8, is now addressing the council. Ann Arbor deserves ride-sharing in the city, he says. About 80% of riders he picks up are college students. When he picks up students who are drunk, he knows that he is saving their lives. It takes 45 minutes to an hour for other services, he says. Lyft covers him with a $1 million policy, he says.

10:21 p.m. Ed Vielmetti is addressing the council. He’s a Ward 4 resident. Two years ago, The Chronicle’s Stopped.Watched feature recorded a vehicle in storage by the city of Ann Arbor – it’s a Washtenaw County APC with a battering ram. He alludes to events in Ferguson. He hopes and prays that if something happens in this city and county, their public officials will support them in cases where injustices have been done.

10:23 p.m. Rita Mitchell says that she is choosing to speak now, although she chose not to speak earlier. She appreciates the rule that calls for speakers to speak on agenda items at the start of the meeting. She thanks the council for their action to postpone the item on leasing Fuller Park lots to UM. She hopes that the parks can be funded without leasing parkland for non-park uses. She also objects to inclusion of language in the lease about possible future use of the area as a train station. She wants the city to check into the condition of the trees that were supposed to be saved through the lease so many years ago.

10:25 p.m. Jeff Hayner says he hopes the city can get a better deal from the University of Michigan. He delivers a theatrical reading with a deer skull.

10:26 p.m. An Uber driver is now addressing the council in support of Uber and other ride-sharing services.

10:27 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

A report from the city administrator on options for deer management has led to a resolution on the Aug. 18 agenda appropriating $20,000 for the development of a deer management program.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Aug. 18, 2014 meeting agenda.

Among the land use items on the Aug. 18 agenda is one related to use of city-owned land – three parking lots at Fuller Park: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks; (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park; and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park. The lots are used by the University of Michigan during restricted hours.

The council will be considering a two-year lease with one additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue from this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. The item was forwarded to the city council from the park advisory commission with a recommendation of approval.

Private land development items on the Aug. 18 agenda include final approval of the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda for approval is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027-square-foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

Also on the agenda for final approval is the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which is also on the council’s Aug. 18 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive.

Rezoning for 121 W. Kingsley Street for a private development is getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

Getting initial consideration by the council at its Aug. 18 meeting are changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. The companies offer the arrangement of rides through mobile networks with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Both companies have ignored cease-and-desist orders from the city.

Uber has sent its Ann Arbor customers an email asking them to sign an online petition supporting Uber’s continued ability to operate here.

One ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall. The other ordinance would require that all drivers for hire – whether they are taxicab drivers or drivers who work for Uber or Lyft – register with the city, maintain proper insurance for their vehicles and acquire commercial plates.

In other significant business at its Aug. 18 meeting, the council will also be asked to confirm the re-appointment of Bob Guenzel to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

Fuller Park Parking Lease

The council will be considering a possible four-year extension on a University of Michigan lease of three parking lots at Fuller Park. The lease comes to the council with a recommendation of approval from the park advisory commission. The commission gave that recommendation at its July 15, 2014 meeting.

Map of parking lots at Fuller Park that are leased to the University of Michigan.

The existing lease expires on Aug. 31, 2014. The three lots are: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks (Lot A); (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot B); and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot C). The lots are used by UM during restricted hours.

The city has leased Lot A to UM since 1993. Lots B and C have been leased since 2009.

The proposal, which requires city council approval, is for a two-year lease with one additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue of this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. [.pdf of proposed lease agreement] [.pdf of staff report]

The hours that UM can use these lots are stipulated in the agreement:

• Lot A: 4 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
• Lot B (paved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, beginning the day after Labor Day through the Friday before Memorial Day, excluding holidays.
• Lot C (unpaved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

At the PAC meeting when the lease was recommended, parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that the revenue from these three lots is significant for the parks and recreation operating budget. The current agreement – which was approved by the council in 2009 and extended by two administrative renewals – is essentially the same as the agreement that will expire, Smith told PAC.

The main purpose of the lots is for the parks, Smith explained. That’s reflected in the hours when UM can use the lots – on weekdays, prior to 4-5 p.m. The outdoor pool and soccer fields don’t need the quantity of parking during the winter or off-season. “It’s an asset within the parks department that we can either have sit there, or we can lease it for a significant amount of revenue that obviously helps us provide other programs,” he said. If the city doesn’t lease those parking lots, “I am absolutely certain that people will park in it anyway,” Smith added.

State Street Village

On Aug. 18, the council will consider final approval of the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda for approval is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

Aerial view of State Street Village site.

Action on the initial approval came at the city council’s July 21, 2014 meeting. A recommendation for the rezoning was given at the June 17, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

At that meeting, commissioners recommended approval of the site plan, development agreement and rezoning for the project.

The front part of the site is currently a surface parking lot, and is zoned O (office). The rear parcel – 4.5 acres – is vacant, and zoned M1 (limited industrial). Residential developments are permitted in office-zoned areas. [.pdf of staff report]

The development will include 114 parking spaces in the rear of the site and 13 spaces for the front. Another 22 spaces in the surface parking lot will be shared by the existing office building just south of the site.

In addition, 44 covered bicycle spaces and 8 enclosed bicycle spaces will be provided near the entrances of the apartment buildings and 2 hoops will be placed near the entrance of the rental office building.

Instead of making a $48,360 requested donation to the city for parks, McKinley has proposed two 8×10-foot grilling patios with picnic tables and grills.

According to the staff memo, the footing drains of 18 homes, or flow equivalent to 71.91 gallons per minute, will need to be disconnected from the city’s sanitary sewer system to mitigate flow from this proposed development.

North Maple Road

To be considered for final approval by the council at its Aug. 18 meeting is the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which is also on the council’s Aug. 18 has been shifted to the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive.

The Ann Arbor planning commission recommended all three items for approval at its June 17, 2014 meeting. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning at its July 7, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The project is part of a major renovation effort by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission of several of its properties. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The units in the eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex are proposed to have a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms.

The project would include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings would be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

The project also requires the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, so if the right-of-way vacation is approved, the land would become part of the housing commission property. In a separate vote, the planning commission also recommended approving that request.

When the project was in front of the planning commission, planning staff noted three issues that need to be resolved before the project gets approval from city council:

The parcel containing two duplex buildings also owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission in the northeast corner of the site must be combined with the subject site, forming a single parcel as a requirement for issuance of any permits.

The legal description and comparison chart data must be confirmed to include the duplex parcel.

The northern-most parking stall, nearest the connection to Vine Court, must be relocated outside of the minimum front setback area.

According to the staff memo, after June 3 the city’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed new connection from Seybold Drive onto Dexter Avenue, and concluded that sight distances from all approaches are acceptable. He suggested that the pavement markings on Dexter should be refreshed.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is part of an ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

121 Kingsley West

Rezoning for 121 W. Kingsley Street for a proposed new development is getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

The rezoning will be on the council’s agenda, but the site plan will not come before the council until the zoning is considered for a second and final vote. The Ann Arbor planning commission’s recommendation of approval for the site plan and the rezoning came at its July 15, 2014 meeting.

Rendering of 121 Kingsley West project, looking south from Kingsley. The existing building is in the left foreground.

Developers are Tom Fitzsimmons, Peter Allen and Mark Berg. The architect is Marc Rueter.

There would be 29 parking spaces below the buildings – though only two spaces are required, based on residential premiums that the project is seeking. The premiums give the project additional floor area, compare to what’s allowed by right. An elevator for each building will be accessible from the parking level. The parking level of the east building will include a bike room with 14 spaces.

According to a staff report, the project’s development agreement will address “easements for encroachments onto the City right of way by the existing building, onsite stormwater management, verification of LEED points, six required footing drain disconnects, future façade alterations, and the contribution to Parks and Recreation Services.” [.pdf of staff report]

Planning commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning, site plan and development agreement. However, only five commissioners on the nine-member body were present, and the commission’s bylaws stipulate that approval requires six votes. So the project was forwarded to city council for consideration with a recommendation of denial from the commission. Wendy Woods, the commission’s chair, assured the developers that city council would be informed that the project secured unanimous support from all commissioners who were present.

The project is on the same site as a previously proposed project by Peter Allen called Kingsley Lane. That had been envisioned as a larger development with 46 units in a complex with two “towers” – at four and nine stories. According to a 2006 Ann Arbor News article, pre-sales of the units were slower than expected because of the struggling housing market, and ultimately financing fell through. At a July 9, 2013 planning commission work session, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the developers had lost the property to the bank, but subsequently secured the land and were expected to submit a new site plan.

Taxicab Ordinances

Getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18 are two changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. The companies offer the arrangement of rides through mobile networks with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Both companies have continued to operate in Ann Arbor, despite cease-and-desist orders from the city. [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Lyft] [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Uber]

The vote to recommend the ordinance changes came at the July 24, 2014 meeting of the taxicab board.

These issues were also discussed at three monthly meetings of the taxicab board prior to that, on April 23, 2014, May 22, 2014 and June 26, 2014.

One ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall.

The current structure for fare regulation already allows for the adoption of a maximum rate to be adopted by the city council. Currently the maximum rate in Ann Arbor is $3 to get in, $2.50 per mile, and 40 cents per minute waiting time. Those maximum rates were last adjusted upwards three years ago, on May 16, 2011, in response to gas prices that had nudged past $4 per gallon. At that time, the taxicab board indicated it did not anticipate considering another rate change until the gas prices were over $5 for at least two consecutive months.

So the taxicab board’s thinking is not being driven by gas prices, which are currently between $3.75 and $4 in the Ann Arbor area. Instead, a possible increase in allowable fares is based on concern that the taxicab industry in Ann Arbor might not be able to survive unless taxis are allowed to charge more.

At its July 24 meeting, taxicab board members discussed the possibility of delaying their recommendation on the ordinance changes until the board could also make a specific recommendation on the price point for a very high maximum rate. But ultimately board members felt that a recommendation on a price point for a new maximum rate could come later – especially because ordinance changes require a first and second reading in front of the council. There would be a window of opportunity between those readings to make a recommendation on the higher maximum. The taxicab board’s next meeting is scheduled for Aug. 28 at 8:30 a.m. at city hall.

The other ordinance change to be given initial consideration would require that all drivers for hire – whether they are taxicab drivers or drivers who work for Uber or Lyft – register with the city, maintain proper insurance for their vehicles and acquire commercial plates. Commercial plates would require that the commensurate commercial insurance is carried.

And the absence of commercial plates on a vehicle that is observed to be used for picking up or dropping off passengers would provide a primary reason for a traffic stop by Ann Arbor police. At the taxicab board meetings over the last few months, representatives of the taxicab industry argued that the state statute regulating limousines already gives the city the ability to enforce against Uber and Lyft drivers.

Deer Management

Attached to the Aug. 18 city council agenda is a report from the city administrator outlining issues and options for management of the urban deer herd in Ann Arbor. Based on that report is a resolution, sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), that would accept the report and appropriate $20,000 from the general fund for development of a “community endorsed deer management plan.” [.pdf of Aug. 14, 2014 deer management options report]

The council had directed the preparation of the report on various options in a resolution approved at its May 5, 2014 meeting. The report was to have been delivered to the council by July 31.

Fall 2015 is the earliest date identified in the report as a possible timeframe for a culling of the herd.

Before developing a specific plan – that could involve killing deer or not – input from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and the University of Michigan would be sought. And the Michigan Department of Natural Resources would need to approve any plan for deer management. The Aug. 14 report includes descriptions of deer management plans in other Michigan cities that range from ordinances prohibiting the feeding of deer to culling programs that shut down city parks and prescribe shooting lanes for archers.

City of Ann Arbor staff estimate that six months would be needed for public engagement. That public engagement could start within 45 days of city council approval to proceed.

Estimated staff time to develop the specific plan is 160 hours, according to the Aug. 14 report. Contractual public engagement and support to develop a management plan are estimated at $20,000.

Other facts included in the plan are the fact that neither city parks nor golf courses have had vegetation damage by deer. The cost to the city for disposing of deer carcasses in fiscal year 2014 was $5,850.

Estimated cost to kill 40-50 deer in the city of Ann Arbor is $25,000-$27,000 per year. That amount includes city staff administration cost in the amount of $14,000.

All deer-car accidents in Washtenaw County from 2004 through 2013 are plotted in the dynamic map below. Map is by The Chronicle with data from michigantrafficcrashfacts.org

The property in question is located immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. The university is purchasing the 16.7-acre property, following the Ann Arbor city council’s decision on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the site.

The city planning commission passed the same resolution at its March 18, 2014 meeting and forwarded it to the city council.

The resolution was drafted by planning manager Wendy Rampson based on previous discussions by the planning commission and city council. [.pdf of resolution as amended at March 18 planning commission meeting]

The one resolved clause states:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council and Ann Arbor City Planning Commission request that The Regents of The University of Michigan and President authorize University staff to meet with City representatives to collaborate on issues related to future development of the South Athletic Campus area, including, but not limited to:

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be developed, preferably privately, for complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus that also follow the South State Street plan recommendations;
• Discussing options for the relocation of park-and-ride facilities as the South Athletic Campus develops; and
• Discussing the opportunities for a future pedestrian and vehicular connection between South Main Street and South State Street via the planned Oakbrook Drive extension through the South Athletic Campus site.

