Swearing in of the councilmembers who won election on Nov. 5, 2013. From left: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Administering the oath was city clerk Jackie Beaudry. (Photos by the writer.)

Earlier in the evening, an hour-long chunk of the meeting was taken up by deliberations on the admission of Ypsilanti Township as a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. After an hour of discussion and questioning, the council voted unanimously to approve the addition of the township as a member of the AAATA. The council’s action brought the number of AAATA member jurisdictions to three: the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Township.

The council also deliberated for almost an hour before giving initial approval to a repeal of the city’s crosswalk law – so that vehicles would have the option of slowing (in addition to stopping) to yield to pedestrians. The repeal also eliminates the explicit need for motorists to yield to pedestrians who are standing at the curb – making motorists responsible for yielding only to those pedestrians who are “within a crosswalk.” The repeal passed on a 9-2 vote, but will need a second vote at a future meeting to be enacted. Back-channel discussion of some kind of compromise approach has unfolded since the meeting, but it’s not clear what, if any, impact that might have.

On an issue related to the crosswalk ordinance change, 40 minutes was spent on council discussion on a pedestrian safety task force – which had been postponed from its Nov. 7 meeting. Ultimately the council voted to establish a nine-person pedestrian safety task force with a charge of delivering a report with recommendations by February 2015. Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Dec. 2, 2013, with the task force members to be appointed on Dec. 16. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application]

The council also spent about a half hour deliberating on final approval to a change to the ordinance that regulates the tax increment finance (TIF) capture of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The change replaced the restriction in the ordinance originally enacted in 1982 with one that in the next few years will result in about $2 million in additional TIF revenue annually, compared to the amount the DDA would have received under strict enforcement of the 1982 language. Dissenting on that vote were Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Near the start of the meeting, Teall was selected as mayor pro tem, on a 6-5 vote. The council left its other organizational business – adoption of rules and assignment to committees – until Dec. 2.

The members of the rules committee will have a fresh assignment based on other action of the council on Nov. 18. The council passed a resolution that in part directs the rules committee to develop a set of standards for the conduct of councilmembers, based on “applicable statutes, regulations, existing city policies, and best practices such as Section and 2a of Public Act 196 of 1973 and the Ethics Handbook for Michigan Municipalities.”

Other business handled by the council included the final approval of a revision to the city’s ordinance on park use fees – to allow for a waiver for groups using a public park for the charitable distribution of goods to address basic human needs. Council chambers were filled with supporters of that resolution.

The council also formally adopted an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, after having postponed the item on Nov. 7. And as a part of its consent agenda, the council approved various street closings associated with New Year’s festivities – The Puck Drops Here in downtown Ann Arbor and the National Hockey League’s Winter Classic at Michigan Stadium.

Former Y Lot Sale

Although it did not appear on the agenda until mid-afternoon on Nov. 18, the council had expected to see a sales agreement for the former Y lot presented for their consideration. The city-owned property is located north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. The council had voted on Nov. 7 to direct the city administrator to negotiate with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the land and to present a sales agreement for approval on Nov. 18.

Former Y lot from the northwest corner of William and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, looking northwest. In the background, the new Blake Transit Center is under construction. The photo dates from mid-October 2013.

It was not clear until mid-afternoon on Nov. 18 that Powers would be able to comply with that Nov. 7 council directive. In emails to councilmembers spaced just 14 minutes apart, Powers first indicated that negotiations with Dahlmann were continuing and that he didn’t expect to have a sales agreement ready for that night’s meeting (3:41 p.m.) and then that Dahlmann had agreed to all the city’s terms (3:55 p.m.). City attorneys were preparing the sales agreement, Powers wrote in the later email, and he expected it to be ready for consideration at that evening’s meeting, which it was.

The Nov. 7 resolution had been added to the agenda on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013. Dahlmann offered $5.25 million for the property. It had been listed at $4.2 million. The city purchased the property from the YMCA for $3.5 million 10 years ago and has been making interest-only payments on the property for that time. A balloon payment is due at the end of this year. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

The sales price is important because the net proceeds of the sale are supposed to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

The original Nov. 7 resolution included direction to ensure eventual development of the site. But during the Nov. 7 deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) put forward amendments that were far more detailed about how protection against non-development was to be achieved. Those amendments were adopted by the council as part of the direction to the administrator. [.pdf of Taylor's amendments.]

Taylor’s amendments included a minimum 400% floor area ratio (FAR), with mixed use on the bottom floor, office space on the mid-floors and residential on the top floors. The deadline for building something is January 2018. There’s a prohibition against selling to another third party except that the city has a right of first refusal. The amendments also gave direction on requirements for energy efficiency and a required conversation with the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, which operates the Blake Transit Center next door to the parcel.

If negotiations with Dahlmann had not been successful, then the Nov. 7 resolution directed the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). CA Ventures had increased its offer to $5.35 million – but that increased amount was received after the deadline for offers, which was firm and clearly communicated to bidders, according to the city’s broker.

The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale. [.pdf of summary page by Chaconas]

Former Y Lot Sale: Council Deliberations

City administrator Steve Powers led off by saying that thanks to the work of Colliers and the city attorney’s office, there’s a sales agreement for consideration. The rider reflects the Nov. 7 council resolution, he explained.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he disliked the idea of Dahlmann’s downtown hotel monopoly. [Dahlmann's holdings include the Campus Inn and Bell Tower hotels.] However, Warpehoski felt like the council should let the “best bid win.” He also looked forward to the benefit to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. [By council resolution, the net proceeds of the sale are to go to the city's affordable housing trust fund.]

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she thought that the parcel is too small for a hotel anyway, noting there are other city-owned parcels where a hotel could be built. Mayor John Hieftje reiterated the idea that there are several other sites where a hotel could be built, including private property that’s owned by developers.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stated: “I am so happy this is before us.” He recalled serving on the planning commission in 2004 when that body had approved a plan for a hotel on the site, which didn’t get built. “I’m not in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace,” Kunselman said. It’s 10 years of history, he said. He missed the Y building – as he remembered taking swim lessons there. He called Dahlmann a well-respected businessman in the community.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he’d support the sale. He’d queried his constituents and on that basis he’d come to the conclusion that he’d support it. The Key Bank building was given as an example of the kind of quality of work that Dahlmann did. Taylor said he’s looking forward to getting this property back on the tax rolls.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) called Dahlmann’s proposal “head and shoulders” above the other proposals. Lumm thanked Kunselman for kicking off the effort. Lumm recalled serving in 1993 on something called the Ann Arbor Inn task force. She echoed Kunselman’s remarks about not picking winners and losers. It’s an exciting proposal, she said. It’s going to be a “shining development” for downtown, she said. Lumm contended that Dahlmann’s proposal was the only one that proposed to involve the community with the development.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to sell the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million.

Former Y Lot Sale: Coda

During council communications at the end of the meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that the council had that evening approved a sales agreement with someone [Dahlmann] who’d contributed money to several council campaigns. He said there’s nothing wrong with that, but it was the same kind of situation that some councilmembers – who’d received money from Dahlmann – had criticized at previous meetings with respect to membership on a city board.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Ed Vielmetti expressed concern about the fact that the land sale was put on the agenda at the last possible minute. At 5:11 p.m. the relevant documents were not available, he said. So the public was not invited to be a part of the process. He didn’t have an opportunity to see the documents before the council voted, let alone prepare comments to share during public commentary. He then called the council’s attention to some very old minutes from various boards and commissions that were only just now for that night’s meeting attached to the city council’s agenda.

Ypsilanti Township Membership in AAATA

The city council considered for a second time a revision to the articles of incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to admit Ypsilanti Township as a member and to increase the board membership from 9 to 10 members so that the township can appoint a member. The council had postponed the action at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting. The vote to postpone was 8-3 with dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Green indicates the geographic area included by the AAATA.

At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board already approved the membership of Ypsilanti Township. That action was contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

An earlier expansion in membership was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The name of the authority was also changed at that time to add the word “area” – making it the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. [Amendment 3 of the AAATA articles of incorporation]

The expansion of the AAATA’s geographic footprint to include some jurisdictions geographically close to the city of Ann Arbor – and with whom the AAATA has historically had purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) – sets the stage for a possible request of voters in the expanded geographic area to approve additional transportation funding to pay for increased service frequencies and times.

The AAATA could place a millage request on the ballot in May 2014, probably at the level of 0.7 mills, to support a 5-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed. A schedule of 13 public meetings to introduce that plan ended on Nov. 14. The series of meetings began on Oct. 17 before the council’s Oct. 21 decision to postpone. [For more background, see "Council Agenda: Transportation Governance"]

The current, more localized expansion of the AAATA contrasts with a now demised effort in 2012 to incorporate all of Washtenaw County into a single countywide transportation authority. When the Ann Arbor city council withdrew Ann Arbor’s participation in that effort, at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, it gave encouraged the AAATA “to continue to discuss regional transportation options among Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Ann Arbor Township, Pittsfield Township, and Scio Township, leading to a better understanding and process for improving local transit options…”

Over the course of the last year, the AAATA held a series of meetings with officials from those municipalities, a group that came to be called the “urban core” communities.

One outcome of those conversations was an interest in membership in the AAATA on the part of the two Ypsilanti jurisdictions. The city of Ann Arbor (pop. ~116,000), the city of Ypsilanti (pop. ~19,500) and Ypsilanti Township (~53,000) make up a bit more than half the population of Washtenaw County (pop. ~351,000).

Ypsi Twp. in AAATA: Public Commentary

Jim Mogensen spoke in favor of expanded transit in the urban area. He called it the continuation of a process that began over 40 years ago.

Jim Mogensen.

He recounted the history of changes that allowed the expansion to happen. In the mid-1970s after the city of Ann Arbor passed its millage, the AATA was expanded in a way that allowed the municipalities on the eastern side of the county to be included – through POSAs (purchase of service agreements).

What those communities pay, he said, is the local match for federal funds. Ann Arbor Township is the only community that’s no longer a part of that expansion, he said. Now, the AAATA has come up with a good plan to enhance service on the east side of the county, Mogensen said.

Ypsi Twp. in AAATA: Council Deliberations

After the consent agenda was approved, around 9 p.m., the council adjusted its agenda to accommodate the schedule of Ypsilanti Township officials. Township clerk Karen Lovejoy Roe had arrived at the meeting and had a constrained schedule.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by saying he’d attended some of the AAATA meetings that were held over the last month and he did not hear anyone say they were opposed to Ypsilanti Township joining the authority. He urged the council to vote unanimously to support Ypsilanti Township as a member.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said he strongly supported expanding transportation in the urban core. But he contended that the plan to ask for a millage would result in an inequitable funding arrangement. He ticked through the amount of millage each community would pay. He wanted a uniform total millage across all communities.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) responded to Eaton by saying that the amount of service in Ann Arbor is much higher, and that it’s natural that the amount contributed by Ann Arbor would be greater.

Teall asked Michael Ford, the AAATA’s CEO, to the podium. Ford said that 84% of the AAATA’s service is provided in Ann Arbor. He stressed that the question before the council that evening was membership in the AAATA.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know what would happen if a millage didn’t pass: Would Ypsilanti Township convert their general fund allocation to a transit millage? Ford said he wouldn’t speak for the township. Karen Lovejoy Roe took the podium to respond to Lumm’s question. She thanked the council for moving up the item on the agenda. She said that Ypsilanti Township has had some sort of POSA for several years, and as a member of the AAATA, the township would be willing to make a longer-term commitment. [.pdf of draft MOU] She was excited about having transit that connects the west and east sides of the county.

Lumm asked if Ypsilanti Township would convert the general fund funding to a millage, if an AAATA millage didn’t pass. Lovejoy Roe said that right now, the township would lock in the current POSA agreement in perpetuity – but that wouldn’t necessarily result in the township itself asking for a millage of its residents.

Lumm said it’s not been clarified what the standards are for being admitted as a member of the AAATA. Lovejoy Roe asked what difference it would make, if the township board is entering into a legally binding agreement to pay the cash.

Lumm asked Ford what the standards are for admitting a municipality as a member. Ford referred to the council’s resolution for exploring conversations with the urban core communities, a community’s ability to pay, where population density is, and other factors.

Lumm reported that she attended one of the public outreach meetings, and there were questions asked about routes in Ward 2. She contended that it’s not clear whether the AAATA’s series of outreach meetings had been a “sales tour” or a “listening tour.” In the “marketing materials,” she said, there was an indication that the improvements will require a 0.7 mill tax. Ford stressed that the AAATA board has not made a decision to place a millage on the ballot. The point of the meetings was to hear input and make adjustments and refine the plan, he said. “We are listening to people. … That’s what we do!” he added. Lumm complained there is not enough service improvement in Ward 2.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) thanked Ford for providing the MOU between AAATA and Ypsilanti Township. She contended the goal of long-term planning is undercut by the monthly invoicing to which the MOU refers. Ford described that as just an operational issue – and stressed that it’s in draft form. The MOU simply operationalizes the exchange of money, he said. Kailasapathy asked if the planning would take place on an annual basis. Ford indicated that planning is a continuous process, quarterly and annual. Planning is in the AAATA’s DNA, Ford said – “that’s what we do.”

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that for him, it’s a simple question of whether it’s good for Ypsi Township to be a member. Leaving aside the “soul-sucking micromanagement” of the AAATA – an allusion to the line of questioning pursued by Lumm – Taylor said the answer to the question is yes. Taylor characterized Eaton’s worry about the amount of support there would be for a millage as a fair point. But Taylor said that this idea will be put into the marketplace (of voters). It’s natural that Ann Arbor will receive most of the service, he said, as it’s the economic engine of the region.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) recalled a remark from township supervisor Brenda Stumbo at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting – that you can’t get from the city of Ypsilanti to the city of Ann Arbor without going through Ypsilanti Township. If the buses will go through the township anyway, it makes sense that the township has a voice on the board, Petersen said. She was less concerned about the funding, saying she gave Ypsi Township the benefit of any doubt that they’ll continue to pay the POSA.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked Ford to review the city of Ann Arbor’s increase in service over the five-year period. Ford explained that over the five-year period, service would increase 33%. Warpehoski concluded that’s about commensurate with the percentage that an additional 0.7 mill tax would mean. [Ann Arbor taxpayers currently pay a bit more than 2 mills in transit tax.] Warpehoski invited Lovejoy Roe to confirm that Ypsilanti Township would not have the demand for the same level of service as Ann Arbor – which is to have a bus stop within 1/4 mile of every household. She confirmed that such demand in Ypsilanti Township doesn’t exist at this point.

Warpehoski concluded that it wouldn’t make sense to define equity by having every jurisdiction levy equal total millages and let the variance follow from differences in property values. [The levy that AAATA would impose, upon voter approval, would be uniform. But taxpayers in the two cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would be paying their own millages in addition to the AAATA millage.] He confirmed with Ford that the costs per service hour charged for POSAs include all the overhead costs.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked why Pittsfield Township isn’t joining the AAATA as a member. Ford explained that Pittsfield is leaning toward a longer-term POSA, so that they wouldn’t participate in an AAATA millage. He didn’t want to speak for Pittsfield. Briere said Ypsilanti Township has been asked to take a leap of faith. And the township is making a significant financial commitment, she said. Briere related some vignettes from her own experience. She wrapped up by saying she hoped that the council would support the resolution.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) recalled the council’s December 2012 direction to the AAATA after the demise of its countywide effort. The council had decided it wanted to focus not across the county but more locally, and that’s what the AAATA had done, he said. So he was going to support the resolution.

From left: Jack Eaton (Ward 4), mayor John Hieftje.

Eaton asked Ford if there is a standard for adding members to the AAATA. Ford responded by saying the council in part defined that for the AAATA with its urban core resolution from late 2012. There are other factors – geographical considerations, where people live, where trips are generated, as well as willingness to pay. Back and forth ensued between Eaton and Ford about standards for admission into the AAATA. Eaton wanted to know: If Ypsilanti Township were willing to pay for improvements without an AAATA millage, would the AAATA provide additional service. Eaton pointed out that a neighborhood in Ann Arbor can’t choose a reduced level of service. Ford finally said to Eaton: “What is your question?” Part of Eaton’s point was that the financial burden is not equal across neighborhoods within the city: In some parts of the city, there is less transportation service.

Lovejoy Roe said that this approach would lock in at least the current level of service for Ypsilanti Township. She pointed out that Ypsilanti Township will have only one vote on the AAATA board.

City administrator Steve Powers and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Lumm returned to the idea of criteria for admission into the AAATA. She didn’t think there was a rigorous enough standard for admission. Lumm called Ford to the podium again. She noted that the riders-per-service-hour goal of the AAATA is 25 passengers, but complained that the commuter express service has less than that. Ford responded by saying that the commuter express service no longer uses any local Ann Arbor millage dollars.

Briere asked if there are any buses that are completely internal to Ypsilanti Township. No, answered Ford. She asked if there are any routes specific to some ward. No, said Ford.

Petersen stressed that there’s an economic value that’s generated by a worker from Ypsilanti riding the bus to Ann Arbor.

Lumm appeared to want to speak on the question but Hieftje advised that Lumm was considered to have spoken twice, having interspersed her questions of Ford with her own commentary.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) argued against “intellectualizing” the issue and said he wanted a unanimous vote. He stressed that Ypsilanti Township would have just one vote on the AAATA board. He’d been a vocal opponent of the countywide transit effort out of concern that that proposal would have yielded majority control. [Ann Arbor would have had 7 of 15 board seats under that countywide proposal.] As far as the standards for admission, the standard is clear, said Kunselman: Ypsilanti Township is the second largest community in the county and this is about “mass transit.”

Kunselman wanted a clear majority vote by the council to send a clear message of support. Hieftje followed up with standard arguments in favor of public transportation. Hieftje said if there’s a millage on the ballot put forward by the AAATA, then he’ll support it. For now, he hoped for a unanimous vote on welcoming a new member into the AAATA.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the amended articles of incorporation so that Ypsilanti Township is now a member of the AAATA. The vote drew applause.

Crosswalk Ordinance

The council considered the repeal of language in the city crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists explicitly to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk.

The proposal the council was asked to consider would change the law so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. The ordinance would be further changed so that only pedestrians within crosswalks (not those standing at the curb) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

Crosswalk Ordinance: Public Commentary

Kathy Griswold stated that she’s previously spoken in favor of a state crosswalk law. She asked four questions: (1) How were Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition members “hoodwinked” into supporting an ordinance change instead of supporting pedestrian infrastructure? (2) Why is lighting inadequate in many neighborhoods, especially at crosswalks? (3) Why are councilmembers supporting a pedestrian safety task force to report back in February 2015? She said it’s a duplication of the efforts of the transportation safety committee; and (4) Why do we continue to ignore overgrown vegetation at intersections?

Erica Briggs addressed the council as chair of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. She supported the city’s current version of the ordinance. She said she was delivering a petition signed by 587 people supporting the current ordinance. She was also delivering a letter signed by several organizations supporting the current ordinance. She called the current ordinance a recognized best practice. She cited Traverse City as an example of a community where the Uniform Traffic Code is enforced so that motorists are supposed to stop for pedestrians who are standing at the curb.

Chris Hewett spoke for the neighborhood group Safety on Seventh. Whatever side of the vote councilmembers are on for the crosswalk ordinance, he said, it’s important to focus on the safety of pedestrians. He challenged councilmembers to leave their cars at home and see what it’s like to experience the city as a pedestrian. He challenged the council to make people and neighborhoods their highest priority, not traffic flow and vehicle speeds.

Crosswalk Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by venturing that there was a time of the council’s history when there were no questions at first readings of ordinance changes. That time has passed, she said. She wanted to know if traffic engineers participate in approving ordinance language.

City administrator Steve Powers and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

City administrator Steve Powers said no, that’s the council’s job. Traffic engineers provide input into the language, but an ordinance doesn’t require traffic engineer approval, Powers explained. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy confirmed for Briere that a traffic engineer would evaluate how the policy choices would be applied. Hupy said that if the ordinance were repealed, signage would have to be changed from “stop” to “yield.” And the cost of that would be $14,000, Hupy estimated.

Briere asked for data on accidents before the council’s previous ordinance change and after that change. Hupy indicated that some of the data can be shown by hour of the day.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) shared that the crosswalk ordinance has been a very emotional topic for her. She and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) had met with representatives of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition to learn about the impetus for the previous change back in 2010 and 2011. Petersen contended that the approach of “increasing pedestrian rights” just hasn’t worked. From 2009 to 2012, pedestrian crashes rose 42%, she said. For a five-year period prior to that, there was a decrease. She contended that while you can’t say the change to the ordinance caused the increase, you could say that safety did not increase.

It’s too dangerous to tell pedestrians that “they rule,” Petersen said.

Kailasapathy stated that in addition to repealing the ordinance, more action is needed. Infrastructure improvements are also important, including more HAWK lights, she said. The focus should be on safety, not on rights, she said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported that she, Petersen and Kailasapathy had begun working with city staff several weeks ago on the issue. She thanked the staff for their work. Lumm contended that Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique and this change would make Ann Arbor’s local law conform with the UTC. She contended that the local ordinance is not consistent with local signage. She contended that “pedestrians rule” is a mindset that is dangerous.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked Hupy about the RFB (rapid flashing beacon) and HAWK (high-intensity activated crosswalk beacon) implementations and why a regular stoplight isn’t simply installed. Hupy explained that a traffic signal has to meet a “warrant” – a standard that would allow it to be installed. He couldn’t say that the mid-block locations would or wouldn’t meet that standard.

Warpehoski asked Ann Arbor police chief John Seto if he thought that changing the ordinance will affect pedestrian safety in Ann Arbor. Seto replied that he couldn’t say. Warpehoski gave examples of enforcement techniques used in Florida, using plainclothes policemen, cone placement, etc. He asked Seto if that type of enforcement action would be possible, if the ordinance were changed. Seto said enforcement would be challenging, because the pedestrian would need to be in the roadway. Warpehoski explained the technique for enforcement was in fact to have the pedestrian step into the roadway. It could be done, Seto said, setting aside staffing constraints.

Warpehoski got clarification that under the UTC if there’s enough time for a motorist to stop, then it’s legal for a pedestrian to step into the roadway. Assistant city attorney Bob West confirmed Warpehoski’s understanding. Warpehoski wanted to know what the responsibility is for motorists in multi-lane situations. West explained that vehicles traveling in the same direction of travel have the same responsibility.

Assistant city attorney Bob West was at the podium to answer questions about the UTC. He had brought a copy of the UTC with him, but he did not read it aloud. In the background is Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

West said the intent of the law is not to make pedestrians say, “I can make these guys stop.” Pedestrians have more to lose, West noted.

Warpehoski asked Seto and West how confident they’d been in making citations and making them stick. They indicated they were comfortable with making citations stick.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) picked up on Lumm’s contention that Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. He himself had asked for other examples. He noted that pedestrian advocates in Ann Arbor contended that Traverse City interprets the UTC to mean that “within a crosswalk” includes the curb. But Kunselman contended that the vehicle code defines the crosswalk as measured between the curbs. Kunselman said that by having different language from other cities, it’s causing confusion. How could Traverse City possibly be giving the UTC the claimed interpretation? asked Kunselman.

Seto didn’t know. Seto told Kunselman that the Traverse City police chief’s response to his question was to provide the ordinance language. Kunselman wanted to know if the UTC can be enforced as meaning “at the curb” – the same intent that’s explicit in the existing ordinance. West didn’t think so.

Mayor John Hieftje encouraged councilmembers to wrap up this item by pointing out that there were a lot of items left on the agenda and this was just the first reading.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) invited councilmembers to ask themselves how often they’ve come close to hitting a pedestrian.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted the asymmetry between the claim that the ordinance is so powerful that it causes pedestrians to step in front of cars, yet it’s not powerful enough to compel a motorist to do what they should do in any case: Yield to pedestrians at a curb at a crosswalk. Taylor also noted the increases in pedestrian accidents in other cities, which had nothing to do with Ann Arbor’s ordinance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and city administrator Steve Powers.

Hieftje echoed Taylor’s sentiments, and said he also wouldn’t support the repeal of the ordinance, even on first reading.

Lumm read aloud a message she’d received from a resident who complained that they have had to slam on their brakes for pedestrians who were crossing against the light. [The ordinance in question actually applies to non-signalized crosswalks.]

Kunselman said it’s more important to install HAWK and RFBs than to focus on ordinance language. He also wanted to add FTEs (full-time equivalent positions) to the police department so there can be more traffic enforcement. AAPD staffing levels are dramatically down and can’t enforce basic traffic law, he contended. He questioned why the law should be different in Ann Arbor.

Petersen shared a voicemail relating an anecdote that demonstrated support for her point of view.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) weighed in supporting the existing ordinance.

Warpehoski pointed out that if a car can stop or yield, then the UTC states that a pedestrian can step into the crosswalk. Warpehoski refuted Kunselman’s contention that Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique, by citing Boulder’s ordinance, which includes “approaching” not just “within” a crosswalk. He also cited Seattle’s definition of crosswalk, which extends to the farthest sidewalk line, including the curb.

From left: Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Warpehoski confronted Kunselman’s characterization of the existing ordinance as a “pedestrian convenience” ordinance by reflecting on the recommendations in the Federal Highway Administration guide “How to Develop A Pedestrian Safety Action Plan.”

Warpehoski announced that he’d vote for the ordinance revision on first reading, but will ask for postponement at the second reading until after the yet-to-be established pedestrian safety task force could make a recommendation. [The task force was established later in the meeting, after Warpehoski's bid to have the task force's recommendation be submitted sooner than February 2015 failed. His intent was to set up a situation where the same group of councilmembers could consider the ordinance at second reading, after a long postponement but with a task force recommendation.]

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) indicated he’d support the crosswalk ordinance revision at first reading. He thought the correct forum for this type of revision is the state legislature.

Outcome: The council voted 8-3 to give initial approval to the repeal of the crosswalk law. Dissent came from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and mayor John Hieftje.

Pedestrian Safety Task Force

In front of the council for consideration on Nov. 18 for a second time was a resolution to appoint a pedestrian safety task force. It had been postponed on Nov. 7 amid concerns about the budget needed to support the task force’s work. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy had described the staff and other support for the task force as costing on the order of $100,000. [.pdf of Nov. 7 memo on pedestrian safety]

The pedestrian safety task force will consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.”

The resolution considered on Nov. 7 was swapped out with a substitute version on Nov. 18 that added some items to the proposed group’s tasks, including addressing sidewalk gaps and creating a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps. That allows the group to tap some of the $75,000 the council allocated this spring in a FY 2014 budget amendment for the prioritization of sidewalks gaps to be eliminated.

The timeframe for membership application shifted in the substitute resolution to Dec. 2, with the appointments to be made at the Dec. 16 council meeting. The task force’s report would also not be due until the council’s first meeting in February 2015. [.pdf of substitute pedestrian safety task force resolution]

Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Dec. 2, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application]

The task force’s report, due by early February 2015 – would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The task force sponsors, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), have indicated their intent is not to make the task force an alternative to repealing the city’s mid-block crosswalk ordinance.

Pedestrian Safety Task Force: Council Deliberations

Before the council reached the item on the agenda, during council communications time, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked the people who’ve worked on Safety on Seventh. The area needs a lot of attention because vehicles go really fast through that area, he said. When you live on a busy street, you don’t give up your rights as a citizen, he said. People who live on active streets are a part of the community, he continued. Anglin contended that speeders are in fact people who live here. There will be a meeting at Slauson Middle School on the topic, with the date and time to be determined, he said.

When the council reached the item on the agenda, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the resolution. The problem is engineering, enforcement and education, she said. It’s going to cost time, energy and budgetary wherewithal, she continued. Drivers will resent getting a ticket, she said. She then related her views about bicyclists, drivers and pedestrians. She talked about meetings she’s had with University of Michigan officials and Downtown Development Authority officials. Briere contended that this issue includes sidewalk gaps. So sidewalk gaps have been added to the mission of the task force, she explained. She wanted the council to move forward on this.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said he wouldn’t support the task force resolution because he thought this task should be taken up by an existing body – the Ann Arbor Public Schools transportation safety committee.

Standing is city administrator Steve Powers leaning over to chat with Jack Eaton (Ward 4) before the start of the Nov. 18 meeting.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stated that he supports pedestrian safety. He talked about the fact that there are no jaywalking laws. He also noted that it’s legal to ride a bike on a sidewalk, which he does because he feels safer there. “Cars are bigger than I am. Cars can kill me.” He said that maybe pedestrians have been “pampered” by the city making them think that cars will stop just by standing by the side of the road. He wanted people to understand that it’s dangerous out there, and to have a sense of risk. He wanted the task force to focus on that aspect of education – understanding the sense of risk. He’d support the task force.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) told Kunselman that it’s not true that he’s safer riding on the sidewalk.

Anglin echoed Eaton’s point about having the transportation safety committee handle the task. He wanted there to be a broader conversation with the schools and the University of Michigan.

Warpehoski responded to Anglin’s idea that the task force should cast a wide net by pointing out how the resolution names the various interested groups. He noted that the AAPS transportation safety committee does not have UM representation. He said he’s become something of an evangelist for the FHA manual on how to develop a pedestrian safety strategy. [.pdf of "How to Develop A Pedestrian Safety Action Plan"] He ticked through some examples from the manual. The task force would be an opportunity to step back from the controversy of the crosswalk ordinance, he said.

Warpehoski then proposed an amendment that the pedestrian task force make its recommendation for an ordinance change by the first meeting in October 2014. His plan was to put off the final vote on the crosswalk ordinance until after that. He said if councilmembers won’t support putting off the ordinance change when it comes before the council for a second reading, they shouldn’t vote for this amendment.

Outcome: The amendment accelerating the timeline for the task force’s report failed, getting support only from Warpehoski, Briere, Taylor, Teall, and Hieftje.

Kunselman said he wonders how the city will be working with UM, if the city’s crosswalk ordinance language is different from the university’s rule. Briere responded by saying that as long as Kunselman has announced how he’s going to vote on rescinding the ordinance and assuming everyone else on the council does the same, the city’s ordinance would be reverting to the UTC, which has the same language as the UM rule.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked if the sponsors would be willing to put this off until some additional questions could be answered – noting that she didn’t disagree with the underlying premise of establishing the task force. Briere asked Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, to the podium to respond to Lumm’s concern about what the staff’s plan would be.

Hupy explained that staff has not figured out completely how to move this resolution along with the sidewalk gap process. Briere wanted to know how long it would take to pull together that information. Probably by the middle of December, answered Hupy. Briere asked if that would represent a conflict with the appointment schedule of the task force. Hupy told Briere that’s up to the council.

Briere said she was struggling to find a rational reason to postpone this. She didn’t want to put this on the back burner for another construction season. Hupy said he’s not sure that a postponement would have a dramatic negative impact. Briere cited the numerous emails that she’s received from people who don’t realize the city has a program for addressing sidewalk issues. Briere apologized for making Hupy sit through a speech from her.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated: “For reasons articulated by councilmember Briere, I support the resolution.” Warpehoski quizzed Hupy about the impact on staff work.

