From left: 15th District Court judge Christopher Easthope – a former Ann Arbor city councilmember – and 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft at the council’s June 17 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The main court-related item was part of an annual adjustment to the current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2013), which ends on June 30. The adjustment is made on a routine basis in order to bring the budget in line with actual expenditures. The general fund budget adjustment that was eventually approved by the council increased it by $567,000.

And of that amount, a significant part was attributable to the 15th District Court – including $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000. None of the salary increases went to judges, whose compensation is set through state statute.

The council was essentially being asked to approve the accounting adjustment for money that had already been spent this year.

The city’s budget for the next fiscal year – approved by the council last month, on May 20, 2013 – already incorporated the court workers’ salary increases going forward, and councilmembers had been apprised of the raises before their budget deliberations in May. The council’s deliberations on May 20 had not focused on those raises, but rather on the possibility of reducing the court’s budget in order to fund additional police officers for the city.

At the June 17 meeting, all three judges of the court plus the court administrator were on hand – as some councilmembers drew out a disagreement regarding how the wage increases should have been approached. At least some councilmembers felt the court should have asked the council before awarding wage increases to its workers.

Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, indicated at the meeting that if the council had not approved the budget adjustment for the court, it would likely have generated a note in next year’s audit.

Other court-related items on the council’s agenda included a new $240,000 annual flat-fee contract with Nassif and Reiser – the firm that provides indigent representation for the court. The council also approved a $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, the building next to city hall that houses the 15th District Court.

The council approved two items related to the court’s special Sobriety Court, one of which was a $65,000 grant program contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm to provide in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants. It was approved over the dissent of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who objected to the accompanying provision that waived a requirement that Dawn Farm adhere to the city’s living wage ordinance.

The wind generator item was originally on the consent agenda, but was pulled out for separate consideration. The council had previously voted unanimously at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting to accept a roughly $950,000 U.S. Department of Energy grant for installation of the wind generator. The council was asked on June 17 to spend about $50,000 of the grant proceeds on an initial environmental assessment, required before the project can move forward. Three councilmembers balked at the request, but the resolution was ultimately approved.

In business related to revisions of local laws, the council gave final approval to an ordinance change that limits use of fireworks to between the hours of 8 a.m. and midnight. And the council gave final approval to the city’s outdoor sign ordinance that limits the incorporation of digital technology into outdoor signs – in a way that prohibits such use for billboards. However, the council again delayed taking an initial vote on an ordinance that would regulate how local law enforcement officials can use public surveillance cameras. The council did give initial approval to adopt the new fire code into the city’s ordinances.

In land use and development business, the council approved a revised development agreement for The Varsity. The agreement now incorporates a total of seven monthly parking permits that will be purchased at a premium cost under the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The council also gave approval to site plans for two projects: the State Street Center and 544 Detroit St. The 544 Detroit St. project included a brownfield plan, which was also approved. Another brownfield plan was on the council’s agenda – related to the Packard Square development on the site of the former Georgetown Mall. That plan had previously been approved, but an additional council vote was needed to change the set of activities that are eligible for reimbursement.

In connection with government-controlled land, the council approved $382,000 in additional operating support for the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. The council also passed a resolution committing up to $750,000 in general fund money to convert city-owned property at 721 N. Main to a greenway park. However, if the grants that the city expects to be awarded are actually received, none of that $750,000 would need to be spent on the project.

The council again heard public commentary about a homelessness outreach ministry in one of the city’s established parks – Liberty Plaza in downtown Ann Arbor, at Division and Liberty streets.

The council also approved revisions to collective bargaining agreements with the six unions in the police department, which gave members a 2% wage increase.

In a symbolic effort, the council voted to oppose expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County – a proposal that’s part of SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan with an estimated cost of $4 billion. SEMCOG subsequently adopted the plan.

The council put off voting on proposed changes to its internal rules, which could result in adding public commentary time at the council’s work sessions, but reducing the time allowed per turn from three minutes to two minutes. The council is expected to vote on the full set of rule changes at its July 1 meeting.