At the planning commission’s March 18 meeting, Rampson said she’s already shared a draft of the resolution with UM planner Sue Gott and Jim Kosteva, the university’s director of community relations.

The city council voted down a resolution that would have authorized Ann Arbor’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Malloy property, at a special session of the council on Feb. 24, 2014. That will allow the University of Michigan to purchase the property unimpeded. The council is asking UM to collaborate with the city on the property’s development.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

In introducing the resolution, planning manager Wendy Rampson said she drafted the resolution based on previous discussions at planning commission and city council. The intent is for this resolution to be jointly passed by both entities. [.pdf of resolution as amended at March 18 planning commission meeting]

The one resolved clause states:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council and Ann Arbor City Planning Commission request that The Regents of The University of Michigan and President authorize University staff to meet with City representatives to collaborate on issues related to future development of the South Athletic Campus area, including, but not limited to:

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be developed, preferably privately, for complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus that also follow the South State Street plan recommendations;
• Discussing options for the relocation of park-and-ride facilities as the South Athletic Campus develops; and
• Discussing the opportunities for a future pedestrian and vehicular connection between South Main Street and South State Street via the planned Oakbrook Drive extension through the South Athletic Campus site.

Rampson said she’s already shared a draft of resolution with UM planner Sue Gott and Jim Kosteva, the university’s director of community relations. The resolution will be forwarded to the city council, with the understanding that changes made to the resolution by the council will be supported by the planning commission without further review.

The city council voted down a resolution that would have authorized Ann Arbor’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Malloy property, at a special session of the council on Feb. 24, 2014. That will allow the University of Michigan to purchase the property unimpeded.

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

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. [.pdf of Nov. 5, 2009 MOU text as approved by the city council] However, a withdrawal by UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sponsored the resolution, which first appeared on the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 agenda, but was postponed at that meeting. The idea to terminate the MOU has its origins in election campaign rhetoric. He had stated at a June 8, 2013 Democratic primary candidate forum that he intended to bring forth such a resolution to “kill” the Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that forum:

Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project. Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

The city continues to pursue the possibility of a newly built or reconstructed train station, but not necessarily with the University of Michigan’s participation, and without a pre-determined preferred alternative for the site of a new station. At its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, the council approved a contract with URS Corp. Inc. to carry out an environmental review of a project called the Ann Arbor Station. That review should yield the determination of a locally-preferred alternative for a site.

Kunselman led off deliberations at the Dec. 16 meeting saying he would like to postpone the resolution. He indicated that he thought he’d managed to add the item to the agenda on the Friday before the Monday meeting, but it turned out he had not done so. In light of the council’s discussion at their Dec. 9 budget planning session – when councilmembers had said they’d strive to avoid adding resolutions at the last minute – Kunselman said he wanted it postponed.

Mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) both indicated at the Dec. 16 meeting that they’d vote for the resolution – but also said they didn’t think the resolution was necessary. They indicated they were willing to vote for the resolution without postponing. Kunselman nevertheless wanted to postpone it, because it was added late to the agenda.

At the Jan. 6 meeting, Hieftje said the resolution was like digging someone up who died a couple of years ago and re-burying them, but he was not opposed to it. The resolution passed unanimously.

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

City administrator Steve Powers and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) just before the Nov. 18, 2013 council meeting started – a conversation Lumm wrote about after the meeting in an email thread to other councilmembers.

The special meeting will include a closed session – based on written attorney-client privileged communication and land acquisition. The land acquisition likely relates to the pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, which was announced in a Nov. 27 press release. The business had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million.

The closed session to be held on Dec. 9 follows some friction among councilmembers about the way information was shared with the council about the sale. That friction resulted from comments overheard by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) just before the council’s Nov. 18 meeting started, which prompted her to email her council colleagues expressing her dissatisfaction that not all councilmembers had been kept in the loop.

The email thread, provided to The Chronicle in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, goes on to include a query by Lumm to UM director of community relations Jim Kosteva for information about the status of the Edwards Brothers property, followed by an admonishment to Lumm from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) that there were scenarios under which Lumm’s inquiry could potentially be detrimental to the city’s interest. The thread includes a note from Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) that indicates concern that the issue should appropriately be discussed in a closed session under the state’s Open Meetings Act, not in an email thread among all councilmembers.

The email thread includes a clarificational inquiry to Taylor from Jack Eaton (Ward 4), as well as a note from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) about news coverage of the Edwards Brothers property sale. Eaton, Briere and Lumm signed the call to the Dec. 9 special meeting, which any three councilmembers can do under the city charter.

After the special meeting and its closed session, the council will move to the jury assembly room at the adjoining Justice Center for its annual budget planning session. That session could include an airing out of the issue of shared information – under an agenda item labeled “Articulating Mutual Expectations.” More specifically, the item indicates that the council will “identify and discuss mutual expectations for governing together” with the following desired outcome: “Articulate and agree on mutual expectations for members of the governing body.”

The background materials that have been provided to the council in preparation for the planning session include draft copies of reports with results from the National Citizens Survey that was conducted in the fall of 2013 by mailing a questionnaire to a random sample of 3,000 city residents, 778 of whom completed surveys. [.pdf of draft Ann Arbor National Citizens Survey report] [.pdf of responses, benchmarks, methodology and questionnaire]

The survey covered a broad range of topics. For example, 55% of survey respondents indicated that they rely at least somewhat for their news and information on online newspapers and media. That compares to 37% who said they rely some for news on printed newspapers. More respondents than that said they rely on news from the city website specifically (44%) or on radio stations (41%).

But questions about public safety – one of the top three priorities identified at last year’s planning session – will likely be of greater interest for councilmembers who will be weighing budget decisions at this year’s session. In general, under the community characteristics portion of the survey, 89% of Ann Arbor survey respondents rated their overall feeling of safety as good or excellent, with ratings for neighborhood safety at 97% and for downtown/commercial area safety at 92%. Those numbers are similar to the set of benchmarked communities that participated in the survey. The council’s measure of success for public safety includes the idea that residents should perceive the community as safe.

For the open-ended response survey item, which asked respondents to identify the city leaders’ top three priorities to maximize the quality of life in Ann Arbor, public safety was one of the top three items, with 19% of the open-ended responses identifying safety, crime and police as a concern. Also cited in 19% of responses were government, taxes and communication. However, the dominant concern in the open-ended responses was mobility issues – as 57% of responses were coded as related to roads, transportation, traffic, traffic enforcement, bikes and pedestrians.

That survey result mirrors the wide participation by the community in the recent debate about the repeal of the city’s crosswalk law. That debate ended in a city council vote on Dec. 2, 2013 to modify significantly the existing ordinance. But mayor John Hieftje announced immediately following the vote that he intended to exercise his power of veto.

The priority placed on the topic by the public and by councilmembers will also be reflected in two anticipated agenda items for the council’s Dec. 16 meeting. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is expected to bring forward a resolution directing the city administrator to present a plan for funding elements of the recently adopted update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. And Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has told The Chronicle he expects to bring forward a resolution on Dec. 16 that would allocate $500,000 from the general fund reserve this year to pay for police overtime to conduct traffic enforcement.

How police officers use their time while on duty is part of a report the council has been provided in preparation for the Dec. 9 budget planning session. Initial results from a newly implemented (Jan. 1, 2013) electronic timesheet logging system appear to indicate that police officers have at least 40% of their time that’s either unassigned or dedicated to proactive policing and community engagement. At last year’s planning session, the council had defined a success statement for public safety that included a goal of 25-30% time available for proactive policing.

The sequence of a special city council meeting followed by the budget planning session was also played out last year in mid-December. That’s when the council convened a special meeting to take a vote protesting the establishment of the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority. Like last year, the council’s budget planning session will be led by Julia Novak of the Novak Consulting Group.

Material presented in this article includes an annotated email thread about the Edwards Brothers property sale – which started in the Nov. 19 early morning hours, after the council meeting ended.

Annotated Email Thread

Chronicle annotations below are indicated in bracketed italics.

From: Lumm, Jane
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:40 AM
[The council meeting that started on Nov. 18, 2013 did not conclude until 1:45 a.m.]
To: Powers, Steve
CC: Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

Dear Steve,

This evening I tangentially and inadvertently became aware of a proposal that has been offered by the UM for the Edwards Brothers’ property. I’ll be perfectly honest, I overheard Mayor Hieftje share this news with Councilmember Petersen, and hence my inquiry. In the interest of providing all councilmembers with helpful information regarding this development, could you please share what you know about this matter with all of council? Please also provide your counsel on options that we may consider (timing, proposals, strategy, etc.) given the City’s right of first refusal position. 

[The Edwards Brothers press release issued on Nov. 27 named Sally Petersen (Ward 2) as a councilmember with whom Edwards Brothers leadership had met that same day – along with mayor John Hieftje. Petersen responded to an emailed Chronicle query about the rationale for her inclusion in the talks. Petersen gave two reasons: "1. The Mayor knows that I am interested in forging an improved town-gown relationship with U of M, their offer for the Edwards property, despite previous denial of affirmative interest, signals a step back in relationship building. 2. John and Susan Edwards used to live across the street from us on Devonshire and our daughters were best friends when they were at Angell Elementary. Joe and Sue Upton are friends from Church. It was natural for me to be involved from a personal relationship perspective."]

I sense that, if what I overheard is accurate, and I very much regret that this is how I was “informed”, we obviously do not all have the benefit of being provided the information necessary to adequately contemplate and respond to any strategy you may recommend or seek input on developing.

Thank you for assisting us in understanding our options, and for extending us all the courtesy of receiving this information in a timely, helpful, meaningful and equitable way. Aside from this specific request, I think my request for the equitable dissemination of information is so fundamental, so obviously the right and proper thing to do. We’re all just trying to do our jobs, and, obviously, in order to do that, information must be provided all councilmembers.

Jane

Sent from my iPhone

From: Briere, Sabra
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 7:38 AM
To: Lumm, Jane; Powers, Steve
CC: Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman,
Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: RE: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

Dear colleagues,

Of course, I didn’t overhear the conversation between Mayor Hieftje and Council member Petersen. But this article identifies the City’s right of first refusal and the UM’s desire to expand the athletic campus: http://www.mlive.com/business/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2013/11/city_of_ann_arbor_has_first_cl.html

Sabra Briere
First Ward Councilmember
(734) 995-3518 (home)
(734) 277-6578 (cell)

Emails received and sent to me as a Councilmember regarding City matters are generally subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

From: Lumm, Jane
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:26 AM
To: Briere, Sabra
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher
(Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: Re: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

Sabra,

I saw this article. Please note what the Mayor states, WE will need to have a serious conversation. I’ve come to appreciate, sadly, after getting my news from news sources rather than the City (this has occurred frequently, on important matters!, since I’ve been on council), that information is not shared or disseminated even-handedly or fairly, and last night’s discovery was another unfortunate case in point.

After John’s aside to Sally sunk in, the magnitude, the significance, the way in which this was shared … , I asked Steve Powers if and what he knew about this. Had less than a minute b/c the mtg. was about to start. In that brief exchange, Steve confirmed, the UM made an offer, and seemed to imply (reading his “body language”) it wasn’t a positive development. I said this was a big deal, and would have said more, much more, but the council mtg. was now about to start. Council members should be treated even-handedly, and information should be provided ALL. I have made this request on innumerable occasions.

[When asked by The Chronicle for an example of another occasion on which she did not perceive that information was shared even-handedly, Lumm cited the news that the University of Michigan had ended its participation in the now demised Fuller Road Station project.]

Jane

Sent from my iPhone

From: Briere, Sabra
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:29 AM
To: Lumm, Jane
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: Re: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

Thank you for the clarification, Jane.

I guess, reading between the lines in the media coverage, that I had assumed the UM made a bid for the property. So that doesn’t seem like new information. I want to hear more about the City’s options.

Sabra Briere
First Ward City Council
Ann Arbor
734-995-3518
734-277-6578 (cell)

Sent from my iPad

From: Lumm, Jane
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:52 AM
To: Briere, Sabra
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski. Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: Re: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

The article was speculative, and how I learned, when the reporter called to ask me about this, the City had a right of first refusal. Nothing in the article about the UM making an offer. Perhaps, prior to my note, you were made aware of this as well? It should be clear, I am advocating on EVERYONE’S behalf. Not shouting, emphasizing so it’s understood why I think this is so important, speaks more about us, how we should treat our colleagues. Pretty basic, pretty essential, decent, common courtesy.

Jane

Sent from my iPhone

From: Powers, Steve
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:52 AM
To: Lumm, Jane
CC: Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher
(Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: RE: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

The tax abatement agreement between City Council and Edwards Brothers gives the City (City Council) 60 days to exercise its right of first refusal. The 60 days is triggered by a formal notification from Edwards Brothers. No such notice has been received by the City. The property is surrounded on three sides by the UM Athletic Department. The UM Athletic Department has acquisition of the property included in its master development plan. The University recently received a $100 million dollar donation for the Stephen Ross Athletic Department. I don’t know if the University has made an offer or not, but I assume they will.

SP

From: Lumm, Jane
Sent: Tuesday, November 19,2013 10:21 AM
To: Powers, Steve
CC: Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: Re: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

Steve, last night you told me that they did make an offer. Sally confirmed that John told her the UM made an offer.