Kunselman said he’d be looking at installing a flashing beacon at Easy Street and Packard Road. He wondered if at budget time next year he’d be told he has to wait for the task force recommendation. Hupy said that he was at that moment “brain dead enough” due to the late hour [after 1 a.m.] that he wasn’t sure – but he thought that intersection is already under consideration for a flashing beacon. Kunselman recalled that there’d been rubber hoses out in the street doing traffic counts.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) wanted to make sure there’s no moratorium on pedestrian infrastructure. Hupy assured her that won’t be the case.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the resolution establishing a pedestrian safety task force.

DDA TIF, Governance

In front of the council for final approval at the Nov. 18 meeting was a change to the ordinance (Chapter 7) regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance capture and its board governance.

The outcome of deliberations at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting was to table a version of the Chapter 7 changes that had been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013.

The council then gave initial approval on Nov. 7 to a different version of the Chapter 7 changes. Those recommendations came from a committee of DDA board members and city councilmembers that has met four times since Aug. 26, most recently on Oct. 30. That committee was established at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting – after the first version achieved initial approval at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. Representing the council on the joint committee were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Representing the DDA were Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel and Joan Lowenstein.

The committee’s version of the Chapter 7 ordinance change allows for several million dollars in additional TIF (tax increment finance) capture by the DDA, compared to the tabled version. The version in front of the council on Nov. 18 set a cap on DDA TIF revenue that does not apply at all until FY 2017 and will result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year. It will also mean an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions.

That amount will be proportionally divided among the taxing jurisdictions, which together levy roughly 27.5 mills of taxes in the DDA district. Proportionally, that translates to: city of Ann Arbor (60%), Washtenaw County (21%), Washtenaw Community College (13%), and Ann Arbor District Library (6%).

David Blanchard addressed a mid-October joint committee of DDA members and city councilmembers. As chair of the city’s housing and human services board, he advocated for a DDA commitment to affordable housing, which ultimately was included in the ordinance at $300,000 annually for residents at 50% AMI. At the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, Blanchard was nominated to be reappointed to that board. That nomination will be put to the council for a vote at its first meeting in December.

The $300,000 total to be divided by the other taxing jurisdictions in FY 2017 compares to roughly $2 million that would be divided among them under the tabled version of the Chapter 7 revision. The tabled version essentially clarified the enforcement of existing language in the ordinance. In both versions – assuming that new construction in the DDA district continues to take place at a healthy pace – taxing jurisdictions would continue to receive additional funds into the future after FY 2017.

The city’s share of the estimated $300,000 in excess TIF in FY 2017 will be about $180,000. But that will be distributed proportionally across the city’s funds based on the levy associated with the fund. For example, out of the $180,000, the general fund would get about $65,000. That compares to $430,000 that the city’s general fund would receive based on the tabled Chapter 7 approach.

On Nov. 7, after debating the issue, the council amended the committee’s recommended version to include a limitation on board terms. The version that was up for final consideration on Nov. 18 imposed a limit of three four-year terms, with additional terms possible only after a four-year lapse.

On Nov. 7, during deliberations, the council also added a requirement that the DDA budget at least $300,000 each year for affordable housing projects, with “affordable” defined as targeting residents with 50% area median income (AMI).

DDA TIF/Governance: Public Hearing

Nine people spoke at the Nov. 18 public hearing on this item. Thomas Partridge talked about how he went to Washington D.C. to study law and to work for senators McNamara and Hart. He called the ordinance a furtherance of corruption and discrimination. The entire DDA ordinance should be repealed and substituted, he said. The DDA needs enough revenue to give equal opportunity to every commercial area of the city, he said.

From left: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association.

Maura Thomson addressed the council as executive director of the Main Street Area Association, which represents 175 businesses. She supported the ordinance change. Councilmembers had wanted clarity, she said. The ordinance would not have negative impact on the work the DDA is doing now and could do in the future, she said. She challenged the idea of downtown interests “versus” the rest of the city, by saying the downtown belongs to everyone. The downtown has a social, economic, and cultural purpose, she said. Looking at the interests of the downtown and the rest of the city as separate is not a productive way to think about it, she said.

Tom Heywood of the State Street Area Association called the solution that had been crafted a win-win. It allowed the DDA to continue its work while returning millions of dollars to the brother and sister jurisdictions over several years, he said.

Jim Osborne asked for stricter council oversight of the DDA. Instead of begging the DDA money to give money back, the council should control the DDA, he said.

Sandi Smith, current chair of the DDA, read a prepared statement. She appealed to the idea that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The premise of the ordinance change was to achieve clarity, she said, but she complained about the cap that was being proposed. She described the proposed ordinance as cutting the DDA’s bonding capacity in half. [That claim relies on a comparison that ignores the existing language in the ordinance. Compared to the existing language in the ordinance, the DDA's revenues will be about $2 million greater annually than they would be if the strict language of the ordinance were enforced. ]

Lou Glorie took the podium to counter Smith. She characterized the ordinance change as re-establishing some equity between the DDA and the other taxing authorities.

Omari Rush, education manager at the University Musical Society, described the role of downtowns in cities and how much he enjoys Ann Arbor’s downtown. He appreciated what’s been done to make Ann Arbor’s downtown clean, safe and vibrant.

Dug Song recalled that the last time he attended a council meeting, he was lobbying for a skatepark – and now that’s being built. He expressed general support for the DDA. He recalled how the local tech firm Arbor Networks grew from five people to 300 people, but most of those jobs were in Boston, because there’s not adequate space in downtown Ann Arbor. He supported the “love economy,” an allusion to remarks from Alan Haber made earlier in the meeting, but he also supported small companies (two people and some laptops) that grow into something larger.

Peter Baker introduced himself as a resident of Water Hill and employee of DuoSecurity. He chose Ann Arbor because of the interplay between downtown and neighborhoods.

DDA TIF/Governance: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led of deliberations by saying he was really pleased that there was support for this, based on the public hearing commentary. The discussion had lasted for many months, he said. [The initial proposal this year dates back to February, but a budget amendment that was similar in spirit had been proposed by Kunselman in May 2012.] He urged the adoption of the ordinance without any amendments.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) then announced that she’d just emailed other councilmembers a proposed amendment to the ordinance change. The amendment was the result of a housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) resolution, she said. The amendment clarified that the first year of the $300,000 affordable housing allocations is tax year 2016. Thereafter the DDA is required to increase the allocation by the same amount that the cap escalates. Kunselman indicated he was fine with the amendment, if it was not considered a big enough change that it would reset the proposal to a first reading in front of the council.

Briere conferred with city attorney Stephen Postema and assistant city attorney Mary Fales on the question. Postema concluded: “It’s fine.” Kunselman noted that he’d touched base with David Blanchard, chair of HHSAB, and Kunselman thought it’s probably not an amendment that’s necessary, but he didn’t have a problem with it. He accepted it as a friendly amendment.

Executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority Susan Pollay.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) was worried that the DDA would not be able to continue funding the nonprofit Dawn Farm, which does not have a 50% AMI requirement. [The ordinance revision specifies 50% AMI as the definition of affordable housing.] Executive director Susan Pollay indicated that she understood the ordinance language to mean that additional dollars, beyond the $300,000, could be allocated for Dawn Farm.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported that she had attended the recent DDA partnerships committee meeting as well as the HHSAB meeting. She characterized the conversations at those different meetings as “schizophrenic.” The DDA had wanted more flexibility, she reported. DDA board chair Sandi Smith – who had taken the podium – responded to Lumm, saying there was not pushback on the $300,000 amount that the DDA had to allocate for affordable housing. Rather, it was the 50% AMI standard that was problematic, she said.

Lumm asked for an explanation of the DDA’s policy to invest in areas outside the DDA district when those investments were felt to have a positive impact on the district. The standard in the policy is within 1/4 mile of the district, Pollay said. Smith ventured that using the wording “downtown area” would be consistent with the DDA’s policy on investing in housing projects within 1/4 mile of the district. Briere came to the podium to show Smith her iPad with the text of her proposed amendment.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he had a concern about the city’s own budget. He believed there were going to be millions of dollars of investment required in the Ann Arbor housing commission properties. So he wanted the “downtown area” to stretch as far as Miller Manor, which is an AAHC property. Lumm wanted to add “near downtown area” to the ordinance language. Kunselman wanted to make sure that any change in the wording would not reset the ordinance to the first reading. Fales confirmed that such a change in wording would not reset the reading, because it’s consistent with the DDA renewal plan.

Briere got confirmation from Smith that the DDA’s definition of “near downtown area” means within 1/4 mile of the district boundary. Pollay and Briere weren’t sure if Miller Manor was within 1/4 miles of the district. [It is.] Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wanted confirmation that Miller Manor meets the 50% AMI criterion.

Lumm recited the reasons she was supportive of the ordinance revision – which included the fact that there would be 55% growth in TIF for the DDA over the next three years. She thought it would have been better to impose the cap in an earlier year so that sharing of additional revenue with the other jurisdictions would have begun sooner.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) announced that he was going to violate the council’s rules by emailing the amendments to the media. [.pdf of Briere amendment]

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said he would have preferred a lower cap and a shorter term limit for DDA board members. [The terms were limited to three 4-year terms in the ordinance revision.] However, Eaton applauded the effort of the committee that made the recommendation.

From left: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Taylor said he wouldn’t support the ordinance revision. The DDA had proven itself a reliable steward of taxpayer funding, he contended. He recited familiar arguments in support of the DDA. Taylor went on to claim that the resulting proposal before the council was not a compromise, but rather a “power play.” He contended that people had been told that if they organized and spoke against the revision, “there would be trouble.”

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated she wasn’t happy with the ordinance revision [because the TIF revenue to the DDA was greater than she had wanted], but would still support it.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) stated she would not support the ordinance revision.

Hieftje recited some standard arguments and history of the DDA and its impact. Hieftje characterized the proposal as a compromise, disagreeing with Taylor. Hieftje wanted to “get this behind us” and let the DDA get back to work.

Teall contended that the proposal went way beyond clarifying the language and contended that Taylor was “calling it like it is.”

Outcome: The council voted to approve the ordinance change, with dissent from Taylor and Teall.

Council Organization

The council had a handful of items on its agenda at the start of the meeting associated with the new, post-election composition of the council. In Ward 4, Jack Eaton joined the council in the seat formerly held by Marcia Higgins.

Council Organization: Swearing In

Those taking the oath administered by city clerk Jackie Beaudry were: Sabra Briere (Ward 1); Jane Lumm (Ward 2); Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3); Jack Eaton (Ward 4); and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). The oath is from Section 2 of Article XVI of the Michigan state constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of [city councilmember] according to the best of my ability.”

Council Organization: Mayor Pro Tem

Under the city charter, the council is required to “elect” a mayor pro tem at the first meeting after the seating of new councilmembers:

At its first meeting after the newly elected members have taken office following each regular city election, the Council shall elect one of its members Mayor Pro Tem for a term expiring at the first Council meeting following the next regular city election. The election of the Mayor Pro Tem shall be by the concurring vote of at least six members of the Council.

In the event that the mayor is temporarily not able to fulfill his duties, the mayor pro tem has all the powers of the mayor, save the power of veto. In Ann Arbor’s council-manager form of government, where the city administrator has day-to-day responsibility for city operations, those mayoral duties are somewhat limited and include: presiding over meetings of the council; voting as a councilmember; making nominations to committees, commissions and boards; and exercising certain powers during emergencies.

The procedure used by the council to “elect” a mayor pro tem is to move a resolution proposing that some particular councilmember serve as mayor pro tem. One possible reason for this procedure – as opposed to asking councilmembers on a roll call vote administered by the city clerk to name the person they’d like to serve – is the charter requirement that:

Except as otherwise provided in this charter, each member of the Council present shall cast a “yes” or “no” vote on each question before the Council, unless excused therefrom by a vote of at least six members.

However, it’s not clear that a charter requirement would prevent taking an informal straw poll at the council table, with the outcome of that straw poll determining the content of the resolution on which the council would then formally vote.

In any case, the council’s procedure is to begin with a motion to select someone as mayor pro tem, which on Nov. 18 was made by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who’d been recognized by mayor John Hieftje – to name Margie Teall (Ward 4) to that position.

Taylor began by calling mayor pro tem an “honorary post.” He stated that it was his understanding that it was filled “on the basis of seniority.” [Marcia Higgins had most recently served as mayor pro tem, each year since 2008, and was for that period the most senior member on the council. However, prior to that, mayor pro tem was Chris Easthope, who was at that time not the most senior member of the council – as that distinction belonged to Higgins.] Taylor continued his remarks by quipping that while Teall is young at heart, she is old by measure of the length of her council service, so he supported her for mayor pro tem.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) responded to Taylor’s remarks by saying he wouldn’t support Teall as mayor pro tem, saying that the council didn’t always need to do things the same way. He wanted to see fresh blood and fresh thinking at the position. He’d support Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Kunselman said.

Mayor John Hieftje contended that the position is honorary, and that it’s rare for someone to need to fill in. He gave the date of his last absence at a meeting as July 3, 2012.

Outcome: The council voted 6-5 to appoint Margie Teall as mayor pro tem for the coming year. Dissenting were Kunselman, Anglin, Eaton, Kailasapathy, and Lumm. After Hieftje and Teall, the order of succession first by seniority, then alphabetically would be: Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Christopher Taylor, Stephen Kunselman, Jane Lumm, Sally (Hart) Petersen, Sumi Kailasapathy, Chuck Warpehoski and Jack Eaton.

Council Organization: 2014 Council Committee Appointments

Mayor John Hieftje began by noting that when there’s a new member of the council, it’s been customary to delay voting on committee appointments until the following meeting, so that the appointments can all be sorted out. He invited a motion to postpone, which he received.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said it’s important for councilmembers to be able serve on those committees that they want to serve on. He went on to contend that the mayor pro tem has an obligation to work with councilmembers on appointments. He wanted that brought up before councilmembers are appointed to those committee members. He pointed out that the liquor license review committee’s responsibility has evolved over time. Anglin called for a slower and more deliberative process for the committee appointments.

Hieftje said the process over the last few years was that he’d worked with Marcia Higgins, in her capacity as mayor pro tem, to gather up preferences for assignments from councilmembers. Hieftje said he would be happy to see councilmembers get the assignments they wanted.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that she would not be attending the next council meeting.

Outcome: The council voted to delay consideration of the council committee appointments until its first meeting in December – Dec. 2, 2013.

Council Organization: 2014 Council Rules

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) suggested that in accordance with past practice, the item setting the council rules be delayed until the rules committee could have a chance to look at it. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the rules had just recently been amended. She also noted that it would be the existing rules committee that would do the review.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked for a future amendment to Rule 8, swapping in “personal attack” for “personality” as the thing to be avoided during council deliberations. [In an archaic meaning, "personality" can mean a disparaging remark about someone.]

Outcome: The council voted to delay action on the council rules until its first meeting in December so that the council’s rules committee could review the existing rules. The existing council rules committee now consists of Mayor John Hieftje, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1)

Ethics Resolution

The council considered a resolution directing an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute.

A final “resolved” clause directed the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor. The point of PA 196 appears to be designed to prevent unauthorized leaks of information.

The resolution was first considered on Nov. 7, but its sponsor, Sally Petersen (Ward 2), moved immediately to postpone consideration of the resolution, due to the very heavy agenda that night. It was taken up again on Nov. 18.

Ethics: Public Commentary

Jeanine Delay offered her strong support for the ethics resolution that Petersen was sponsoring. Delay works with a group called A2 Ethics. She acknowledged Stephen Kunselman’s support of the resolution. There are many persistent misconceptions about local ethics, Delay said. One misconception is that upon election, an official will somehow magically recognize the various conflicts that might arise. The second misconception is that good character will ensure good ethical practice. “We’re all in this together, so we need a collective process,” she said. In passing this resolution, Ann Arbor would join other cities that have recognized the importance of ethics in civic life, she said.

Nancy Schewe of the local League of Women Voters also indicated support for the ethics resolution. Setting our own standards will allow us to reflect our own local values, she said. This resolution would help avoid problems before they come along. The standards should be known, codified and enforced, she said. She added that this would shape a community of high ethical standards.

Erin Mattimoe introduced herself as a youth developer and a volunteer with A2 Ethics. Democracy depends on trust in elected officials, she said. That requires regular training and education, she said.

Joanna DeCamp introduced herself as a volunteer with A2 Ethics. She supported the resolution on ethics sponsored by Petersen (and also Kunselman). Trust in government is low at the national and state levels, she said. Comprehensive training and education would allow common expectations of behavior to be developed, she said, and that will allow for constructive dialogues with conflicts arise.

Ethics: Council Deliberations

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) thanked A2 Ethics for their work, but cautioned that the resolution is not really about an ethics policy. This was a first step in the conversation, she said. Issues of conflict of interest are “top of mind” for the community, she said. She wanted everyone to be on an even playing field, and that’s why the resolution called for an educational effort.

City administrator Steve Powers and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Petersen responded to the question of what the problem is – by saying there doesn’t need to be a problem that needs solving in order to start working along these lines.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she was the one who’d asked what the problem was to be solved. Briere said there’s a “perception” that there might be conflict of interest and there could be a need to address that. She was not comfortable with trying to apply PA 196 because it doesn’t get at the issue of undue influence.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said he’s an enthusiastic supporter of exploring this issue, saying he thought standards should be established so that councilmembers have a clear measure by which to guide their conduct. Like Briere, he was concerned about inclusion of Act 196 because it deals with premature disclosure of information.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) then proposed amending the resolution by naming Act 196 just as an example of a resource that can be drawn upon, among others. That was considered friendly by Petersen. [.pdf of Warpehoski's ethics amendments]

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she thought the resolution was a good idea, but had concerns about the practical implementation. She wondered how much burden that would be on the city attorney’s staff. City attorney Stephen Postema characterized it as just another assignment.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated support for the resolution. It’s important that people have confidence in their elected officials, she said.

Kunselman thanked Petersen for her work. He asked if anyone wanted to trade positions with him on the rules committee – as he’s currently on that committee. It’s all about learning, he said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the ethics resolution.

Public Park Use Fee Waiver

The council gave final consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – such as food – could be conducted in city parks without incurring a fee for park use. The proposal is not restricted to downtown parks, but the idea originated from an issue that emerged in connection with Liberty Plaza, a downtown park. Volunteers with the Vineyard Church were distributing pizza in Liberty Plaza through its weekly Pizza in the Park program.

The building adjacent to Liberty Plaza on the west is owned by First Martin. Church volunteers were using the private parking lot to the rear of the building as a drop off for the Pizza in the Park event, and the area under the building overhang as an area for gathering and for dispensing food. Earlier this year, that had prompted the city to contemplate assessing the fee for public park usage.

By way of additional background, at the Oct. 10, 2011 Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board meeting, John Teeter of First Martin had described for the DDA board the regular cleanup activities First Martin undertakes in public parks, including Wheeler Park, the corner of Main and Depot streets, and Liberty Plaza. In a more recent telephone interview with Teeter, he said that the park maintenance work had been done for a few years prior to 2011 and continues to the present. First Martin maintains Liberty Plaza through regular trash pickup, and certain improvements – most recently to the irrigation system and through contributions to a new “sensory garden.”

The recommendation for the ordinance change came from the city’s park advisory commission at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting. This broader policy change comes three months after the Ann Arbor city council waived all rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, based on a PAC recommendation. That city council action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

The Liberty Plaza fee waiver was approved in response to the Pizza in the Park situation. The proposal recommended by PAC on Sept. 17, and on the council’s Nov. 18 agenda, amended Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language]

The ordinance change provides a permanent fee waiver for this specific purpose – the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – but it would still require that organizations get a permit to use the park, and follow permitting procedures, including clean-up obligations.

The council gave initial approval to the ordinance change at its Nov. 7 meeting. All changes to city ordinances require an initial approval, followed by a final vote at a subsequent meeting. That’s why it appeared on the council’s Nov. 18 agenda.

Public Park Use Fee Waiver: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge addressed the council about the use of parks for people to gather. He said issues of free speech are being ignored in the ordinance change, so he wanted the change delayed for further review.

Seth Best asked everyone to stand who supported the ordinance change. There were about 70 people standing in chambers in response. He read off a list of people that he wanted to thank. Dan Reim, minister for hispanic/latino ministry and social justice at St. Mary’s student parish, supported the ordinance change in part by recounting the parable of the good Samaritan.

When Seth Best invited people to stand in support of the ordinance change, roughly 70 people, by The Chronicle’s count, were standing in city council chambers.

Rev. Lindsay Conrad of First Presbyterian Church also addressed the council supporting the ordinance change. Jim Osborne urged passage of the resolution. Osborne told the council that he’d organized a group to distribute food at West Park and he’s found the city’s fees and process to be a burden.

Lily Au said that the Delonis Center homeless shelter in Ann Arbor has not increased its capacity. She asked the council to help poor people. Odile Hugot Haber spoke in support of the ordinance change. Alan Haber also rose to speak in favor of the ordinance change. It’s obvious that a church should be able to distribute free food in a park, Haber said. There’s an economy of love, he said: making available what we have with each other.

Michael Brinkman introduced himself as a resident next to Wheeler Park. Severe weather in the Philippines and in the Midwest had resulted in new homeless people, he said. He asked the council to support the microcosm of that larger context. Three others rounded out the public hearing, all in support of the ordinance change.

Public Park Use Fee Waiver: Council Deliberations

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) suggested a “friendly” amendment to add “and/or services” in addition to “goods.” Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) replied that the distinction between goods and services was material to PAC’s review of the proposal. Adding services would expand what was contemplated, Taylor said. Taylor recited the history of that issue. PAC had “interrogated” the proposal thoroughly, Taylor said.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked the members of Camp Take Notice and everyone who’d met with her about the issue. She said it was enjoyable to be able to respond to a request like this.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) called the solution of the ordinance change very “elegant.” Mike Anglin (Ward 5) praised Camp Take Notice members for being very good at political action. It was hard to deny their humanitarian message, he said.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) offered her thanks. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said Camp Take Notice members “know how to catch bees with honey.”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the possible park fee waiver. The vote received applause.

Non-Motorized Plan

In front of the council for the second time was the adoption of an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. A postponement on Nov. 7 came in deference to a request from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who indicated she had not had an opportunity to read it through as closely as she wanted.

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

The city’s non-motorized transportation plan is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the updated plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update] With respect to the adoption of the master plan, the council and the planning commission are on equal footing. That is, they must adopt the same plan. So in this case, the commission is not merely the recommending body.

The update is an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

Examples of planning and policy issues include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.” Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands. Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

Non-Motorized Plan: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off by asking city planning manager Wendy Rampson, city transportation program manager Eli Cooper and public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium to answer questions. She asked about bike boulevards. She wanted to an amendment to the plan to include a statement that any bike boulevard implementation plan would need to engage the neighborhood.

Rampson pointed out that an amendment by the council would require the planning commission to reconsider the plan, because the council and the commission need to adopt the same plan.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Hupy to explain how the community engagement typically happens. If a bike boulevard were proposed, Briere ventured that the staff would have public engagement without any particular direction from the council. Hupy confirmed Briere’s understanding.

Lumm said her concern is that when you adopt a plan, the plan then gets implemented. Lumm thanked staff for answering her questions and all the work that went into developing the plan. Hearing it would have to go back to planning commission gave her pause. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) quoted out the section in the plan on bike boulevards and how the staff is supposed to engage the public. He also pointed out that the recommendations are in every case tentative. He didn’t see the need to amend the plan.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) pointed to page 39 of the plan, which includes locations for additional rapid flashing beacons. Eaton asked what the implementation process would be. Cooper explained a process that starts with data collection. Council involvement would take place when the money was needed, Cooper said.

Mayor John Hieftje asked Cooper to sketch out the process for developing the non-motorized plan update. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted clarification of the reason why the planning commission would also need to approve any amendment.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the update to the non-motorized transportation plan.

New Year’s Events

As part of its consent agenda, the council considered two resolutions authorizing the closing of streets in connection with New Year’s celebrations – on New Year’s Eve for the Puck Drops Here, and on New Year’s Day for the NHL’s Winter Classic Hockey Game at Michigan Stadium.

The council considered authorization of the closing of public streets in connection with those New Year’s festivities.

New Year’s Events: Puck Drop

In connection with the NHL Winter Classic Game to be played on New Year’s Day, the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is hosting a New Year’s Eve event called The Puck Drops Here, which will mimic the dropping of the lighted ball in Times Square, but with a 6-foot diameter lighted “puck” that is being fabricated by METAL.

Puck Drops Here street closures.

The name of the event is a play on words. In the game of ice hockey, the start of action is marked with an official dropping of the puck between two opposing players – the puck drop. It’s similar to the tip-off in basketball. The name of the event also plays on the expression popularized by U.S. President Harry Truman: “The buck stops here.”

The requested action from the council includes street closures downtown along Main Street all day on New Year’s Eve.

Specifically, the council will be asked to authorize street closures from 8 a.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2013 to 6 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The actual event runs from 8 p.m. until 12:30 a.m.

Streets to be closed include:

• S. Main from E. William to Huron
• Liberty Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)
• Washington Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)

Musical entertainment will feature Michelle Chamuel, who placed second in the most recent edition of the TV vocal competition “The Voice.” She lived in Ann Arbor for a time earlier in her musical career.

New Year’s Events: NHL Winter Classic

UM football game day street closures (pink) with detour route (purple). These same street closures will be in effect on Jan. 1 for the NHL Winter Classic.

The Winter Classic is an NHL hockey game between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The game will be played outdoors at the University of Michigan football stadium. Game start time is currently listed on the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau as 1 p.m. The back-up date, in case of inclement weather, is Jan. 2.

The resolution that the Ann Arbor city council considered on Nov. 18 will implement many of the conditions that apply during University of Michigan home football games. For example, the newly implemented street closures for home football games will also be authorized for the Winter Classic:

• E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets, limiting access to parking permit holders on Greene Street from E. Hoover to Keech streets
• The westbound right turn lane on E. Stadium Boulevard (onto S. Main Street) just south of the Michigan Stadium
• S. Main Street closed to both local and through traffic from Stadium Boulevard to Pauline

Those closures will be effective three hours before the game and last until the end of the game – with the exception of southbound S. Main Street, which will be closed beginning one hour before the game until the end of the game.

The council also was asked to invalidate peddler/solicitor permits and sidewalk occupancy permits in the following areas:

• S. State Street from E. Hoover Street to the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks
• Along the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks from S. State Street to the viaduct on W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from the viaduct to S. Main Street
• S. Main Street from W. Stadium Boulevard to Hill Street
• Hill Street from S. Main Street to S. Division Street
• S. Division Street from Hill Street to E. Hoover Street
• E. Hoover Street from S. Division Street to S. State Street
• S. Main Street from Scio Church Road to W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from S. Main Street to Prescott Avenue

The council was also asked to authorize a special temporary outdoor sales area so that the owners of commercially and office-zoned property fronting on the following streets could use their private yard areas for outdoor sales and display:

• West side of S. Main Street between Stadium Blvd. and Hoover Street
• East side of S. Main Street from 1011 S. Main to Hoover Street
• North side of Hoover Street between S. Main and S. State streets
• North side of W. Stadium Blvd. between S. Main and S. State streets

In addition, the council was asked to designate the Winter Classic game as a date on which the usual front open space parking prohibition does not apply. So residents who customarily offer their lawns for home football game parking will be able to do so for the Winter Classic as well.

At the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board, executive director Susan Pollay described for the board how the DDA plans to charge public parking on New Year’s Day – a time when parking would ordinarily be free. That would allow the DDA to take reservations in advance, using the same strategy it uses for art fairs parking in the summer.

The Ann Arbor DDA manages the city’s public parking system under contract with the city, and has the ability to set rates under that contract. There’s a clause in the contract that requires public notice and input for long-term rate increases, but not for one-off changes.

Outcome: The resolutions in connection with The Puck Drops Here and NHL’s Winter Classic Hockey Game at Michigan Stadium passed unanimously as part of the council’s consent agenda.

3325 Packard Rezoning

The council was asked to give initial approval of a request that would rezone 0.27 acres from R1C (single-family zoning district) to R2A (two-family zoning district) at 3325 Packard Road. This would allow the construction of a duplex on the now-vacant property. The owner contends that constructing a duplex is economically viable but a single-family home is not. The planning commission recommended denial of the rezoning request at its Aug. 7, 2013 meeting.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, reviewed the planning commission’s reasoning in recommending against the rezoning.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked for planning manager Wendy Rampson to come to the podium to comment. The planning commission had struggled with the decision, because it’s a vacant lot, Rampson told Lumm. In addition, it’s a corner lot. It’s an established single-family neighborhood, she noted, and the planning commission is always hesitant to approve a “spot zoning.” The owner hasn’t been able to garner support from an entire blockface of owners who would join in a request, Rampson reported.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) praised the planning commission for following the master plan. He talked about the difficulty of redeveloping vacant lots in the eastern part of the city. Mayor John Hieftje said that he understood the planning commission’s decision.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to reject initial approval of the Packard Road rezoning request.

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.

Comm/Comm: Streetlights

During communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that some streetlights he’d complained about being out on Packard were now on – near Mary Beth Doyle park. Kunselman said that there’s no moratorium on streetlights and stated that there was only a budget resolution in the past, which he didn’t consider a moratorium.

Comm/Comm: Financial Disclosures

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Kai Petainen addressed the council about the issue of getting financial records from nonprofits. Petainen had a few days earlier posted a piece on his Forbes blog about an episode that involved Ann Arbor SPARK. Petainen’s remarks to council came at nearly 2 a.m., and he told Jack Eaton (Ward 4) that the meeting’s late hour was Eaton’s “initiation.” [It was the first meeting for Eaton after being elected to the council on Nov. 5.]

Comm/Comm: John F. Kennedy

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council, as well as a candidate for the state house and senate. He was there to call for honoring the legacy of John F. Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of his death. Partridge called on the public to urge the council, the county board, the state legislature and the Congress to put forward Kennedy’s 1961 agenda. Partridge called for affordable housing, transportation and health care, as well as education.

Comm/Comm: Transgender Day of Remembrance

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Seth Best called the council’s attention to the fact that the transgender day of remembrance was Nov. 20.

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

Next council meeting: Dec. 2, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listing to 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!

The city’s ordinance, enacted in 2010 and then revised in 2011, differs from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists explicitly to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk.

The council gave initial approval to the law, so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. And only pedestrians “within crosswalks” (not those standing at the curb, depending on the interpretation of the UTC) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

Whether the UTC itself extends the right-of-way to a pedestrian standing at the curb, and not just one who has already entered the street, has been part of the recent debate, as it was back in 2011. Members of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition contend the UTC is already interpreted in other communities to mean that a pedestrian standing at the curb where a crosswalk is marked is “within a crosswalk.”

But in Ann Arbor, they contend that this interpretation is not the prevailing one, based on a 15th District Court ruling in 2000, in a case where judge Libby Hines ruled that a pedestrian standing on the curb had not established the right of way in the crosswalk until she actually steps off the curb into the street. That’s why WBWC members contend that the interpretation should be made explicit – that a pedestrian standing at the curb should be treated by motorists as within the crosswalk under the UTC.