The proposed changes to the rules would move nominations and confirmation of appointments to a slot near the start of the meeting, instead of its current position near the end. For the June 17 meeting, the council’s confirmations came after midnight – and included reappointment of Bonnie Bona to the planning commission, and LuAnne Bullington to the taxicab board.

15th District Court

A number of items on the June 17 agenda related to the 15th District Court – either directly or indirectly.

15th District Court: City FY 2013 Budget Adjustment

The council was asked to make changes to the FY 2013 budget – which ends on June 30 – totaling $567,000 for the general fund. Much of that stemmed from additional expenses incurred by the 15th District Court. [.pdf of proposed amendments]

The 15th District Court’s portion of that adjustment stemmed from $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000.

General information about the court’s wage increases – authorized by chief judge Libby Hines in October 2012 and the focus of council inquiry at the council’s June 17 meeting – was known to the council before its May 20, 2013 meeting, when councilmembers voted to approve next year’s FY 2014 budget. [.pdf of May 13, 2013 memo on 15th District Court expenses] That FY 2014 budget incorporated the wage increases going forward.

As it related to the court, the council’s May 20, 2013 deliberations on the FY 2014 budget were in the context of reducing the court’s budget in order to fund three police officer positions – a proposal put forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft was present at that meeting and took questions about the salary increases at that time. However, Lumm’s FY 2014 budget amendment failed on a 5-6 vote.

15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) before the June 17 meeting started.

Subsequently, Zeisloft provided a memo to the council in advance of its June 17 meeting, giving a more detailed explanation of the salary increases. The judges, magistrate and Zeisloft were excluded from the increases. The majority of other staff received a 0-3% increase. Administrative staff received an average 4.85% increase based on the conclusion that they were under-compensated compared to their peers in other courts.

The case management staff received an average of 4.22% raises based on increased supervisory responsibilities. Judicial staff averaged a 4.76% increase based on increased specialty court responsibilities. The highest increases, averaging 18.15%, were given to probation officers who were found to be significantly under-compensated compared to their peers, and who had increased multi-jurisdictional, specialty court responsibilities. [.pdf of responses from 15th District Court to councilmember inquiries]

The block of items related to the 15th District Court were moved up on the agenda at the start of the meeting, in deference to the fact that three judges and the court administrator were in attendance.

15th District Court: City FY 2013 Budget Adjustment – Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the discussion by proposing an amendment that eliminated the $112,000 budget adjustment for the 15th District Court salary increases – which had been approved by chief Judge Libby Hines in late 2012. Briere contended that the regular processes weren’t followed for the wage increases, venturing that the chief judge had overstepped her bounds. Briere was not satisfied with the mechanism by which the wage increases were approved, saying they were “not properly done.”

The overall tone of the ensuing interaction between the three judges and the council was consistent with the language Zeisloft had provided in his memo. Responding to a question about the ability of the city council to control the court’s spending decisions, the memo states:

Although City Council has authority to establish a total annual budget for the Court, and with all respect due to Council, the Court declines to accept that City Council has authority to direct, control, approve or disapprove specific expenditures, including but not limited to compensation of judicial employees. However, legalities aside, the Court has always sought a respectful and cordial relationship with Council and City Administration, and the Court’s budget history demonstrates that the Court has been a prudent and careful custodian of public funds, at times even to the disadvantage of the Court’s own interests.

At the meeting, Zeisloft generally deferred questions to the judges of the court, who were all in attendance: Judges Chris Easthope, Libby Hines and Joe Burke are all standing at the podium. However, Zeisloft also responded to particular items.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) followed up on the salary increases – which were implemented in October 2012 – asking for a breakdown of the $112,000. Relying on figures from the city’s finance department, Zeisloft gave the breakdown as follows: compensation ($115,000), overtime ($10,000), temporary pay ($19,000) and vacancies (-$32,000) for a total of $112,000. The annual cost going forward was calculated at $193,000. Zeisloft had prefaced his remarks by saying that the information hadn’t been distributed to councilmembers because he didn’t have the information earlier. Lumm asked for the information to be provided in writing.