[It's possible that the apparent miscommunication here is a function of the fact that the University and Edwards Brothers had agreed to terms, but that the event triggering the city's 60-day right-of-first refusal window had not (and as far as The Chronicle's understanding goes, still has not) taken place. According to the tax abatement agreement, that event is a formal notification of Edwards Brothers to the city.]

Just the facts.

-Jane

Sent from my iPhone

From: Lumm, Jane
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 10:34 AM
To: Kosteva, Jim
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: UM Offer for Edwards Brothers Property

Jim, Last evening Mayor Hieftje shared with one of our councilmembers that the UM has made an offer to Edwards Brothers for the State Street property. I don’t know how Mayor Hieftje received this information or from whom, but any enlightenment on the University’s part would be welcome. The City apparently has, as stipulated in the right of first refusal provision, 60 days to respond, and the City Administrator indicates he is unaware of an offer and no notice has been received. Yet, the speculation, prompted by the Mayor’s “announcement” is heightened given the potential and significant impact on the City were such an offer to be presented. Any information you can provide in this regard would be welcome.

Thank you, Jane

Sent from my iPhone

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Tue 11/19/2013 10:50 AM
To: Lumm, Jane
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: RE: UM Offer for Edwards Brothers Property

Jane,

Without myself having any personal knowledge of the situation, there are several reasonable scenarios under which this communication would be substantially detrimental to the best interest of the City. 

[Subsequent inquiry and response by Taylor indicates that by "this communication" Taylor meant Lumm's inquiry of Kosteva.]

Christopher

Christopher Taylor Member Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

734-834-3600 (c) [New Number]
734-531-1331 (w) [New Number]
734-213-6223 (h)
Like me on Facebook at: http://tinyurl.com/a2jsvpa <http://tinyurl.com/a2jsvpa>

From: Eaton, Jack
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:21 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council); Lumm, Jane
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Kunselman,
Stephen; Teall, Margie; Warpehoski, Chuck; Anglin, Mike
Subject: RE: UM Offer for Edwards Brothers Property

Christopher,

Being the new member on Council I want to be very careful not to harm the best interests of the City. Hopefully I can learn from the actions of others. So, please indulge my desire to understand the caution you are trying to communicate to CM Lumm.

When you say “there are several reasonable scenarios under which this communication would be substantially detrimental to the best interest of the City”, what do you mean by the use of the terms “this communication”. Do you mean:

(1) the communication between the Mayor and the unidentified third person;
(2) the communication from Ms. Lumm disclosing that overheard conversation to other members of Council;
(3) CM Lumm’s email inquiry to Kosteva asking about the status of the property;
(4) something else?

Thanks in advance,

Jack

On Nov 19, 2013, at 2:31 PM, “Taylor, Christopher (Council)” <CTaylor@a2gov.org> wrote:

Hi Jack,

Thanks for asking: #3.

Christopher Taylor Member Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

734-834-3600 (c) [New Number]
734-531-1331 (w) [New Number]
734-213-6223 (h)

Like me on Facebook at: http://tinyurl.com/a2jsvpa

From: Warpehoski, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:43 AM
To: Lumm, Jane
CC: Powers, Steve; Hieftje, John; Kailasapathy, Sumi; Briere, Sabra; Petersen, Sally; Taylor, Christopher (Council); Kunselman, Stephen; Teall, Margie; Eaton, Jack; Anglin, Mike; Postema, Stephen
Subject: Re: Edwards Brothers’ Property on State Street

Two points:

1. I believe that consideration of this particular issues should best be taken under closed section “To consider the purchase or lease of real property up to the time an option to purchase or lease that real property is obtained.” I do not believe this should be addressed through email.

2. Also related to OMA, I am concerned about deliberations not be conducted outside of public view, so I ask that colleagues take care with emails to all and reply all messages.

[The point that Warpehoski is making is that if at least a quorum of councilmembers were to engage in deliberative back-and-forth which purpose was ultimately to effect public policy, then this would constitute a "meeting" under Michigan's Open Meetings Act. That would be a violation of the OMA, because it's difficult to imagine how an email conversation could be noticed to the public or be made accessible to the public.]

-Chuck

Chuck Warpehoski
Ann Arbor City Council, Ward 5
cwarpehoski@a2gov.org
c: 734-972-8304

Visit www.chuckwarpehoski.org for Ward 5 updates and to sign up for a Ward 5 email newsletter. Emails received and sent to me as a Councilmember regarding City matters are generally subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

From: Lumm, Jane
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 2:14 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council); Eaton, Jack
CC: Postema, Stephen; Powers, Steve
Subject: Re: UM Offer for Edwards Brothers Property

Christopher and Jack, Thanks. Heeding your admonition, after I sent the inquiry to Kosteva, obviously, and wondering why this poses a problem to ask the University for clarification. Honestly don’t know why it’s detrimental since the City has a potential interest.

[On the question of what Taylor had in mind when he described "several reasonable scenarios under which this communication would be substantially detrimental to the best interest of the City" Taylor answered an emailed query from The Chronicle by indicating he would decline to respond. The Chronicle followed up by asking if Taylor's reason for not wishing to comment was based on the idea that explaining the kind of scenario he had in mind would itself increase the likelihood of having a scenario unfold that was detrimental to the city. Taylor indicated that was not the reason. Instead he indicated that he was declining to comment out of "comity." ]

Think there needs to be a council mtg. to discuss. This all seems to be unfolding quickly.

Thanks, Jane

Sent from my iPad

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

Of the Ann Arbor city council’s roughly 3-hour meeting, about a quarter of the time was taken up by deliberations on changes to the council’s rules (dark blue wedge), some of which would have affected public speaking time. Total public speaking time at the meeting (red wedge) was about 21 minutes, or 11% of the meeting. (Chart by The Chronicle based on time stamps of live updates filed from the meeting.)

About a quarter of that time was spent in deliberations on changes to the council’s own rules. That included a proposal to reduce the length of public speaking turns from three minutes to two minutes. After voting 10-1 – over the lone dissent of Margie Teall (Ward 4) – to eliminate the shortening of public speaking turns, the council discussed a number of the other proposed changes that had been recommended by the council’s rules committee.

Those changes include a shortening of councilmember speaking turns, adding public commentary to the council’s work sessions, moving nominations and appointments to a spot earlier on the agenda, and prohibiting the use of mobile devices for texting or phoning at the council table.

As councilmembers recognized that they would not be able to find their way to a clear consensus on the rules changes until they had longer deliberations, the council decided to postpone the item until its first meeting in September – which this year falls on Sept. 3.

So the council delayed launching itself off the lip of the legislative half-pipe to change its own internal rules. However, councilmembers took the advice of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) when they voted on the construction contract for a new skatepark: “Just go for it!” The unanimous vote on a $1,031,592 contract with Krull Construction came after some scrutiny led by Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Her questioning was based on the project’s additional cost, compared to its original budget.

The originally approved budget for the project was $800,000 – though the expectation was that it would cost about $1 million. The total budget now – including the construction contract, 10% contingency and $89,560 design contract – is $1,224,311, or $424,311 higher than the originally budgeted $800,000. Funds to pay for the skatepark include a $400,000 grant from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, $300,000 from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund, and $100,00 raised by the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, which paid for the skatepark’s design. This particular effort by the Friends dates back to 2005.

An item added to the agenda the same day as the meeting led to considerable discussion about the relationship between the city and the University of Michigan. The council had failed on May 13 to approve a right-of-way occupancy for the university to install conduits under Tappan Street. An early departure from that meeting by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) contributed in part to the council’s inability to achieve an eight-vote majority.

Whether an eight-vote majority is needed is the source of friction between the city and UM. Under the city charter, an eight-vote majority is required for the council to approve transactions involving an interest in land. The purpose of the conduits under Tappan Street is to connect a new emergency generator to the Lawyers Club buildings at 551 S. State St. The Lawyers Club and the generator are located on opposite sides of the street. The university’s view is that the agreement needs to convey an interest in land, something the city attorney’s office disagrees with. The council’s resolution approved on July 15 directs the city staff to renegotiate with UM.

The other item on the agenda receiving at least 15 minutes of discussion was one that granted a fee waiver for events held in Liberty Plaza. That action was prompted by public protests at previous council meetings about the possibility of charging a fee to the church that hosts Pizza in the Park – a homelessness outreach program that distributes food and other humanitarian aid.

The council handled a raft of other items, including three different contracts related to protecting the local environment. Two of the contracts include an educational component – one related to the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF), and the other to stormwater management. The third concerned monitoring the city’s now-closed landfill at Platt and Ellsworth.

The council also handled several other items related to stormwater management. Three of the items involved street reconstruction – on Stone School Road, Forest Avenue, and multiple streets in the Springwater subdivision. A fourth item approved by the council was a contract for tree planting, which will be paid for from the city’s stormwater fund.

Among other items, the council also approved the distribution of $1.2 million in human services funding to various nonprofits that do work under contract with the city.

In non-voting business, the council received an update from chief of police John Seto. He reported that through the first six months of the year, Part 1 crimes – the most serious types of offenses – are down 10% compared to last year in the city, while overall crime is down 7.5%. Seto also reported that the police department is analyzing the initial data collection from the electronic activity logs for officers.

During public commentary, the council heard from advocates for racial equity, who called for the council to take action in response to the not-guilty verdict in Florida’s Trayvon Martin shooting case.

Council Rules

The council considered adopting amendments to its own internal rules. The items had been postponed twice previously.

Highlights of the proposed rules changes include adding public commentary to council work sessions. The proposal before the council on July 15 also included a shortening of public speaking turns – from three minutes to two minutes across all types of public speaking. Those types include general commentary, public hearings, and reserved time.

The length of councilmember speaking turns was also proposed to be shortened. The proposal was to reduce total time from eight minutes to five minutes. In more detail, the two turns they get per item would be reduced from five to three minutes and from three to two minutes.

A “frequent flyer” rule would prevent people from signing up for reserved time at the start of a meeting two meetings in a row.

Other changes included one that would put nominations and appointments to boards and commissions at the start of the agenda, before the council’s voting business, instead of after all the items. The new rules would also explicitly prohibit the use of mobile devices for texting or phoning at the council table.

For previous Chronicle coverage on these proposed changes, see “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.”

The council had postponed a vote from its previous meeting, on July 1, 2013, due to the absence of Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – who were described by council rules committee chair Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) as wanting to take part in the conversation. The council had also postponed the item at its June 17, 2013 meeting.

Council Rules: Public Comment

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Jack Eaton encouraged the council to enact the rule change on its agenda that adds public commentary to work sessions, which would cause work sessions to come into compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. He called the change “long overdue.” The proposed reduction in speaking times, however, was something he didn’t support. He contended that the council too often acts against the interests of its constituents. He asked the council to vote in favor of public participation. He told the council that the proposed reduction in allowed speaking time was a reaction to a few speakers who abuse the opportunity for public commentary. He said that democracy requires that councilmembers listen to all the voices who want to speak. He called on the council to take an affirmative approach to listen to residents of Ann Arbor.

Council Rules: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – who chairs the council’s rules committee that put together the proposal for rules changes – remarked that the item seemed like it’s been on the agenda forever. She summarized the discussion of the council rules committee and characterized it as a “lively debate” by the committee. She invited discussion from councilmembers on the proposed changes. The changes could be approved as a whole or individually, she ventured. [Besides Higgins, other rules committee members are Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje.]

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and mayor John Hieftje. (Photos by the writer.)

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed an amendment. She understood the need to streamline meetings, but contended that the recent long public hearings were not typical. She didn’t support a reduction of public speaking time. Sometimes two minutes might be sufficient, but other times it might not be enough, she contended. She’d prefer to err on the side of allowing additional speaking time – saying that streamlining should be done some other way. So she proposed that the shortening of public speaking turns from three minutes to two minutes be eliminated. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) seconded Lumm’s proposal – which would keep public speaking turns limited to three minutes.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) supported Lumm’s proposal. He wanted to continue with the three-minute limit. Everyone has their own story, he said. If the council is really looking at how to shorten council meetings, there are other ways to do that, he said.

Briere described how in a “prior life” she had addressed the council as a member of the public – and allowed that three minutes goes by very fast. The proposal was not about limiting access or limiting the duration of a meeting, she said. Briere referred to a city council work session that had been held on April 29 on the topic of meeting management – which she’d watched a recording of, because she hadn’t been able to attend. Representatives of the Michigan Municipal League had been on hand to offer their advice on issues like the allotted time for public speaking. The message Briere had taken away from that Michigan Municipal League work session was that between minute 2 and minute 3, people tend to repeat themselves. But the MML’s recommendation of a two-minute time limit could be disregarded, Briere said.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she didn’t think that the time limit change was meant to be a “cure-all” for making meetings more efficient. It was one step that might contribute to that, she felt. Her first concern was that the amount of time being allocated to councilmembers and to members of the public was different. The point is to improve the quality of the speaking time, she said, and to make the time as efficient as possible. She supported Lumm’s amendment.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated that she could support a three-minute time limit for the reserved speaking time, because those speakers have made the effort to sign up ahead of time. Further, the reserved speaking time is already limited to just 10 slots. So she supported changing Lumm’s proposal so that it would restore the three-minute time limit just to the reserved time but not to other types of public speaking – general commentary and public hearings.