However, it’s not clear if Hines was interpreting the UTC in making that ruling. And that would not necessarily be binding, even on the 15th District Court, according to assistant city attorney Bob West. [Nov. 10, 2011 email by assistant city attorney Bob West]

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]

The Nov. 18, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor city council is the first one with the new post-election composition of the 11-member council. The one new member of the council is Jack Eaton (Ward 4), who prevailed in the August Democratic primary contested with Marcia Higgins. She concluded 14 years of council service at her final meeting on Nov. 7.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber, installed in the summer of 2013, includes Braille.

The Nov. 18 meeting will include ceremonial swearing in of all councilmembers who won election on Nov. 5 – including Eaton, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Three other items internal to the council organizational configuration appear on the agenda: approval of the 2014 city council rules; appointment of the 2014 city council committees; and election of mayor pro tem, as well as establishing the order of succession for acting mayor.

In recent years, the rules and the committee appointments have been put off until the first meeting in December, with only the election of mayor pro tem taking place at the second meeting in November. Higgins had served as mayor pro tem since 2008.

Speculation among some council sources indicate that Lumm could have sufficient support on the council to win election as mayor pro tem. Mayor pro tem fulfills the duties of mayor when the mayor is out of town or unable to perform those duties. The mayor pro tem’s salary is the same as other councilmembers, which is $15,913. Customarily, the order of mayoral succession has followed seniority on the council, with councilmembers who were elected in the same year sorted alphabetically.

A substantial portion of the council’s Nov. 18 agenda consists of items the council has seen at least once before – some through postponement and others by the nature of the standard approval process. In the standard-process category, the council will be asked to confirm a handful of appointments to boards and commissions that were nominated on Nov. 7.

The council will also consider giving final approval to two ordinance revisions that received initial approval at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting. One of those ordinance revisions involves changing the permitting requirements for use of public parks – so that fees would be waived for organizations that use parks to distribute goods to meet basic human needs.

A second ordinance revision that will be up for final approval on Nov. 18 is a change to the ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance capture and board governance.

Although it’s not yet on the online agenda, the council would expect to see a sales agreement for the former Y lot presented for consideration. The council had directed the city administrator to negotiate with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the land, based on his $5.25 million offer, and to present a sales agreement for approval on Nov. 18. [See 4:17 p.m. update below]

Several items on the Nov. 18 agenda were postponed from previous meetings. One of those was first seen on Nov. 7 – a resolution sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 2), which would direct an educational effort for local officials and the public on conflict of interest and ethics issues.

Several other items postponed from previous meetings are tied together by a transportation theme. The city council will be considering for a second time a revision to the articles of incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to admit Ypsilanti Township as a member and to increase the board membership from 9 to 10 members so that the township can appoint a member.

Postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was the adoption of an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, so the council will have a second look at that plan on Nov. 18.

Also postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was a resolution to establish a pedestrian safety task force. It’s unclear if that task force will have sufficient traction to be appointed – because it was postponed amid concerns about the budget needed to support the task force’s work. The task force sponsors, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), have indicated their intent is not to make the task force an alternative to repealing the city’s mid-block crosswalk ordinance. [See 3:45 p.m. update below]

The repeal of language in the crosswalk ordinance will get its first reading at the council’s Nov. 18  meeting. The ordinance could be altered so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. The ordinance would be further changed so that only pedestrians within crosswalks (not those standing at the curb) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

Also related to streets are two resolutions authorizing the closing of streets in connection with New Year’s celebrations – on New Year’s Eve for the Puck Drops Here in downtown Ann Arbor, and on New Year’s Day for the NHL’s Winter Classic hockey game at Michigan Stadium.

The agenda features a few separate resolutions on standard easements and some rezoning requests. One of those rezoning requests is not standard – and was recommended by the planning commission for denial. That’s a request for rezoning a parcel on Packard Road from single-family to two-family.

The council will also be asked to authorize the city’s participation in the Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certification Program.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings Monday evening on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

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.

Familiar Business

Much of the council’s Nov. 18 agenda covers topics familiar from previous meetings – items that were moved forward as part of the standard approval process.

Familiar Business: Appointments

Nominations made on Nov. 7, which the council will be asked to confirm on Nov. 18, include Peter Greenfield to the airport advisory council replacing Wilson Tanner, and Anthony Ramirez to be reappointed to the cable communications commission.

On the housing and human services advisory board, Eleanor Pollack and Thaddeus Jabzanka are being nominated to fill the vacancies left by Ned Staebler and Anthony Ramirez, respectively.

Mohammad Issa and Linda Winkler are being nominated for reappointment to the city’s human rights commission.

Nominations to be put forward on Nov. 18 are not yet posted on the Legistar agenda.

However, those might eventually include some nominations to the local officers compensation commission (LOCC) – the group that sets the salaries for city councilmembers, including the mayor.

The city’s Legistar system shows only two members of seven-member group without expired terms – Eunice Burns and Roger Hewitt. Hewitt also serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. So the legal basis for Hewitt’s membership appears dubious in light of the prohibition against service on the LOCC for anyone who’s an employee or member of any branch of any government.

The LOCC is supposed to meet in every odd-numbered year, but has not yet met in 2013.

Familiar Business: Public Park Use Fee Waiver

The council will be giving final consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs could be conducted in city parks without incurring a fee for park use. The proposal is not restricted to downtown parks, but the idea originated from an issue that emerged in connection with Liberty Plaza, a downtown park.

The council gave initial approval to the ordinance change at its Nov. 7 meeting. All changes to city ordinances require an initial approval, followed by a final vote at a subsequent meeting.

The recommendation for the ordinance change came from the city’s park advisory commission at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting. This broader policy change comes three months after the Ann Arbor city council waived all rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, based on a PAC recommendation. That city council action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

The Liberty Plaza fee waiver was approved in response to a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when the city staff considered applying fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church. The proposal recommended by PAC on Sept. 17, and now on the council’s Nov. 18 agenda, would amend Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language]

The ordinance change would provide permanent fee waiver for this specific purpose – the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – but it would still require that organizations get a permit to use the park, and follow permitting procedures, including clean-up obligations.

Familiar Business: DDA TIF, Governance

A second ordinance revision that will be up for final approval at the Nov. 18 meeting is a change to the ordinance (Chapter 7) regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance capture and its board governance.

The outcome of deliberations at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting was to table a version of the Chapter 7 changes that had been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013.

The council then gave initial approval on Nov. 7 to a different version of the Chapter 7 changes. Those recommendations came from a committee of DDA board members and city councilmembers that has met four times since Aug. 26, most recently on Oct. 30. That committee was established at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting – after the first version achieved initial approval at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. Representing the council on the joint committee were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Representing the DDA were Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel and Joan Lowenstein.

The committee’s version of the Chapter 7 ordinance change would allow for several million dollars in additional TIF capture by the DDA, compared to the tabled version. The version in front of the council on Nov. 18 would set a cap on DDA TIF revenue that would not apply at all until FY 2017 and would result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year. It would mean an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions.

That amount would be proportionally divided among the taxing jurisdictions, which together levy roughly 27.5 mills of taxes in the DDA district. Proportionally, that translates to: city of Ann Arbor (60%), Washtenaw County (21%), Washtenaw Community College (13%), and Ann Arbor District Library (6%).

The $300,000 total to be divided by the other taxing jurisdictions in FY 2017 compares to roughly $2 million that would be divided among them under the tabled version of the Chapter 7 revision. The tabled version essentially clarifies the enforcement of existing language in the ordinance. In both versions – assuming that new construction in the DDA district continues to take place at a healthy pace – taxing jurisdictions would continue to receive additional funds into the future after FY 2017.

The city’s share of the estimated $300,000 in excess TIF in FY 2017 would be about $180,000. But that would be distributed proportionally across the city’s funds based on the levy associated with the fund. For example, out of the $180,000, the general fund would get about $65,000. That compares to $430,000 that the city’s general fund would receive based on the tabled Chapter 7 approach.

Although the committee did not put forth a recommendation on governance, the tabled version included various provisions on changes to governance. Those governance revisions included: (1) a two-term limit for service on the DDA board; (2) a prohibition against elected officials, other than the mayor, serving on the DDA board; and (3) service of the mayor on the board (a possibility explicitly provided in the DDA state enabling legislation) subject to annual approval by the city council. If the council did not approve the mayor’s service on the DDA board in a given year, then that spot would go to the city administrator, according to the tabled version.

On Nov. 7, after debating the issue, the council amended the new version to include a limitation on terms. The version that’s up for final consideration on Nov. 18 would impose a limit of three four-year terms, with additional terms possible only after a four-year lapse.

On Nov. 7, during deliberations, the council also added a requirement that the DDA budget at least $300,000 each year for affordable housing projects, with “affordable” defined as targeting residents with 50% area median income (AMI).

Familiar Business: Former Y Lot Sale

Although it’s not yet on the online agenda, the council will expect to see a sales agreement for the former Y lot presented for their consideration. The council voted on Nov. 7 to direct the city administrator to negotiate with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the land and to present a sales agreement for approval on Nov. 18.

Former Y lot from the northwest corner of William and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, looking northwest. In the background, the new Blake Transit Center is under construction. The photo dates from mid-October 2013.

The Nov. 7 resolution had been added to the agenda on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013. It directed city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dahlmann for the purchase of the city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. Dahlmann has offered $5.25 million for the property, known as the Y lot. It had been listed at $4.2 million. The city purchased the property for $3.5 million 10 years ago and has been making interest-only payments on the property for that time. A balloon payment is due at the end of this year. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

The original resolution directed the inclusion of a provision to ensure eventual development of the site. But during the Nov. 7 deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) put forward amendments that were far more detailed about how protection against non-development was to be achieved. Those amendments were adopted by the council as part of the direction to the administrator. [.pdf of Taylor's amendments.]

Taylor’s amendments included a minimum 400% floor area ratio (FAR) including mixed use on the bottom floor, office space on the mid-floors and residential on the top floors. The deadline for building something is January 2018. There’s a prohibition against sale to another third party except that the city has a right of first refusal. The amendments also gave direction on requirements for energy efficiency and a required conversation with the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, which operates the Blake Transit Center next door to the parcel.

If negotiations with Dahlmann are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). CA Ventures had increased its offer to $5.35 million – but that increased amount was received after the deadline for offers, which was firm and clearly communicated to bidders, according to the city’s broker.

The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale. [.pdf of summary page by Chaconas]

If the sale is not completed by the end of the year when the balloon payment is due, the Bank of Ann Arbor would, according to city sources, maintain the existing interest rate on the loan (3.89%) and extend it for up to a year to allow for the city to finalize a sale.

Delayed Business

Several items on the Nov. 18 agenda were postponed from previous meetings.

Delayed Business: Ethics

First considered by the council on Nov. 7 was a resolution sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 2), which would direct an educational effort for local officials on conflict of interest and ethics issues. On Nov. 7 Petersen herself moved immediately to postpone consideration of the resolution, due to the very heavy agenda that night.

The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute.

A final “resolved” clause directs the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor. The final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard that’s recommended by the council rules committee and it’s strictly followed – would end any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government.

Delayed Business: Transportation – AAATA

Several other items postponed from previous meetings are tied together by a transportation theme.

The city council will be considering for a second time a revision to the articles of incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to admit Ypsilanti Township as a member and to increase the board membership from 9 to 10 members so that the township can appoint a member. The council had postponed the action at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting.

Ypsilanti Township hopes to become a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. (Solid green indicates the geographic area included by the AAATA.)

The vote to postpone was 8-3 with dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board already approved the membership of Ypsilanti Township. That action was contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

An earlier expansion in membership was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The name of the authority was also changed at that time to add the word “area” – making it the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. [Amendment 3 of the AAATA articles of incorporation]

The expansion of the AAATA’s geographic footprint to include some jurisdictions geographically close to the city of Ann Arbor – and with whom the AAATA has historically had purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) – would set the stage for a possible request of voters in the expanded geographic area to approve additional transportation funding to pay for increased service frequencies and times.

The AAATA could place a millage request on the ballot in May 2014, probably at the level of 0.7 mills, to support a 5-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed. A schedule of public meetings to introduce that plan runs through mid-November.

Delayed Business: Transportation – Non-Motorized Plan

Postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was the adoption of an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. So the council will have a second look at that plan on Nov. 18. The postponement on Nov. 7 came in deference to a request from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who indicated she had not had an opportunity to read it through as closely as she wanted.

The city’s non-motorized transportation plan is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the updated plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update] With respect to the adoption of the master plan, the council and the planning commission are on equal footing. That is, they must adopt the same plan. So in this case, the commission is not merely the recommending body.

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

The update will be an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

Examples of planning and policy issues include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.” Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands. Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

Delayed Business: Transportation – Pedestrian Safety Task Force

Also postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was a resolution to establish a pedestrian safety task force. So that will again be before the council for consideration on Nov. 18. It’s unclear if that task force will have sufficient traction to be appointed – because it was postponed amid concerns about the budget needed to support the task force’s work. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy described the staff and other support for the task force as costing on the order of $100,000. [.pdf of Nov. 7 memo on pedestrian safety]

The pedestrian safety task force would consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.” Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application] The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting.

The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The task force sponsors, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), have indicated their intent is not to make the task force an alternative to repealing the city’s mid-block crosswalk ordinance.

New Business: Crosswalk Ordinance

One piece of transportation business that’s new before the council on Nov. 18 is the repeal of language in the city crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists explicitly to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk.

The proposal the council will be asked to consider would change the law so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. The ordinance would be further changed so that only pedestrians within crosswalks (not those standing at the curb, depending on the interpretation of the UTC) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

New Year’s Events

Also related to streets are two resolutions authorizing the closing of streets in connection with New Year’s celebrations – on New Year’s Eve for the Puck Drops Here, and on New Year’s Day for the NHL’s Winter Classic Hockey Game at Michigan Stadium.

The Ann Arbor city council will be asked on Nov. 18 to authorize the closing of public streets in connection with those New Year’s festivities.

New Year’s Events: Puck Drop

In connection with the NHL Winter Classic Game to be played on New Year’s Day, the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is hosting a New Year’s Eve event called The Puck Drops Here, which will mimic the dropping of the lighted ball in Times Square, but with a 6-foot diameter lighted “puck” that is being fabricated by METAL.

Puck Drops Here street closures.

The name of the event is a play on words. In the game of ice hockey, the start of action is marked with an official dropping of the puck between two opposing players – the puck drop. It’s similar to the tip-off in basketball. The name of the event also plays on the expression popularized by U.S. President Harry Truman: “The buck stops here.”

The requested action from the council includes street closures downtown along Main Street all day on New Year’s Eve.

Specifically, the council will be asked to authorize street closures from 8 a.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2013 to 6 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The actual event runs from 8 p.m. until 12:30 a.m.

Streets to be closed include:

• S. Main from E. William to Huron
• Liberty Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)
• Washington Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)

Musical entertainment will feature Michelle Chamuel, who placed second in the most recent edition of the TV vocal competition “The Voice.” She lived in Ann Arbor for a time earlier in her musical career.

New Year’s Events: NHL Winter Classic

The Winter Classic is an NHL hockey game between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014.

UM football game day street closures (pink) with detour route (purple). These same street closures will be in effect on Jan. 1 for the NHL Winter Classic.

The game will be played outdoors at the University of Michigan football stadium. Game start time is currently listed on the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau as 1 p.m. The back-up date, in case of inclement weather, is Jan. 2.

The resolution that the Ann Arbor city council will be asked to consider on Nov. 18 will implement many of the conditions that apply during University of Michigan home football games. For example, the newly implemented street closures for home football games would also be authorized for the Winter Classic:

• E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets, limiting access to parking permit holders on Greene Street from E. Hoover to Keech streets
• The westbound right turn lane on E. Stadium Boulevard (onto S. Main Street) just south of the Michigan Stadium
• S. Main Street closed to both local and through traffic from Stadium Boulevard to Pauline

Those closures would be effective three hours before the game and last until the end of the game – with the exception of southbound S. Main Street, which would be closed beginning one hour before the game until the end of the game.

The council will also be asked to invalidate peddler/solicitor permits and sidewalk occupancy permits in the following areas:

• S. State Street from E. Hoover Street to the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks
• Along the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks from S. State Street to the viaduct on W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from the viaduct to S. Main Street
• S. Main Street from W. Stadium Boulevard to Hill Street
• Hill Street from S. Main Street to S. Division Street
• S. Division Street from Hill Street to E. Hoover Street
• E. Hoover Street from S. Division Street to S. State Street
• S. Main Street from Scio Church Road to W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from S. Main Street to Prescott Avenue

The council will be asked to authorize a special temporary outdoor sales area so that the owners of commercially and office-zoned property fronting on the following streets could use their private yard areas for outdoor sales and display:

• West side of S. Main Street between Stadium Blvd. and Hoover Street
• East side of S. Main Street from 1011 S. Main to Hoover Street
• North side of Hoover Street between S. Main and S. State streets
• North side of W. Stadium Blvd. between S. Main and S. State streets

The council would also be asked to designate the Winter Classic game as a date on which the usual front open space parking prohibition does not apply. So residents who customarily offer their lawns for home football game parking would be able to do so for the Winter Classic as well.

At the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board, executive director Susan Pollay described for the board how the DDA plans to charge public parking on New Year’s Day – a time when parking would ordinarily be free. That would allow the DDA to take reservations in advance, using the same strategy it uses for art fairs parking in the summer.

The Ann Arbor DDA manages the city’s public parking system under contract with the city, and has the ability to set rates under that contract. There’s a clause in the contract that requires public notice and input for long-term rate increases, but not for one-off changes.

3:45 p.m. Pedestrian Safety Task Force. The resolution is likely to be swapped out with a substitute version that adds some items to the proposed group’s tasks, including addressing sidewalk gaps and creating a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps. That would conceivably allow the group to tap some of the $75,000 the council allocated this spring in a FY 2014 budget amendment for the prioritization of sidewalks gaps to be eliminated. The timeframe for membership application has shifted in the possible substitute resolution to Dec. 2, with the appointments to be made at the Dec. 16 council meeting. The task force’s report would also not be due until the council’s first meeting in February 2015. [.pdf of substitute pedestrian safety task force resolution]

4:17 p.m. Former Y lot sale. In emails to councilmembers spaced just 14 minutes apart this afternoon, city administrator Steve Powers first indicated that negotiations with Dahlmann were continuing and that he didn’t expect to have a sales agreement ready for tonight’s meeting (3:41 p.m.) and then that Dahlmann had agreed to all the city’s terms (3:55 p.m.). City attorneys are preparing the sales agreement, and Powers expects it to be ready for consideration at tonight’s meeting.

6:24 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.

6:27 p.m. The lobby of city hall is staffed with volunteers from the Vineyard Church and members of Camp Take Notice who are handing out bottled water to council meeting arrivees. They’re here in support of the final consideration of an ordinance change that would waive fees for organizations that use public parks for the purpose of charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs.

6:28 p.m. In chambers, several people are already here in the audience in support of the park fee waiver ordinance. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) is the only councilmember here so far. His computer has been set up by Paul from IT. He’s getting a quick update from city clerk Jackie Beaudry.

6:32 p.m. Ted Annis, Nancy Kaplan and Harvey Kaplan have arrived.

6:40 p.m. Comment overheard in the audience on 35 F temps and 20 mph wind outside: “It’s a tough night to be homeless.”

6:42 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) have now arrived. City attorney Stephen Postema is also here.

6:48 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje arrives with city administrator Steve Powers. Hieftje gives Eaton a friendly pat on the shoulder in passing. Some of the AAATA staff have arrived.

6:52 p.m. Still missing several councilmembers.

6:57 p.m. The sales agreement has now been attached to the online agenda. Price is still $5.25 million with all the requirements in the council’s Nov. 7 resolution in a rider. [link to Dahlmann purchase agreement item]

6:58 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) have now arrived.

6:59 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) arrives. Ward 3 councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman are still not here.

7:02 p.m. Taylor is now here. His first move is to head over to Jack Eaton and welcome him to the council.

7:06 p.m. Alan Haber is here. Eaton collects a hug from Haber. It’s a packed house. The partitions have been pulled back. Jeff Hayner is spotted across the room. Kunselman has now arrived.

7:11 p.m. We’re close to starting.

7:14 p.m. Call to order, pledge of allegiance, moment of silence. And we’re off.

7:15 p.m. Roll call of the council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:16 p.m. Approval of agenda. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wants to make sure the AAATA item might be adjusted later to make sure that Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo can be there. She hasn’t arrived yet.

7:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda.

7:16 p.m. Administration of oath of office. Those taking the oath administered by city clerk Jackie Beaudry are: Sabra Briere (Ward 1); Jane Lumm (Ward 2); Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3); Jack Eaton (Ward 4); and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). The oath is from Section 2 of Article XVI of the Michigan state constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of [city councilmember] according to the best of my ability.”

7:18 p.m. Appoint mayor pro tem, establish order of succession. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) moves to appoint Margie Teall (Ward 4) as mayor pro tem, reasoning that she has the most seniority on the council.

7:19 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t support Teall as mayor pro tem. He says he wants to see fresh blood at the position. He’ll support Lumm. Hieftje says that it’s largely ceremonial and it’s rare for someone to need to fill in.

7:21 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 6-5 to appoint Margie Teall as mayor pro tem for the coming year. Dissenting were Kunselman, Anglin, Eaton, Kailasapathy, and Lumm.

7:22 p.m. After Hieftje and Teall, the order of succession first by seniority, then alphabetically would be: Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Christopher Taylor, Stephen Kunselman, Jane Lumm, Sally (Hart) Petersen, Sumi Kailasapathy, Chuck Warpehoski and Jack Eaton.

7:24 p.m. 2014 Council committee appointments. Anglin is asking for a more open process where councilmembers can serve on the committees they want. He points out that the liquor committee’s responsibility has shifted. Hieftje has no problem with further discussion of the committee assignments. The inclination appears to be to postpone the committee appointments.

7:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to delay consideration of the council committee appointments until its first meeting in December – Dec. 2, 2013.

7:26 p.m. 2014 Council rules adoption. Taylor suggests that the item be delayed until the rules committee can have a chance to look at it. Briere notes that the rules had just recently been amended. She also notes that it would be the existing rules committee that would do the review. Warpehoski asks for a future amendment to Rule 8, swapping “personal attack” for “personality.”

7:29 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to delay action on the council rules until its first meeting in December.

7:30 p.m. City administrator communications. Powers reports that the impact of the previous day’s storms were relatively minimal, but 8 traffic signals had needed to be placed on generator power. They were then switched to four-way stops, and may be switched back to generators if power is not restored to them by the morning rush hour. Forestry crews removed 9 limbs from roadways. Other tree and limb issues are being prioritized and crews are working through the list, he says. Powers alerts the council to the two New Year’s items on the consent agenda. Powers gives a reminder of the trash and compost collection scheduling during Thanksgiving week.

7:30 p.m. Proclamations. One proclamation is on the agenda – honoring the 25th anniversary of the founding of Food Gatherers, a local nonprofit that collects and distributes food to those in need. The proclamation describes Food Gatherers as having provided millions of meals to hungry people in Washtenaw County. This last Saturday, bicycle-mounted participants in the Cranksgiving fundraiser collected almost a half ton of food for Food Gatherers.

7:31 p.m. The proclamation is being tracked down. Hieftje takes the council into recess while it’s located.

7:31 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

7:32 p.m. And we’re back.

7:35 p.m. The Food Gatherers proclamation gets a long standing ovation from the audience.

7:35 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.]

Four people are signed up to talk about the resolution sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 2) on standards of ethical and professional conduct: Jeanine Delay, Nancy Schewe, Erin Mattimoe and Joanna DeCamp. Three people are signed up to talk about the repeal of the city’s crosswalk ordinance: Kathy Griswold, Erica Briggs, Chris Hewett. One person and one alternate are signed up to talk about membership of Ypsilanti Township in the AAATA – Jim Mogensen and Emmanuel Jones (alternate).

Alan Haber is signed up to talk about the city of Ann Arbor’s participation in the Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certificate Program. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about honoring the legacy of John F. Kennedy. A final alternate speaker is Henry Herskovitz, whose topic is “Blacklisting by Mastercard.”

7:39 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council, as well as a candidate for the state house and senate. He’s here to call for honoring the legacy of JFK on the 50th anniversary of his death. Partridge calls on the public to urge the council, the county board, the state legislature and the Congress to put forward Kennedy’s 1961 agenda. He calls for affordable housing, transportation and health care, as well as education.

7:43 p.m. Jeanine Delay offers her strong support for the ethics resolution that Petersen is sponsoring. Delay works with a group called A2 Ethics. She acknowledges Kunselman’s support of the resolution. There are many persistent misconceptions about local ethics, she says. One misconception is that upon election, an official will somehow magically recognize the various conflicts that might arise. The second misconception is that good character will ensure good ethical practice. “We’re all in this together, so we need a collective process,” she says. In passing this resolution, Ann Arbor would join other cities that have recognized the importance of ethics in civic life, she says.

7:46 p.m. Nancy Schewe of the local League of Women Voters also indicates support for the ethics resolution. Setting our own standards will allow us to reflect our own local values, she says. This resolution will help avoid problems before they come along. The standards should be known, codified and enforced, she says. She adds that this will shape a community of high ethical standards.

7:49 p.m. Kathy Griswold says she’s previously spoken in favor of a state crosswalk law. She asks four questions: How were Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition members hoodwinked into supporting an ordinance change instead of supporting pedestrian infrastructure? Why is lighting inadequate in many neighborhoods, especially at crosswalks? Why are councilmembers supporting a pedestrian safety task force to report back in February 2015? She says it’s a duplication of the efforts of the transportation safety committee. Why do we continue to ignore overgrown vegetation at intersections?

7:50 p.m. Erin Mattimoe introduces herself as a youth developer and a volunteer with A2 Ethics. Democracy depends on trust in elected officials, she says. That requires regular training and education, she says.

7:53 p.m. Erica Briggs is chair of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. She supports the city’s current version of the ordinance. She says she’s delivering a petition signed by 587 people supporting the current ordinance. She is also delivering a letter signed by several organizations supporting the current ordinance. She calls the current ordinance a recognized best practice. She cites Traverse City as an example of a community where the Uniform Traffic Code is enforced so that motorists are supposed to stop for pedestrians who are standing at the curb.

7:55 p.m. Joanna DeCamp introduces herself as a volunteer with A2 Ethics. She’s supporting the resolution on ethics sponsored by Petersen (and also Kunselman). Trust in government is low at the national and state levels, she says. Comprehensive training and education will allow common expectations of behavior to be developed, she says. That will allow for constructive dialogues with conflicts arise.

7:59 p.m. Jim Mogensen speaks in favor of expansion of transit in the urban area. He calls it the continuation of a process that began over 40 years ago. He recounts the history of the changes that allowed the expansion to happen. In the mid-1970s after the city of Ann Arbor passed its millage, the AATA was expanded in a way that allowed the municipalities on the eastern side of the county to be included – through POSAs (purchase of service agreements). What those communities pay, he says, is the local match for federal funds. Ann Arbor Township is the only community no longer a part of that expansion, he says. Now, the AAATA has come up with a good plan to enhance service on the east side of the county.

8:02 p.m. Chris Hewett speaks for the neighborhood group Safety on Seventh. Whatever side of the vote councilmembers are on for the crosswalk ordinance, he says, it’s important to focus on the safety of pedestrians. He challenges councilmembers to leave their cars at home and experience what it’s like to experience the city as a pedestrian. He challenges the council to make people and neighborhoods their highest priority, not traffic flow and vehicle speeds.

8:05 p.m. Alan Haber says that making Ann Arbor a development-ready community seems OK on the surface. But he says it’s out of balance. Increasing the tax base is important, but there needs to be some focus on human development, he says. He refers to the ordinance change that would allow public parks to be used for the distribution of goods for human needs – and that’s the kind of human development he’s talking about. Haber speaks against development of the Library Lot.

8:05 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three 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.

8:07 p.m. Briere announces a meeting on Argo parking at Nov. 21 at 6:30 p.m. at the Traverwood branch of the Ann Arbor District Library.

8:07 p.m. Kunselman notes that some streetlights he’d complained about being out on Packard were now on – near Mary Beth Doyle park. Kunselman says that there’s no moratorium on streetlights, saying that there was only a budget resolution in the past, which he didn’t consider a moratorium.

8:08 p.m. Petersen thanks AAPD for showing up on Devonshire last night, to help with storm damage. She thanks staff for installing etiquette signs in the parks. Petersen also plugs a survey that she’s running.

8:09 p.m. Eaton thanks staff for their efforts during his two-day orientation as a new councilmember.

8:11 p.m. Teall announces that the Michigan Theater board will be meeting to explore ways to keep the State Theater open. She reports that the last partnerships committee meeting of the DDA was very productive. They’d had a great conversation about how to attract young people into the civic process.

8:12 p.m. Anglin thanks the people who’ve worked on Safety on Seventh. The area needs a lot of attention because vehicles go really fast through that area, he says. When you live on a busy street, you don’t give up your rights as a citizen, he says. People who live on active streets are a part of the community. He contends that speeders are in fact people who live here. There will be a meeting at Slauson Middle School, with the date and time to be determined, he says.

8:14 p.m. Kailasapathy says that when the discussion of adding police officers comes up, people always say that Part 1 crimes are down. There are other quality-of-life type issues that would be helped with more enforcement, she says.

8:16 p.m. Warpehoski reports on a WeROC (Washtenaw Regional Organizing Coalition) gathering he’d attended. That group is working on a “ban the box” in hiring processes. The phrase refers to removing the “felony box” from job applications, and eliminating background checks for all jobs except those deemed sensitive. He’s going to be talking to city staff and the city human rights commission about it. Hieftje says there was work done on this previously, in partnership with Washtenaw County.

8:16 p.m. Appointments. Nominations made on Nov. 7, which the council will be asked to confirm tonight, include Peter Greenfield to the airport advisory council replacing Wilson Tanner, and Anthony Ramirez to be reappointed to the cable communications commission. On the housing and human services advisory board, Eleanor Pollack and Thaddeus Jabzanka are being nominated to fill the vacancies left by Ned Staebler and Anthony Ramirez, respectively. Mohammad Issa and Linda Winkler are being nominated for reappointment to the city’s human rights commission.

8:17 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm all the nominations made at the Nov. 7 meeting.

8:18 p.m. Nominations. David Blanchard was nominated for reappointment to the city’s housing and human services advisory board. That confirmation vote will come at the next council meeting.

8:18 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. Two public hearings are scheduled for tonight both on ordinance changes. One is on an alteration to the park user fee, which could be waived for use of a park to distribute goods in support of basic human needs. [For background, see Familiar Business: Public Park Use Fee Waiver above.] The other is on a revision to the ordinance that regulates how the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax increment finance capture is implemented. [For background, see Familiar Business: DDA TIF, Governance above.]