Hines told the council she respects the separation of powers, but she asserted the authority of the chief judge to increase salaries. The court has never asked the city for permission to do that in her 22 years on the bench. She pointed out the money that the court has managed to return to the city in past years when it has come in under budget. Zeisloft’s memo put the figures as follows: for FY 2002 through FY 2012, the council had budgeted a total of $41,865,240 from the general fund for court operations. Over that period, the court spent only $40,435,613, for a net return to the city budget of $1,429,627.

Hines put the salary increases in the context of retaining employees. She described past pay cuts and freezes. She also described a gross disparity in pay between the probation officers in the 15th District Court compared to other courts. And she added that while the court had worked with the city’s HR department, the court had not asked permission to implement the raises. The court is not overpaying its employees by any means, she said, concluding that she felt the pay raises were only reasonable.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) disagreed with the narrative of the “honorable judges,” citing the decrease in cases handled by the court. The workload has come down, Kailasapathy contended. She was relying on the data that the court had provided to the council earlier in the year:

By way of background, Ann Arbor’s caseload downward trends are in line with the overall trend for other comparable courts [.pdf of caseload trends for 15th District Court]:

               Misdem       Civil Inf    Gen Civil
D15 Ann Arbor  3,109 ‐31%   13,894 ‐49%  1,742 ‐16%

-

Easthope said the 15th District Court was trying to be in the lead in reducing its costs. He allowed that the caseload had gone down, but the number of employees had also gone down, he contended.

The city’s comprehensive financial reports show 41 FTEs (full-time equivalents) for the court in 2007 compared to 36 in 2012:

15th District Court historical FTE count. (Data from city records, chart by The Chronicle)

Hines said that the kind of cases that had gone down – civil infractions – were not the kind that reduce judge and staff time. Hines returned to her earlier point about the basis for the salary increases – the challenge of retaining employees.

Briere said she’s not unsympathetic to the situation. But she felt the salary increases should have been considered as part of the standard budgeting process. The money should have been built into the FY 2013 budget, Briere contended. She agreed with the need to compensate the court staff – but a standard increase in salary should have been included in previous year’s budget.

Burke offered his perspective of the newest judge of the court, telling the council that when he became a judge, Hines and Easthope had sat him down and talked to him about the employees and the need for retention. He said that in making the salary increases, they had followed the normal procedures that anyone would in determining the amounts of the increases – gathering comparative data and the like. The one thing that they had not done was ask the city council. Responding to Briere’s point about budgeting, Burke said the court had calculated that the salary increases would come in within the court’s FY 2013 budget – but they had been wrong. It was a point to which Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) returned later in the deliberations, telling Burke that he appreciated the fact the court had acknowledged that its math was off.

Kailasapathy then cited a Michigan Supreme Court administrative order. It appears to say that if the court uses a line item budget, there are restrictions on what the court can do.

From Administrative Order No. 1998-5, which applies to district courts, among others.

II. COURT BUDGETING If the local funding unit requests that a proposed court budget be submitted in line-item detail, the chief judge must comply with the request. If a court budget has been appropriated in line-item detail, without prior approval of the funding unit, a court may not transfer between line-item accounts to: (a) create new personnel positions or to supplement existing wage scales or benefits, except to implement across the board increases that were granted to employees of the funding unit after the adoption of the court’s budget at the same rate, or (b) reclassify an employee to a higher level of an existing category. A chief judge may not enter into a multiple-year commitment concerning any personnel economic issue unless: (1) the funding unit agrees, or (2) the agreement does not exceed the percentage increase or the duration of a multiple-year contract that the funding unit has negotiated for its employees. Courts must notify the funding unit or a local court management council of transfers between lines within 10 business days of the transfer. The requirements shall not be construed to restrict implementation of collective bargaining agreements.

Zeisloft responded to Kailasapathy by saying that the court submits a budget in a line item form only as a courtesy. It’s a function of the city’s financial software. Tom Crawford, the city’s CFO, followed up with the additional explanation that the city requires all the component units to submit line item budgets, but the city council authorizes the budgets by fund. Kailasapathy returned to her question about the administrative order.