Higgins ventured that the council should not try to amend amendments, as Teall was suggesting. Higgins wanted each proposed amendment to be considered in turn. She asked Lumm to take her amendment off the table so that the council could consider each of the kinds of public commentary separately – reserved time, general time, and public hearings. Lumm didn’t want to do that.

Hieftje, who presides over council meetings, forged ahead with Teall’s amendment to Lumm’s proposed amendment, but it died for lack of a second. Discussion continued on Lumm’s proposal that all public speaking time should be limited to three minutes as it currently is – not two minutes as proposed by the rules committee. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) ventured that the council could spend another hour on the topic. He supported the current three-minute time period. Democracy is about giving people a chance to speak, he said, and it’s important to continue Ann Arbor’s tradition of that.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that the purpose of reducing the meeting time had been disclaimed, so he wanted to address that. He rejected the idea that reducing time for public speaking turns would limit access and participation. Instead, he argued that it could encourage broader participation. He also pointed out that there are many points of contact between the public and the council besides the public commentary portions of meetings. He described how he’s heard from people who have despaired of ever trying to address the council, because they have to wait through other speakers.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The vote was 10-1, with dissent from Teall.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) then raised some objections to the “frequent flyer” portion of the rules changes. At that point, Briere suggested that the council just go through each rule change and vote each one up or down. Briere described how people who are very savvy are on the phone early in the morning to sign up for the reserved time at the start of meetings. And that can have the result that others who want to address the council on an agenda item don’t have a chance, she said. But the council also needs to hear from people who want to speak on non-agenda items, she said. Briere called the proposed rule change – the “frequent flyer” provision – a compromise.

At that point, from the audience, Thomas Partridge said that only six people signed up for reserved time that evening. Hieftje ruled him out of order. Hieftje continued by saying that he wanted some mechanism to ensure that if someone wanted to address the council, they would not be prevented from speaking by those who speak frequently.

Warpehoski proposed to amend the frequent flyer rule so that reserved time is assigned on a preferential basis to those who did not address the council at the previous meeting – instead of making it a strict prohibition against someone reserving time two meetings in a row. Kunselman wondered how that would work logistically: How would the clerk’s office staff handle that?

Higgins then asked that specific changes just be rejected, instead of trying to amend them. Hieftje ventured that there’s no rush to enact the rules changes. He suggested postponing a vote after the council had a chance to discuss all the rules changes.

Warpehoski encouraged the rules committee to consider changing the admonishment in the rules that council debate not include “personality.” Instead, he suggested a statement that council debate shouldn’t include “personal attacks.” He suggested that emails sent to all councilmembers during a meeting (draft language for amendments, for example) be made available to the public. He also noted that sometimes when councilmembers question staff – which isn’t counted as speaking time – often it includes editorial comments. How is that handled?

Responding to Warpehoski, Higgins reported how the rules committee had discussed the issue of councilmember speaking time. Higgins talked about the possibility of rotating the job of timekeeper among councilmembers. She invited councilmembers to send suggestions to the rules committee, which could then be incorporated into a revised proposal. Lumm felt that some kind of time limit for councilmembers is appropriate. Five minutes seems too long for the first speaking turn, so the reduction from five minutes to three minutes seems reasonable, she said. But the second speaking turn should stay at three minutes, she felt.

Hieftje ventured that the length of the meetings changes as the issues change. Hieftje invited someone to move for a postponement.

Anglin felt that the meeting agendas need to be shortened. He also wanted the public to be notified if it’s known that an item will be postponed by the council. Briere countered that the council can’t act on the assumption that an item will be postponed. One should not presuppose an action by the council, she said.

The discussion then wandered to the idea of managing the number of proclamations included on a meeting agenda. Kailasapathy noted that many people, like her, have children and full-time jobs, so meetings that go to 1 a.m. are a hardship. It’s more humane to have two four-hour sessions, she ventured, than a single eight-hour session. Meeting length shouldn’t be a barrier to service on the council for people with young children and full-time jobs, she said.

Petersen thought that the agenda itself should be examined – noting that the July 15 agenda included 16 items introduced by staff members.

Higgins mentioned the new proposed rule about communications via mobile devices at the table. She said that if councilmembers need to communicate on their mobile device, then they can just step away from the table to do that.

Teall asked about the new rule limiting the clerk’s report on the agenda to only certain items. Briere explained there have been times when councilmembers have received correspondence and councilmembers have asked that the correspondence be added to the electronic agenda.

Higgins suggested that the item be postponed until the first meeting in September, which is Sept. 3. Hieftje suggested postponing the issue instead until the second meeting in September. But Briere wanted to have the rules in place for the work session in September – which falls between the two regular meetings. The new rules, if adopted, would allow for a public comment period for that work session. Having a public comment period for the work session would ensure that councilmembers could engage in deliberations without violating Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the amendments to the council rules until Sept. 3, 2013.

Skatepark Construction Contract

The council was asked to give the final approval necessary for creating a skatepark in the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park, on the west side of the city. That approval took the form of a $1,031,592 contract with Krull Construction.

This conceptual design by Wally Hollyday for the Ann Arbor skatepark at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park was approved by the city council on Jan. 7, 2013.

Construction could start in early August, with completion of the concrete portion of the skatepark by this November – weather permitting.

The park advisory commission had voted earlier, on June 8, 2013, to recommend award of the contract.

The originally approved budget for the project was $800,000 – though the expectation was that the project would cost about $1 million. The total budget now – including the construction contract, 10% contingency and $89,560 design contract – is $1,224,311, or $424,311 higher than the originally budgeted $800,000. Funds to pay for the skatepark include a $400,000 grant from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, $300,000 from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund, and $100,00 raised by the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, which paid for the skatepark’s design.

The city identified funds from a variety of sources to make up the gap.

• $110,463 from uncommitted funds available in the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage fund balance. The amount reflects a $45,000 decrease in the amount the city will contribute, because the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark recently learned that they will receive a $50,000 grant from the Knight Foundation. Of that, $5,000 will go into the maintenance endowment.
• $80,000 from the city’s stormwater capital budget for rain gardens, to be repaid as a loan to the state revolving fund (SRF). The city expects a 50% loan forgiveness on this amount.
• $32,356 from the FY 2014 parks memorial and contributions fund (the Feldman Trust) for landscaping plantings.
• $30,356 from the FY 2014 parks maintenance and capital improvements millage.
• $22,977 from the FY 2014 parks and recreation services general fund operating budget – from the “parks fairness” funds resulting from other budget amendments made by the council.

In addition, up to $103,159 in uncommitted funds are available in the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage fund balance to cover a 10% construction contingency. Any unspent portion of this amount will be returned to the fund balance.

Skatepark Construction Contract: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by saying it’s been a long time coming. He recalled helping the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark back in 2007-08, giving them a voice at the council table. Everyone had come together to make it possible, he said. He compared the vote to standing at the rim of a pool looking down getting ready to skate: “Just go for it.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) praised the effort, but expressed concern about the amount of an additional appropriation being made from city funds. She allowed that the Friends of Ann Arbor Skatepark are going to continue to do fundraising. So she wondered if it’s possible to delay the vote for a couple of months while additional private funding is pursued.

City administrator Steve Powers asked community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl to comment on the issue. The project needed to be completed by August 2014 under terms of the MDNR trust fund grant, Bahl explained. Under the current schedule, a June 30 estimated completion date is foreseen. There’s some “float,” Bahl said, but essentially the project needs to go ahead on the current schedule.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) explained that staff had worked closely with the construction company, with the park advisory commission, and with the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark. Staff were mindful that additional money was being requested. Nevertheless, they were excited about moving forward, even with that additional cost, Taylor said. The effort had been long and earnest, and had the support of many governmental partners, he noted. The bid came in higher than was anticipated, Taylor said, but it was determined that this was simply how much it would cost. He allowed that it was more money than had been anticipated. The skatepark would be a good thing for kids and adults who skate, Taylor concluded.

Bahl noted that Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark had recently received a $50,000 grant from the Knight Foundation.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) allowed that the amount by which the budget was off “could have been worse.” She noted that the specs had been reduced and that Krull had agreed to reduce the price by $10,000. She observed that the fund balance for the parks maintenance and capital improvements is healthy. The parks system is one of the reasons the quality of life in Ann Arbor is so strong, she said. Adding the new facility, even at the city’s cost, is worth doing, and she’d support it, Lumm concluded.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) recalled how the entire council chambers had been filled with supporters when the project had come forward in its earlier stages. He called Trevor Staples to the podium. Staples is chair of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark board. Mayor John Hieftje established that no one on the council objected to Staples coming forward to speak. [This was a reference to a council rule that allows for members of the public to address the council outside of public commentary times, if no more than three councilmembers object.] Staples quipped that he himself might object.

Staples noted that about $900,000 is being brought to the city’s park system by the project. So he encouraged councilmembers to think about what could be lost if it doesn’t pass.

Petersen asked about the operating agreement: How will security be provided at the skatepark? Hieftje ventured that no additional security is provided for basketball courts. Petersen said she didn’t see any “eyes on the park” – that has been a concern cited in regard to downtown parks that have been proposed. Hieftje contrasted urban area parks with the future location of the skatepark, which is on the west side of town.

Hieftje hoped the construction contract would be approved that night. He recalled the kind of fundraising efforts that the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark had made. The enthusiasm they’ve generated has been inspirational, Hieftje said. The city’s contribution was not coming from human services money, Hieftje added.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to award the construction contract for the skatepark. Stephen Kunselman briefly left the table to give Trevor Staples a hug.

City-UM Relations

City-university relations arose twice during the July 15 meeting. A voting item involved a public right-of-way occupancy. An item of communication highlighted the partial closures of Main Street that are planned this fall for UM football games.

City-UM Relations: Tappan Conduits

The council was asked to approve a resolution giving direction to staff to renegotiate a template for agreements related to the University of Michigan’s need to install infrastructure in the city’s right-of-way. The resolution stemmed from an item that appeared on the council’s May 13, 2013 meeting agenda.

That item involved a right-of-way occupancy for UM to install conduits under Tappan Street. The purpose of the conduits is to connect a new emergency generator to the Lawyers Club buildings at 551 S. State St. The Lawyers Club and the generator are located on opposite sides of the street. The university considers the transaction to be a conveyance of an interest in land. The city doesn’t see it that way.

But UM insisted that the council approve the resolution as if it were a conveyance of an interest in land, which requires an eight-vote majority. On May 13, 2013, the council only had seven votes in favor. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had left that meeting early.

On July 15, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) introduced the resolution. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she wanted the process used by the city to approve this kind of thing to be one that in the future could be handled at the staff level – with a standard licensing agreement, as other entities do. Another possibility is to use easements, she said. She wanted UM to use the tools that are already in place.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked what has happened since May 13, when the council’s vote did not achieve the eight-vote majority. Higgins reiterated that there’s a standard licensing tool for this purpose. Taylor stated that the smooth operation between the city and the university is important, and it’s important for the university to be able to operate smoothly itself. He encouraged staff to move swiftly and surely, without prejudicing the city.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked those who brought the resolution forward – and was glad that the city is not granting the transfer of any property. Mayor John Hieftje noted the university has work pending, and wondered if the council’s action or non-action would have an impact on that. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias said that the resolution that night would not preclude the Tappan Street agreement from coming back to the council.

Petersen wanted to know how long the renegotiation would take – because she’d heard the original negotiation had taken three years. Elias expressed optimism, but allowed that it takes two parties to reach an agreement. Higgins said that as long as the agreement doesn’t include a conveyance of land, it doesn’t need to ever come to the council. Lumm agreed with Higgins – that it’s about streamlining the process.

City attorney Stephen Postema weighed in by saying that if the university comes back with an agreement that required eight votes, then it could be a longer negotiation than Elias had described. Taylor clarified that things that need to be done for the Tappan Street project can be done currently. Elias replied, saying there would need to be a license agreement, and it’s up to UM to ask for what it needs to move forward.

Petersen asked what UM’s objection is to a licensing agreement. Elias explained that UM felt it needed an interest in the land, but the city felt that the conduit serves a structure, not the land. She characterized the proposal the council had rejected as an agreement to disagree. Anglin asked why this issue has even arisen. He called the previous resolution that the council was asked to approve on May 13 “gibberish” that no one could understand.

By way of background, the language Anglin was describing as gibberish was this:

As drafted, it grants to the University an interest in land only to the extent it grants to the University, by its terms, an interest in land.

Nevertheless, in accordance with the University’s request, but without agreeing that the agreement grants an interest in land, the document was submitted to City Council for approval with a requirement of 8 votes as if it granted an interest in land.

Outcome: The council voted to direct renegotiation of the right-of-way agreement with UM.

City-UM Relations: Football Games

During council communications, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) reported that chief of police John Seto and public services area administrator Craig Hupy had been meeting with the University of Michigan about the possibility of closing Main Street, between Stadium Boulevard and Pauline Boulevard, for football games.

Different scenarios for closure would depend on the start time for the game – noon, 3:30 p.m. or 8 p.m. Higgins reported that there will be a public meeting on July 24 at 6 p.m. at the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library – to explain how the logistics will work. The meeting would give the public a chance to weigh in, she said, before a contract with the University of Michigan is finalized.