8:24 p.m. PH-1 Park use fee waiver. Thomas Partridge is addressing the council about the use of parks for people to gather. He says issues of free speech are being ignored in the ordinance change, so he wants the change delayed for further review. Seth Best asks everyone to stand who supports the ordinance change. There are estimated 70 people standing in chambers in response. He reads off a list of people who he wants to thank. Dan Ream, pastor at St. Mary’s student parish, supports the ordinance change. He recounts the parable of the good Samaritan.

8:28 p.m. Rev. Lindsay Conrad of First Presbyterian Church supports the ordinance change. Jim Osborne urges passage of the resolution. He’s organized a group to distribute food at West Park and he’s found the city’s fees and process to be a burden.

8:34 p.m. Lily Au says that the Delonis Center homeless shelter in Ann Arbor has not increased its capacity. She asks the council to help poor people. Brian B. argues for the ordinance change. Odile Hugot Haber speaks in support of the ordinance change. Alan Haber also rises to speak in favor of the ordinance change. It’s obvious that a church should be able to distribute free food in a park, he says. There’s an economy of love, he says: making available what we have with each other.

8:39 p.m. Michael Brinkman introduces himself as a resident next to Wheeler Park. Severe weather in the Philippines and in the Midwest had resulted in new homeless people, he said. He asks the council to support the microcosm of that larger context. Three more people round out the public hearing, all in support of the ordinance change.

8:42 p.m. PH-2 DDA ordinance. Thomas Partridge is talking about how he went to Washington D.C. to study law and to work for senators McNamara and Hart. He calls the ordinance a furtherance of corruption and discrimination. The entire DDA ordinance should be repealed and substituted, he says. The DDA needs enough revenue to give equal opportunity to every commercial area of the city.

8:46 p.m. Maura Thomson, president of the Main Street Area Association, which represents 175 businesses. She supports the ordinance. Councilmembers had wanted clarity, she said. The ordinance would not have negative impact on the work the DDA is doing now and could do in the future. She calls out the idea of downtown interests “versus” the rest of the city. She says the downtown belongs to everyone. The downtown has a social, economic, and cultural purpose. Looking at the interests of the downtown and the rest of the city as separate is not a productive way to think about it, she says.

Tom Heywood calls the solution that has been crafted a win-win. It allows the DDA to continue its work while returning millions of dollars to the brother and sister jurisdictions over several years, he says.

8:47 p.m. Jim Osborne asks for stricter council oversight of the DDA. Instead of begging the DDA money to give money back, the council should control the DDA, he says.

8:54 p.m. Sandi Smith, current chair of the DDA, is reading forth a prepared statement. She appeals to the idea of “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The premise of the ordinance change was to achieve clarity, she says. Smith is complaining about the cap. She describes the proposed ordinance as cutting the DDA’s bonding capacity in half.

Lou Glorie is now at the podium countering Smith. She says the ordinance change re-establishes some equity between the DDA and the other taxing authorities. Omari Rush, education manager at the University Musical Society, describes the role of downtowns in cities and how much he enjoys Ann Arbor’s downtown. He appreciates what’s been done to make Ann Arbor’s downtown clean, safe and vibrant.

8:56 p.m. Dug Song recalls that the last time he attended a council meeting, he was lobbying for a skatepark – now that’s being built. He’s expressing general support for the DDA. He recalls how Arbor Networks grew from five people to 300 people, but most of those jobs were in Boston, because there’s not adequate space in downtown Ann Arbor. He supports the love economy, but also supports small companies that are two people and some laptops that grow into something larger.

8:58 p.m. Peter Baker introduces himself as a resident of Water Hill and employee of DuoSecurity. He chose Ann Arbor because of the interplay between downtown and neighborhoods. His comments wrap up this public hearing.

8:58 p.m. Minutes. Outcome: The council has approved the previous meeting’s minutes.

8:59 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 the following:

• CA-1 Approve street closings for The Puck Drops Here on Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2013. [For more background, see above New Year's Events: Puck Drop]
• CA-2 Authorize special event provisions and street closings for the NHL Winter Classic Hockey Game on Jan. 1 or 2, 2013. [For more background, see above New Year's Events: NHL Winter Classic]
• CA-3 Approve the sale of Avalon Housing Inc.’s property at 618 N. Main to Dawn Farm.
• CA-4 Authorize city of Ann Arbor participation in the Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certification Program.
• CA-5 Authorize a sole source purchase order to Jack Doheny Companies Inc. for parts and service for field operation utilities unit equipment. ($50,000 annually)
• CA-6 Authorize contract with Watertap Inc. for watermain line stops and insertable valves and related services. ($75,000 annually)
• CA-7 Accept Board of Insurance Administration minutes of Oct. 24, 2013.
• CA-8 Approve amended bylaws of the public market advisory commission.

9:00 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Selected out by Briere are CA-3 (sale of Avalon property) and CA-4 (the redevelopment ready communities resolution).

9:05 p.m. CA-3 Approve the sale of Avalon Housing Inc.’s property at 618 N. Main to Dawn Farm. Briere gives the background and how it has been recommended by the housing and humans services advisory board.

9:05 p.m. CA-4 Authorize city of Ann Arbor participation in the Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certification Program. Briere invites planning manager Wendy Rampson to the podium to explain what the program is about. Rampson describes how the program does allow help in marketing specific sites, but that’s not necessarily what the program is about. City administrator Steve Powers explains that the marketing of any sites is not limited to city-owned parcels. The program could also help identify privately-owned parcels that need some attention, he says, citing the research park in the southern part of town. Rampson also points out that participation in the program could make the city eligible for various grants. Eaton asks if there are any implications for not fulfilling the conditions in the MOU. Rampson indicates the city would be kicked out of the program.

9:07 p.m. Petersen says she wants to speak strongly in favor of the program.

9:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the items on the consent agenda.

9:07 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

9:18 p.m. And we’re back.

9:19 p.m. Opening the agenda. Ypsilanti Township clerk Karen Lovejoy Roe is here and has a constrained schedule, so DC-1 (Ypsilanti Township membership in AAATA) is moved up to now.

9:20 p.m. DC-1 Ypsilanti Township membership in AAATA. The council is being asked to approve the addition of Ypsilanti Township in the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. This item was postponed from the council’s Oct. 21, 2013 meeting. [For some additional background, see Delayed Business: Transportation – AAATA above. For even more background, see "Council Agenda: Transportation Governance"]

9:24 p.m. Kunselman says he attended some of the AAATA meetings that were held over the last month and he did not hear anyone say they were opposed to Ypsilanti Township joining the authority. He urges the council to vote unanimously to support Ypsilanti Township as a member.

Eaton says that he strongly supports expanding transportation in the urban core. But he says that the plan to ask for a millage will result in an inequitable funding arrangement. He ticks through the amount of millage each community would pay. He wants a uniform total millage across all communities. Teall counters that the amount of service in Ann Arbor is much higher, and that it’s natural that the amount contributed by Ann Arbor would be greater.

9:25 p.m. Teall asks Michael Ford, CEO of the AAATA, to the podium. Ford says that 84% of the AAATA’s service is provided in Ann Arbor. He stresses that the question before the council tonight is membership in the AAATA.

9:28 p.m. Lumm wants to know what will happen if the millage doesn’t pass: Would Ypsilanti Township convert their general fund allocation to a transit millage? Ford isn’t going to speak for the township. Karen Lovejoy Roe takes the podium. She thanks the council for moving up the item on the agenda. She says that Ypsilanti Township has had some sort of POSA for several years, and as a member of the AAATA, the township would be willing to make a longer-term commitment. She’s excited about having transit that connects the west and east sides of the county.

9:32 p.m. Lumm asks if Ypsilanti Township would convert the general fund funding to a millage, if the AAATA millage didn’t pass. Lovejoy Roe says that right now, the township would lock in the current POSA agreement in perpetuity – but that wouldn’t necessarily result in the township itself asking for a millage of its residents. Lumm says it’s not been clarified what the standards are for being admitted as a member of the AAATA. She’s implicitly setting this as a standard: If the community itself has a millage. Lovejoy Roe asks what difference it would make, if the township board is entering into a legally binding agreement to pay the cash.

9:34 p.m. Lumm asks Ford what the standards are for admitting a municipality as a member. Ford refers to the council’s resolution for exploring conversations with the urban core communities, a community’s ability to pay, where population density is, and other factors.

9:37 p.m. Lumm reports that she attended one of the meetings, and there were questions asked about routes in Ward 2. She says it’s not clear whether it’s a “sales tour” or a “listening tour” that took place. In the “marketing materials,” she says, there’s an indication that the improvements will require a 0.7 mill tax. Ford stresses that the board has not made a decision to place a millage on the ballot. The point of the meetings was to hear input and make adjustments and refine the plan. “We are listening to people. … That’s what we do!” he says. Lumm complains there is not enough service improvement in Ward 2.

9:39 p.m. Kailasapathy thanks Ford for providing the MOU between AAATA and Ypsilanti Township. She contends the goal of long-term planning is undercut by the monthly invoicing in the MOU. Ford says that’s just an operational issue – and stresses that it’s in draft form. That simply operationalizes the exchange of money. Kailasapathy asks if the planning would take place on an annual basis. Ford indicated that planning is a continuous process, quarterly and annual. Planning is in the AAATA’s DNA, Ford says – “that’s what we do.”

9:42 p.m. Taylor says to him, it’s a simple question of whether it’s good for Ypsi Township to be a member. Leaving aside the “soul-sucking micromanagement” of the AAATA, Taylor says the answer to the question is yes. He says Eaton’s worry about the amount of support there would be for a millage is a fair point. And Taylor says that this idea will be put into the marketplace (of voters). It’s natural that Ann Arbor will receive most of the service, he says, as it’s the economic engine of the region.

9:44 p.m. Petersen recalls a remark from township supervisor Brenda Stumbo – that you can’t get from the city of Ypsilanti to the city of Ann Arbor without going through Ypsilanti Township. If the buses will go through the township anyway, it makes sense that the township has a voice on the board, she says. She’s less concerned about the funding, saying she gives Ypsi Township the benefit of any doubt that they’ll continue to pay the POSA.

9:47 p.m. Warpehoski asks Ford to review the city of Ann Arbor’s increase in service over the five-year period. Ford says over the five-year period it would increase 33%. Warpehoski concludes that’s about commensurate with the percentage that an additional 0.7 mill tax would mean. Warpehoski invites Lovejoy Roe to confirm that Ypsilanti Township would not have the demand for the same level of service of Ann Arbor – which is to have a bus stop within 1/4 mile of every household. She confirms that such demand doesn’t exist at this point.

9:49 p.m. Warpehoski concludes that he doesn’t think it would make sense to define equity by equal total millages and let the variance follow from differences in property values. He confirms with Ford that the costs per service hour charged for POSAs include all the overhead costs.

9:53 p.m. Briere asks why Pittsfield Township isn’t joining. Ford says Pittsfield is leaning toward a longer-term POSA, so that they wouldn’t participate in an AAATA millage. He doesn’t want to speak for Pittsfield. Briere says Ypsilanti Township has been asked to take a leap of faith. And the township is making a significant financial commitment, she says. Briere is relating vignettes from her own experience. She hopes that the council will support this resolution.

9:54 p.m. Anglin says that the council had decided it wanted to focus not across the county but more locally, and that’s what the AAATA had done. He’s going to support the resolution.

10:00 p.m. Eaton asks Ford if there is a standard for adding members to the AAATA. Ford says the council in part defined that for the AAATA with its urban core resolution from late 2012. There are other factors – geographical considerations, where people live, where trips are generated, as well as willingness to pay. Back and forth ensues between Eaton and Ford about standards for admission into AAATA. Eaton wants to know if Ypsilanti Township is willing to pay for improvements without an AAATA millage, if the AAATA would provide additional service. Eaton points out that a neighborhood in Ann Arbor can’t choose a reduced level of service. Ford finally says: “What is your question?” Eaton’s point is that the financial burden is not equal across neighborhoods within the city: In some parts of the city, there is less transportation service.

10:02 p.m. Lovejoy Roe says that this approach will lock in at least this current level of service for Ypsilanti Township. She points out that Ypsilanti Township will have only one vote on the board.

10:05 p.m. Lumm has come back to the idea of criteria for admission into the AAATA. She doesn’t think there’s a rigorous enough standard for admission. Lumm says she wants Ford to come to the podium again. She says that the riders-per-service-hour goal of the AAATA is 25 passengers, but complains that the commuter express service has less than that. Ford notes that the commuter express service no longer uses any local Ann Arbor millage dollars.

10:12 p.m. Briere asks if there are any buses that are completely internal to Ypsilanti Township. No, says Ford. She asks if there are any routes specific to some ward. No, says Ford.

Petersen wants to put an economic value on the benefit of a worker from Ypsilanti riding the bus to Ann Arbor. Hieftje advises that Lumm is considered to have spoken twice. Kunselman argues against “intellectualizing” the issue and wants a unanimous vote. He stresses that Ypsilanti Township will have just one vote on the AAATA board. He’d been a vocal opponent of the countywide transit effort out of concern that that proposal would have yielded majority control. [Ann Arbor would have had 7 of 15 board seats under that countywide proposal.] As far as the standards for admission, the standard is clear, says Kunselman: Ypsilanti Township is the second largest community in the county and this is about “mass transit.”

10:14 p.m. Kunselman wants a majority vote by the council to send a clear message of support. Hieftje is now expressing support for the various standard reasons, citing the benefits of public transportation.

10:16 p.m. Hieftje is still talking about the virtues of public transportation. Hieftje says if there’s a millage on the ballot put forward by AAATA, then he’ll support it. He hopes for a unanimous vote on welcoming a new member into the AAATA.

10:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the amended articles of incorporation so that Ypsilanti Township is now a member of the AAATA. The vote drew applause.

10:17 p.m. B-1 Amend parks ordinance to provide for exemptions to the fee requirement for group activities in parks. This ordinance change is in front of the council for final approval tonight, having been given initial approval on Nov. 7. It would allow for a waiver of fees when an organization uses a park to distribute goods for basic human needs. The ordinance would be revised to include the following text: “There shall be no park rental fee charged in association with a permit, where the permitted event’s primary proposed activity is the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs.” [For more background see Familiar Business: Public Park Use Fee Waiver above.]

10:20 p.m. Eaton offers a “friendly” amendment to add “and/or services” in addition to “goods.” Taylor says that this distinction between goods and services was material to PAC’s review of the proposal. Adding services would expand what was contemplated, Taylor says. Taylor recites the history of the issue.

10:21 p.m. PAC “interrogated” the proposal thoroughly, Taylor says. Teall thanks the members of Camp Take Notice and everyone who’d met with her. She said it was enjoyable to be able to respond to a request like this.

10:25 p.m. Warpehoski says that the solution was very “elegant.” It’s simple, he says. Anglin praises Camp Take Notice members for being very good at political action. It was hard to deny their humanitarian message, he said. Petersen offers her thanks. Lumm says Camp Take Notice members “know how to catch bees with honey.”

10:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the possible park fee waiver. The vote gets applause.

10:25 p.m. B-2 DDA ordinance. In front of the council tonight is final approval of a change to the ordinance (Chapter 7) regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance capture and its board governance. Initial approval of this version of the change was given at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting. A previous version was tabled.

Key features of this version before the council tonight are a cap on DDA TIF revenue that would not apply at all until FY 2017 and would result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year. It would mean an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions that year. This version would impose a limit of three four-year terms for board membership, with additional terms possible only after a four-year lapse. The DDA would be required to budget $300,000 each year for affordable housing projects, with “affordable” defined as targeting residents with 50% area median income (AMI). [For additional background, see Familiar Business: DDA TIF, Governance above.]

10:26 p.m. Kunselman says he was really pleased that there was support for this, based on the public hearing commentary. The discussion had lasted for many months, he says. He wants to adopt this without any amendments.

10:29 p.m. Briere says she’s just sent a proposed amendment to the ordinance change. It’s the result of a housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) resolution, she says. She’s reading aloud the amendment. It clarifies that the first year of the $300,000 allocations to affordable housing is tax year 2016. Thereafter the DDA has to increase the allocation by the same amount that the cap escalates. Kunselman is fine with this, if this is not a big enough change that it would reset the proposal to a first reading in front of the council.

10:30 p.m. Briere is conferring with city attorney Stephen Postema and assistant city attorney Mary Fales. Postema: “It’s fine.” Kunselman says he’s touched base with David Blanchard, chair of HHSAB, and Kunselman thinks it’s probably not an amendment that’s necessary, but he doesn’t have a problem with it. He accepts it as a friendly amendment.

10:34 p.m. Teall is worried that the DDA would not be able to continue funding the nonprofit Dawn Farm, which does not have a 50% AMI requirement. Executive director Susan Pollay says that she understands the ordinance language to mean that additional dollars, beyond the $300,000, could be allocated for Dawn Farm.

10:39 p.m. Lumm says she attended both the partnerships committee meeting as well as the HHSAB meeting. The two conversations were schizophrenic, she says. The DDA had wanted more flexibility, she says. DDA board chair Sandi Smith responds, saying there was not a pushback on the $300,000 from the DDA. It was the 50% AMI standard that was problematic, she says.

Lumm asks for explanation about the DDA’s policy to invest in areas outside the DDA district that had a positive impact on the district. The standard is within 1/4 mile of the district, Pollay says. Smith ventures that “downtown area” would be consistent with the DDA’s policy on investing in housing projects within 1/4 mile of the district. Briere is at the podium showing Smith her iPad with the text of the amendment.

10:42 p.m. Hieftje says he has a concern about the city’s budget. He thinks there are going to be millions of dollars of investment in the Ann Arbor housing commission required. So he wants the “downtown area” to stretch as far as Miller Manor, which is an AAHC property. Lumm wants to add “near downtown area.” Kunselman wants to make sure that this will not reset the ordinance to the first reading. Fales confirms it would not, because it’s consistent with the DDA renewal plan.

10:45 p.m. Briere gets confirmation from Smith that the DDA’s definition of “near downtown area” means within 1/4 mile of the district boundary. Pollay and Briere aren’t sure if Miller Manor is within 1/4 miles of the district. [It is.] Taylor wants confirmation that Miller Manor meets the 50% AMI criterion.

10:47 p.m. Lumm is reciting the reason she’s supportive of the ordinance. It’ll mean a 55% growth in TIF for the DDA over the next three years. She thinks it would have been better to impose the cap sooner so that sharing with the other jurisdictions would have began sooner. [Lumm's voice is failing her – she sounds under the weather.]

10:48 p.m. Warpehoski says he’s violating council rules to share the amendments with the media.

10:49 p.m. Eaton says he would have preferred a lower cap and a shorter term limit, but applauds the effort of the committee. Taylor says he won’t support it. The DDA has proven itself as a reliable steward of taxpayer funding. He recites familiar arguments in support of the DDA.

10:53 p.m. Taylor says that it’s not a compromise, but rather a power play. He contends that people had been told that if they organized and spoke against it, “there would be trouble.” Taylor is visibly angry.

10:56 p.m. Kailasapathy isn’t happy with this, but will support it.

10:56 p.m. [.pdf of Briere amendment]

10:58 p.m. Teall won’t support this. Hieftje is reciting standard arguments and history of the DDA and its impact. Hieftje says it’s a compromise, disagreeing with Taylor. Hieftje wants to “get this behind us” and let the DDA get back to work.

10:59 p.m. Teall says it went way beyond clarifying language. She says Taylor was calling it like it is.

10:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the ordinance change, with dissent from Taylor and Teall.

10:59 p.m. C-1 Rezoning of Higgins property. The council is being asked to give initial approval to a standard rezoning request associated with annexation into the city. It would rezone 0.51 acres from TWP (township district) to R1A (single-family dwelling district) at 2121 Victoria Circle.

11:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning of the Higgins property.

11:00 p.m. C-2 Rezoning of Weller property. The council is being asked to give initial approval to a rezoning associated with annexation into the city. It would rezone 0.51 acres from TWP (township district) to R1A (single-family dwelling district) at 2119 Victoria Circle.

11:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval of the rezoning of the Weller property.

11:00 p.m. C-3 Rezoning of 3325 Packard. This is not a standard rezoning request. The council is being asked to give initial approval of a request that would rezone 0.27 acres from R1C (single-family zoning district) to R2A (two-family zoning district) at 3325 Packard Road. This would allow the construction of a duplex on the now-vacant property. The owner contends that constructing a duplex is economically viable but a single-family home is not. The planning commission recommended denial of the rezoning request at its Aug. 7, 2013 meeting.

11:02 p.m. Briere is reviewing the planning commission’s reasoning in recommending against the rezoning.

11:05 p.m. Lumm asks for planning manager Wendy Rampson to come to the podium to comment. The planning commission had struggled because it’s a vacant lot, Rampson says. In addition, it’s a corner lot. It’s an established single-family neighborhood, she notes, and the planning commission is always hesitant to approve a spot zoning. The owner hasn’t been able to garner support from an entire blockface of owners who would join in a request.

11:06 p.m. Kunselman praises the planning commission for following the master plan. He talks about the difficulty of redeveloping vacant lots in the eastern part of the city. Hieftje says that he understands the planning commission’s decision.

11:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to reject initial approval of the Packard Road rezoning request.

11:07 p.m. C-4 Repeal of crosswalk law. This is the initial consideration of a change to the ordinance on non-signalized crosswalks. The city’s ordinance differs from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists explicitly to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk.

The proposal the council is considering would change the law so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. The ordinance would be further changed so that only pedestrians within crosswalks (not necessarily those standing at the curb) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

11:08 p.m. Briere ventures that there was a time when there were no questions at first readings of ordinance changes. That time has passed, she says. She wants to know if traffic engineers participate in approving ordinance language.

11:12 p.m. Powers says no, that’s the council’s job. Traffic engineers provide input into the language, but an ordinance doesn’t require traffic engineer approval, Powers says. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy confirms for Briere that a traffic engineer would evaluate how the policy choices would be applied. Hupy says that if the ordinance is repealed, signage would have to be changed from “stop” to “yield.” Cost of that would be $14,000, Hupy estimates.

11:16 p.m. Briere is asking for data on accidents before the council’s previous ordinance change and after that change. Hupy says that some of the data can be shown by hour of the day.

11:19 p.m. Petersen says it’s been a very emotional topic for her. She and Kailasapathy had met with WBWC representatives to learn about the impetus for the previous change back in 2010 and 2011. Petersen says that the approach of “increasing pedestrian rights” just hasn’t worked. From 2009 to 2012 pedestrian crashes rose 42%. For a five-year period prior to that, there was a decrease. She contends that while you can’t say the change to the ordinance caused the increase, you could say that safety did not increase.

11:20 p.m. It’s too dangerous to tell pedestrians that “they rule,” Petersen says.

11:22 p.m. Kailasapathy says in addition to repealing the ordinance, more is needed. Infrastructure improvements are also important, including more HAWK lights, she says. The focus should be on safety, not on rights, she says.

11:24 p.m. Lumm says that she, Petersen and Kailasapathy had begun working with staff several weeks ago. She thanks staff. She says that Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique and this would return our local law to conform with the UTC. She contends that the local ordinance is not consistent with our local signage. She says “pedestrians rule” is a mindset that is dangerous.

11:26 p.m. Warpehoski has questions for staff. He asks Hupy about the RFB and HAWK implementations and why a regular stoplight isn’t simply installed. Hupy says that a traffic signal has to meet a “warrant” – a standard that would allow it to be installed. He can’t say that the mid-block locations would or wouldn’t meet that standard.

11:30 p.m. Warpehoski asks AAPD chief John Seto if he thinks that changing the ordinance will affect pedestrian safety in Ann Arbor. Seto says that he can’t say. Warpehoski gives examples of enforcement techniques used in Florida, using plainclothes policeman, cone placement, etc. He asks Seto if that type of enforcement action would be possible, if the ordinance were changed. Seto says that would be challenging, because the pedestrian would need to be in the roadway. Warpehoski says the technique for enforcement was in fact to have the pedestrian step into the roadway. It could be done, Seto says, setting aside staffing constraints.

11:32 p.m. Warpehoski gets clarification that under the UTC if there’s enough time for a motorist to stop, then it’s legal for a pedestrian to step into the roadway.

11:33 p.m. Assistant city attorney Bob West confirms Warpehoski’s understanding. Warpehoski wants to know what the responsibility is for motorists in multi-lane situations. West says vehicles traveling in the same direction of travel have the same responsibility.

11:34 p.m. West says the intent is not to make pedestrians say, “I can make these guys stop.” Pedestrians have more to lose, West says.

11:36 p.m. Warpehoski asks Seto and West how confident they’d been in making citations and making them stick. They’re comfortable.

11:41 p.m. Kunselman picks up on Lumm’s idea that Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. He’s asked for other examples. He says pedestrian advocates in Ann Arbor contend that Traverse City interprets the UTC to mean that “within a crosswalk” includes the curb. But Kunselman says the vehicle code defines the crosswalk is measured between the curbs. He says that by doing something different, it’s causing confusion. How could Traverse City possibly be giving the UTC the claimed interpretation? asks Kunselman. Seto doesn’t know. Seto said the Traverse City police chief’s response to his question was to provide the ordinance language. Kunselman wants to know if the UTC can be enforced as meaning “at the curb” – the same intent that’s explicit in the ordinance. West doesn’t think so.

11:43 p.m. Hieftje encourages councilmembers to wrap up this item by pointing out that there’s a lot of items left and this is just the first reading. Anglin invites councilmembers to ask themselves how often they’ve come close to hitting a pedestrian.

11:44 p.m. Taylor notes the asymmetry between the claim that the ordinance is so powerful that it causes pedestrians to step in front of cars, yet is not powerful enough to compel a motorist to do what they should do in any case: Yield to pedestrians at a curb at a crosswalk.

11:45 p.m. Taylor also notes the increases in pedestrian accidents in other cities, which had nothing to do with Ann Arbor’s ordinance.

11:46 p.m. Hieftje echoes Taylor’s sentiments and says he also won’t support this, even on first reading.

11:47 p.m. Lumm reads aloud a message she’s received from a resident who complains that they have had to slam on their brakes for pedestrians who are crossing against the light. [The ordinance in question actually applies to non-signalized crosswalks.]

11:50 p.m. Kunselman says that it’s more important to install HAWK and RFBs. He also wants to add FTEs to the police department so there can be more traffic enforcement. AAPD is dramatically down and can’t enforce basic traffic law, he says. He questions why the law should be different in Ann Arbor.

11:52 p.m. Petersen says she wants to share a voicemail relating an anecdote that demonstrates support for her point of view.

11:55 p.m. Teall weighs in in favor of the existing ordinance.

11:58 p.m. Warpehoski points out that if the car can stop or yield, then the UTC says that a pedestrian can step into the crosswalk. Warpehoski refutes Kunselman’s contention that Ann Arbor is unique, by citing Boulder’s ordinance, with includes “approaching” not just “within” a crosswalk. He also cites Seattle’s definition of crosswalk, which extends to the farthest sidewalk line, which would include the curb.

12:00 a.m. Warpehoski confronts Kunselman’s characterization of the existing ordinance as a “pedestrian convenience” ordinance by reflecting on the recommendations in the FHA guide.

12:02 a.m. Warpehoski says he’ll vote for it on first reading, and will ask for postponement at second reading until after the pedestrian task force [yet to be established] can make a recommendation.

12:02 a.m. Eaton says he’ll vote for it at first reading. He thinks the correct forum for this kind of revision is the state legislature.

12:03 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to give initial approval to the repeal of the crosswalk law. Dissent came from Taylor, Teall and Hieftje.

12:04 a.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

12:18 a.m. We’re back.

12:18 a.m. DC-2 Ethics: Professional standards of conduct. This resolution, sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 2), would direct an educational effort for local officials on conflict-of-interest and ethics issues. It was postponed from Nov. 7 when Petersen herself moved immediately to postpone consideration of the resolution, due to the very heavy agenda that night.

The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute. It also directs the council’s rules committee to adapt Public Act 196 of 1973 to define standards for councilmember conduct.

12:20 a.m. Hieftje jokes that everyone should agree to this and just vote. Petersen thanks A2 Ethics for their work. She says the resolution is not really about an ethics policy. This is a first step in the conversation. Issues of conflict of interest are “top of mind” for the community, she says. She wants everyone to be on an even playing field, and that’s why there’s an educational effort.

12:21 a.m. Petersen responds to the question of what the problem is – she says there doesn’t need to be a problem that needs solving in order to start towards working along these lines.

12:23 a.m. Briere says she was the one who’d asked what the problem was to be solved. Briere says there’s a “perception” that there might be conflict of interest and there could be a need to address that. She is not comfortable with trying to apply Act 196 because it doesn’t get at the issue of undue influence.

12:25 a.m. Eaton says he’s an enthusiastic supporter of exploring this issue. He thinks that standards should be established so that councilmembers have a clear measure by which to guide their conduct. He’s also, like Briere, concerned about inclusion of Act 196 because it deals with premature disclosure of information.

12:26 a.m. Warpehoski says he wants to amend the resolution by naming the sections of Act 196 as an example of a resource that can be drawn upon, among others. That’s considered friendly by Petersen. [.pdf of Warpehoski's ethics amendments]

12:30 a.m. Teall says she thinks it’s a good idea, but has concerns about the practical implementation. She wonders how much burden that will be on the city attorney’s staff. City attorney Stephen Postema says it’s just another assignment. Lumm is indicating support for the resolution. It’s important that people have confidence in their elected officials.

12:31 a.m. Kunselman thanks Petersen for her work. He asks if anyone wants to trade positions with him on the rules committee – as he’s currently on that committee. It’s all about learning, he says.

12:31 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the ethics resolution.

12:31 a.m. DC-3 Pedestrian safety task force. The substitute version of the resolution that was brought forward would establish a 9-member task force that would deliver a report by February 2015. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

This item was postponed from the council’s Nov. 7, 2013 meeting amid concerns about the required budget to provide staff support. So the substitute resolution in part addresses the concern about budget by adding some items to the proposed group’s tasks, including addressing sidewalk gaps and creating a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps. That would conceivably allow the group to tap some of the $75,000 the council allocated this spring in a FY 2014 budget amendment for the prioritization of sidewalks gaps to be eliminated. The timeframe for membership application has shifted in the possible substitute resolution to Dec. 2, with the appointments to be made at the Dec. 16 council meeting. [.pdf of substitute pedestrian task force resolution]

12:36 a.m. Briere is introducing the resolution. The problem is engineering, enforcement and education, she says. It’s going to cost time, energy and budgetary wherewithal, she says. Drivers will resent getting a ticket, she says. She’s relating her views about bicyclists, drivers and pedestrians. She talks about meetings she’s had with UM officials and DDA officials. Briere says that this issue is also about sidewalk gaps. So sidewalk gaps have been added to the mission of the task force, she says. She wants the council to move forward on this.

12:41 a.m. Eaton says he won’t support it because this task should be taken up by an existing body – the Ann Arbor Public Schools transportation committee.

Kunselman says he supports pedestrian safety. He’s talking about the fact that there are no jaywalking laws. He says that it’s also legal to ride a bike on a sidewalk, which he does because he feels safer there. “Cars are bigger than I am. Cars can kill me.” He says that maybe pedestrians have been pampered by the city making them think that cars will stop just by standing by the side of the road. He wants people to understand that it’s dangerous out there, and to have a sense of risk. He wants the task force to focus on that aspect of education – understanding the sense of risk. He’s supporting the task force. Teall tells Kunselman that it’s not true that he’s safer riding on the sidewalk.

12:42 a.m. Anglin seems to be echoing Eaton’s point about having the transportation safety committee handle the task. He wants there to be a broader conversation with the schools and the University of Michigan.

12:45 a.m. Warpehoski responds to Anglin’s idea that the task force should cast a wide net by pointing out how the resolution names the various interested groups. He notes that the AAPS transportation safety committee does not have UM representation. He says that he’s become something of an evangelist for the FHA manual on how to develop a pedestrian safety strategy. He ticks through some examples from the manual. It’s an opportunity to step back from the controversy of the crosswalk ordinance, he says.

12:51 a.m. Warpehoski proposes an amendment that the pedestrian task force make its recommendation for an ordinance change by the first meeting in October 2014. His plan is to put off the final vote on the crosswalk ordinance until after that. He says if councilmembers won’t support putting off the ordinance change, they shouldn’t vote for this amendment. Outcome: The amendment fails, getting support only from Warpehoski, Briere, Taylor, Teall, and Hieftje.

12:53 a.m. Kunselman says he wonders how the city will be working with UM, if the city’s crosswalk ordinance language is different from the university’s rule. Briere says that as long as Kunselman has announced how he’s going to vote on rescinding the ordinance and assuming everyone else on the council does the same, the city’s ordinance would be reverting to the UTC, which has the same language as the UM rule.

12:58 a.m. Lumm ask if the sponsors would be willing to put this off until some additional questions can be answered. She doesn’t disagree with the underlying premise. Briere asks Hupy to the podium to respond to Lumm’s concern about what the staff’s plan would be. Hupy says that staff has not figured out completely how to move this resolution along with the sidewalk gap process. Briere wants to know how long it would take to pull together that information. Middle of December, says Hupy. Briere asks if that’s a conflict with the appointment schedule of the task force. Hupy says that’s up to the council.

1:06 a.m. Briere says she is struggling to find a rational reason to postpone this. She doesn’t want to put this on the back burner for another construction season. Hupy says he’s not sure that a postponement would have a dramatic negative impact. Briere cites the numerous emails that she’s received from people who don’t realize the city has a program for addressing sidewalk issues. Briere apologizes for making Hupy sit through a speech from her.

Christopher Taylor states: “For reasons articulated by councilmember Briere, I support the resolution.” Warpehoski quizzes Hupy about staff impact.

1:09 a.m. Kunselman says he’ll be looking at installing a flashing beacon at Easy Street and Packard Road. He wonders if at budget time next year he’ll be told he has to wait for the task force recommendation. Hupy says that at this hour he’s “brain dead enough” that he’s not sure, but he thinks that intersection is already under that consideration. Kunselman says he remembers the rubber hoses being out in the street doing traffic counts.

Petersen wants to make sure there’s no moratorium on pedestrian infrastructure. Hupy assures her that won’t be the case.

1:10 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to adopt the resolution establishing a pedestrian safety task force.

1:10 a.m. DC-4 Sale of former Y lot. The council is being presented with an agreement to sell the former Y lot – a city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor – to Dennis Dahlmann. Owner of the Campus Inn and the Bell Tower Hotel downtown, Dahlmann offered $5.25 million for the property. It had been listed at $4.2 million. The city purchased the property for $3.5 million 10 years ago and has been making interest-only payments on the property for that time. A balloon payment is due at the end of this year. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13] [For additional background, see Familiar Business: Former Y Lot Sale above.]

1:11 a.m. Powers says that thanks to the work of Colliers and the city attorney’s office, there’s a sales agreement for consideration. The rider reflects the Nov. 7 council resolution.

1:15 a.m. Warpehoski says he dislikes the idea of Dahlmann’s downtown hotel monopoly, but feels like the council should let the “best bid win.” He also looks forward to the benefit to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. [By council resolution, the net proceeds of the sale are to go to the city's affordable housing trust fund.]

Petersen says she thinks that the parcel is too small for a hotel anyway. There are other city-owned parcels where a hotel could be built. Hieftje says there are several other sites where a hotel could be built, including private property that’s owned by developers.

Kunselman says: “I am so happy this is before us.” He recalls being on the planning commission in 2004 when it had approved a plan for a hotel on the site, which didn’t get built. “I’m not in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace,” Kunselman says. It’s 10 years of history. He misses the Y building. He remembers taking swim lessons there. He calls Dahlmann a well-respected businessman in the community.

1:17 a.m. Taylor says he’ll support the sale. He’d queried his constituents and on that basis he’d come to the conclusion that he’d support it. The Key Bank building is given as an example of the kind of quality of work by Dahlmann. Taylor says he’s looking forward to getting this property back on the tax rolls. Lumm says this proposal was “head and shoulders” above the other proposals.

1:20 a.m. Lumm thanks Kunselman for kicking off this effort. Lumm recalls serving in 1993 on something called the Ann Arbor Inn task force. She echoes Kunselman’s remarks about not picking winners and losers. It’s an exciting proposal, she says. It’s going to be a “shining development” for downtown. Lumm says Dahlmann’s proposal was the only one that proposed to involve the community with the development.

1:21 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to sell the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million.

1:21 a.m. DB-1 Non-motorized plan update. The council is being asked to adopt an update to the non-motorized transportation plan. This item was postponed on Nov. 7 in deference to a request from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who indicated she had not had an opportunity to read it through as closely as she wanted.

The city’s non-motorized transportation plan is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the updated plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. It’s one of the few instances where the planning commission is not merely a recommending body. The council and the commission must adopt the same plan. [For additional background, see Delayed Business: Transportation – Non-Motorized Plan above.]

1:24 a.m. Lumm is asking Wendy Rampson, Eli Cooper and Craig Hupy at the podium to answer questions. She asks about bike boulevards. She wants an amendment to include a statement that any bike boulevard implementation plan would need to engage the neighborhood. Rampson points out that an amendment by the council would require the planning commission to reconsider the plan, because the council and the commission need to adopt the same plan. Briere asks Hupy to explain how the community engagement typically happens. If a bike boulevard were proposed, Briere ventures that the staff would have public engagement without any particular direction from the council. Hupy confirms Briere’s understanding.

1:29 a.m. Lumm says that her concern is that when you adopt a plan, the plan then gets implemented. Lumm thanks staff for answering her questions and all the work that went into developing the plan. Hearing it would have to go back to planning commission gave her pause. Warpehoski quotes out the section on bike boulevards and how the staff is supposed to engage the public. He also points out that the recommendations are in every case tentative. He doesn’t see the need to amend the plan.

Eaton points to page 39, which includes locations for rapid flashing beacons. Eaton asks what the implementation process would be. Cooper explains a process that starts with data collection. Council involvement would take place when the money was needed, Cooper says.

1:32 a.m. Hieftje asks Cooper to sketch out the process for developing the non-motorized plan update. Anglin wants clarification of the reason why planning commission would also need to approve any amendment. Rampson explains it.

1:32 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to adopt the update to the non-motorized transportation plan.

1:32 a.m. DS-1 Accept grant funds for emergency management program ($40,736). This resolution would accept a grant from the state of Michigan’s Emergency Management Division to support emergency management functions within the city. Historically, the city has used the grant to fund a portion of the emergency manager’s salary. The amount of the grant is $40,736.

1:32 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the emergency management grant funding.

1:32 a.m. DS-2 Easement: Orchard Hills water main. The next three items are related. They involve the city-university interface in the Arboretum. The first two are easements. The third item re-sets the boundary between the two entities. For this item, the council is being asked to accept an easement for a water main from the University of Michigan to cross UM-owned land in the Arboretum.

1:32 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the easement from UM in the Arb for a water main.

1:33 a.m. DS-3 Easement: Burnham House conduit. The council is being asked to grant an easement to the University of Michigan for conduit across city-owned Arboretum land.

1:33 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to grant the easement in the Arb to the UM for conduit.

1:33 a.m. DS-4 Set UM boundary line with the city. The resolution would set the boundary line in the Arboretum between the city and the university – which runs north-south along the western edge of the city-owned Arboretum property and the eastern edge of the university’s property. The boundary is now uncertain because it refers to obsolete natural features. The resolution would define the boundary as that which was determined by a survey performed by Arbor Land Consultants.

1:33 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the land survey result as defining the boundary between the city and the university in the Arb.

1:33 a.m. DS-5 Easement: water main at 2453 S. Industrial Hwy. The council is being asked to accept an easement from John E. Green Inc.

1:34 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the water main easement from John E. Green Inc.

1:36 a.m. Council communications. Briere reports about meetings she’d had about 1,4 dioxane. She’d attended a hearing in Lansing. Rep. Jeff Irwin had spoken at the hearing. It was interesting to sit in on, but she says she did not speak. She’d talked with the hearing panel, however, and told them the council and the Washtenaw County board wanted this resolved. There’d be another push in February, she ventures.

1:39 a.m. Taylor says today the council had approved a sales agreement with someone who’d contributed money to several council campaigns. He says there’s nothing wrong with that, but it was the kind of situation that some councilmembers had criticized at previous meetings.

1:39 a.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

1:44 a.m. Kai Petainen is talking about his experience with getting financial records from Ann Arbor SPARK – he’d obtained them from the attorney general’s office, as SPARK had declined to give him the financial records. He tells Eaton that the meeting lasting until nearly 2 a.m. is “initiation.”

Ed Vielmetti is addressing the council. He says the land sale [to Dennis Dahlmann] came onto the agenda at the last possible minute. At 5:11 p.m. the relevant documents were not available, he says. The public was not invited to be a part of the process. He didn’t have an opportunity to see the documents before the council voted, let alone prepare comments to share during public commentary. He then calls the council’s attention to some very old minutes from various boards and commissions that were only now attached to the city council’s agenda.

Seth Best calls the council’s attention to the fact that the transgender day of remembrance is Nov. 20.

1:45 a.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.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor online agenda management system. Image links to the Nov. 18 meeting agenda.

The Nov. 18 meeting will include ceremonial swearing in of all councilmembers who won election on Nov. 5 – including Eaton, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Three other items internal to the council organizational configuration appear on the agenda: approval of the 2014 city council rules; appointment of the 2014 city council committees; and election of mayor pro tem, as well as establishing the order of succession for acting mayor.

In recent years, the rules and the committee appointments have been put off until the first meeting in December, with only the election of mayor pro tem taking place at the second meeting in November. Higgins had served as mayor pro tem since 2008.

Speculation among some council sources indicate that Lumm could have sufficient support on the council to win election as mayor pro tem. Mayor pro tem fulfills the duties of mayor when the mayor is out of town or unable to perform those duties. The mayor pro tem’s salary is the same as other councilmembers, which is $15,913. Customarily, the order of mayoral succession has followed seniority on the council, with councilmembers who were elected in the same year sorted alphabetically.

A substantial portion of the council’s Nov. 18 agenda consists of items the council has seen at least once before – some through postponement and others by the nature of the standard approval process. In the standard-process category, the council will be asked to confirm a handful of appointments to boards and commissions that were nominated on Nov. 7.

The council will also consider giving final approval to two ordinance revisions that received initial approval at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting. One of those ordinance revisions involves changing the permitting requirements for use of public parks – so that fees would be waived for organizations that use parks to distribute goods to meet basic human needs.

A second ordinance revision that will be up for final approval on Nov. 18 is a change to the ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance capture and board governance.

Although it’s not yet on the online agenda, the council would expect to see a sales agreement for the former Y lot presented for consideration. The council had directed the city administrator to negotiate with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the land, based on his $5.25 million offer, and to present a sales agreement for approval on Nov. 18.

Several items on the Nov. 18 agenda were postponed from previous meetings. One of those was first seen on Nov. 7 – a resolution sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 2), which would direct an educational effort for local officials and the public on conflict of interest and ethics issues.

Several other items postponed from previous meetings are tied together by a transportation theme. The city council will be considering for a second time a revision to the articles of incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to admit Ypsilanti Township as a member and to increase the board membership from 9 to 10 members so that the township can appoint a member.

Postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was the adoption of an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, so the council will have a second look at that plan on Nov. 18.

Also postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was a resolution to establish a pedestrian safety task force. It’s unclear if that task force will have sufficient traction to be appointed – because it was postponed amid concerns about the budget needed to support the task force’s work. The task force sponsors, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), have indicated their intent is not to make the task force an alternative to repealing the city’s mid-block crosswalk ordinance.

The repeal of language in the crosswalk ordinance will get its first reading at the council’s Nov. 18  meeting. The ordinance could be altered so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. The ordinance would be further changed so that only pedestrians within crosswalks (not those standing at the curb) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

Also related to streets are two resolutions authorizing the closing of streets in connection with New Year’s celebrations – on New Year’s Eve for the Puck Drops Here in downtown Ann Arbor, and on New Year’s Day for the NHL’s Winter Classic hockey game at Michigan Stadium.

The agenda features a few separate resolutions on standard easements and some rezoning requests. One of those rezoning requests is not standard – and was recommended by the planning commission for denial. That’s a request for rezoning a parcel on Packard Road from single-family to two-family.

The council will also be asked to authorize the city’s participation in the Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certification Program.

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.

Familiar Business

Much of the council’s Nov. 18 agenda covers topics familiar from previous meetings – items that were moved forward as part of the standard approval process.

Familiar Business: Appointments

Nominations made on Nov. 7, which the council will be asked to confirm on Nov. 18, include Peter Greenfield to the airport advisory council replacing Wilson Tanner, and Anthony Ramirez to be reappointed to the cable communications commission.

On the housing and human services advisory board, Eleanor Pollack and Thaddeus Jabzanka are being nominated to fill the vacancies left by Ned Staebler and Anthony Ramirez, respectively.

Mohammad Issa and Linda Winkler are being nominated for reappointment to the city’s human rights commission.

Nominations to be put forward on Nov. 18 are not yet posted on the Legistar agenda.

However, those might eventually include some nominations to the local officers compensation commission (LOCC) – the group that sets the salaries for city councilmembers, including the mayor.

The city’s Legistar system shows only two members of seven-member group without expired terms – Eunice Burns and Roger Hewitt. Hewitt also serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. So the legal basis for Hewitt’s membership appears dubious in light of the prohibition against service on the LOCC for anyone who’s an employee or member of any branch of any government.

The LOCC is supposed to meet in every odd-numbered year, but has not yet met in 2013.

Familiar Business: Public Park Use Fee Waiver

The council will be giving final consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs could be conducted in city parks without incurring a fee for park use. The proposal is not restricted to downtown parks, but the idea originated from an issue that emerged in connection with Liberty Plaza, a downtown park.

The council gave initial approval to the ordinance change at its Nov. 7 meeting. All changes to city ordinances require an initial approval, followed by a final vote at a subsequent meeting.

The recommendation for the ordinance change came from the city’s park advisory commission at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting. This broader policy change comes three months after the Ann Arbor city council waived all rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, based on a PAC recommendation. That city council action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

The Liberty Plaza fee waiver was approved in response to a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when the city staff considered applying fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church. The proposal recommended by PAC on Sept. 17, and now on the council’s Nov. 18 agenda, would amend Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language]

The ordinance change would provide permanent fee waiver for this specific purpose – the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – but it would still require that organizations get a permit to use the park, and follow permitting procedures, including clean-up obligations.

Familiar Business: DDA TIF, Governance

A second ordinance revision that will be up for final approval at the Nov. 18 meeting is a change to the ordinance (Chapter 7) regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance capture and its board governance.

The outcome of deliberations at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting was to table a version of the Chapter 7 changes that had been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013.

The council then gave initial approval on Nov. 7 to a different version of the Chapter 7 changes. Those recommendations came from a committee of DDA board members and city councilmembers that has met four times since Aug. 26, most recently on Oct. 30. That committee was established at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting – after the first version achieved initial approval at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. Representing the council on the joint committee were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Representing the DDA were Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel and Joan Lowenstein.

The committee’s version of the Chapter 7 ordinance change would allow for several million dollars in additional TIF capture by the DDA, compared to the tabled version. The version in front of the council on Nov. 18 would set a cap on DDA TIF revenue that would not apply at all until FY 2017 and would result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year. It would mean an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions.

That amount would be proportionally divided among the taxing jurisdictions, which together levy roughly 27.5 mills of taxes in the DDA district. Proportionally, that translates to: city of Ann Arbor (60%), Washtenaw County (21%), Washtenaw Community College (13%), and Ann Arbor District Library (6%).

The $300,000 total to be divided by the other taxing jurisdictions in FY 2017 compares to roughly $2 million that would be divided among them under the tabled version of the Chapter 7 revision. The tabled version essentially clarifies the enforcement of existing language in the ordinance. In both versions – assuming that new construction in the DDA district continues to take place at a healthy pace – taxing jurisdictions would continue to receive additional funds into the future after FY 2017.

The city’s share of the estimated $300,000 in excess TIF in FY 2017 would be about $180,000. But that would be distributed proportionally across the city’s funds based on the levy associated with the fund. For example, out of the $180,000, the general fund would get about $65,000. That compares to $430,000 that the city’s general fund would receive based on the tabled Chapter 7 approach.

Although the committee did not put forth a recommendation on governance, the tabled version included various provisions on changes to governance. Those governance revisions included: (1) a two-term limit for service on the DDA board; (2) a prohibition against elected officials, other than the mayor, serving on the DDA board; and (3) service of the mayor on the board (a possibility explicitly provided in the DDA state enabling legislation) subject to annual approval by the city council. If the council did not approve the mayor’s service on the DDA board in a given year, then that spot would go to the city administrator, according to the tabled version.

On Nov. 7, after debating the issue, the council amended the new version to include a limitation on terms. The version that’s up for final consideration on Nov. 18 would impose a limit of three four-year terms, with additional terms possible only after a four-year lapse.

On Nov. 7, during deliberations, the council also added a requirement that the DDA budget at least $300,000 each year for affordable housing projects, with “affordable” defined as targeting residents with 50% average median income (AMI).

Familiar Business: Former Y Lot Sale

Although it’s not yet on the online agenda, the council will expect to see a sales agreement for the former Y lot presented for their consideration. The council voted on Nov. 7 to direct the city administrator to negotiate with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the land and to present a sales agreement for approval on Nov. 18.

Former Y lot from the northwest corner of William and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, looking northwest. In the background, the new Blake Transit Center is under construction. The photo dates from mid-October 2013.

The Nov. 7 resolution had been added to the agenda on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013. It directed city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dahlmann for the purchase of the city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. Dahlmann has offered $5.25 million for the property, known as the Y lot. It had been listed at $4.2 million. The city purchased the property for $3.5 million 10 years ago and has been making interest-only payments on the property for that time. A balloon payment is due at the end of this year. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

The original resolution directed the inclusion of a provision to ensure eventual development of the site. But during the Nov. 7 deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) put forward amendments that were far more detailed about how protection against non-development was to be achieved. Those amendments were adopted by the council as part of the direction to the administrator. [.pdf of Taylor's amendments.]

Taylor’s amendments included a minimum 400% floor area ratio (FAR) including mixed use on the bottom floor, office space on the mid-floors and residential on the top floors. The deadline for building something is January 2018. There’s a prohibition against sale to another third party except that the city has a right of first refusal. The amendments also gave direction on requirements for energy efficiency and a required conversation with the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, which operates the Blake Transit Center next door to the parcel.

If negotiations with Dahlmann are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). CA Ventures had increased its offer to $5.35 million – but that increased amount was received after the deadline for offers, which was firm and clearly communicated to bidders, according to the city’s broker.

The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale. [.pdf of summary page by Chaconas]

If the sale is not completed by the end of the year when the balloon payment is due, the Bank of Ann Arbor would, according to city sources, maintain the existing interest rate on the loan (3.89%) and extend it for up to a year to allow for the city to finalize a sale.

Delayed Business

Several items on the Nov. 18 agenda were postponed from previous meetings.

Delayed Business: Ethics

First considered by the council on Nov. 7 was a resolution sponsored by Sally Petersen (Ward 2), which would direct an educational effort for local officials on conflict of interest and ethics issues. On Nov. 7 Petersen herself moved immediately to postpone consideration of the resolution, due to the very heavy agenda that night.

The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute.

A final “resolved” clause directs the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor. The final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard that’s recommended by the council rules committee and it’s strictly followed – would end any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government.

Delayed Business: Transportation – AAATA

Several other items postponed from previous meetings are tied together by a transportation theme.

The city council will be considering for a second time a revision to the articles of incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to admit Ypsilanti Township as a member and to increase the board membership from 9 to 10 members so that the township can appoint a member. The council had postponed the action at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting.

Ypsilanti Township hopes to become a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. (Solid green indicates the geographic area included by the AAATA.)

The vote to postpone was 8-3 with dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board already approved the membership of Ypsilanti Township. That action was contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

An earlier expansion in membership was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The name of the authority was also changed at that time to add the word “area” – making it the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. [Amendment 3 of the AAATA articles of incorporation]

The expansion of the AAATA’s geographic footprint to include some jurisdictions geographically close to the city of Ann Arbor – and with whom the AAATA has historically had purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) – would set the stage for a possible request of voters in the expanded geographic area to approve additional transportation funding to pay for increased service frequencies and times.

The AAATA could place a millage request on the ballot in May 2014, probably at the level of 0.7 mills, to support a 5-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed. A schedule of public meetings to introduce that plan runs through mid-November.

Delayed Business: Transportation – Non-Motorized Plan

Postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was the adoption of an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. So the council will have a second look at that plan on Nov. 18. The postponement on Nov. 7 came in deference to a request from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who indicated she had not had an opportunity to read it through as closely as she wanted.

The city’s non-motorized transportation plan is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the updated plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update] With respect to the adoption of the master plan, the council and the planning commission are on equal footing. That is, they must adopt the same plan. So in this case, the commission is not merely the recommending body.

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

The update will be an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

Examples of planning and policy issues include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.” Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands. Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

Delayed Business: Transportation – Pedestrian Safety Task Force

Also postponed at the Nov. 7 meeting was a resolution to establish a pedestrian safety task force. So that will again be before the council for consideration on Nov. 18. It’s unclear if that task force will have sufficient traction to be appointed – because it was postponed amid concerns about the budget needed to support the task force’s work. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy described the staff and other support for the task force as costing on the order of $100,000. [.pdf of Nov. 7 memo on pedestrian safety]

The pedestrian safety task force would consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.” Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application] The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting.

The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The task force sponsors, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), have indicated their intent is not to make the task force an alternative to repealing the city’s mid-block crosswalk ordinance.

New Business: Crosswalk Ordinance

One piece of transportation business that’s new before the council on Nov. 18 is the repeal of language in the city crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk.

The proposal the council will be asked to consider would change the law so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. The ordinance would be further changed so that only pedestrians within crosswalks (not those standing at the curb) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

New Year’s Events

Also related to streets are two resolutions authorizing the closing of streets in connection with New Year’s celebrations – on New Year’s Eve for the Puck Drops Here, and on New Year’s Day for the NHL’s Winter Classic Hockey Game at Michigan Stadium.

The Ann Arbor city council will be asked on Nov. 18 to authorize the closing of public streets in connection with those New Year’s festivities.

New Year’s Events: Puck Drop

In connection with the NHL Winter Classic Game to be played on New Year’s Day, the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is hosting a New Year’s Eve event called The Puck Drops Here, which will mimic the dropping of the lighted ball in Times Square, but with a 6-foot diameter lighted “puck” that is being fabricated by METAL.

Puck Drops Here street closures.

The name of the event is a play on words. In the game of ice hockey, the start of action is marked with an official dropping of the puck between two opposing players – the puck drop. It’s similar to the tip-off in basketball. The name of the event also plays on the expression popularized by U.S. President Harry Truman: “The buck stops here.”

The requested action from the council includes street closures downtown along Main Street all day on New Year’s Eve.

Specifically, the council will be asked to authorize street closures from 8 a.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2013 to 6 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The actual event runs from 8 p.m. until 12:30 a.m.

Streets to be closed include:

• S. Main from E. William to Huron
• Liberty Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)
• Washington Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)

Musical entertainment will feature Michelle Chamuel, who placed second in the most recent edition of the TV vocal competition “The Voice.” She lived in Ann Arbor for a time earlier in her musical career.

New Year’s Events: NHL Winter Classic

The Winter Classic is an NHL hockey game between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014.

UM football game day street closures (pink) with detour route (purple). These same street closures will be in effect on Jan. 1 for the NHL Winter Classic.

The game will be played outdoors at the University of Michigan football stadium. Game start time is currently listed on the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau as 1 p.m. The back-up date, in case of inclement weather, is Jan. 2.

The resolution that the Ann Arbor city council will be asked to consider on Nov. 18 will implement many of the conditions that apply during University of Michigan home football games. For example, the newly implemented street closures for home football games would also be authorized for the Winter Classic:

• E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets, limiting access to parking permit holders on Greene Street from E. Hoover to Keech streets
• The westbound right turn lane on E. Stadium Boulevard (onto S. Main Street) just south of the Michigan Stadium
• S. Main Street closed to both local and through traffic from Stadium Boulevard to Pauline

Those closures would be effective three hours before the game and last until the end of the game – with the exception of southbound S. Main Street, which would be closed beginning one hour before the game until the end of the game.

The council will also be asked to invalidate peddler/solicitor permits and sidewalk occupancy permits in the following areas:

• S. State Street from E. Hoover Street to the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks
• Along the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks from S. State Street to the viaduct on W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from the viaduct to S. Main Street
• S. Main Street from W. Stadium Boulevard to Hill Street
• Hill Street from S. Main Street to S. Division Street
• S. Division Street from Hill Street to E. Hoover Street
• E. Hoover Street from S. Division Street to S. State Street
• S. Main Street from Scio Church Road to W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from S. Main Street to Prescott Avenue

The council will be asked to authorize a special temporary outdoor sales area so that the owners of commercially and office-zoned property fronting on the following streets could use their private yard areas for outdoor sales and display:

• West side of S. Main Street between Stadium Blvd. and Hoover Street
• East side of S. Main Street from 1011 S. Main to Hoover Street
• North side of Hoover Street between S. Main and S. State streets
• North side of W. Stadium Blvd. between S. Main and S. State streets

The council would also be asked to designate the Winter Classic game as a date on which the usual front open space parking prohibition does not apply. So residents who customarily offer their lawns for home football game parking would be able to do so for the Winter Classic as well.

At the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board, executive director Susan Pollay described for the board how the DDA plans to charge public parking on New Year’s Day – a time when parking would ordinarily be free. That would allow the DDA to take reservations in advance, using the same strategy it uses for art fairs parking in the summer.

The Ann Arbor DDA manages the city’s public parking system under contract with the city, and has the ability to set rates under that contract. There’s a clause in the contract that requires public notice and input for long-term rate increases, but not for one-off changes.

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!

Leading to the decision to postpone were concerns about the budget that would need to be approved in order to provide the necessary staff support for the task force. The vote to postpone was unanimous.

The pedestrian safety and access task force would consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.” Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application] The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting.

The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had announced at the council’s Oct. 21 meeting that they’d be bringing forward the proposal to establish a pedestrian safety task force. At the Oct. 21 meeting, Warpehoski stated that the effort was not meant as an alternative to the efforts that other councilmembers are making to bring forward a repeal of the city’s pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk.

The resolution establishing the task force acknowledges that many residents are concerned that current city policies create an unsafe environment for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

Some of the recent community conversation has included the fact that traffic crashes involving a pedestrian have shown an increase in the last two years, the period during which Ann Arbor adopted its local ordinance that requires more of motorists than the UTC. The charts below are by The Chronicle using data from Michigan Traffic Crash Facts.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: Ann Arbor

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG region.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG Region by County

Pedestrian Crashes by Year: Washtenaw County Outside Ann Arbor

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.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber, installed in the summer of 2013, includes Braille.

The Thursday meeting, shifted from its usual Monday slot due to the Tuesday elections, is the last one with the current composition of the 11-member council. The outcome of Tuesday’s elections left all incumbents in place except for Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), whose departure was decided in the August Democratic primary. Ward 4 primary winner Jack Eaton will be the single new face on the council at its Nov. 18 meeting. At the Nov. 7 meeting, Higgins will likely receive a customary parting gift from her colleagues, to acknowledge her 14 years of service on the council.

The agenda is relatively heavy, featuring at least 34 voting items. This preview includes a more detailed explanation of several of those items, but first provides a thematic overview.

The city’s downtown factors prominently on the agenda in at least three ways. The city council will be asked to consider passing a resolution to direct the city administrator to negotiate a sales agreement for the city-owned property along William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues, known as the old Y lot. The council will also be considering a revision to the city ordinance regulating the tax increment finance (TIF) capture of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That’s been on the agenda since February, but now a committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has put forth a competing recommendation, which will also be on the Nov. 7 agenda.

Also related to downtown, the council will be formally accepting a report completed by the city’s park advisory commission with recommendations related to downtown parks.

Non-motorized issues also factor prominently as a theme of the Nov. 7 agenda. In addition to an update of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, the council will consider establishing a pedestrian safety task force. The council’s agenda also includes the first of a series of resolutions for two separate sidewalk projects – one on Stone School Road and another on Scio Church Road. The council’s resolutions for those projects, directing the design work and detailed cost estimates, are the first actions necessary for some of the funding of the sidewalks to be special assessed to the adjacent property owners.

An additional project related to non-motorized issues, but not obviously so, is a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to resurface a portion of Huron Street from Main Street westward as Huron becomes Jackson Avenue on to I-94, as well as a section of South Maple. The intent is to re-stripe the roadway, reducing the lanes from four to three and adding bicycle lanes.

The sidewalk and street projects are among several capital improvement-related items on the agenda, including one that would help stabilize the earthen berm adjacent to Barton Dam. The council will also be considering a half dozen resolutions that will authorize applying for state grants that could fund capital asset projects for the city.

In addition to the items related to the city’s physical infrastructure, the council has several items that could be described as relating to the city’s social infrastructure. Those items relate to grants from the state and federal government to the 15th District Court for several of its specialty courts that focus on drug offenses, domestic violence, and veterans issues. The council will also be asked to approve a modified continuation of its coordinated funding approach to human services.

The agenda includes some council initiatives announced at the council’s previous meeting on Oct. 21. One of those is a resolution requesting that the University of Michigan decommission a recently constructed digital billboard near the football stadium.

Another one is a resolution directing the education of city officials on professional conduct. Related tangentially to those ethical considerations are the approvals of new bylaws for two of the city’s boards and commissions – the planning commission and the design review board.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings Thursday evening on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

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.

Downtown

The agenda includes several items related to the downtown area.

Downtown: DDA Ordinance

On the Nov. 7 agenda are now two possible revisions to the city’s ordinance regarding how the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s TIF capture is regulated (Chapter 7). The first version has been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013.

The second version is the result of recommendations by a committee of DDA board members and city councilmembers that has met four times since Aug. 26, most recently on Oct. 30. That committee was established at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting – after the first version achieved initial approval at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. Representing the council on the joint committee are Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Representing the DDA are Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel and Joan Lowenstein.