Liberty Plaza Fees

The council was asked to approve a waiver of fees for the use of Liberty Plaza – a park located at the southwest corner of Liberty and Divisions streets in downtown Ann Arbor. The proposed fee waiver is on a trial basis, through July 1, 2014.

The park advisory commission had voted at its June 18, 2013 meeting to recommend a trial waiver of fees at Liberty Plaza. The fee waiver comes in response to a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when city staff applied fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park in Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church.

Members of Camp Take Notice, a self-governed homelessness community, have addressed the council at several of its recent meetings on this topic. They’re keen to see a written commitment that the city would allow humanitarian efforts to take place on public land generally. They’ve objected to the focus by the council and the park advisory commission on general activities – as opposed to the protection of humanitarian aid efforts.

For example, the staff memo accompanying the resolution approved by PAC stated: “The waived rental fee will be promoted with a goal of attracting additional musicians, performers, and other events at Liberty Plaza.” And a key “whereas” clause of the resolution reads: “… it is the goal of PAC to further activate Liberty Plaza by increasing social, cultural, and recreational activities that take place there; …”

Liberty Plaza Fees: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reviewed the history of the issue with the Pizza in the Park program in Liberty Plaza. The program was under a perceived cloud, he said. PAC felt that a waiver would be useful for the particular purpose of protecting Pizza in the Park, but also would address the general purpose of activating the park. [Taylor and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) are ex-officio members of PAC.]

If the one-year trial is successful, it could become permanent. Taylor noted that advocates for Pizza in the Park have solidified how they think humanitarian efforts should be treated – beyond Liberty Plaza. Margie Teall (Ward 4) described how she’s met with several people and they’re exploring the possibility of extending waivers to other parks as well.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl to explain how permit fees are normally waived. Bahl said it’s not the usual practice to waive fees – and indicated he couldn’t recall that being done in the past. He allowed that the council could direct the staff to waive fees. Briere ventured that during the art fairs, the council could pass a resolution to direct the waiver of the permit fee at other parks. Higgins noted that the art fairs are held this week, so she wondered where Pizza in the Park is happening this week. Bahl indicated that it’s being held at West Park, and that no fee is being applied.

Anglin asked how this proposal came about. Taylor noted that staff had heard the tenor of the council’s reaction to the Pizza in the Park advocates who’d addressed the council at previous meetings. He ventured that the proposal – which protects Pizza in the Park, while also helping to activate the park in general – “feeds two birds with one stone.”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if there’s an events committee through which this request could be handled. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) agreed with a suggestion Kunselman made that nonprofits could be included in the fee structure as exempt, instead of waiving the fees by resolution. Briere cautioned that “nonprofit” and “humanitarian aid” are not precise terms and would need to be refined.

Lumm reported that she’d met with advocates of Pizza in the Park, and appreciated that they were trying to get direction from the council. She also worried about opening the door to all nonprofits and encouraged a narrowly-defined solution.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the fee waiver in Liberty Plaza on a trial basis through July 1, 2014.

Liberty Plaza Fee Waiver: Public Commentary

During the public commentary period at the end of the meeting, Seth Best – who’s addressed the council at previous meetings advocating for Pizza in the Park – thanked the council for the time and for the resolution the council had passed on a fee waiver at Liberty Plaza. On behalf of the homeless population, he invited councilmembers to Pizza in the Park this Friday, which will be held in West Park.

Environmental Protection Contracts

The council was asked to approve three different contracts related to protecting the local environment.

Two of the contracts include an educational component – one related to the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF), and the other to stormwater management. The third concerned monitoring of the city’s now-closed landfill at Platt and Ellsworth.

Environmental Protection Contracts: MRF Tours

On the council’s consent agenda was a $43,788 annual contract with the Ecology Center to give tours of the materials recovery facility (MRF). The facility sees 4,000 visitors a year. The cost of the contract is split 60%-40% between the solid waste fund and the drinking water fund. The drinking water funding is related to a Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources requirement that the city engage in source water protection educational efforts. The requested authorization is for the contract to be extended annually for five years with a 3% increase each year.

Outcome: The council approved the contract with the Ecology Center as part of the consent agenda.

Environmental Protection Contracts: HRWC Stormwater

Also related to environmental educational efforts, the council was asked to authorize a contract with the Huron River Watershed Council to comply with the requirements of an MS4 stormwater discharge permit that it has through the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. An MS4 system (short for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) is “a system of drainage (including roads, storm drains, pipes, and ditches, etc.) that is not a combined sewer or part of a sewage treatment plant.”

Ann Arbor city water quality manager Jennifer Lawson was in attendance at the July 15 meeting but was not asked by the council to answer any questions.

The goal of the MS4 program is to reduce pollution of Michigan’s surface waters. HRWC’s activities are described in the staff memo accompanying the agenda item as: “public education efforts; water quality monitoring; reporting assistance; watershed group facilitation; and, technical assistance.” The HRWC contract is to be funded out of the stormwater operating and maintenance budget.

The contract with HRWC comes in the context of an incident on June 27, when heavy rains briefly overwhelmed the city’s sanitary sewage system and resulted in 10,000 gallons of untreated sewage flowing into the Huron River.

The city has separate sanitary and stormwater sewer systems, but the sanitary system receives stormwater flow from cracks in the system as well as footing drains that were connected to the sanitary system as part of standard construction techniques in the 1970s.

Incidents like the one on June 27 led to the creation of the city’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program in the early 2000s. Parts of that FDD program are currently suspended as the city is conducting a study of wet weather flows in the sanitary system.

From the city’s press release on the incident three weeks ago:

On Thursday, June 27, 2013, the Ann Arbor area was deluged with intense rainfall that caused flooding conditions and significantly increased the flow of wastewater to the City of Ann Arbor Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) over a short period of time. Plant flows more than tripled within a half hour. As a result of this unprecedented increase in plant flow, approximately 10,000 gallons of untreated wastewater was discharged to the Huron River from 5:20 to 5:30 p.m. By comparison, the WWTP fully treated approximately 350,000 gallons of wastewater during the 10minute period over which this incident occurred.

Fortunately, due to a number of factors, the impact of this incident on human health and the environment is minimal. The flow within the Huron River for the 10 minutes over which the discharge occurred was approximately 11,000,000 gallons, consequently the estimated 10,000 gallons of untreated wastewater was diluted by a factor of 1,000.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract with the Huron River Watershed Council.

Environmental Protection Contracts: Landfill

The third environmental item the council was asked to approve was an amendment to the city’s contract with Tetra Tech Inc. (TTI) to provide additional monitoring services of the city’s now-closed landfill. The $178,596 amendment brings the total amount of the contract to $543,386. Many of the additional services the city is asking Tetra Tech to provide are associated with a plume of 1,4 dioxane and vinyl chloride contamination in Southeast Area Park, which is located northeast of the landfill at Platt and Ellsworth.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the landfill monitoring contract with Tetra Tech.

Stormwater Infrastructure

Several projects related to stormwater management were on the council’s agenda.

Three of the items involved street reconstruction – on Stone School Road, Forest Avenue, and multiple streets in the Springwater subdivision. A fourth stormwater-related agenda item was a contract for tree planting, which will be paid for from the city’s stormwater fund.

Stormwater Infrastructure: Stone School Road

The Stone School Road stormwater project is part of a larger $4 million road improvement project. The council’s action was to approve a petition to the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner‘s office to apply for a state revolving fund loan of $1.2 million. The stormwater improvements will include work “to clean out, relocate, widen, deepen, straighten, extend, tile, interconnect, or otherwise improve a portion of the county drain located north of Ellsworth Road between Varsity Drive and Stone School Road, known as the Malletts Creek Drain.” The loan will be repaid in annual installments of up to $76,307 from the city’s stormwater fund. Up to 50% of the loan could be forgiven as a “green” project.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the petition to the water resources commissioner’s office for the Stone School Road Mallets Creek project.

Stormwater Infrastructure: Forest Avenue

The Forest Avenue reconstruction project extends from South University Avenue to Hill Street. The project includes installation of a stone reservoir under the street to allow for infiltration of stormwater. In addition to reconstructing the street, the existing 6-inch water main between Willard Street and Hill Street will be replaced with a 12-inch pipe. The total estimated $1,257,000 cost is to be paid for as follows: water fund capital budget ($185,000), street millage fund ($543,937), developer contributions (Zaragon Place and 601 Forest Ave.) to the parks memorials and contribution fund ($78,063), and the stormwater fund ($450,000). The city has obtained a loan through the state revolving fund for the stormwater portion of the project. The council’s requested action on July 15 was to approve a construction contract with MacKenzie Co. for $965,990.

During the brief deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that there’d been some concern about the timing of the project, from August to October. However the project will accommodate student move-in, she reported. She ventured that the city is eventually going to “turn the corner on stormwater.” Jane Lumm (Ward 2) stated that it’s good that the work is being done, characterizing the stretch of road as a “moonscape.”

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract with E. T. MacKenzie Co. for the Forest Avenue work.

Stormwater Infrastructure: Springwater Design

The council was also asked to approve the engineering consultant work for street improvements in the Springwater subdivision – located southeast of Buhr Park, south of Packard Road. The eventual project, to be completed in 2014-16, would include “a reconstructed roadway section, storm sewer upgrades, storm water quality improvements, water main replacement, replacement of curb and gutter, and the construction of new sidewalk and/or the filling in of sidewalk gaps within the project limits.”

The work is planned over the course of three years, and would include the north-south streets of Nordman Road and Springbrook Avenue and the east-west streets of Butternut and Redwood. The action requested of the council was to approve a $212,784 contract with CDM Smith Michigan Inc.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the contract with CDM Smith Michigan Inc. for the Springwater subdivision street improvements.

Stormwater Infrastructure: Tree Planting

Finally, the council was asked approved a two-year $509,125 contract with Margolis Companies Inc. to plant 750 trees in FY 2014 and 1,000 trees in FY 2015. The work would be paid for from the city’s stormwater fund and reimbursed with a state revolving fund (SRF) loan that has been obtained through the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office.

Deliberations were scant. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) reviewed the environmental benefits to tree planting.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the tree-planting contract with Margolis Companies Inc.

Human Services Distribution

The council was asked to authorize the distribution of over $1.2 million to specific nonprofits that provide human services under contract with the city.

The budget allocation for $1,244,629 had already been made at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. A total of 20 programs operated by 16 different organizations are receiving funding from the city of Ann Arbor this year. It’s the same amount that was allocated last year.

Half of those organization are receiving more than $90,000: Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County ($91,645); Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County ($94,490); Food Gatherers ($95,171); Community Action Network ($104,944); Perry Nursery School of Ann Arbor ($109,851); Avalon Housing Inc. ($142,851); Legal Services of South Central Michigan ($177,052); and the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County ($245,529).

In the coordinated funding approach to human services taken by the city, a total of $4,369,102 is being allocated by the city and other entities. In addition to the city’s share, other contributions include: United Way of Washtenaw County ($1,797,000); Washtenaw County general fund ($1,015,000); Washtenaw Urban County ($288,326); and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation ($24,147).

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) led off deliberations by asking the council to vote to excuse him from voting on the item, because one of his clients is Planned Parenthood, which is among the groups being funded. The council voted to excuse Taylor from voting and he took a seat in the audience.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that this is a three-year agreement and the amount this year is the same as it was the previous two years. Mayor John Hieftje recited how much each of the other entities was contributing. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Mary Jo Callan and Andrea Plevek, the staff who are responsible for administering the coordinated funding. She recited the history of the program. The need for human services continues to exceed the available funding, she said.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the human services funding distributions for FY 2014.

Appointments and Nominations

Nominations and confirmations to boards and commissions are a standard slot on council agendas. Currently it comes after all the other voting business. If the council adopts a new set of rules, the nominations and appointments would come before other voting business.

Appointments and Nominations: DDA

Among other nominations to city boards and commissions that the council was asked to consider was the confirmation of Russ Collins for a third four-year term on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Collins, who is executive director of the Michigan Theater, began his service on the DDA board in 2005.

Appointments and Nominations: Dean Fund

The council was also asked to confirm Jane Immonen, John Bassett, and Patrick Ion to the Elizabeth Dean Trust Fund committee. Sue Perry was nominated by mayor John Hieftje at the July 15 meeting to serve on that committee, too. The vote on her confirmation will come at the council’s next meeting.

The responsibility of the Dean Fund committee is to make recommendations on the use of the Dean Trust Fund money for special projects involving trees. The committee was established in 1975 to oversee the use of the investment earnings from a nearly $2 million bequest made to the city by Elizabeth Dean. According to a Nov. 10, 1974 Ann Arbor News article, the bequest was made in the early 1960s to “repair, maintain and replace trees on city property.” The principal amount remains intact.

Appointments and Nominations: Housing, Zoning Appeals Boards

The council was also asked to confirm at its July 15 meeting Geoffrey Mayers and Kevin Busch to the housing board of appeals, and Heather Lewis to the zoning board of appeals.

Appointments and Nominations: Greenbelt

The council was asked to confirm the appointment of Jean Cares to the city’s greenbelt advisory commission (GAC). That group is responsible for making recommendations for land acquisition using proceeds of the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. Seats on the commission have specific qualifications attached to them, including one for someone “who is an agricultural landowner or operates an agricultural business.” That’s the seat Cares will fill, as owner of the Dexter Mill. Tom Bloomer, a Webster Township farmer, previously held that position but was term-limited.

Also at the council’s July 15 meeting, John Ramsburgh’s name was brought forward to serve on the greenbelt advisory commission. The fact that he’d be nominated was announced by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the last meeting of GAC on July 11, 2013. Taylor serves as the city council representative to GAC. Unlike most appointments, the nominations for GAC are made by the council, not the mayor. The nomination is typically handled by placing the appointment on the agenda for one meeting, postponing the vote (which serves to give notice of the nomination), and then voting on the appointment at the next meeting of the council. That’s how Ramsburgh’s nomination was handled on July 15.

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

Appointments and Nominations: LDFA

Also at the council’s July 15 meeting, Richard Beedon was nominated for re-appointment to the board of the local development finance authority (LDFA). Terms on the LDFA are four years, so Beedon’s term extends to within one year of the end of the LDFA’s planned 15-year life in FY 2018.

Outcome: On unanimous votes, the council confirmed all the nominations it was asked to approve at its July 15 meeting.

Platt & Washtenaw Easements

On the agenda were three separate land-related items in connection with the Arbor Hills Crossing project at Platt & Washtenaw.

Platt & Washtenaw intersection looking east down Washtenaw on July 14, 2013.

Two of the items were easements – for a sidewalk and for bus shelters and bus pullouts.

The other item was the dedication of additional public right-of-way, so that Platt Road can be widened at that intersection. New traffic signals have been installed at the intersection, but they are not yet operational.

Responding to an inquiry from The Chronicle, city traffic engineer Les Sipowski indicated that the signals would likely not be turned on for another two weeks, and when they are first turned on they’d operate in flashing mode for a week.

The council had approved the site plan for Arbor Hills Crossing at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting.

The project includes four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site will include 310 parking spaces.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without discussion to approve all the items associated with Arbor Hills Crossing.

During the time allotted for communications from the city attorney, Stephen Postema indicated that the three easements on the agenda that night associated with Arbor Hills Crossing took a lot of work.

South State Corridor Plan

The council considered adoption of the South State Street corridor plan as part of the city’s master plan.

The city planning commission had voted unanimously to adopt the plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting. More commonly when the planning commission votes on a matter, it’s to recommend action by the city council. For the city’s master plan, however, the planning commission is on equal footing with the council: both groups must adopt the same plan. The council’s action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

Planning commissioners and staff have been working on this project for more than two years. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "State Street Corridor Study Planned," “Sustainability Goals Shape Corridor Study,” “Ideas Floated for South State Corridor.” and “South State Corridor Gets Closer Look.”]

Recommendations in the South State Street corridor plan are organized into categories of the city’s recently adopted sustainability framework: Land use and access, community, climate and energy, and resource management. Among the recommendations are: (1) Evaluate use of vacant parcels for alternative energy generation; (2) Evaluate integrating public art along the corridor; (3) Evaluate use of open land for community gardens; (4) Assess and improve high crash areas along the corridor; (5) create boulevard on State Street between Eisenhower and I‐94 to enable safer automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; (6) Consider utilizing vacant parcels for athletic fields and recreation facilities; (7) Develop a pedestrian and bicycle path along the Ann Arbor railroad that will connect the planned Allen Creek bikeway to Pittsfield Township through the corridor; and (8) Resurface roads in the corridor.

Each recommendation includes several related action items. The report also provides a section that organizes the recommendations into each of three distinct sections of the corridor: (1) from Stimson on the north to Eisenhower Parkway; (2) from Eisenhower south to the I-94 interchange; and (3) from I-94 to Ellsworth. In addition, there are nine site-specific recommendations for areas including Briarwood Mall, the complex of hotels near Victors Way and Broadway, and the research park development near the corridor’s south end.

The council had postponed its vote on the corridor plan at its July 1 meeting, deferring to a request from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who said she had concerns about adding it to the master plan.

Deliberations on July 15 were scant. Higgins thanked her colleagues on the council for the postponement at the last meeting so that she could look at the item a bit more closely.

Outcome: The council voted to adopt the South State Street corridor plan into the city’s master plan.

Barton Sidewalk Design

The council was asked to approve a design budget of $15,000 for a 400-foot new concrete sidewalk on the south side of Barton Road, from a spot west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

The money will be spent from the city’s general fund.

The council had approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.

The interest in having sidewalks was supported by petitions submitted by adjoining property owners.

Construction of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks, which is funded through the city’s sidewalk repair millage – is typically funded at least partly through special assessment of adjoining properties.

The cost of the design work can be recovered by the city in the same proportion as the construction cost. So, if 30% of the construction cost for the sidewalk is paid through special assessment, then 30% of the design cost can be recovered through special assessment.

Part of the context for sidewalk gap elimination is a decision made by the council on May 20, 2013, when it adopted the city’s FY 2014 budget. The budget included a $75,000 allocation for a study of sidewalk gaps, so that they can be prioritized.

Ward 1 councilmembers Sumi Kailasapathy and Sabra Briere.

During the brief council deliberations, council representatives for Ward 1, where the possible sidewalk is to be located, weighed in.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that people who are attempting to push strollers to Bandemer Park have complained for years about the lack of a sidewalk. The design budget doesn’t guarantee construction will take place, she allowed, but it’s a good step. There had been a meeting between staff and neighbors and the response was overwhelmingly positive, she reported.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) confirmed the nature of the neighborhood meeting, which she’d also attended. She was impressed by the attendance at the meeting. She highlighted the importance of non-motorized transportation.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the design budget for the proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

Social Justice Issues

Issues of social justice were raised during public commentary in connection with the Trayvon Marin verdict and with same-sex domestic partnership benefits.

Social Justice Issues: Trayvon Martin Verdict – Public Comment

Several people attended the council’s meeting to address the not-guilty verdict that had been delivered by a Florida jury in the Trayvon Martin shooting case over the weekend.

Blaine Coleman told the council they should make as much noise about the Trayvon Martin verdict as they did about the killing of white children in Newton, Mass. He told councilmembers he expected strong statements from them about what happened to Martin, which he characterized as “legalized lynching.” He spoke against the “slavemaster mindset,” which says that black life is worth nothing. Councilmembers need to rid themselves of that mindset, Coleman said – it’s a mindset that says it’s okay to hunt and kill black people. He expected the council to say that black life is worth something, and to express its revulsion at the Trayvon Martin verdict.

Lefiest Galimore was joined by seven others at the podium. He weighed in against the so-called “stand your ground” law in Florida. He drew attention to Michigan’s version of the law, which was enacted in 2006. [.pdf of Self Defense Act 309 of 2006]

Such laws are subject to interpretation, he cautioned. He said that outside of the council chambers he might be seen as a threat, simply because he is an African American male. He asked the council to pass a resolution calling for the repeal of Michigan’s law. He recited the history of the Pioneer High School football brawl in October 2012, in which three African American youths were charged criminally. He asked why three young African American men were charged out of two football teams that had players from different races. He called for the revocation of Michigan’s version of the “stand your ground” law.

Rev. Jeff Harrold introduced himself as pastor at the New Beginnings Community Church and a member of the steering committee of the Interfaith Council on Peace and Justice. [Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is director of ICPJ.] Race was the “800-pound gorilla in the room” in the Trayvon Martin case, he said. Harrold told the council it’s all too easy to see a young black man as threatening. He encouraged the council to go on record against the “stand your ground” law.

Harrold allowed that the Trayvon Martin case had taken place in Florida, but cautioned that something like that could happen in Michigan. He called on the council to support bringing federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman – who shot Martin. People don’t like to talk about race anymore, he said, but he pointed out that the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Reads selection this year is “The New Jim Crow.” And that had led to a facilitated dialogue. Race played a large role in the Trayvon Martin killing, and he wanted the U.S. Attorney General to do what the Florida jury had not done – deal with the issue of race in connection with the Trayvon Martin killing.

Social Justice Issues: Same-Sex Partnerships – Public Comment

Lisa Dusseau introduced herself as a born-and-raised Ann Arborite, and current resident of Ward 1. Ann Arbor has always been a place of diversity, inclusion and equality, she said. She described Ann Arbor as a progressive city where she felt free to live her life free of harassment or discrimination. Ann Arbor was one of the first cities to recognize domestic partnerships and to include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination policy. Her life partner is Kathleen Summersgill, who’s worked for the Ann Arbor fire department for 21 years, Dusseau said. They’ve been together as a couple for 19 years. They share everything a married couple would – except for health insurance. Dusseau reported that her current employer doesn’t offer health care that meets her needs. So she had to find her own insurance and pay her premiums out of pocket. Her asthma medication isn’t covered under her own policy – and a 90-day supply costs over $1,000.

There was a 9-month period in 2009 when she was covered under Summersgill’s insurance – and she is grateful for that, she said. But that was before 2011 when the Michigan state legislature prevented public employers from offering benefits to employees’ domestic partners. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as discriminatory, and soon after that the Michigan Court of Appeals rescinded Michigan’s ban on domestic partner benefits. Employees of the state, the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Public Schools can now obtain health benefits for their same-sex domestic partners – but nothing has changed for Ann Arbor city employees. She didn’t think it was fair that this discriminatory situation continues. So she urged the Ann Arbor city council to follow suit with other Ann Arbor institutions, in the light of recent court decisions, to restore domestic partner benefits.

Social Justice Issues: Council Response

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) addressed the issue of racial discrimination that public speakers had raised. In Ann Arbor it’s easy to forget what things are like in other states, she said. She didn’t know what to tell her kids to explain to them why the Trayvon Martin verdict came out the way it did. They were born in Ann Arbor and attended Ann Arbor schools so they’d lived protected lives. She said she was willing to work with other councilmembers on the issue of Michigan’s “stand your ground” law. Given that Ann Arbor is a progressive city and plays the role of a “shining light” to others, she felt that the council needs to pass a resolution and work with other cities to ensure that a situation like Trayvon Martin’s doesn’t occur in Michigan.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) also addressed the issues of marriage equality, racial equality and preventing gun violence – calling them issues dear to his heart. It was bad news when the state legislature had taken away the city’s ability to provide benefits to same-sex partners and it was good news when the courts gave that ability back. He indicated that the city was currently working to restore the same-sex benefits.

Warpehoski indicated that past local efforts to regulate gun ownership had been superseded by the state legislature. He expressed a willingness to support efforts to address “stand your ground” laws in Michigan. He hoped for the ability to have local control over regulation of gun ownership. He indicated that the city’s human rights commission was working on the issue of race. Racism isn’t just a Southern thing, he said.

Later during council communications ,Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he wanted to add his voice of support for those who wanted Warpehoski to work on human rights issues. The phrasing of Anglin’s remarks – which could have been understood as drafting Warpehoski to do the work – prompted some chuckles around the table. Anglin indicated that he himself was willing to lend his own efforts to the work.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Policing, Public Safety

City administrator Steve Powers asked police chief John Seto to give an update. The first six months of the year show that Part 1 crimes are down 10% compared to last year, Seto reported. [Part 1 crimes are considered the most serious, and include murder, rape, robbery, arson, and motor vehicle theft, among others.] Overall crime is down 7.5%.

The department is analyzing the initial data collection from the electronic activity logs for officers. The department expects to be staffed up to the full authorized level of 119 officers with the anticipated hire of four officers, Seto reported.

Comm/Comm: Humane Society

During council communications, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported that chief of police John Seto would be meeting with the Humane Society of Huron Valley. She noted that she’s a board member of the HSHV. She explained that the HSHV has a contract with Washtenaw County to provide services with respect to stray animals. She noted that the city itself no longer provides animal control services. The city’s ordinance says that if there’s a request for service, then the individual is supposed to contact the Ann Arbor police department, which would then forward the request to HSHV. The HSHV had decided to follow that ordinance, which meant that there are a lot of calls going into the AAPD about animal control, Lumm said. So the city will meet with HSHV to coordinate how stray animals will be handled.

Comm/Comm: Karl Pohrt

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) offered a remembrance of Karl Pohrt, who died the previous week. He was best known to many as the owner of the Shaman Drum Bookshop, she said. That bookstore on South State Street served the philosophers, and poets and social scientists. Others knew him through his volunteer work, which included service on city boards. Other knew him as a man with a “beautiful soul” that shines on in the many people he touched. Briere related how he let her bounce ideas off him. When she saw him last, he was living his life as fully as anyone can, she said. “I wish we all had more time,” Briere concluded.

Comm/Comm: Flooding

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) offered some anecdotal information on flooding from the point of view of a real taxpayer. Since 2000, a woman has replaced all her basement walls, which had cost from $25,000-$50,000, he said. She had one instance of damage of $5,000 and another one of $3,000. The city’s cost in connection with the flooding has been $8,000, he reported. Anglin wanted to put a human face on the tragedy. He said the city needs to do its best to do a better job controlling floods and “disasters of that nature.”

Comm/Comm: General Reforms

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge called for a new attitude and a new mayor of the city. He called for a council that would work to place items on every agenda that would expand human rights and expand public participation at meetings. He called for increased affordable housing and transportation. For too long, the mayor and council have neglected and abused Michigan’s most vulnerable citizens, he said. Money is allocated that highlights historic discrimination, he contended, and it’s time to end that.

During the public commentary at the end of the meeting, Partridge rose to speak for responsibility and integrity as an advocate for those residents of the city and state who are most vulnerable.