A range of possible parliamentary mechanisms are available to the council for handling the two competing versions of the ordinance amendment. One approach would be to put off deciding between the two versions at the Nov. 7 meeting – by postponing the first version and giving the second version an initial approval. That could move the debate to the council’s Nov. 18 meeting – after the new composition of the city council is seated.

Another parliamentary approach on Nov. 7 could be to amend the first version through substitution of the second. Or the council could vote down the first version and consider the second version. The council could also vote to give the first version final approval and not consider the second version when it’s reached on the agenda. The first version appears first on the agenda – but that order could be re-arranged at the start of the meeting.

The first version, which is in front of the council for final approval, would clarify the existing language of the ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF capture in a way that would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction on TIF revenue. The restriction that’s already expressed in the ordinance language is defined by reference to the amount of growth in taxable value in the DDA district that’s anticipated in the DDA’s TIF plan – a foundational document of the DDA. When those restrictions are applied to the DDA’s TIF revenue, then the amount of TIF received by the DDA would be roughly $4 million in FY 2015. By way of comparison, in the current fiscal year (FY 2014), under its preferred interpretation, the DDA looks to capture approximately $4.5 million of the taxes levied by other jurisdictions.

Under the first version revision, that roughly $0.5 million difference would be proportionally divided among the taxing jurisdictions, which together levy roughly 27.5 mills of taxes in the DDA district. Proportionally, that translates to: city of Ann Arbor (60%), Washtenaw County (21%), Washtenaw Community College (13%), and Ann Arbor District Library (6%). So out of a $500,000 return to other taxing jurisdictions, the city of Ann Arbor would receive $300,000. However, that $300,000 would be distributed proportionally to the funds generating Ann Arbor’s levy. Part of Ann Arbor’s levy is a transportation tax that is passed through to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. So of the $300,000 that would be returned to the city, about $40,000 of it would be passed through to the AAATA.

However, the total amount that would be returned on the first version revision is projected to rise each year from that roughly $0.5 million, to somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million in FY 2017 based on projects in the downtown under construction and in the approval process.

The second version, proposed by the committee, would set a cap on DDA TIF revenue that would not apply at all until FY 2017 and would result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year, with an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions. The city’s portion of that would be roughly $180,000, distributed proportionally across all its funds that get income from a captured levy, including the general fund.

Another major difference between the first version and the committee-recommended version of the Chapter 7 ordinance change is that the first version includes revisions to governance of the DDA, which the committee-recommended version omits. Those governance revisions include (1) a two-term limit for service on the DDA board; (2) a prohibition against elected officials, other than the mayor, serving on the DDA board; and (3) service of the mayor on the board (a possibility explicitly provided in the DDA state enabling legislation) subject to annual approval by the city council. If the council did not approve the mayor’s service on the DDA board in a given year, then that spot would go to the city administrator.

Downtown: Y Lot Sale

A resolution added to the agenda on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013 would direct city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the purchase of the city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. Dahlmann has offered $5.25 million for the property, known as the Y lot. It had been listed at $4.2 million. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

If those negotiations are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). City sources report that city administrator Steve Powers won’t be altering his recommendation to negotiate first with Dahlmann, despite the CA Ventures increase of its offer to $5.35 million – because that increased amount was received after the deadline for offers, which was firm and clearly communicated to bidders. The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. [.pdf of summary page by broker Jim Chaconas]

The memo accompanying the Nov. 7 resolution states:

The offers from Dennis Dahlmann and CA Ventures are the strongest (cash, no contingencies, sales agreement, close in 2013) of the five proposals. Differences between the two offers are slight, but may be significant to city council. Dahlmann is proposing a purchase price of $5,250,000. CA Ventures is proposing $5,150,000. Dahlmann is proposing to build to less than the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning. CA Ventures’ offer assumes the ability to build to the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning.

The Nov. 7 resolution directs the city administrator to provide a purchase agreement for the property for the council’s consideration at its Nov. 18 meeting. That purchase agreement is supposed to include protections against the property not being developed.

While the council’s Nov. 7 meeting follows the Nov. 5 city council elections, the Nov. 18 meeting is the first meeting of the newly constituted council. There will be only one new councilmember – Jack Eaton, who defeated incumbent Marcia Higgins in the August Ward 4 Democratic primary. The Nov. 7 resolution is sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale, as the city faces a $3.5 million balloon payment this year from the purchase loan it holds on that property. The city has owned the land for a decade.

If the sale is not completed by the end of the year when the balloon payment is due, the Bank of Ann Arbor would, according to city sources, maintain the existing interest rate on the loan (3.89%) and extend it for up to a year to allow for the city to finalize a sale.

Downtown: Parks

A subcommittee of the park advisory commission (PAC) has been meeting since early 2013 to explore the possibilities for a new downtown park. The subcommittee delivered its recommendations at the Oct. 15, 2013 meeting of PAC. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report] On Nov. 7, the city council will be asked to formally accept the subcommittee’s report.

Ingrid Ault chaired the subcommittee, which also included Julie Grand, Alan Jackson and Karen Levin. The subcommittee’s work is also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project.

The subcommittee’s work was guided by this mission statement:

To determine whether and what additional parks are wanted and/or needed in downtown Ann Arbor, focusing on city-owned parcels in the DDA district while maintaining awareness of additional nearby properties, for example: Liberty Plaza, 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington. The “deliverable” will be a set of recommendations for the City Council.

The eight recommendations are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process. The AADL board and staff discussed this recommendation at their Oct. 21, 2013 meeting.

Downtown – and Citywide: Park Fee Waiver

The council will be giving initial consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs could be conducted in city parks without incurring a fee for park use. The proposal is not restricted to downtown parks, but the idea originated from an issue that emerged in connection with Liberty Plaza, which is a downtown park.

The recommendation for the ordinance change came from the city’s park advisory commission at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting. This broader policy change comes three months after the Ann Arbor city council waived all rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, based on a PAC recommendation. That city council action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

The Liberty Plaza fee waiver was approved in response to a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when the city staff considered applying fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church. The proposal recommended by PAC on Sept. 17, and on the council’s Nov. 7 agenda, would amend Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language]

It would be a permanent fee waiver for this specific purpose – the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – but it would still require that organizations get a permit to use the park, and follow permitting procedures, including clean up obligations.

Non-Motorized Issues

Several items on the council’s Nov. 7 agenda relate to non-motorized issues.

Non-Motorized Issues: Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Update

The council is being asked to adopt an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, which is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

The update will be an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

Examples of planning and policy issues include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.” Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands. Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

Non-Motorized Issues: Pedestrian Safety

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) announced at the council’s Oct. 21 meeting that they’d be bringing forward a proposal to establish a pedestrian safety task force. At the Oct. 21 meeting, Warpehoski stated that the effort was not meant as an alternative to the efforts that other councilmembers are making to bring forward a repeal of the city’s pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk. The resolution establishing the task force acknowledges that many residents are concerned that current city policies create an unsafe environment for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

The pedestrian safety and access task force would consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.” Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application] The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting.

The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

Some of the recent community conversation has included the fact that traffic crashes involving a pedestrian have shown an increase in the last two years, the period during which Ann Arbor adopted its local ordinance that requires more of motorists than the UTC. The charts below are by The Chronicle using data from Michigan Traffic Crash Facts.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: Ann Arbor

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG region.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG Region by County

Pedestrian Crashes by Year: Washtenaw County Outside Ann Arbor

Capital Projects

The Nov. 7 city council agenda includes a number of resolutions involving capital projects and expenses, some of which relate to non-motorized issues.

Capital Projects: I-94 Business Loop ($301,600)

This project would resurface the section of Huron Street from Main Street westward as Huron becomes Jackson Avenue on to I-94. The project will include a re-striping to reduce the number of lanes from four to three and add bicycle lanes. An agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is required because the city must contribute 12.5% of the funding for the resurfacing. That accounts for $198,700. Additional funding is needed to pay for the resurfacing of the portion of South Maple Road, as part of the project. South Maple is a city-owned street. MDOT has agreed to include the South Maple resurfacing as part of the project, but it will be funded by the city of Ann Arbor for $102,900.

Capital Projects: Stone School Road Sidewalk

On the council’s agenda is the first of a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Stone School Road for constructing sidewalks, curbs and gutters as part of a road reconstruction project. The resolution simply directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed.

Capital Projects: Scio Church Sidewalk

Also on the council’s agenda is the first in a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Scio Church, west of Seventh Street, for constructing a sidewalk there to eliminate a gap. The resolution directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed. The Scio Church resolution appropriates $35,000 for the design work. [For Chronicle coverage of a neighborhood meeting on the Scio Church sidewalk, see "Sidewalks: Build, Repair, Shovel"]

Capital Projects: Barton Dam Repair

The council will be asked to approve a contract with Catskill Remedial Contracting Services Inc. to install a “drainage blanket” for the earthen berm adjoining Barton Dam ($123,685). A drainage blanket is a pervious but stable layer of material installed directly at the base of a structure to facilitate drainage. The installation is meant to repair a “boil” that has surfaced in the drainage ditch at the base of the right embankment at the dam. The boil has been identified as a potential cause of failure for the embankment by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – which is responsible for regulating the dam, because the dam generates electric power.

The contract is recommended to be awarded to Catskill, even though Pranam GlobalTech provided the lowest bid. The staff memo cites “substandard performance” by Pranam GlobalTech on two other city projects, which led to the disqualification of their bid. The cost of the project will be split between the water fund (as the dam creates a pond from which the city draws the majority of its drinking water) and the general fund (for the hydroelectric operations).

The council had been alerted to the need for this project earlier this year, at a Feb. 11, 2013 work session on the FY 2014 budget. From The Chronicle’s report of that session:

In addition to the concrete and steel part of the dam, a roughly 3/8-mile long earthen embankment is part of the structure that forms Barton Pond, [public services area administrator Craig] Hupy explained. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) has required the city to do some investigative work, and the city thinks there’ll be some follow-up work required when that investigative work is completed. [FERC is involved as a regulator because the Barton Dam generates electricity.]

Responding to a question from [Ward 3 councilmember Christopher] Taylor about the anticipated cost of the additional work, Hupy indicated that it would be “six figures.” The city is putting about $400,000 total in various parts of the budget for it. But until the study work is completed later this spring, the amount can’t be more precise, Hupy indicated. Because Barton is a federally controlled dam, whatever the work the city does will be what the regulator demands that the city does or doesn’t do. “Stay tuned,” Hupy told Taylor.

Capital Projects: Technical Engineering Services

The council will be asked to approve two different contracts that resulted from a bid it put out in June 2013 – for technical engineering services to support the water treatment services unit with capital, operation, and maintenance project support for the water system, dams, and hydroelectric generating stations. One of the contracts is with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. ($250,000). The other contract is with Tetra Tech of Michigan ($250,000).

Capital Projects: Ozone

The council will be asked to approve a purchase order with Ozonia for ozone generator dielectrics ($68,209). The city uses ozone in the disinfection process for its drinking water. The city is currently out of spare dielectric units, which are the components that convert oxygen gas to ozone gas. So this resolution would allow the city to have replacement parts on hand if the units fail.

Capital Projects: State Funding of Water Asset Projects

Six resolutions appear on the council’s agenda related to state legislation passed in 2012 that forms the statutory framework of the Stormwater, Asset Management and Wastewater (SAW) program – a grant program. The legislation funds grants and loans for what the staff memo accompanying the resolutions describes as “funding for grants and loans for asset management plan development, stormwater management plan development, sewage collection and treatment design plan development, and state-funded loans to construct projects identified in the asset management plans.” [.pdf of FAQ by the State of Michigan on the SAW program] [PA 511 of 2012] [PA 560 of 2012] [PA 561 of 2012] [PA 562 of 2012]

Although communities that are awarded grants can receive a maximum of $2 million in total grant funds through the SAW program, the city of Ann Arbor is applying for the following six grants, on the idea that it will maximize its chances if the state uses a lottery type system. The first $1 million has a 10% local match requirement, and the second $1 million of grant money has a 25% local match requirement.

The city is applying for funding for some projects that have already been started, because money awarded through the SAW program can be spent retroactively as early as Jan. 2, 2013. The council will be considering six resolutions corresponding to grant requests from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for the following projects.

• Asset Management Plan for the Sanitary System ($1.1 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($25,000) for a total of $125,000.
• Asset Management Plan for the Stormwater System ($1.1 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($25,000) for a total of $125,000.
• Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Evaluation Project (retroactive) ($1.2 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($50,000) for a total of $150,000.
• Stormwater Model Calibration Project (retroactive) ($750,000): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($75,000) or 25% of second million ($187,500) for a maximum of $187,500.
• Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Asset Management Program ($350,00): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($35,000) or 25% of second million ($87,500) for a maximum of $87,500.
• Asset Management Plan for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Sanitary Sewer System ($1.5 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($125,000) for a total of $225,000.

Social Infrastructure

In addition to physical infrastructure items, the council’s Nov. 7 agenda also includes several pieces of business that could be described as related to social infrastructure.

Social Infrastructure: 15th District Court

The council will be asked to consider authorizing five grant-related items involving the specialty court functions of the 15th District Court. [For background on the 15th District Court and some of its functions, see Chronicle coverage: "Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court"]

• Accept three-year $300,000 supplemental grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to enhance countywide efforts to prevent domestic violence, effective Sept. 12, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2016. Of the grant total, $181,000 will reimburse the city for the salaries for a full-time domestic violence probation officer, a half-time system coordinator, and a part-time data entry clerk. Another $5,000 will reimburse the city for training expenses required by the U.S. Dept. of Justice. The remaining $114,000 will reimburse the city for a contract with SafeHouse Center to provide domestic violence prevention services.
• Authorize contract with SafeHouse to provide domestic violence prevention services ($114,000). Under terms of the contract, SafeHouse Center will provide confidential support, information and referrals for victims of domestic violence cases in the 15th District Court, 14A District Court and 14B District Court; monitor court and probation activity as it relates to victim safety; work collaboratively to enhance victim safety; and offer advice and training to judges, magistrates, probation and compliance officers and community partners.
• Accept Michigan Supreme Court drug court grant ($144,000). The 15th District Court’s sobriety court is “hyper-intensive probation,” which follows sentencing. The court assigns a full-time probation officer to the sobriety court for a program that lasts 18-24 months and includes monitoring of participants’ attendance at treatment programs, their progress in treatment, how they’re spending their time at work and doing community service. Reporting requirements are extensive. Participants must take frequent portable breath tests (PBTs) and urine tests. The majority of sobriety court participants are second-offender DWI cases, but offenses need not be driving-related. Also eligible to participate in sobriety court are, for example, retail fraud (shoplifting) offenders and misdemeanor drug possession offenders. Some of that grant money will fund a contract with Dawn Farm.
• Authorize contract with Dawn Farm ($88,000). The contract is for out-patient drug abuse counseling as part of the 15th District Court’s sobriety court.
• Accept Michigan Supreme Court veterans treatment court program grant ($92,279).

Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding

The council will be asked to authorize the basic approach that it has taken to human services funding in the past, but with some modifications. The funds would continue to be managed through Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development, using the coordinated funding approach.

The county is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010; this is the second time that the program has been extended.

The coordinated funding process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The approach targets six priority areas, and identifies lead agencies for each area: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

Last year, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended. One of those changes is that funding would not necessarily be allocated to the six priority areas based on the proportion of funding allocated in the past. Instead, allocations among the six priority areas would be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized. An additional change would broaden the pre-screening process so that smaller nonprofits could be accommodated.

Recommendations for specific funding allocations will be made in spring 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process. One of the goals of coordinated funding is to attract more partners, such as private foundations.

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners gave initial approval to the continued use of the coordinated funding approach at its Oct. 16, 2013 meeting.

Ethics

The council’s agenda includes a couple of items that relate to ethics.

Ethics: Professional Standards of Conduct

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) is bringing forward a resolution that does not include “ethics” in the title, but addresses the kind of issues that could be described under the general rubric of “ethics.” The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute.

A final “resolved” clause directs the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor. The final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard that’s recommended by the council rules committee and it’s strictly followed – would end any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government.

Ethics: Consent Agenda – Planning Commission Bylaws

The Nov. 7 consent agenda includes approval of new bylaws for two entities – the city’s design review board and the city planning commission.

The planning commission had given approval to changes in its bylaws at its July 16, 2013 meeting. Those changes related to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations, such as sign language interpreters. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws on Nov. 7 city council agenda]. The design review board has not had bylaws up to now.

Not the subject of a revision, but still the source of some recent community interest, is the following clause from the planning commission bylaws, which imposes a limitation on the ability of a councilmember to address the city planning commission:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.

That part of the bylaws surfaced recently, when councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy on separate occasions sought to address the planning commission – Warpehoski on July 16, 2013 and Kailasapathy on Aug. 13, 2013.

Based on an analysis in the Michigan Municipal League’s “Handbook for Municipal Officials,” it may be problematic for a city councilmember to address a body like the planning commission. That’s not based on having a property interest in a matter, but rather because the council is the appointing body for the commission. The handbook presents the following scenario as an ethical exercise – using the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). From the MML Handbook:

Situation #2 Before you were elected to the city council you served on your city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), so you know the ZBA procedures very well. A few months after your election to council, your neighbor and campaign manager files a petition with the ZBA seeking a variance. Since you know how the ZBA works, he asks you to accompany him to the ZBA and to speak on his behalf. Should you do it?

The analysis offered by the handbook is the following:

No. The Michigan Court of Appeals has labeled this situation as “patently improper” and an abuse of public trust for the reason that the person making the argument to the ZBA is also one of the people charged with appointing the ZBA. This creates duress on the ZBA, raising doubt about the impartiality of the ZBA’s decision. Any decision made by the ZBA under these circumstances is void. See Barkey v. Nick, 11 Mich App 361 (1968).

The implication of the Ann Arbor city planning commission bylaw is that it’s permissible for a city councilmember to address the commission exactly when the councilmember is not the petitioner or does not have an interest in the matter. That situation appears to be explicitly deemed unethical by the MML Handbook, if the handbook’s analysis is extended from the ZBA to the planning commission.

Ethics: Consent Agenda – Rental Housing Inspection

A consent agenda item increases the amount of a contract the city has with the accounting firm Plante Moran for a thorough review of the city’s permitting processes. That review comes in the context of the discovery that some rental housing permits had not been properly verified, according to city sources. Steps taken by the city staff to correct the problems included a review of all questionable permits. That included site visits to eight residential properties, six of them occupied, to ensure no one was living in unsafe conditions.

Re-inspection continues of residential and business properties to verify issued permits, to ensure the accuracy of the city’s records. Property owners are not being charged additional costs for re-inspection. The city anticipated that over 80 properties would be re-inspected as of Oct. 30. The permits for those 80 properties compare to a total number of 10,000 building and rental permits issued annually.

Miscellaneous

A number of other items appear on the agenda. Here are a few highlights.

Misc: Consent Agenda

Three other consent agenda items include a $60,000 contract with Utilities Instrumentation Service for electrical and instrumentation support services. According to a staff memo, the scope of UIS work will include “transformer testing, infrared testing of switchgear, testing of medium voltage breakers at City substations and generators, programming and calibration of instrumentation, Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) support and troubleshooting, Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) programming, and tuning and testing of dam and hydroelectric generator controls.”

A fourth item on the consent agenda sets a public hearing for establishing an industrial development district (for potential tax abatements) at 1901 E. Ellsworth. That hearing will be held on Dec. 2, 2013.

Misc: Church Site Plan

The council will be asked to approve a site plan for the expansion of the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. The city planning commission recommended approval of the project at its Oct. 1, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view of site for the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway.

The site plan proposal calls for tearing down five existing buildings and constructing a 12,850-square-foot, two-story addition to the rear of the church. The addition would be used for educational activities at the church, which is located on a 4.3-acre site in Ward 1, southwest of Broadway’s intersection with Plymouth Road.

According to a staff memo, only minor changes are proposed for the existing 142-space parking lot. Additional sidewalks will be added, including a roughly 20-foot extension of the public sidewalk along Broadway Street, which currently stops short of the south property line.

Because the church is located in an area zoned for single-family residential use (R1C zoning), a special exception use approval was needed from the planning commission. The city’s planning staff noted that the church has been located there for about 50 years. The church has a capacity of 126 seats, which will remain unchanged. At their Oct. 1 meeting, planning commissioners unanimously voted to grant approval for a special exception use.

The project is estimated to cost about $3 million. No approval is required from the city council for the special exception use, but the council must consider the site plan for approval.

6:50 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Several people are here in support of the ordinance revision to waive fees for park usage if the purpose is to distribute goods to address basic human needs.

6:55 p.m. Fox 2 News is here to cover homelessness issues.

6:58 p.m. Based on overheard conversation, Tom Wall is reportedly going to address the council in his cape and tights as Captain Driver Ed.

7:02 p.m. Councilmembers are signing cards for Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is here. She’d called in sick to the planning commission meeting last night. Most councilmembers are now here, but we seem to be a few minutes away from starting the meeting.

7:04 p.m. Confirmed sighting of Tom Wall as Captain Driver Ed. He’ll be addressing the city council during public commentary reserved time about pedestrian safety. He has a guitar with him.

7:09 p.m. Marcia Higgins has just arrived. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:12 p.m. Approval of agenda. Margie Teall (Ward 4) wants to move coordinated funding (DS-19) to after the consent agenda. That appears amenable to everyone. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) wants to move B-1 (DDA ordinance) after C-2 (DDA ordinance – joint subcommittee version).

7:14 p.m. Communications from city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers thanks the Ann Arbor police department for their work in arresting three suspects in Paul DeWolf homicide. He also says that the Main Street lightpoles have been inspected and that he’ll bring a proposal to the council at their Nov. 18 meeting.

7:14 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.]

Six people are signed up to talk about the ordinance change that would waive the park permitting fee for distribution of goods to address basic human needs: Timothy W. Green, Ray Gholston, Stephan Pate, Ryan Sample, Andrew Mutschler, and Raytheon Jones as well as an alternate speaker, Chris Mckeown.

Ingrid Ault is signed up to speak on the resolution accepting the park advisory commission’s downtown parks report. And two people are signed up to talk about the resolution establishing a pedestrian safety task force – Tom Wall and Kathy Griswold. Dina Kurz is signed up to talk about the Y lot sale. The second alternate speaker is Emily Tondreau, who’s signed up to talk about the evictions of homeless people from their camp sites and the capacity of the shelter.

7:16 p.m. Timothy W. Green introduces himself as a member of Camp Take Notice. He’s been a part of the demonstration in front of city hall on behalf of the homeless community. In response to the count of 165 homeless people, he contends there’s at least triple that number. If you find yourself in a camp, it’s not safe, because AAPD tells you they have to go, he says. If you’re being run off, he asks, where do you go? You pack up and walk around the streets all night, he says. He took the podium to applause and his remarks conclude with applause. He refers to the amount spent on the Dreiseitl fountain next to their protests.

7:18 p.m. Ingrid Ault is addressing the council on behalf of the park advisory commission. She’s chair of that group and was chair of the subcommittee on downtown parks. She describes how the committee met several times over several months. She describes the survey the committee conducted that received over 1,600 responses. She highlights the eight recommendations in the committee’s report.

7:23 p.m. Ray Gholston invites everyone to stand who supports more support for homeless people. Almost everyone in the middle section of the chambers is standing in support. The way Ann Arbor treats the homeless is a human rights violation, he says. He says that if there were a pack of dogs out on Huron Street, people would go make sure they had shelter, but Ann Arborites won’t do the same for the homeless. There’s not enough space in the shelter, he says.

7:25 p.m. Dina Kurz, a member of the city’s energy commission, is addressing the council on the topic of the sale of the old Y lot. She wants the city to negotiate additional features of development on the site that are in line with the climate action plan and sustainability framework. It could become a shining example of what can be done to have less impact on the environment and offer greater sustainability. LEED Gold and the AIA 2030 standards are some of the covenants that the city could instruct the city administrator to write into the legal agreement, she says. She wants the council to “seize this moment.”

7:27 p.m. Stephan Pate introduces himself as a member of the homeless community. AAPD are running people off of property without giving them enough time to gather up their belongings, he says. He asks for enough time to gather up their belongings and live in peace.

7:29 p.m. Kathy Griswold is telling the council about the Ann Arbor Public Schools’ transportation safety committee, which is described on the AAPS website as “Advisory Committee to the Board of Education, the Ann Arbor City Council and, in a less formal manner, other governmental units including the Pittsfield Township Trustees and the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” [Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is listed on Legistar as the council's representative to the committee.]

Griswold is essentially arguing for the expansion of the existing committee, which includes representatives of the University of Michigan, the Center for Independent Living and the Washtenaw Biking and Walking Coalition. Griswold thanks Warpehoski and Briere for their work to bring forward the task force resolution. The TSC was established in 1969, she says. She was a consultant for the TSC back in 2001, she says. It’s time to reassess the situation. She describes legislation in Lansing in the works that would make the Uniform Traffic Code the state law.

7:31 p.m. Andrew Mutschler introduces himself as a member of the Camp Misfit homeless community who are protesting out in front of city hall. He describes how he’d come back to his encampment to find all his belongings gone. He emphasizes that everyone needs stability, a place to call home – even if it’s just a 6×6 roof over your head.

7:34 p.m. Tom Wall is addressing the council as Captain Driver Ed. His son wasn’t allowed to introduce him on account of the speaking rules. He offers to the city, once they’ve decided what to do, his driver ed school, saying it’s very good at education. He’s now singing “Captain Driver Ed, Captain Driver Ed …” People are sort of singing along. “Don’t get distracted, it’s not attractive.” He tells people to clap for him. They do.

7:37 p.m. Raytheon Jones is speaking on behalf of the homeless. It’s a serious problem, he says. “Many of us are troubled, with nowhere to go,” he says. He’s speaking for the disenfranchised, the poor, the homeless and the people who have no voice. He first arrived in Ann Arbor in July a few months ago. He was sitting in a park, not being boisterous, he said. But AAPD had called him over and asked him what he was doing. They’d told him there were people there with their families and he needed to find somewhere else to go. There was no room in the shelter, he said. The homeless need somewhere to go, he says.

7:37 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three 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.

7:40 p.m. Briere is talking about the parking situation at Argo Cascades. The result of the city’s work was to put parking at Longshore Park. The neighborhood was not impressed with that, she says, and it had stopped after one weekend. On Nov. 21, at 7 p.m. the city is holding a public meeting on the parking needs at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Traverwood branch.

7:42 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) responds to the public commentary. She asks if the city administrator can contact the churches that provide a rotating shelter to see if that can be started earlier this year. Mayor John Hieftje says that it’s handled through the Shelter Association center. The warming center will open on Nov. 18, Hieftje says. He’d been in communication with the Shelter Association.

7:44 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) acknowledges that four AAPD officers were honored as officers of the year by the Washtenaw 100 Club. Oct. 24 was the date of this year’s event, she says. She lists off the names of the four officers. They’d entered a burning building and saved woman’s life on Jan. 13, 2013, she reports.

7:48 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) also responds to the public commentary. He points out that there are not only churches but also synagogues. What triggers an eviction? he asks. City administrator Steve Powers says that by ordinance, camping is not allowed in city parks. Warpehoski confirms that it’s complaint driven. Powers also indicates there’s a 48-hour orange notice that’s posted saying: Please move. Powers indicates that he’s discussing the issue with the members of Camp Misfit and with Chief Seto.

Warpehoski says we don’t solve the problem of homelessness just by moving people around. He calls for upholding our laws with maximum humanity. He’s concerned about people’s belongings being respected.

7:49 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) gives an update on the Safety on Seventh campaign. There’ll be a community meeting on possibly more traffic calming. He’s disappointed that two elementary schools have discontinued their walk-to-school programs. He wonders if Bach and Eberwhite ended their program because of the traffic on Seventh Street.

7:51 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) says she wants to change the tone. She recognizes that it’s the last meeting for Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Higgins is presented with a crown, which she puts on. She indicates she’ll be wearing it for the duration of the meeting.

7:53 p.m. Nominations. Nominations tonight include Peter Greenfield to the airport advisory council replacing Wilson Tanner, and Anthony Ramirez to be re-appointed to the cable communications commission. On the housing and human services board, Eleanor Pollack and Thaddeus Jabzanka are being nominated to fill the vacancies left by Ned Staebler and Anthony Ramirez, respectively. Mohammad Issa and Linda Winkler are being nominated for re-appointment to the city’s human rights commission.

On the Ann Arbor housing commission, Christopher Geer is being re-appointed to correct the end date of his term. On Jan. 7, 2013 the council confirmed his appointment for a term ending May 5, 2014. Tonight’s confirmation, which is taking place in one step and needs eight votes to be approved, corrects the end date of his term to May 1, 2017.

7:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve Geer’s re-appointment to the Ann Arbor housing commission.

7:54 p.m. Appointments. The council is being asked tonight to confirm appointments for nominations that were made at the council’s previous meeting on Oct. 21. Nominated to fill the remaining vacancy on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board – due to the resignation of Nader Nassif – was Cyndi Clark, owner of Lily Grace. The business is described on its website as a luxury cosmetics boutique in downtown Ann Arbor.

To fill a vacancy left by Leigh Greden on the Ann Arbor housing commission board, Tim Colenback was nominated on Oct. 21. Greden’s nomination had been made, but was never put forward for a confirmation vote. Colenback also serves on the city’s housing and human services advisory board. Colenback has told mayor John Hieftje that he won’t be able to serve on both bodies.

A replacement for Julie Grand on the park advisory commission was nominated at the Oct. 21 meeting – David Santacroce. He’s a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and he chaired the North Main Huron River corridor task force, which worked for a year and delivered its report recently to the council on recommendations to the corridor. Grand attended her last meeting of PAC on Oct. 15, 2013, after completing the maximum two terms of service. Amy Shepherd was nominated to serve on the city’s commission on disability issues. Shepherd is president of the Michigan Parents of Children with Visual Impairments. On the energy commission, Shoshannah Lenski was nominated to replace Mike Delaney, and Mike Shriberg was nominated for reappointment.

7:56 p.m. Hieftje describes Colenback’s credentials as assistant dean at the UM school of social work. Hieftje describes Cyndi Clark as having expertise in retail, in the cosmetics industry, on an international level. Hieftje also praises Santacroce’s work leading the North Main Huron River corridor task force.

7:58 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) highlights the energy commission appointment of Shoshannah Lenski, who works with DTE. Kunselman points out there are some issues with the timely repair of streetlights, citing some near Mary Beth Doyle Park that have been out for quite a while.

7:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the appointments.

8:01 p.m. Hieftje is now talking about the various services that the city of Ann Arbor offers for the homeless community. He recalls running for city council at the time when the building of the Delonis Center was being debated. [The shelter is located at 312 W. Huron, near the downtown.] He reiterates that the warming center is opening on Nov. 18. Hieftje describes how sometimes the AAPD posts notices and after the 48-hour period they return and they find no on there but possessions left behind. It’s something the AAPD is working on, he says.

8:03 p.m. Briere says the opening of the warming center is happening on about the same schedule as in the past. It’s not unusually late, she says. She asks Hieftje if the council will be asked for financial support for the warming shelter. She ventures that because she and Lumm serve on HHSB, they’d have occasion to meet with city and county staff and other nonprofits so that if there’s a need for funding, it can be brought back on Nov. 18.