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

Next council meeting: Thursday, Aug. 8, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

Looking east down Monroe Street, across State Street. This section of Monroe Street is flanked by two University of Michigan law school buildings: Hutchins Hall to the north, and South Hall. (Photos by the writer. )

Following State Street north up the hill towards downtown will lead you to the intersection with Monroe Street. Turn right on Monroe, and you’ll wind up at Dominick’s, a local watering hole, majestic in its own right.

One parking option for patrons of Dominick’s is that first block of Monroe Street east of State. And what better topic to discuss over a pitcher of beer, sitting at a Dominick’s picnic table, than Ann Arbor parking rates. How much should it cost to use an on-street parking space on Monroe in that one block between State and Oakland?

Here’s a different question: How much for the whole damn block? I don’t mean just the parking spaces. I mean the whole right-of-way.

That question is part of a current conversation among public officials from the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan. The university is not interested in parking cars on that block. In fact, it’s the university’s desire that the thoroughfare be blocked to vehicular traffic. Permanently.

By tackling this topic, I’d like to achieve a two-fold purpose. First, I’d like to promote the daylighting of conversations now taking place out of public view. Second, I’d like to provide a rational way to approach calculating the value of city right-of-way, specifically in the general context of city-university relations.

Otherwise put, I’d like to sketch out a kind of Monroe Doctrine for Ann Arbor, which might in some ways mirror the message in the original Monroe Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe in his address to Congress, on Dec. 2, 1823.

I’m not going to suggest including the part that talks about when “our rights are invaded or seriously menaced …”

Monroe Street: Place, Time Not Random Coincidence  

It’s not a random accident that the university would like to see that block of Monroe Street essentially absorbed into its campus. Two university law school buildings now stand on opposites sides of Monroe Street. On the north is Hutchins Hall, which dates from 1933. On the south is the newly-constructed South Hall, which opened just this fall.

On a scenario closing that block of Monroe Street to automobile traffic, only a pedestrian-type corridor would separate South Hall from Hutchins Hall. Arguably, the university’s law school campus would have better physical coherence with that layout.

The university’s desire with respect to Monroe Street is not news. In fact, The Chronicle reported on a meeting hosted by university officials for residents in late 2008, when the proposal was floated. The idea was that the city of Ann Arbor would grant permanent use of the right-of-way to the university for one block of Monroe Street. The presentation was given by Jim Kosteva, UM’s director of community relations, and Sue Gott, the university’s head of planning. At that point, the plans for South Hall were still on the drawing board.

Residents did not give the proposal a warm reception. One argument against the proposal was based on civil liberties, public access to the space, and the substitution of the university’s police force for the city’s police department as a means to discourage expression of dissent. Another argument was based on the idea that one of the distinctive and valuable qualities of UM’s Ann Arbor campus is the degree to which it is integrated with the rest of the city. That contrasts with Michigan State University’s campus in East Lansing, which is more isolated and sharply delineated from the city. Closing down Monroe Street and turning over control of the right-of-way to UM was seen as counter to that positive quality.

A few months later, the university’s Monroe Street proposal was pitched to the city’s planning commission at a working session of the commission in early 2009. Planning commissioners also expressed little enthusiasm for the Monroe Street closure. Their concerns included the loss of on-street parking spaces. At that point, the university seemed to be contemplating bringing a formal proposal to the planning commission later in 2009. But that strategy was apparently re-thought in light of the lukewarm reception at the two public meetings.

However, based on email correspondence obtained by The Chronicle through a Freedom of Information Act request, it’s clear that conversations between the city and the university about Monroe Street have continued since early 2009. Unlike the two public pitches by the university from that timeframe, recent conversations have taken place out of public view.

It’s understandable, even reasonable, that the university would see now as an opportune moment in history. The current city council configuration is still ripe, just as it was back in 2009, for pitching that elected body a concept that would directly benefit the university’s law school. Then as now, two University of Michigan law school alums serve on the city council: Tony Derezinski and Christopher Taylor.

It’s time to daylight that conversation.

Private Conversation

Even while the university was pitching its Monroe Street proposal at public meetings in late 2008 and early 2009, not surprisingly, private conversations were taking place.

The following email from UM law alum and city councilmember Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) to then-city administrator Roger Fraser shows that UM law school dean, Evan Caminker, reached out to Taylor and then-councilmember Leigh Greden (an attorney, though not a UM law school graduate, who also represented Ward 3) on the Monroe Street issue.

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:10 AM
To: Fraser, Roger
Cc: Miller, Jayne; Dempkowski, Angela A; Greden, Leigh; Lloyd, Mark; Hieftje, John
Subject: Monroe St. Closure

Roger,

The Dean of the Law School (and Third Ward resident) has contacted Leigh and me to meet regarding the proposed closure of Monroe Street. We hope to schedule this meeting for next week. To prepare, I would be grateful if you and Staff could provide for us by 2-9 am:

1) A description of the state of conversations between City and University on the subject.

2) Any technical information you believe relevant, including potential/likely harms/costs to the City that would result from such a closure.

Also too if you have any questions, thoughts or advice on matters that I may not have considered, I am, as ever, all ears.

Many thanks,

Christopher

The non-public conversations between the university and the city have continued past the second public discussion in early 2009. Here’s an email exchange from the summer of 2010 involving UM law school alum and city councilmember Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and a UM project director in architectural and engineering services, Thomas Schlaff. It leads to setting up a meeting with UM director of community relations Jim Kosteva [emphasis added].

From: tderezinski@comcast.net [mailto:tderezinski@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:09 PM
To: Schlaff, Thomas
Cc: Caminker, Evan
Subject: Monroe Street

Dear Tom,

I attended a reception last night on the U Mall sponsored by the Law School, and engaged Dean Caminker in a conversation regarding the new building and the status of Monroe Street. In addition to being an alumn of the Law School, I also presently serve on the City Council. I was specifically interested in the timing regarding action of the proposal before the City to vacate a block of it, and also the relationship of that action to the timing, and expense, of construction of the whole project, and who I could talk to regarding these matters. He suggested you and Larry Bowman, and Jim Kosteva. I happened to see Jim at lunch today, and he was interested in doing so.

So I woulld like to get together with you, Jim and Larry some time, perhaps next week, for about an hour, and perhaps also at or near the site (Dominics?) [sic] to talk about it. Jim said he would be happy to facilitate it.

I will be gone from early tomorrow through Monday, but will be checking my email. I hope we can do so; perhaps you could also call Jim Kosteva re same.

Thanks!

Tony Derezinski

==========

From: Thomas Schlaff”
To: “tderezinski @comcast.net” Cc: “Evan Caminker”
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:26:49 PM
Subject: RE: Monroe Street

Tony,

Thanks for messaging, and would love to gather with you and Jim. I’ll call Jim and make sure we get a date soon to chat. Next week would be great.

Again, thank you for your note, and especially for your support for our very special Law School Project.

Tom

Thomas G. Schlaff, P.E. – Project Director
Architecture, Engineering & Construction
The University of Michigan

==========

From: “Alicia Boltach”
To: tschlaff@umich.edu, TDerezinski@a2gov.org
Cc: tderezinski@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 4:13:03 PM
Subject: Meeting w/Jim Kosteva

Tom and Tony,

Jim has requested to meet with both of you to discuss Monroe Street.

He has asked for the meeting to occur around the 4 p.m. hour and to
occur at Dominick’s. Please see below available dates and respond with your availability.

Thursday, July 1st: 4 p.m.
Friday, July 2nd: 4 p.m.
Tuesday, July 6th: 4 p.m.
Thursday, July 8th: 4 p.m.
Kind Regards,

Alicia

Alicia Boltach
Office of the Vice President for Government Relations
University of Michigan

More recently, this past summer the university was interested in talking to councilmembers about two topics: Monroe Street and football stadium security.

By way of background, as a security measure the university has been interested in seeing the block of Main Street between Stadium Boulevard and Pauline Street closed during home football games. According to the city, the closure of Main Street for the Sept. 10 game between Notre Dame and UM this year stemmed from security concerns related specifically to the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and was a one-time event. However, UM’s interest is in closing down Main Street for that block as a matter of standard operating procedure for home football games.

Closure of Main Street is related to the general issue of logistics on home football game days, which is a topic that includes both security (fire and police) and traffic controls. Historically, the university has reimbursed the city’s costs for extra staffing of fire and police on game days, but has refused to reimburse the city for costs related to traffic controls.

This year, the city council passed a resolution directing its city administrator not to provide traffic management services on football game days unless the city’s costs were reimbursed. And the university agreed to reimburse those costs, but at a much lower level of service.

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, UM’s Kosteva clarified that the clearly contemporaneous conversations about football stadium security and Monroe Street, indicated in the email below, were just that: contemporaneous but separate conversations that were part of the same meeting:

From: Robyn Snyder [mailto:rasnyder@umich.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 11 :22 AM
To: Robyn Snyder
Subject: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

Good morning,

Jim Kosteva the University of Michigan, Director of Community Relations would like to request a half hour of your time to discuss
the universities [sic] interest in Monroe Street-Stadium security. We understand how busy you are, but if you can, please take a moment to complete this doodle poll for your availability. This can take place someplace for a coffee, or in your office.

Link to poll: http://doodle.com/d2c7ehezvey9dgxr

Once a date and time has been established, I will email you with a confirmation.

If you are unable to access this poll, or have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for your time.

Robyn Snyder
Administrative Assistant Intermediate
University of Michigan
Office of the Vice President for Government Relations

==========

From: Teall, Margie
Sent: Tue 6/7/2011 4:12 PM
To: Higgins, Marcia; Hieftje, John; Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Subject: FW: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

Did all of Council receive this request?

==========

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Tue 6/7/2011 4:57 PM
To: Teall, Margie; Higgins, Marcia; Hieftje, John
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

Yes. Met with the gentleman today.

Christopher Taylor
Member, Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

==========

From: Higgins, Marcia
Sent: Wed 6/8/2011 10:24 AM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council); Teall, Margie; Hiefije, John
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

How did that go?

==========

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Wed 6/8/2011 2:59 PM
To: Higgins, Marcia; Teall, Margie; Hieftje, John
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

He said he’d give us everything we wanted. [Ed. note: Read on to see that Taylor is kidding.]

Christopher Taylor
Member, Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

==========

From: Higgins, Marcia
Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 12:54 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

what do we want?

==========

From: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 12:55 PM
To: Higgins, Marcia
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

He didn’t say that.

Christopher Taylor
Member, Ann Arbor City Council (Third Ward)

==========

From: Higgins, Marcia
Sent: Thu 6/9/2011 2:39 PM
To: Taylor, Christopher (Council)
Subject: RE: Meeting with Jim Kosteva – University of Michigan

are you pulling my leg here?

Public Conversations Between Public Bodies

Conversations about handing over control of a city block’s worth of public right-of-way to another entity should obviously take place in the public sphere.

UM director of community relations Jim Kosteva typically prefers to describe the city-university relationship as like “a marriage where divorce and separation aren’t an option.” That’s the analogy he drew for a group of visitors from Chapel Hill, North Carolina exactly three years ago last Friday. A member of that group Twittered out Kosteva’s remarks, which The Chronicle has preserved forever in its New Media Watch archives.

@orangepolitics is Twittering live the remarks of A2 and UM luminaries. Highlights: “Jim Kosteva, UofM: ‘town-gown relations are like a marriage wher divorce is not an option.’ Then he hands the city councilwmn some flowers!” Councilwoman in question is Briere.

I disagree with Kosteva that this is an appropriate analogy – although sometimes it might seem to residents in student neighborhoods like the university has a habit of leaving its underwear lying around the living room.

It’s not an appropriate analogy, because marriages are between private individuals, and topics of conversation in the context of a marriage are inherently not required or expected to happen in public view. But that is exactly the expectation for conversations between two public entities like the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan: They need to happen in public view.

I don’t think a colorful analogy is required to understand what the university’s relationship is to the city. What’s most useful is the straightforward factual description: The city and the university are two public landowners, whose property and activities are often proximate to each other.

The city and the university should thus behave like two landowners. If one landowner wishes to have control of the other landowner’s property, then what typically happens is that some kind of negotiation takes place between the two parties, and some consideration is offered in exchange for control of that property. The amount of consideration offered is based on some sort of standard prevailing practice.

An example of that is the kind of discussion taking place now between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) in connection with a strip of city-owned land. The six-foot-wide strip is adjacent to the two downtown parcels occupied by the Blake Transit Center (BTC). As part of the planned reconstruction of the BTC, the AATA would like to align the parcel boundaries.

The city of Ann Arbor is not simply handing over the six-foot-wide strip to the AATA. Instead, it’s being appraised, and there’ll ultimately be a cash transaction based on that appraisal. The acquisition of the six-foot strip has been mentioned at several AATA board meetings during routine updates.

Some kind of compensation was pointedly not a part of the university’s proposal back in late 2009 and 2010, when the city was asked to cede control of its right-of-way for an entire block of Monroe Street.

But currently, the conversation between the city and the university about Monroe Street has reportedly evolved to include some kind of payment. The amount of the deal and its structure – a one-time payment or a series of payments in perpetuity – is still an open question.

That evolution reflects progress. A deal struck on its fair financial merits would help avoid the possibility that an agreement on Monroe Street was being played as a quid pro quo in connection with some other deal – like Fuller Road Station, for example, or payments for traffic controls on football game days.