8:03 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. Two public hearings are scheduled: (1) The council is being asked to adopt an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, which is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]; (2) a site plan for the expansion of the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. The city planning commission recommended approval of the project at its Oct. 1, 2013 meeting.

8:04 p.m. PH-1 Adopt 2013 update to non-motorized plan. Kathy Griswold says it’s an exciting night because there’s more than one item on the agenda involving pedestrian safety. She urges the council to not adopt the update to the plan. It fails to identify funding for all the improvements. The plan alludes to funding improvements with federal Safe Routes to Schools funding and she is “absolutely disgusted” by it because Ann Arbor can afford to fund that itself without tapping federal funds.

8:06 p.m. PH-2 Site Plan: Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:06 p.m. Approval of minutes for previous meeting.

8:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

8:07 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. Tonight’s consent agenda includes approval of new bylaws for two entities – the city’s design review board and the city planning commission. [For more background, see Ethics: Consent Agenda – Planning Commission By-laws above.]

Three other items include a $60,000 contract with Utilities Instrumentation Service for Electrical and Instrumentation Support Services. According to the staff memo, the scope of UIS work will include “transformer testing, infrared testing of switchgear, testing of medium voltage breakers at City substations and generators, programming and calibration of instrumentation, Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) support and troubleshooting, Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) programming, and tuning and testing of dam and hydroelectric generator controls.”

A fourth item on the consent agenda sets a public hearing for establishing an industrial development district (for potential tax abatements) at 1901 E. Ellsworth – for Dec. 2, 2013. And a final consent agenda item increases the amount of a contract the city has with the accounting firm Plante Moran for a thorough review of the city’s permitting processes. That review comes in the context of the discovery that some rental housing permits had not been properly verified, according to city sources. Steps taken by the city staff to correct the problems included a review of all questionable permits. [For more background, see Ethics: Consent Agenda – Rental Housing Inspection above.]

8:07 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Briere wants to pull out CA-2, the planning commission bylaws. Briere says that the planning commission is discussing an additional change to the bylaws, so she wants to postpone until Dec. 16.

8:09 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the consent agenda items, except for the planning commission bylaws, which have been postponed until the second meeting in December.

8:13 p.m. DS-19 Adopt FY 2015-16 human services funding process. The council is being asked to authorize the basic approach that it has taken to human services funding in the past, but with some modifications. The funds would continue to be managed through Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development (OCED), using the coordinated funding approach. The city is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are Washtenaw County, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010; this is the second time that the program has been extended. This resolution does not allocate any funds, but rather authorizes the process for allocation. [For more background, see Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding above.]

8:15 p.m. OCED director Mary Jo Callan is fielding questions from Teall and Lumm.

8:17 p.m. Callan stresses that there’s no “pooling of funds” and that each entity maintains control over the designation of its own funding.

8:18 p.m. Warpehoski asks how the model doesn’t just cherry-pick the easy-to-serve kids and leave out the hardest-to-serve. Callan notes that the targeted population are selected by “let’s start with the poorest folks first.” The funds are in fact for the hardest-to-serve kids, she says.

8:19 p.m. Callan is talking about the best evidence-based practices and that’s what will be funded.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the coordinated funding process.

8:20 p.m. B-1 DDA Ordinance. On the Nov. 7 agenda are two possible revisions to the city’s ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s TIF (tax increment financing) capture (Chapter 7). This is the first version, which has been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013. In summary strokes, this version is different from the competing version on the agenda in the following two ways. This version more nearly enforces the existing language in the ordinance with respect to the amount of TIF revenue the DDA would receive. It also proposes governance changes for the DDA board, which include term limits. [For more background, see Downtown: DDA Ordinance above.]

8:21 p.m. Kunselman asks that it be tabled. That puts it off to a date uncertain. It could be brought back as an option.

8:21 p.m. Kunselman describes how he’s planning to go talk to the other taxing jurisdictions about the council’s efforts. So he moves to table.

8:24 p.m. Teall says “I don’t get it,” saying that it’s been postponed several times. If the alternative proposal from the committee were to pass (the next agenda items) she wants to know what would happen. Kunselman explains the difference between the versions. This current version says that any changes to the restriction would need the approval of the other taxing jurisdictions. So Kunselman wants to discuss the second version with the other governmental entities.

8:24 p.m. Teall wants to know what would cause Kunselman to bring back the first version off the table. “Hopefully nothing,” he says.

8:25 p.m. Kunselman says that he hopes there will be no complaints and no whining.

8:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to table the DDA ordinance change.

8:25 p.m. C-1 Ordinance: Exemptions to park permit requirements. The council is giving initial consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs could be conducted in city parks without incurring a fee for park use. The recommendation for the ordinance change came from the city’s park advisory commission at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting. [For more background, see Downtown (but not only): Park Fee Waiver above.]

8:27 p.m. Taylor is introducing the resolution. He recalls the Pizza in the Park issue in Liberty Plaza downtown. This extends the scope to all parks, not just downtown. Taylor notes that the proposal has been vetted by the park advisory commission.

8:28 p.m. Teall thanks Taylor for meeting with her and the representatives of Camp Take Notice and “taking the ball and running with it.” She thanks the CTN people. She encourages everyone to vote for it.

8:28 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to give initial approval to the ordinance change that would allow for distribution of humanitarian aid in city parks without incurring a fee.

8:28 p.m. C-2 Alternate DDA ordinance revision. This is the second of two versions of the DDA ordinance revision. It’s the result of a joint DDA board and city council committee. It does not include any governance changes. And it would not propose any restriction on DDA TIF revenues until FY 2017. [For more background, see Downtown: DDA Ordinance above.]

8:31 p.m. Kunselman describes the alternative as much “cleaner” and it addresses just the TIF capture. Key stat: The TIF cap would have a basis $224 million taxable value in tax year 2016 with an increase of 3.5%.

8:32 p.m. Kunselman describes the amount of the DDA’s TIF capture as capped at around $6 million for the 2016 tax year. He invites CFO Tom Crawford to the podium.

8:34 p.m. By 2033 there would be “millions and millions” of dollars going back to the taxing authorities, says Kunselman. Crawford says he’d project that within a few years after the cap, more than $1 million would be distributed to the other governmental units.

8:35 p.m. Crawford is now describing the bonding capacity that the cap would allow: $59 million for the next 10 years. If they chose not to bond, the capacity for projects would be smaller.

8:37 p.m. Kunselman says he’ll have a couple of amendments. The point is not to hamstring the ability of the DDA to undertake capital improvements, Kunselman says. Part of the point is to improve the ability of the DDA to budget.

8:40 p.m. Kailasapathy notes that there’s two variables in the TIF plan: escalator and the basis. Crawford has chosen 3.5% which is from the TIF plan to avoid changing the TIF plan. Crawford concedes that the basis for the taxable valuable in the committee’s proposal is not from the TIF plan. Kailasapathy concludes that this is a change to the TIF plan. Crawford says there’s room for differing views on this.

8:41 p.m. Lumm asks about the clause in the existing ordinance that says that the restrictions in the ordinance can’t be removed except by approval of the other governmental units.

8:42 p.m. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales says it’s not possible for the city to abdicate its fiduciary responsibility to another entity.

8:48 p.m. Kunselman forwards an amendment by email to his colleagues about affordable housing.

8:48 p.m. Kunselman notes that the council had revised the DDA’s budget earlier in the year to transfer $300,000 of TIF to the DDA’s housing fund. He moves that the DDA be required to budget $200,000 for the DDA housing fund, starting in 2014, adjusted at the same rate of increase as the TIF income – to be spent on projects that meet the income guidelines of the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Kailasapathy wants the amount to be $300,000. Kunselman agrees. Briere notes that generally there’s an implied expectation that the city would match whatever the DDA does. She wants that on the record. Taylor asks if the proposal is enforceable. Fales says the council has the ability to approve the budget.

8:49 p.m. Briere wants to know if 2014 is tax year, calendar year, or fiscal year. Kunselman says it should be 2016 anyway.

8:54 p.m. Hieftje says he doesn’t think the DDA objects to funding affordable housing. But the DDA’s suspension of transfers to its housing fund was a function of having the obligations of building the underground parking structure, he says.

8:57 p.m. Executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay is fielding questions from the council. Warpehoski says he likes the idea of making sure the DDA’s housing fund is actually an affordable housing fund. But he’s not sure that Kunselman’s approach is right. Kunselman suggests that the requirement for projects to meet the Ann Arbor housing commission’s standards could be tied only to the $300,000 in the ordinance. Warpehoski asks if the HHSAB can simply exercise oversight. Kunselman doesn’t think HHSAB has enough teeth as an advisory body.

9:00 p.m. Kunselman now is amending his own amendment to restrict just the funds mandated by the ordinance to be in support of housing projects that meet the Ann Arbor housing commission’s income standards. Hieftje thinks there needs to be more flexibility. Kunselman amends to cite 50% AMI (area median income) as the standard.

9:03 p.m. Higgins thanks Kunselman for his work. [2016 year refers to the tax year.]

9:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved Kunselman’s amendment.

9:09 p.m. Kunselman is putting forth another amendment involving the capital improvement plan (CIP). This is an amendment from the first version of the ordinance that had received initial approval. Responding to Warpehoski’s question, city administrator Steve Powers says that the amendment would not pose a problem. Briere reviews how the CIP is put together.

9:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved Kunselman’s amendment on the CIP.

9:10 p.m. Lumm is proposing an amendment to add term limits. This is language from the first version.

9:14 p.m. Petersen notes that the bylaws approved by the council that night for the design review board also include term limits. She counters the argument that you lose someone’s expertise if term limits are imposed by saying that you don’t lose their expertise because that can be tapped on an informal basis.

9:15 p.m. Kailasapathy likes the portion of the amendment that restricts elected officials from serving on the DDA board.

9:21 p.m. Briere says that she’s not impressed with the value of term limits for elected officials. She says she might be willing to consider a limit of three consecutive terms instead of two. She argues for that by saying that the planning cycle for DDA projects is 10 years. She doesn’t like the part that says that elected officials of other jurisdictions can’t serve on the DDA board. She opposes term limits on a philosophical basis.

Kunselman replies by saying, “Oh my, look what I’ve started!” He had wanted to leave the governance issues aside because they can be addressed at any time. As far as the mayor’s appointment to the board, Kunselman says that the council could simply choose to appoint the city administrator instead of the mayor, when the council makes its annual committee appointments.

9:22 p.m. Kunselman doesn’t have a problem with elected officials from other jurisdictions serving on the DDA board but wants them all represented – the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, the Ann Arbor District Library, and Washtenaw County. He doesn’t have a problem with term limits.

9:26 p.m. Teall asks how the joint committee had felt about term limits. Lumm says she missed the last joint committee meeting but she’d said at an earlier meeting that she’d wanted the term limits included. Kunselman says his focus had been on the financial picture. He stresses that there be consensus with the body that is being regulated so that they don’t feel “beaten down.” He didn’t want the discussion to be bogged down about feelings. The discussion had been going on for quite some time. “I’m tired of it, and the community is tired of it,” Kunselman says.

9:28 p.m. Teall won’t support the governance amendments including term limits. She wants it to pass with a large majority. Hieftje says he won’t be mayor after 2014. He wants to wait and see if the state legislature takes action requiring the representation of the other governmental units on the DDA board. Term limits have been a disaster with the Michigan legislature, Hieftje says. There is adequate turnover as it is, he says. He won’t support term limits.

9:31 p.m. Kailasapathy offers an amendment that would require representation of all the jurisdictions on the DDA board. Petersen echoes Hieftje’s sentiments, saying that the state legislature may act. Hieftje says the state legislature might act in a way that would allow the addition of representatives from other jurisdictions more swiftly. Discussion of different amendments to amendments.

Hieftje calls for a recess to sort it all out.

9:34 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

9:48 p.m. And we’re back.

9:52 p.m. Lumm is amending her amendment. It would be effective for the first appointment to the board after the date of the ordinance’s enactment. It’s constrained to term limits.

Taylor says term limit are pernicious. It removes the discretion of the appointing body to appoint someone who is actively engaged and serving well. “We’re sapping our boards … of useful engaged knowledgeable” board members, he says. Petersen comes back to the point that the council has just approved bylaws for bodies that include term limits. Taylor says, “I have no drive for perfection.”

9:55 p.m. Kailasapathy says there’s a difference between the Michigan legislature and an appointed body. She says that for elected officials, she doesn’t see the need for term limits. But for appointed boards, the more you get people involved, the more vibrant it becomes and the more perspectives it brings in. Look at the DDA board, she says: Do you want to keep this or do you want more diversity, she asks.

Hieftje says that he can’t recall that a person of color has applied to the DDA. He points to the fact that there are four DDA board members who are in their first terms. He says he’s gone away from nominating developers and has selected representatives from small businesses to serve on the board. He says there is diversity of viewpoint on the DDA board.

9:57 p.m. Lumm says, “You can Google it” to find that term limits are a nonprofit board best practice. It’s a healthy thing. She argues there should be consistency on all the boards and commissions. She argues that opportunities should be opened up for others to serve.

10:00 p.m. Lumm says it’s not difficult to recruit people to serve on the DDA board. Warpehoski says on the broader issue of whether term limits are good or bad, he can find examples of each. Given the small size of the DDA staff, he’s concerned about the preservation of the DDA’s institutional memory. He’d voted to put Russ Collins on the DDA board for a third term, so by the argument of consistency he couldn’t support this amendment. But he rejects the idea of consistency as the main consideration.

10:03 p.m. Kunselman argues that turnover is good when money is at stake. He thinks that two four-year terms is more than most councilmembers serve. As far as his vote for Russ Collins for a third term, he says he likes Russ and used to work for him at the Michigan Theater. But he wouldn’t vote for him again. It’s a core group of people who seem to hang around, he says. He points out that the city charter imposes term limits on certain kinds of boards and commissions. If it’s that big of an issue, a future council can bring it back, Kunselman says.

10:05 p.m. Hieftje proposes a compromise of a limit to three terms, not two.

10:05 p.m. Lumm says “That’s not the kind of revitalization I was looking for.” She says she’ll continue to work on the issue for all boards and commissions, but for tonight she’ll go along with three terms as the limit.

10:07 p.m. Briere challenges Petersen’s assertion that the bylaws of the design review board and the planning commission contain term limits. Higgins says she’d have supported the two-term limit, but will support three. She laments the disparagement of members of a sitting board, some of whom are sitting in the audience. Talking about a changeover and alluding to a “core group” of people is hurtful, Higgins says. That discourages people from stepping forward to serve.

10:08 p.m. Petersen thanks Briere for the correction on the bylaws, and apologizes to Taylor. Hieftje wants to move it along to a vote.

10:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the three-term limit. Teall and Taylor dissent.

10:09 p.m. Warpehoski asks for clarification of the TIF cap. It grows by 3.5%, is the explanation.

10:13 p.m. Taylor says that even though the stated intention is not to harm the DDA, the buying power of the DDA would be reduced by half over the next 10 years. That’s an incredible harm to the downtown, Taylor says. Only half of the excess would come to the city of Ann Arbor, he says. Lumm replies that the amount of TIF the DDA would receive would grow “handsomely” over the next few years.

10:13 p.m. Lumm says that she appreciates the work that has been done on this. She laments the fact that the discussion had become a litmus test of whether someone supports the DDA.

10:13 p.m. Lumm says Higgins was wise to create the joint DDA council committee.

10:16 p.m. To be clear, the council is now discussing the main motion. Hieftje says he is glad that the previous version was not pursued. Hieftje says that if the city is going to survive under Michigan’s funding system, it needs growth. Ann Arbor is fortunate to have UM as a job magnate. The park system attracts people, he says. AAPS also has high quality schools. The vibrant downtown is also an attractant. The DDA is a prime factor for success, says Hieftje.

10:19 p.m. Kailasapathy asks Crawford about the Justice Center bond repayment schedule. She’s referring to the $8 million mentioned in the DDA’s 2008 resolution that goes to the bond repayment. Crawford gives an explanation in terms of the “present value of money.” She points out that the DDA ends in 2033, which goes five years past the end of the DDA’s TIF plan.

10:20 p.m. Kunselman thanks the DDA board members for going through this with him. He makes further conciliatory remarks.

10:21 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the DDA ordinance revision.

10:21 p.m. DC-1 Digital billboard on E. Stadium Blvd. At the council’s Oct. 21 meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) announced the intent to bring forward the resolution, which requests that the University of Michigan decommission the $2.8 million digital billboard that it’s constructed on E. Stadium Blvd. The city’s fallback position is a request that the university operate the billboard (marquee) only around the time of major events at the football stadium or the Crisler Center. The resolution cites the city’s own recently enacted sign ordinance, which constrains the deployment of digital technology for outdoor signs.

According to the resolution, the marquee inflicts the same harms on the community that the city’s newly amended ordinance sought to prevent. [Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – who co-sponsored the resolution with Taylor, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – voted against that ordinance.] Those harms are described in the resolution as “distract[ing] motorists and substantially degrad[ing] the community viewshed…”

10:26 p.m. Hieftje asks that the council not spend a whole lot of time on this. [UM head of community relations Jim Kosteva is in the audience.] Taylor reads aloud some remarks. Teall thanks Taylor for putting it all together. She’d heard comments that the city shouldn’t be bothered because the sign is across from the golf course. She points out that it does face the drivers.

Warpehoski describes the negotiation theory of wish-want-walk. He thinks the absolute minimum the UM should adhere to is FHA (Federal Highway Administration) rules – no animation. He wonders if someone can ask if the brightness of the sign can be adjusted. Kosteva says that the sign complies with the brightness standards. Except for videos shown on game day, he says, the animation does comply with federal standards. Warpehoski says he doesn’t think it’s acceptable to say “We follow the law most of the time.”

10:32 p.m. Higgins says in the interest of sustainability, it doesn’t make sense to have the sign lit at midnight. Kunselman wonders if anyone asked a UM regent about the issue when the marquee was in the planning stages. Kunselman says that he doesn’t want to have the university and the city “lobbing” resolutions back and forth. He doesn’t want to get a resolution from the regents saying, Why don’t you pave the road in front of the stadium?

10:33 p.m. Teall blames the university for not reaching out to the city. Kunselman asks Kosteva why the city wasn’t informed. Kosteva responds by saying his intent was to be present, to be a listener and to take the council’s concerns back to the university.

10:36 p.m. Lumm thanks Kosteva for being there. She’s reading aloud a statement.

10:38 p.m. Anglin says it’s the same drivers who go past it, so he questions what effect it has.

10:41 p.m. Taylor counters Kunselman’s contention that the resolution is heavy-handed, saying that it was open and temperate communication. Petersen wonders if the UM would consider showing public service announcements from the city on the marquee.

10:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the resolution requesting the University of Michigan decommission its $2.8 million billboard.

10:41 p.m. DC-2 Accepting PAC downtown parks subcommittee report on downtown parks. This resolution would accept the report of a subcommittee of the city’s park advisory commission, which studied the question of the need and best location for additional downtown parks. The subcommittee delivered its recommendations at the Oct. 15, 2013 meeting of PAC and PAC voted to recommend them to the city council for adoption. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

The eight recommendations are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process. [For more background, see Downtown: Parks above.]

10:42 p.m. Taylor is introducing the resolution.

10:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted over dissent from Mike Anglin (Ward 5) to accept the report on downtown parks.

10:43 p.m. DC-3 Ethics resolution The resolution does not include “ethics” in the title, but addresses the kind of issues that could be described under the general rubric of “ethics.” The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute. A final “resolved” clause direct the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor. The final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard that’s recommended by the council rules committee and it’s strictly followed – would end any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government.

10:43 p.m. Petersen, who is the sponsor of the resolution, asks for postponement.

10:44 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone direction for education on professional standards and tasking the rules committee with drafting standards of conduct.

10:44 p.m. DC-4 Pedestrian safety task force. The resolution establishing the task force acknowledges that many residents are concerned that current city policies create an unsafe environment for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. The pedestrian safety and access task force would consist of nine residents. Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application]

The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting. The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. [For more background, see Non-Motorized Issues: Pedestrian Safety above.]

10:53 p.m. Briere is introducing the resolution. She responds to Griswold’s suggestion during public commentary that the AAPS transportation safety committee be adapted to this purpose. But Briere notes that the TSC is not a city committee. Briere gives the rationale for the creation of the committee.

Warpehoski explains that there’s been a lot of interest in participation but the size of the task force was intended to provide focus and to allow the group to operate efficiently. Powers says that the task force won’t staff itself and would depend on any budget the council might approve. A budget is not a part of tonight’s resolution. Briere says she’s received positive communication from the University of Michigan about participation, and thinks that some of the cost could be offset by the UM.

10:57 p.m. Kunselman wonders if the timeline isn’t too aggressive. He questions if it’s realistic. Kunselman ticks through some of the items in the cost analysis, and wonders if it really would be $100,000. Kunselman asks where the funding would come from.

Public services area administrator Craig Hupy confirms it would be on the order of $100,000. [.pdf of Nov. 7 memo on pedestrian safety] It would have to come from the general fund. Kunselman questions what the goal of the task force would actually be. Warpehoski says if people want to put it off and take more time, he’s willing to postpone. Kunselman comes back to the point of an aggressive timeline. Staff resources are limited, he says, and there are other issues that might need to be focused on.

11:06 p.m. Kunselman isn’t sure the resolution is really ready. He doesn’t think the work is going to be done by September 2014. It took 8 months just to get a DDA ordinance passed, he notes. Briere argues for the establishment of a task force. Hieftje wonders if Warpehoski and Briere would be amenable to postponement. Briere says she will support that, but wants her colleagues to focus on recruitment of volunteers for the task force. Petersen will support postponement, but wonders if this task force shouldn’t be a standing committee, instead.

11:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone the creation of the pedestrian safety task force.

11:07 p.m. DC-5 Y Lot sales agreement. The resolution would direct city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the purchase of the city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. Dahlmann has offered $5.25 million for the property, known as the Y lot. It had been listed at $4.2 million. The city has a $3.5 million balloon payment on a loan it took out to purchase the property, which it has now owned for 10 years. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

If negotiations with Dahlmann are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). The bids from Dahlmann and CA Ventures were judged to be the two best out of the five bids on the property the city received by the Oct. 18 deadline. [.pdf of summary page by Jim Chaconas] The resolution directs the city administrator to present to the council a sales agreement – with Dahlmann or CA Ventures – for consideration at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. [For more background, see Downtown: Y Lot Sale above.]

11:08 p.m. From the audience, Donald Salberg asks if he could comment. No, says Hieftje.

11:11 p.m. Taylor says he has been concerned all along about the use of the property. He says that the city and the community should understand more clearly what the property would be used for. He says that he’s forwarded an amendment to his colleagues. The resolution would direct how the sales agreement would be structured – with an obligation that a structure be built, and that the building be energy efficient and that the AAATA be involved in the conversation.

11:16 p.m. Taylor is now reading aloud the amendment. There’s a minimum 400% FAR including mixed use on the bottom floor, office space on the mid-floors and residential on the top floors. The uses are essentially those that are described in Dahlmann’s letter. The deadline for building something is January 2018. There’s a prohibition against sale to another third party except that the city has a right of first refusal.

11:17 p.m. Taylor continues with reading aloud the amendments on requirement for energy efficiency and the required conversation with the AAATA.

11:19 p.m. Petersen checks the arithmetic on 400% FAR. She confirms that Taylor is rounding 350% FAR to 400%. Briere contends that D1 requires 400% at a minimum anyway.

11:21 p.m. Teall says she’s concerned about the future use. She thinks that a hotel would be suitable for that parcel. She feels that visitors to the downtown are an economic generator. She appreciates the amendments.

11:25 p.m. Hieftje invites broker Jim Chaconas to the podium. He compliments Chaconas on his good work. Hieftje wants to pay off the debt. He doesn’t want to roll the dice and refinance. He asks Chaconas if the additional requests might cause Dahlmann or CA Ventures to balk. Chaconas says some of the requests make sense. But he doesn’t want to put too many restrictions on it. Dahlmann is offering a lot of money for the property, he says. Hieftje ventures that there’s an opportunity for negotiation.

11:26 p.m. Lumm says that the resolution is not written like a negotiation. She wants to “pound through” the amendments with Chaconas.

11:28 p.m. On the 400% FAR minimum, Chaconas contends that it’s a part of D1 zoning.

11:31 p.m. Kailasapathy asks Chaconas about the energy efficiency clauses. Briere stresses that Dahlmann would need to seek premiums to build more densely than 400%. Chaconas says that the amendments are items that have mostly been discussed with councilmembers.

11:33 p.m. Warpehoski says that he’s breaking council rules to disseminate Taylor’s amendments to the press. Kunselman thanks Chaconas. Kunselman says use can’t be controlled. What the council wants is a really nice building. He doesn’t think the amendments overload the property with use requirements.

11:36 p.m. Petersen points out that there are other city-owned properties that could be developed – responding to the possibility that the council doesn’t get the use it wants for this parcel.

11:37 p.m. The vote on the amendments is unanimous. [.pdf of Taylor's amendments.]

11:37 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the resolution, as amended, directing the city administrator to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the former Y lot in downtown Ann Arbor.

11:37 p.m. DC-6 “Eat the Street” temporary food sales. The council is being asked to grant approval, under Chapter 55 (Zoning), Section 5:10.15(h) of the city code, for temporary sales of food at the vacant property at 1215 South University. The request is being made of the council by the South University Area Association (SUAA), which is planning a special event from Nov. 8, 2013 through Jan. 8, 2014. SUAA wants its “Eat the Street” event to include outdoor food cart sales at the location.

11:38 p.m. Lumm is thanking the South University Area Association and everyone’s hard work.

11:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the temporary sales of food for “Eat the Street.”

11:38 p.m. DC-7 Amicus brief on abortion clinic protest buffer zones. This resolution was added to the council’s agenda at around 4 p.m. today. It would list Ann Arbor as a “supporting municipality” in an amicus brief to be filed with the United States Supreme Court in a case to be heard by the court in McCullen v. Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The plaintiff in that case is challenging a law creating a 35-foot buffer zone around Massachusetts abortion clinics, where people cannot demonstrate.

The city of Ann Arbor would be weighing in to support the idea that laws can be enacted establishing buffers around abortion clinics where people cannot demonstrate. Tangentially related to buffer zones for protest, in 1990 Ann Arbor voters agreed to amend the city charter to establish the city as a “zone of reproductive freedom.” From Chapter 20 of the Ann Arbor city charter: “No person within the City of Ann Arbor shall violate any law, rule, or regulation of this state which restricts or prohibits the right of any woman to an abortion, or which restricts or prohibits the right of a person to perform an abortion, as such right existed on January 20, 1981.” The resolution is co-sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

11:39 p.m. Taylor invites city attorney Stephen Postema to explain the background.

11:43 p.m. Postema argues for his position based on the need for local authorities to exercise appropriate authority to balance time, place and manner considerations with First Amendment rights. He assures Taylor that it would not be a burden of city attorney resources, saying he merely needs to inform the filers of the amicus brief of the council’s vote.

11:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve placing the city of Ann Arbor as a supporting municipality signing on to the amicus brief.

11:43 p.m. DB-1 Non-motorized transportation plan. The council is being asked to adopt an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, which is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update] [For more background, see Non-Motorized Issues: Non-Motorized Plan Update above.]

11:44 p.m. Briere asks Hupy to the podium. He defers to transportation program manager Eli Cooper and city planning manager Wendy Rampson.

11:51 p.m. Lumm says that with so many items on the agenda, she hasn’t had time to read through the plan. She wonders if there’s support for postponement. Hieftje allows that Lumm is right about it being an important document. There’s been a tremendous amount of work on the plan, Hieftje says. It’s already been through an extensive process. Surrounding municipalities have reviewed it, and it has been adopted by the planning commission. Hieftje is not inclined to postpone.

Kunselman asks if the plan has implications for grant eligibility. Yes, says Cooper. He gives an example of a non-motorized bridge across US-23 that was funded because it was indicated in the city’s non-motorized plan. Anglin says the council has heard a request from Lumm for more time. Lumm now moves for postponement.

11:54 p.m. Hieftje indicates that he’s already expressed his opinion. Briere allows it’s possible to be overloaded during campaign season. But she’s followed the plan in its development and now she’s ready to vote on it. There were no surprises in the update, she says. She feels that there are times when the council postpones beyond what’s reasonable. The item was on the agenda on Thursday. Kunselman says that postponing won’t hurt anything. It won’t cause any problems, he says. Teall says she’s ready to vote.

11:55 p.m. Lumm alludes to the solid waste plan, which the council had decided it needed to amend.

11:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the update to the non-motorized plan. Voting for postponement were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Lumm, Kunselman, Higgins and Anglin.

11:57 p.m. DB-2 Site plan: Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church. The council is being asked to approve a site plan for the expansion of the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. The city planning commission recommended approval of the project at its Oct. 1, 2013 meeting. The site plan proposal calls for tearing down five existing buildings and constructing a 12,850-square-foot, two-story addition to the rear of the church. The addition would be used for educational activities at the church, which is located on a 4.3-acre site in Ward 1, southwest of Broadway’s intersection with Plymouth Road.

11:58 p.m. A representative of the project is giving a description of the project at Briere’s request.

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church on Broadway.

11:58 p.m. DS-1 through DS-6 MDEQ for SAW. The next six resolutions are grant requests, related to state legislation passed in 2012 that forms the statutory framework of the Stormwater, Asset Management and Wastewater (SAW) program – a grant program. The legislation funds grants and loans for what the staff memo accompanying the resolutions describes as “funding for grants and loans for asset management plan development, stormwater management plan development, sewage collection and treatment design plan development, and state-funded loans to construct projects identified in the asset management plans.”

Although communities that are awarded grants can receive a maximum of $2 million in total grant funds through the SAW program, the city of Ann Arbor is applying for the following six grants, on the idea that it will maximize its chances if the state uses a lottery type system. [For more background, see Capital Projects: State Funding of Water Asset Projects above.]

11:59 p.m. Hieftje is putting the six resolutions before the council all in one go.

11:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to approve all of the MDEQ grant requests through the SAW program.

12:00 a.m. DS-7 Barton Dam repair ($123,684). The council is being asked to approve a contract with Catskill Remedial Contracting Services Inc. to install a “drainage blanket” for the earthen berm adjoining Barton Dam ($123,685). A drainage blanket is a pervious but stable layer of material installed directly at the base of a structure to facilitate drainage. The installation is meant to repair a “boil” that has surfaced in the drainage ditch at the base on the right embankment at the dam. The boil has been identified as a potential cause of failure for the embankment by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – which is responsible for regulating the dam, because the dam generates electric power. [For more background, see Capital Projects: Barton Dam Repair above.]

12:00 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the contract with Catskill to install the drainage blanket.