At a budget retreat held in December 2010, former city administrator Roger Fraser cautioned councilmembers against playing a game of tit-for-tat on unrelated issues involving the city and the university. Fraser’s comments came in response to a councilmember suggestion that if the university continued to refuse reimbursement to the city for costs of traffic management on football game days, the city should be uncooperative in some other area – like Monroe Street.  Fraser cited the specific example of Fuller Road Station, where that tit-for-tat strategy could yield undesirable results. [Fuller Road Station is a large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station that's a joint city/UM project. Design is already underway, but a contract laying out financial terms and other aspects of the partnership hasn't been publicly announced.]

In Kosteva’s recent phone interview with The Chronicle, he also described how he did not think it was in the interest of the overall health of the city-university relationship to play one situation off against an unrelated one. He likened it to a negotiation between spouses in which one agreed to attend a concert with the other as a condition on the other coming along to visit an unpleasant relative.

The marriage analogy aside, Kosteva still arrives at essentially the same conclusion as Fraser, as reflected in Fraser’s comments at the budget retreat. Each situation should be handled on its own merits. I think that’s the right way to approach Monroe Street.

And that means two questions need answers. First, does the city even want to do a deal on Monroe Street? Second, what should the deal structure and dollar amount be? The answers to those questions should be worked out in public view. And now’s a good time to start.

I’d like to focus on the second of these questions, because it looks like that second question will need an answer fairly quickly for a different UM project.

Potential Precedent: Institute for Social Research Expansion

North of Jefferson Street, between Division and Thompson streets, UM is building an expansion to the Institute for Social Research.

The University of Michigan Institute for Social Research expansion is indicated in reddish brown, to the northwest of the existing building. The project will result in the net loss of one metered parking space.

Constucting that project as currently planned will result in the elimination of two metered parking spaces on Thompson Street, which is partly balanced out by the addition of a parking space on Division Street.

So the ISR expansion will result in the net loss of one metered parking space.

The city of Ann Arbor completed its review of the ISR project this summer and signed off on it.

Although the university’s projects are not subject to site plan approval by the planning commission and the city council, city staff from various departments do review the plans and provide comments. Those documents are available through the city’s eTrakit system. [Projects aren't linkable, but the ISR project can be found by searching for address, project name, or by project number: UM10-014]

Among the city’s review materials for the ISR expansion are two memos from Joe Morehouse, Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority deputy director, to Connie Pulcipher, a city of Ann Arbor systems planner. [Morehouse Memo 1] [Morehouse Memo 2]

The memos from Morehouse address specifically the issue of the net parking loss associated with the ISR expansion. Morehouse cites a March 4, 2009 DDA resolution that addresses the value of on-street parking spaces. The resolution adopts the policy recommendations of the DDA board’s operations committee and encourages the city council to do the same. Those policy recommendations include the following:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 resolution]

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new space in a structure, either above ground or below ground.

So the March 4, 2009 resolution essentially calls on the city council to adopt a policy on the elimination of metered parking spaces – which it has not done over the last two and a half years. However, a new contract signed between the city and the DDA this year, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, gives some impetus for action on this issue and provides a role for the DDA to help determine what that policy will be for removal of on-street parking. [emphasis added]

2. Operational Powers and Responsibilities Within DDA Parking Area
…
e. The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

The ISR expansion involves just one parking space. One friction-free option for UM would be to simply pay the $45,000 that the DDA is recommending as the value attached to an on-street space. In the context of a $23 million project, $45,000 doesn’t seem like a lot.

However, that would likely define expectations for the dollar figure attached to any Monroe Street deal. And with 22 parking spaces at stake on Monroe Street, UM could be looking at more than $1 million as the starting point of a conversation about how much more should be paid to account for the additional right-of-way control beyond the elimination of the parking spaces. [Back in 2009, the number of spaces was described as 22; a recent count of meter heads on the block by The Chronicle gave nine twin-head meters, or 18 spaces, plus a loading zone area.]

Price of a Parking Space

Part of the challenge in determining a fair way to do a deal on Monroe Street is that there’s not really a robust market for Ann Arbor city streets. How would you establish the comparables?

Price: Community Benefit

In a phone interview with The Chronicle, Kosteva did not argue for a specific dollar figure or a particular deal structure. But he did suggest some questions that the discussion should include.

One is the issue of “community benefit,” mentioned in the city-DDA parking contract. Kosteva is right in pointing out that this is somewhat vague.

Depending on how the council and the DDA wind up defining the phrase, it might turn out that elimination of parking spaces on Monroe Street meets the criteria of a “community benefit.” In that case, there’s no need to contemplate a parking space replacement cost methodology.

For example, it might be possible to construe “community benefit” in a way that translates any benefit enjoyed by the university, given its prominent role in the city’s economy, to a benefit enjoyed by the entire city. This would essentially formalize the idea that whatever is good for the university is also good for the city, and therefore a community benefit.

But that goes against the principle that each specific situation should be evaluated unto itself. It hardly makes sense to say that a Monroe Street closure will benefit the community economically because of the additional jobs that the university’s new children’s hospital will bring to the city. On the other hand, if the university could demonstrate that the Monroe Street closure would allow the enrollment of X additional law students, or the hiring of Y additional faculty, that could be part of a case that closing down Monroe Street brings an economic benefit to the community.

It’s not crazy to insist on that kind of specific accounting to claim a community economic benefit. It’s exactly the standard that’s used in evaluating the merits of a tax abatement, for example.

Economic benefits aren’t the only kind of benefit. If UM were proposing to close down Monroe Street so that a small skatepark could be built there and used by Ann Arbor’s skateboarding community, then that might conceivably meet a reasonable definition of “community benefit.” It would provide an amenity for city residents that they currently don’t have. [This is by way of a hypothetical example. As far as I know, no one is interested in seeing that location become a skatepark.]

But to sum up, I don’t see any reasonable way of defining “community benefit” that would encompass the closure of one block of Monroe Street. Indeed, I would point to the same considerable community detriment noted by attendees at the December 2009 public meeting and Ann Arbor city planning commissioners three months later.

Price: Who’s Asking?

Another question identified by Kosteva in his phone interview with The Chronicle is this: Should all parties be treated the same way?

Without arguing either side, Kosteva suggested that as the city and the DDA work to develop a policy, it’s worth considering whether a large multimillion-dollar private company seeking to build a large headquarters in downtown Ann Arbor should be treated the same way by the policy that a nonprofit organization – like a church – would be treated.

I think that’s a fair question.

But I think it’s clear that any difference in treatment should be based not on who the party is, but rather on the earlier notion of community benefit. If the large multimillion-dollar private company can demonstrate that X jobs will be created as a result of a project that eliminates the on-street parking spaces, then that’s relevant to the discussion. In the same way, if a church can demonstrate that its project will draw Y additional worshipers from outside the city every Saturday morning, some percentage of whom will stay for lunch in Ann Arbor restaurants, then that potential economic benefit is relevant to the discussion.

But I can’t see any reason to treat different parties differently based purely on who they are.

Price: Value Based on Parking Revenue

But even if we treat all parties equally, that doesn’t mean that we have to treat all parking spaces equally.

That’s an additional consideration suggested by Kosteva that should be part of the conversational mix as the city and the DDA develop the policy. Specifically, Kosteva suggested that the revenues generated by a metered parking space could factor into an assessment of the relative value of a parking space, compared with other spaces in the parking system. Some spaces generate more revenue than others, based on where they’re located.

Note that this is not equivalent to suggesting that replacement of a specific meter’s revenue would be appropriate compensation for eliminating that parking space. Rather, it’s a suggestion more like the following: If Meter A generates twice as much revenue as Meter B, then even if the starting point of a replacement cost allocation for a parking space is $45,000, surely it matters whether Meter A or Meter B is proposed for elimination.

Leaving aside the question of the absolute revenue, if a meter is generating so little revenue that the city and DDA don’t perceive a need to actually construct a parking space to replace it, it doesn’t make complete sense to insist that a payment be made to pay for the cost of replacing it. It’s possible to conceive of some kind of “discount” for low-revenue meters, or perhaps a surcharge for particularly high-revenue meters.

That’s all very well and good. But how much revenue do Monroe Street parking meters generate, and how does that compare to the rest of the parking meters in Ann Arbor’s public parking system?

Systemwide, here’s the distribution revenue annually by percentiles: bottom third generates 0-$960; middle third generates $961-$1,963; upper third generates more than $1,963. [The DDA is currently engaged in designing a tiered pricing structure for downtown parking meters – based on demand for the spaces, where demand is measured by revenue generated. So keeping track of this information is part of the DDA's current work plan.]

Taking the average of annual revenues generated by six of the meters for the Monroe Street block (those for which The Chronicle was able to identify data) yields $1,643 per year. So it appears that the Monroe Street meters are firmly in the mid-range for parking meter revenue systemwide.

In that case, at least for the Monroe Street meters, it’s hard to see how any “discount” that might be developed for the cost replacement allocation formula would apply to the Monroe Street spaces.

So based on a count of 22 spaces and the DDA-recommended $45,000 figure, the parking replacement cost would be $990,000 – a one-time cost. [The DDA's recommendation does not contemplate any additional payments.]

Of course, what the university hopes to achieve goes beyond the parking spaces, and includes control of the entire right-of-way.

Price: Based on Right-of-Way Rental

Rental of the right-of-way is another way to think about the Monroe Street proposal. For construction projects (requiring, for example, a temporary lane closure) the city applies a standard rate for the rental of public right-of-way: 1.5 cents per square foot per day.

The aerial photo provided by the Washtenaw County online mapping system still shows the surface parking lot south of Monroe Street. South Hall now stands at that location. The rectangle is drawn based on the parcel boundaries displayed on Washtenaw County's mapping website. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Using 17,500 square feet as a figure for the amount of public right-of-way at stake (as measured using online mapping tools through the Washtenaw County website), that would work out to about $96,000 annually.

From the university’s point of view, it might be not be desirable to enter into an arrangement that’s based on an annual payment in perpetuity. And it’s possible to argue against the 1.5 cent rental rate on the grounds that right-of-way rental for construction purposes is not the same thing as permanent control of the right-of-way. Ordinarily, there’s some kind of discount for rental agreements where the tenant is willing to sign on to a longer lease.

But from the city’s point of view, a right-of-way rental at $96,000 annually needs to be the starting point for the negotiation. If there’s not a $96,000 annual payment to be made in perpetuity, and the deal is instead structured as a one-time payment, then that lump-sum should be based on something real, not just pulled out of thin air.

One possibility for a real number is the projected useful life of any new parking structure built by the DDA: 75 years. So one approach would be to say that after 75 years, the $96,000 annual payment from UM to the city would end. That would amount to a total of $7.2 million (75 × $96,000) paid over the course of 75 years. If UM wanted to negotiate a lump sum payment (to avoid writing a Monroe Street check every year), presumably the city should be willing to negotiate downward from $7.2 million.

Monroe Street Doctrine

To oversimplify it, the Monroe Doctrine, expressed by President James Monroe in 1823, said “hands off” the Western Hemisphere to future colonization by other countries:

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.

Translating that to city-university terms would amount to a declaration that any attempt by the university to expand the campus would be considered as dangerous to the city’s peace and safety.

That seems overwrought and probably would lead to endless frustration – the university is free to purchase land from people who want to sell it. [In fact, UM regents just last week approved the purchase of a parcel that's currently the site of an apartment building, at 716 Oakland Ave., just around the corner from Monroe Street.]

But to my eye, there’s an obvious part of that Monroe Doctrine excerpt that could be adopted as a doctrine to help guide city-university relations on the side of the city. It’s the part about candor.

So in closing, I’d  suggest something along the following lines:

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan that we should consider any land transfers between these two parties only in the context of public meetings between public officials.

There are multiple mechanisms through which this conversation can occur publicly. Those might include communications from councilmembers during their council meetings, or full-on working sessions attended by councilmembers and university officials.

Whatever the mechanism, it’s time to put the Monroe Street conversation in public view.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public entities like the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan. 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!

The agreement came after the Ann Arbor city council passed a resolution at its Aug. 15, 2011 meeting directing its city administrator not to provide traffic control services unless the university reimbursed the city for those costs in the same way the university reimburses costs for police and fire protection on game days.

However, the agreement will mean a reduced level of service. For example, the city will not provide traffic control before the games or manual operation of traffic signals at major intersections like State Street & Eisenhower or State & Briarwood. The city’s press release warns that increased traffic congestion might result, compared to what people have historically experienced.

An exception to the reduced level of service is one game on Sept. 10, for which Ann Arbor will provide the full level of service that the city has provided in the past. That’s the date of the game against Notre Dame, which will be played at night.

Interim city administrator Tom Crawford had indicated at the council’s Aug. 15 meeting that his discussions with the university included the possibility of reimbursement for last year’s service. The estimated cost per year of the traffic control service given at the meeting was $100,000. Update: Via city communications manager Lisa Wondrash, according to interim city administrator Tom Crawford, the reduced level of traffic control services provided by the city will be reimbursed by the university at a level of $2,800 per game.

The press release issued on Aug. 26 does not include dollar figures for the reduced level of service that the university has agreed to reimburse the city, nor any information about whether the agreement is retroactive. [.pdf of press release]