12:00 a.m. DS-8 I-94 Business Loop and South Maple Road resurfacing project ($301,600). This project resurfaces the section of Huron Street from Main Street westward as Huron becomes Jackson Avenue on to I-94. The project will include a re-striping to reduce the number of lanes from four to three and add bicycle lanes. On the agenda is approval of an agreement with MDOT, which is required because the city must contribute 12.5% of the funding to the resurfacing. That accounts for $198,700. The additional funding is needed to pay for the resurfacing of the portion of South Maple Road, as a part of the project. South Maple is a city-owned street. MDOT has agreed to include the South Maple resurfacing as part of the project, but it will be funded by the city of Ann Arbor $102,900. [For more background, see Capital Projects: I-94 Business Loop ($301,600) above.]

12:00 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to approve the MDOT contract.

12:00 a.m. DS-9 Sidewalk special assessment resolution – Stone School Road. This is the first of a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Stone School Road for construction of sidewalks, curb and gutter as a part of a road reconstruction project. The resolution simply directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed. [For more background, see Capital Projects: Stone School Road Sidewalk above.]

12:02 a.m. Kunselman reports that there was a good public meeting on the topic. An issue that had arisen was the desire for more streetlights. He says it’s significant that there’s an 80% federal grant supporting the assessed costs.

12:02 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the design and cost estimates for the Stone School Road sidewalk project.

12:02 a.m. DS-10 Sidewalk special assessment resolution – Scio Church. This is the first in a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Scio Church, west of Seventh Street for construction of a sidewalk there to eliminate a gap. The resolution directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed. The Scio Church resolution appropriates $35,000 for the design work. [For more background, see Capital Projects: Scio Church Sidewalk above.]

12:03 a.m. Teall says it’s another very exciting project. She thanks neighborhood resident Peter Houk for his work.

12:04 a.m. Higgins has a question for Craig Hupy. Scio Church Road is coming up for reconstruction, she ventures. Hupy says it’s on the radar but was pretty far off.

12:04 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct preparation of sidewalk design for Scio Church.

12:05 a.m. DS-11 Tech engineering services ($250,000). The council will be asked to approve two different contracts that resulted from a bid that the city put out in June 2013 – for technical engineering services to support the water treatment services unit with capital, operation, and maintenance project support for the water system, dams, and hydroelectric generating stations. One of the contracts is with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. ($250,000). The other contract is with Tetra Tech of Michigan ($250,000). First up is Stantec.

12:05 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Stantec.

12:05 a.m. DS-12 Tech engineering services ($250,000). This is the second of two contracts related to the same RFP put out by the city. This one goes to Tetra Tech of Michigan.

12:05 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Tetra Tech.

12:05 a.m. DS-13 Purchase ozone generator dielectrics ($68,209). The council is being asked to approve a purchase order with Ozonia for ozone generator dielectrics. The city uses ozone in its disinfection process for its drinking water.

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of ozone generator dielectrics.

12:06 a.m. DS-14 Domestic violence grant ($300,000). The resolution accepts a three-year $300,000 supplemental grant for the 15th District Court from the U.S. Department of Justice to enhance countywide efforts to prevent domestic violence, effective Sept. 12, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2016. [For more background on this and the next five resolutions, see Social Capital: 15th District Court above.]

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the domestic violence prevention grant.

12:06 a.m. DS-15 Drug court grant ($144,000). The resolution accepts a Michigan Supreme Court drug court grant for the 15th District Court. The 15th District Court’s sobriety court is “hyper-intensive probation,” which follows sentencing.

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the drug court grant.

12:06 a.m. DS-16 Dawn Farm contract ($88,000). The resolution authorizes a contract with Dawn Farm for out-patient drug abuse counseling as part of the 15th District Court’s sobriety court ($88,000).

12:07 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the contract with Dawn Farm.

12:07 a.m. DS-17 Veterans court grant ($92,279). The resolution accepts the Michigan Supreme Court veterans treatment court program grant.

12:07 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the veterans court grant.

12:07 a.m. DS-18 SafeHouse Center contract ($114,000). This resolution authorizes a contract with SafeHouse to provide domestic violence preventions services ($114,000), using funds accepted under DS-14. Under terms of the contract, SafeHouse Center will provide confidential support, information and referrals for victims of domestic violence cases in the 15th Judicial District Court, 14A Judicial Court and 14B Judicial District Court; monitor court and probation activity as it relates to victim safety; work collaboratively to enhance victim safety; and offer advice and training to judges, magistrates, probation and compliance officers and community partners.

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the contract with SafeHouse.

12:08 a.m. DS-20 Accept public utilities easement. The property is located at 490 Huron Parkway owned by Johnson Building Group LLC.

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the easement.

12:08 a.m. DS-21 Accept public utilities easement. The property is located at 1500 Pauline Ave., owned by Pauline Apartments Limited Dividend Housing Association Limited Partnership.

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the public utilities easement.

12:09 a.m. DS-22 Vacate a public utilities easement. The property is located at 3100 Washtenaw Ave. (Arbor Hills Crossing).

12:09 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to vacate the easement.

12:12 a.m. Council communications. Warpehoski says that with the Y lot resolution, there was a step towards having more money in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. He’d had conversations with some Washtenaw County commissioners about a county site on Platt Road. One of the possible uses for that county-owned property is affordable housing. He says that the city might want to be a partner with the county on the issue of affordable housing.

12:13 a.m. Briere is talking about affordable housing.

12:14 a.m. Hieftje says that in his experience the only way you get anything done on the issue of affordable housing is when you have partners.

12:14 a.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:21 a.m. Seth Best from Camp Take Notice thanks the council for their action on the park permitting ordinance. He shares his experience as a homeless person in Ann Arbor. While the warming shelter will be opening on Nov. 18, there’s not sufficient capacity, he says. Ed Vielmetti is now addressing the council. He’d followed the meeting for a while on CTN tonight, and had come down to address the council. He asks the council to be more clear about the outcome of votes. He notes that it’s difficult to watch the meetings at local establishments like bars and laundromats without closed captioning. He gives a plug for the civic technology meetup group that he’s started.

12:25 a.m. Caleb Poirer thanks Higgins for her service. He thanks Kunselman for his efforts on affordable housing. He thanks Briere for bringing up the possibility of the city matching the DDA’s contribution to affordable housing. He regretted some of the comments of public speakers at the start of the meeting that had characterized the leadership of Ann Arbor negatively. But he was going to join those who spoke in support of their advocacy.

12:28 a.m. Farewell to Higgins. Teall leads off by saying, “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.” She calls Higgins a great friend and a mentor. Teall tells Higgins her institutional memory has been very valuable. Hieftje has left his seat. Higgins is invited to take the seat as mayor pro tem. Taylor is now praising Higgins for her hard work.

12:29 a.m. Taylor says Higgins is good at taking care of slow, important things.

12:29 a.m. The beauty of Higgins’ being permeates the room and makes him joyful, Kunselman says. He praises her for her firmness and her longevity.

12:34 a.m. Lumm says Higgins has so many magnificent qualities. Higgins is going to blaze new trails, Lumm says. She calls Higgins a “class act.” She thanks her for her many years of service. Petersen thanks Higgins for welcoming Petersen to the council. She says she’ll miss her phone conversations with Higgins. Briere says she figures Higgins must get tired of all the praise. She recalls the time that the council used the county board room when city hall was being renovated, and Higgins had suggested that councilmembers sit next to different people.

12:38 a.m. Briere thanks Higgins for her body language. Kailasapathy says that she’d received some stares so she jokes she must not have been behaving. Anglin tells Higgins that Ann Arbor is a better town for her service. Warpehoski says he appreciates Higgins’ experience. On a lighter note, Warpehoski says he now feels less pressure to change his name to something that begins with “M” – alluding to Margie Teall, Mike Anglin, and Marcia Higgins.

12:39 a.m. Hieftje is now delivering his remarks. He thanks Higgins for her service. He reminds everyone that she’s not leaving town and that you can still have a beer with her.

12:41 a.m. Higgins is reviewing all the councilmembers she’s served with. It’s been “an amazing journey,” she says. Each and every person who’d previously sat there had helped her, so it was gratifying to hear people say that she’d helped them. She calls the current administrator the best of those she’d served with. “Thank you all,” she concludes. She gets a round of applause.

12:44 a.m. Teall brings up a bag with a city of Ann Arbor jacket and presents it to Higgins. City administrator Steve Powers has lost his balance and has fallen out of his chair. [See clarifying comment below that "... Powers actually rolled the wheel of his chair off the elevated platform where the mayor and administrator sit."]

12:44 a.m. Powers is unscathed.

12:44 a.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.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor online agenda management system. Image links to the Nov. 7 meeting agenda.

The city’s downtown factors prominently on the agenda in at least three ways. The city council will be asked to consider passing a resolution to direct the city administrator to negotiate a sales agreement for the city-owned property on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues, known as the old Y lot. The council will also be considering a revision to the city ordinance regulating the tax increment finance (TIF) capture of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That’s been under consideration by the council since February, but now a committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has put forward a competing recommendation, which will also be on the Nov. 7 agenda.

Also related to downtown, the council will be formally accepting a report completed by the city’s park advisory commission with recommendations on downtown parks.

Non-motorized issues also factor prominently as a theme of the Nov. 7 agenda. In addition to an update of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, the council will consider establishing a pedestrian safety task force. The council’s agenda also includes the first of a series of resolutions for two separate sidewalk projects – one on Stone School Road and another on Scio Church Road. The council’s resolutions for those projects, directing the design work and detailed cost estimates, are the first actions necessary for some of the funding of the sidewalks to be special assessed to the adjacent property owners.

An additional project related to non-motorized issues, but not obviously so, is a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to resurface a portion of Huron Street from Main Street westward as Huron becomes Jackson Avenue on to I-94, as well as a section of South Maple. The intent is to re-stripe the roadway, reducing the lanes from four to three and adding bicycle lanes.

The sidewalk and street projects are among several capital improvement-related items on the agenda, including one that would help stabilize the earthen berm adjacent to Barton Dam. The council will also be considering a half dozen resolutions that will authorize applying for state grants that could fund capital asset projects for the city.

In addition to the items related to the city’s physical infrastructure, the council has several items that could be described as relating to the city’s social infrastructure. Those items relate to grants from the state and federal government to the 15th District Court for several of its specialty courts that focus on drug offenses, domestic violence, and veterans issues. The council will also be asked to approve a modified continuation of its coordinated funding approach to human services.

The agenda includes some council initiatives announced at the council’s previous meeting on Oct. 21. One of those is a resolution requesting that the University of Michigan decommission a recently constructed digital billboard near the football stadium.

Another one is a resolution directing the education of city officials on professional conduct. Related tangentially to those ethical considerations are the approvals of new bylaws for two of the city’s boards and commissions – the planning commission and the design review board.

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

Downtown

The agenda includes several items related to the downtown area.

Downtown: DDA Ordinance

On the Nov. 7 agenda are now two possible revisions to the city’s ordinance regarding how the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s TIF capture is regulated (Chapter 7). The first version has been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013.

The second version is the result of recommendations by a committee of DDA board members and city councilmembers that has met four times since Aug. 26, most recently on Oct. 30. That committee was established at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting – after the first version achieved initial approval at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. Representing the council on the joint committee are Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Representing the DDA are Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel and Joan Lowenstein.

A range of possible parliamentary mechanisms are available to the council for handling the two competing versions of the ordinance amendment. One approach would be to put off deciding between the two versions at the Nov. 7 meeting – by postponing the first version and giving the second version an initial approval. That could move the debate to the council’s Nov. 18 meeting – after the new composition of the city council is seated.

Another parliamentary approach on Nov. 7 could be to amend the first version through substitution of the second. Or the council could vote down the first version and consider the second version. The council could also vote to give the first version final approval and not consider the second version when it’s reached on the agenda. The first version appears first on the agenda – but that order could be re-arranged at the start of the meeting.

The first version, which will be in front of the council for final approval, would clarify the existing language of the ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF capture in a way that would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction in the ordinance. The restriction on TIF revenue that’s already expressed in the ordinance is defined by reference to the amount of growth in taxable value in the DDA district that’s anticipated in the DDA’s TIF plan – a foundational document of the DDA. When those restrictions are applied to the DDA’s TIF revenue, then the amount of TIF received by the DDA would be roughly $4 million in FY 2015. By way of comparison, in the current fiscal year (FY 2014), under its preferred interpretation, the DDA looks to capture approximately $4.5 million of the taxes levied by other jurisdictions.

Under the first version revision, that roughly $0.5 million difference would be proportionally divided among the taxing jurisdictions, which together levy roughly 27.5 mills of taxes in the DDA district. Proportionally, that translates to: city of Ann Arbor (60%), Washtenaw County (21%), Washtenaw Community College (13%), and Ann Arbor District Library (6%). So out of a $500,000 return to other taxing jurisdictions, the city of Ann Arbor would receive $300,000. However, that $300,000 would be distributed proportionally to the funds generating Ann Arbor’s levy. Part of Ann Arbor’s levy is a transportation tax that is passed through to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. So of the $300,000 that would be returned to the city, about $40,000 of it would be passed through to the AAATA.

However, the total amount that would be returned on the first version revision is projected to rise each year from that roughly $0.5 million, to somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million in FY 2017 based on projects in the downtown under construction and in the approval process.

The second version, proposed by the committee, would set a cap on DDA TIF revenue that would not apply at all until FY 2017 and would result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year, with an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions. The city’s portion of that would be roughly $180,000, distributed proportionally across all its funds that get income from a captured levy, including the general fund.

Another major difference between the first version and the committee-recommended version of the Chapter 7 ordinance change is that the first version includes revisions to governance of the DDA, which the committee-recommended version omits. Those governance revisions include (1) a two-term limit for service on the DDA board; (2) a prohibition against elected officials, other than the mayor, serving on the DDA board; and (3) service of the mayor on the board (a possibility explicitly provided in the DDA state enabling legislation) subject to annual approval by the city council. If the council did not approve the mayor’s service on the DDA board in a given year, then that spot would go to the city administrator.

Downtown: Y Lot Sale

A resolution added to the agenda on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013 would direct city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the purchase of the city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. Dahlmann has offered $5.25 million for the property, known as the Y lot. It had been listed at $4.2 million. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

If those negotiations are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings).

The memo accompanying the Nov. 7 resolution states:

The offers from Dennis Dahlmann and CA Ventures are the strongest (cash, no contingencies, sales agreement, close in 2013) of the five proposals. Differences between the two offers are slight, but may be significant to city council. Dahlmann is proposing a purchase price of $5,250,000. CA Ventures is proposing $5,150,000. Dahlmann is proposing to build to less than the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning. CA Ventures’ offer assumes the ability to build to the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning.

The Nov. 7 resolution directs the city administrator to provide a purchase agreement for the property for the council’s consideration at its Nov. 18 meeting. That purchase agreement is supposed to include protections against the property not being developed.

While the council’s Nov. 7 meeting follows the Nov. 5 city council elections, the Nov. 18 meeting is the first meeting of the newly constituted council. The Nov. 7 resolution is sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. [.pdf of summary page by Jim Chaconas]

The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale, as the city faces a $3.5 million balloon payment this year from the purchase loan it holds on that property. The city has owned the land for a decade.

Downtown: Parks

A subcommittee of the park advisory commission (PAC) has been meeting since early 2013 to explore the possibilities for a new downtown park. The subcommittee delivered its recommendations at the Oct. 15, 2013 meeting of PAC. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

Ingrid Ault chaired the committee, which also included Julie Grand, Alan Jackson and Karen Levin. The committee’s work is also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project.

The subcommittee’s work was guided by this mission statement:

To determine whether and what additional parks are wanted and/or needed in downtown Ann Arbor, focusing on city-owned parcels in the DDA district while maintaining awareness of additional nearby properties, for example: Liberty Plaza, 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington. The “deliverable” will be a set of recommendations for the City Council.

The eight recommendations are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process. The AADL board and staff discussed this recommendation at their Oct. 21, 2013 meeting.

Downtown – and Citywide: Park Fee Waiver

The council will be giving initial consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs could be conducted in city parks without incurring a fee for park use. The proposal is not restricted to downtown parks, but the idea originated from an issue that emerged in connection with Liberty Plaza, which is a downtown park.

The recommendation for the ordinance change came from the city’s park advisory commission at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting. This broader policy change comes three months after the Ann Arbor city council waived all rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, based on a PAC recommendation. That city council action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

The Liberty Plaza fee waiver was approved in response to a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when the city staff considered applying fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church. The proposal recommended by PAC on Sept. 17, and on the council’s Nov. 7 agenda, would amend Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language]

It would be a permanent fee waiver for this specific purpose – the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – but it would still require that organizations get a permit to use the park, and follow permitting procedures, including clean up obligations.

Non-Motorized Issues

Several items on the council’s Nov. 7 agenda relate to non-motorized issues.

Non-Motorized Issues: Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Update

The council is being asked to adopt an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, which is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

The update will be an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

Examples of planning and policy issues include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.” Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands. Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

Non-Motorized Issues: Pedestrian Safety

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) announced at the council’s Oct. 21 meeting that they’d be bringing forward a proposal to establish a pedestrian safety task force. At the Oct. 21 meeting, Warpehoski stated that the effort was not meant as an alternative to the efforts that other councilmembers are making to bring forward a repeal of the city’s pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk. The resolution establishing the task force acknowledges that many residents are concerned that current city policies create an unsafe environment for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

The pedestrian safety and access task force would consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.” Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application] The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting.

The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

Some of the recent community conversation has included the fact that traffic crashes involving a pedestrian have shown an increase in the last two years, the period during which Ann Arbor adopted its local ordinance that requires more of motorists than the UTC. The charts below are by The Chronicle using data from Michigan Traffic Crash Facts.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: Ann Arbor

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG region.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG Region by County

Pedestrian Crashes by Year: Washtenaw County Outside Ann Arbor

Capital Projects

The Nov. 7 city council agenda includes a number of resolutions involving capital projects and expenses, some of which relate to non-motorized issues.

Capital Projects: I-94 Business Loop ($301,600)

This project would resurface the section of Huron Street from Main Street westward as Huron becomes Jackson Avenue on to I-94. The project will include a re-striping to reduce the number of lanes from four to three and add bicycle lanes. An agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is required because the city must contribute 12.5% of the funding for the resurfacing. That accounts for $198,700. Additional funding is needed to pay for the resurfacing of the portion of South Maple Road, as part of the project. South Maple is a city-owned street. MDOT has agreed to include the South Maple resurfacing as part of the project, but it will be funded by the city of Ann Arbor for $102,900.

Capital Projects: Stone School Road Sidewalk

On the council’s agenda is the first of a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Stone School Road for constructing sidewalks, curbs and gutters as part of a road reconstruction project. The resolution simply directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed.

Capital Projects: Scio Church Sidewalk

Also on the council’s agenda is the first in a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Scio Church, west of Seventh Street, for constructing a sidewalk there to eliminate a gap. The resolution directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed. The Scio Church resolution appropriates $35,000 for the design work. [For Chronicle coverage of a neighborhood meeting on the Scio Church sidewalk, see "Sidewalks: Build, Repair, Shovel"]

Capital Projects: Barton Dam Repair

The council will be asked to approve a contract with Catskill Remedial Contracting Services Inc. to install a “drainage blanket” for the earthen berm adjoining Barton Dam ($123,685). A drainage blanket is a pervious but stable layer of material installed directly at the base of a structure to facilitate drainage. The installation is meant to repair a “boil” that has surfaced in the drainage ditch at the base of the right embankment at the dam. The boil has been identified as a potential cause of failure for the embankment by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – which is responsible for regulating the dam, because the dam generates electric power.

The contract is recommended to be awarded to Catskill, even though Pranam GlobalTech provided the lowest bid. The staff memo cites “substandard performance” by Pranam GlobalTech on two other city projects, which led to the disqualification of their bid. The cost of the project will be split between the water fund (as the dam creates a pond from which the city draws the majority of its drinking water) and the general fund (for the hydroelectric operations).

The council had been alerted to the need for this project earlier this year, at a Feb. 11, 2013 work session on the FY 2014 budget. From The Chronicle’s report of that session:

In addition to the concrete and steel part of the dam, a roughly 3/8-mile long earthen embankment is part of the structure that forms Barton Pond, [public services area administrator Craig] Hupy explained. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) has required the city to do some investigative work, and the city thinks there’ll be some follow-up work required when that investigative work is completed. [FERC is involved as a regulator because the Barton Dam generates electricity.]

Responding to a question from [Ward 3 councilmember Christopher] Taylor about the anticipated cost of the additional work, Hupy indicated that it would be “six figures.” The city is putting about $400,000 total in various parts of the budget for it. But until the study work is completed later this spring, the amount can’t be more precise, Hupy indicated. Because Barton is a federally controlled dam, whatever the work the city does will be what the regulator demands that the city does or doesn’t do. “Stay tuned,” Hupy told Taylor.

Capital Projects: Technical Engineering Services

The council will be asked to approve two different contracts that resulted from a bid it put out in June 2013 – for technical engineering services to support the water treatment services unit with capital, operation, and maintenance project support for the water system, dams, and hydroelectric generating stations. One of the contracts is with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. ($250,000). The other contract is with Tetra Tech of Michigan ($250,000).

Capital Projects: Ozone

The council will be asked to approve a purchase order with Ozonia for ozone generator dielectrics ($68,209). The city uses ozone in the disinfection process for its drinking water. The city is currently out of spare dielectric units, which are the components that convert oxygen gas to ozone gas. So this resolution would allow the city to have replacement parts on hand if the units fail.

Capital Projects: State Funding of Water Asset Projects

Six resolutions appear on the council’s agenda related to state legislation passed in 2012 that forms the statutory framework of the Stormwater, Asset Management and Wastewater (SAW) program – a grant program. The legislation funds grants and loans for what the staff memo accompanying the resolutions describes as “funding for grants and loans for asset management plan development, stormwater management plan development, sewage collection and treatment design plan development, and state-funded loans to construct projects identified in the asset management plans.” [.pdf of FAQ by the State of Michigan on the SAW program] [PA 511 of 2012] [PA 560 of 2012] [PA 561 of 2012] [PA 562 of 2012]

Although communities that are awarded grants can receive a maximum of $2 million in total grant funds through the SAW program, the city of Ann Arbor is applying for the following six grants, on the idea that it will maximize its chances if the state uses a lottery type system. The first $1 million has a 10% local match requirement, and the second $1 million of grant money has a 25% local match requirement.

The city is applying for funding for some projects that have already been started, because money awarded through the SAW program can be spent retroactively as early as Jan. 2, 2013. The council will be considering six resolutions corresponding to grant requests from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for the following projects.

• Asset Management Plan for the Sanitary System ($1.1 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($25,000) for a total of $125,000.
• Asset Management Plan for the Stormwater System ($1.1 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($25,000) for a total of $125,000.
• Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Evaluation Project (retroactive) ($1.2 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($50,000) for a total of $150,000.
• Stormwater Model Calibration Project (retroactive) ($750,000): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($75,000) or 25% of second million ($187,500) for a maximum of $187,500.
• Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Asset Management Program ($350,00): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($35,000) or 25% of second million ($87,500) for a maximum of $87,500.
• Asset Management Plan for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Sanitary Sewer System ($1.5 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($125,000) for a total of $225,000.

Social Infrastructure

In addition to physical infrastructure items, the council’s Nov. 7 agenda also includes several pieces of business that could be described as related to social infrastructure.

Social Infrastructure: 15th District Court

The council will be asked to consider authorizing five grant-related items involving the specialty court functions of the 15th District Court. [For background on the 15th District Court and some of its functions, see Chronicle coverage: "Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court"]

• Accept three-year $300,000 supplemental grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to enhance countywide efforts to prevent domestic violence, effective Sept. 12, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2016. Of the grant total, $181,000 will reimburse the city for the salaries for a full-time domestic violence probation officer, a half-time system coordinator, and a part-time data entry clerk. Another $5,000 will reimburse the city for training expenses required by the U.S. Dept. of Justice. The remaining $114,000 will reimburse the city for a contract with SafeHouse Center to provide domestic violence prevention services.
• Authorize contract with SafeHouse to provide domestic violence prevention services ($114,000). Under terms of the contract, SafeHouse Center will provide confidential support, information and referrals for victims of domestic violence cases in the 15th District Court, 14A District Court and 14B District Court; monitor court and probation activity as it relates to victim safety; work collaboratively to enhance victim safety; and offer advice and training to judges, magistrates, probation and compliance officers and community partners.
• Accept Michigan Supreme Court drug court grant ($144,000). The 15th District Court’s sobriety court is “hyper-intensive probation,” which follows sentencing. The court assigns a full-time probation officer to the sobriety court for a program that lasts 18-24 months and includes monitoring of participants’ attendance at treatment programs, their progress in treatment, how they’re spending their time at work and doing community service. Reporting requirements are extensive. Participants must take frequent portable breath tests (PBTs) and urine tests. The majority of sobriety court participants are second-offender DWI cases, but offenses need not be driving-related. Also eligible to participate in sobriety court are, for example, retail fraud (shoplifting) offenders and misdemeanor drug possession offenders. Some of that grant money will fund a contract with Dawn Farm.
• Authorize contract with Dawn Farm ($88,000). The contract is for out-patient drug abuse counseling as part of the 15th District Court’s sobriety court.
• Accept Michigan Supreme Court veterans treatment court program grant ($92,279).

Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding

The council will be asked to authorize the basic approach that it has taken to human services funding in the past, but with some modifications. The funds would continue to be managed through Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development, using the coordinated funding approach.

The county is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010; this is the second time that the program has been extended.

The coordinated funding process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The approach targets six priority areas, and identifies lead agencies for each area: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

Last year, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended. One of those changes is that funding would not necessarily be allocated to the six priority areas based on the proportion of funding allocated in the past. Instead, allocations among the six priority areas would be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized. An additional change would broaden the pre-screening process so that smaller nonprofits could be accommodated.

Recommendations for specific funding allocations will be made in spring 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process. One of the goals of coordinated funding is to attract more partners, such as private foundations.

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners gave initial approval to the continued use of the coordinated funding approach at its Oct. 16, 2013 meeting.

Ethics

The council’s agenda includes a couple of items that relate to ethics.

Ethics: Professional Standards of Conduct

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) is bringing forward a resolution that does not include “ethics” in the title, but addresses the kind of issues that could be described under the general rubric of “ethics.” The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute.

A final “resolved” clauses direct the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor. The final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard that’s recommended by the council rules committee and it’s strictly followed – would end any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government.

Ethics: Consent Agenda – Planning Commission Bylaws

The Nov. 7 consent agenda includes approval of new bylaws for two entities – the city’s design review board and the city planning commission.

Not the subject of a revision, but still the source of some recent community interest, is the following clause from the planning commission bylaws, which imposes a limitation on the ability of a councilmember to address the city planning commission:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.

That part of the bylaws surfaced recently, when councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy on separate occasions sought to address the planning commission – Warpehoski on July 16, 2013 and Kailasapathy on Aug. 13, 2013.

Based on an analysis in the Michigan Municipal League’s “Handbook for Municipal Officials,” it may be problematic for a city councilmember to address a body like the planning commission. That’s not based on having a property interest in a matter, but rather because the council is the appointing body for the commission. The handbook presents the following scenario as an ethical exercise – using the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). From the MML Handbook:

Situation #2 Before you were elected to the city council you served on your city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), so you know the ZBA procedures very well. A few months after your election to council, your neighbor and campaign manager files a petition with the ZBA seeking a variance. Since you know how the ZBA works, he asks you to accompany him to the ZBA and to speak on his behalf. Should you do it?

The analysis offered by the handbook is the following:

No. The Michigan Court of Appeals has labeled this situation as “patently improper” and an abuse of public trust for the reason that the person making the argument to the ZBA is also one of the people charged with appointing the ZBA. This creates duress on the ZBA, raising doubt about the impartiality of the ZBA’s decision. Any decision made by the ZBA under these circumstances is void. See Barkey v. Nick, 11 Mich App 361 (1968).

The implication of the Ann Arbor city planning commission bylaw is that it’s permissible for a city councilmember to address the commission exactly when the councilmember is not the petitioner or does not have an interest in the matter. That situation appears to be explicitly deemed unethical by the MML Handbook, if the handbook’s analysis is extended from the ZBA to the planning commission.

Ethics: Consent Agenda – Rental Housing Inspection

A consent agenda item increases the amount of a contract the city has with the accounting firm Plante Moran for a thorough review of the city’s permitting processes. That review comes in the context of the discovery that some rental housing permits had not been properly verified, according to city sources. Steps taken by the city staff to correct the problems included a review of all questionable permits. That included site visits to eight residential properties, six of them occupied, to ensure no one was living in unsafe conditions.

Re-inspection continues of residential and business properties to verify issued permits, to ensure the accuracy of the city’s records. Property owners are not being charged additional costs for re-inspection. The city anticipated that over 80 properties would be re-inspected as of Oct. 30. The permits for those 80 properties compare to a total number of 10,000 building and rental permits issued annually.

Miscellaneous

A number of other items appear on the agenda. Here are a few highlights.

Misc: Consent Agenda

Three other consent agenda items include a $60,000 contract with Utilities Instrumentation Service for electrical and instrumentation support services. According to a staff memo, the scope of UIS work will include “transformer testing, infrared testing of switchgear, testing of medium voltage breakers at City substations and generators, programming and calibration of instrumentation, Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) support and troubleshooting, Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) programming, and tuning and testing of dam and hydroelectric generator controls.”

A fourth item on the consent agenda sets a public hearing for establishing an industrial development district (for potential tax abatements) at 1901 E. Ellsworth. That hearing will be held on Dec. 2, 2013.

Misc: Church Site Plan

The council will be asked to approve a site plan for the expansion of the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. The city planning commission recommended approval of the project at its Oct. 1, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view of site for the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway.

The site plan proposal calls for tearing down five existing buildings and constructing a 12,850-square-foot, two-story addition to the rear of the church. The addition would be used for educational activities at the church, which is located on a 4.3-acre site in Ward 1, southwest of Broadway’s intersection with Plymouth Road.

According to a staff memo, only minor changes are proposed for the existing 142-space parking lot. Additional sidewalks will be added, including a roughly 20-foot extension of the public sidewalk along Broadway Street, which currently stops short of the south property line.

Because the church is located in an area zoned for single-family residential use (R1C zoning), a special exception use approval was needed from the planning commission. The city’s planning staff noted that the church has been located there for about 50 years. The church has a capacity of 126 seats, which will remain unchanged. At their Oct. 1 meeting, planning commissioners unanimously voted to grant approval for a special exception use.

The project is estimated to cost about $3 million. No approval is required from the city council for the special exception use, but the council must consider the site plan for approval.

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!

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

In its form, the resolution is similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council has been asked to approve in recent months. [For example, the council has approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013 meeting, 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.]

However, the sidewalk gap near King Elementary School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009.

For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the segment of sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King Elementary School crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair – but not new construction – can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage.

In the case of the Waldenwood sidewalk, it’s located to the rear of the residential properties – and the city does not typically special assess properties to finance sidewalks to the rear of a property.

The council’s action on Aug. 8 authorized only the design budget. To impose a special assessment would require additional steps including the preparation of an assessment roll, and scheduling of a public hearing.

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]