Easthope, a former city councilmember, stated that the council has the authority to set a lump sum budget for the court. But the council doesn’t have the ability to change line items, he said. Easthope reiterated the description of the court as a separate branch of government. There was some unclarity expressed about where the comparative salary data had come from and who had gathered it. About the comparative salary data and its source, Easthope stated that the Supreme Court administrative office had provided all the comparative data. Hines had not simply said, “You get a raise and you get a raise …”

Considerable back-and-forth ensued between Kailasapathy and Zeisloft on the way the HR department of the city had been involved in the compensation adjustment amount. No formal report had been requested from HR, Zeisloft confirmed.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked for clarification of the administrative order on line item budgeting. and what happens if the council doesn’t approve the adjustment. That is, what happens if Briere’s amendment passes? Crawford indicated that the city would probably receive a formal note from the city’s auditor next year. The money has already been spent, Warpehoski ventured. Crawford indicated agreement that it would be difficult to stop the expenditures before the fiscal year ends on June 30.

Lumm then confirmed with Crawford that court employee checks are processed through the city. In describing the fact that the court had exceeded its budget this year (FY 2013), Lumm said that the court’s budget seems to be “optional.” But picking up on Warpehoski’s point – that the council essentially needs to approve the budget adjustment or accept a negative note on the audit of its financial statements next year – Lumm ventured that there doesn’t seem to be an option not to make the adjustment. Easthope contended that the court was actually under the budget by $99,000. Lumm wanted to follow up later on that, indicating that Easthope’s remarks weren’t consistent with the information the council had received.

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

Kunselman asked what Burke thought the consequence should be: Should the council just cover the amount of the salary increases? In the short term, Burke replied, yes. He said the court doesn’t spend money like drunken sailors. Burke indicated that there is a clear understanding on the court’s part that the council would not want to hear next year at this time that the court had the same issue.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventured that the council had engaged in a full conversation, but it’s a simple question. The court had diligently determined that their line workers’ wages were below market, Taylor concluded. And the council has already approved the increases going forward, he noted, when it approved the FY 2014 budget. So Taylor indicated he’d vote against Briere’s amendment. Mayor John Hieftje confirmed with Crawford that the budget resolution basically recognizes reality.

Briere indicated that her intent was not to force the court into a deficit. The court’s staff should not be penalized for the actions of their supervisors. So she’d withdraw her amendment. But she said the court should have done a better job of communicating, and she stated she would remember the situation without fondness. Kailasapathy, who seconded the amendment, hesitated for several seconds before agreeing with Briere to withdraw it.

With that amendment withdrawn, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) moved on to the indigent representation and the security services issue. Zeisloft characterized those as an unusual circumstance, that should not arise again in the future. Easthope noted that the special docket courts are operated at no cost to the city.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) returned to the issue of the salary increases, picking up on the historical pattern that Hines had cited of the court coming in under budget and returning money to the city. Why were salary increases not undertaken during the period when the court was returning money to the city? If the court had the ability to give raises without asking permission from the city, why didn’t the court give the raises at that time – when the court had the money?

As far as the idea that the court was trying to mirror the city organization’s approach of not giving raises during the period of the economic downturn, Higgins pointed out that the city had not given its employees the kind of raises the court had implemented over the last year. So she didn’t see the mirroring play out.

Burke ventured that unfortunately the court did not get the opportunity to come before the council to say that it was returning money to the city. It was only when more money was needed that court officials came to the council. Higgins complained that she felt blindsided, because the court did not come to the council and communicate that to the council about a major increase.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Briere ventured that it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Burke responded by saying he felt Briere’s remark was “[holding his fingers apart to indicate an increment] this much of a cheap shot.” Briere told Burke it was OK that he felt that way, because she felt the other way – that in years past when the court knew it had outstanding debts to the county for security services, for example, but had returned money to the city, to her that was a problem. Briere also alluded to the issue with the court’s math, which Kunselman had also noted. Briere indicated that she had great respect for the court and the work that it did. But it was a “big chunk” to come to the council with at the last meeting in June.

Burke said that if his mathematical competence was being questioned, then he could live with that. But if Briere was saying that the court didn’t come to the council even though it knew that it should have, then “I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong about that. We are separate branches of government and what you’re talking about is an integrity issue.”

City administrator Steve Powers shared his perspective as a former county administrator working three different courts. Prior to his taking the city administrator position in September 2011, he felt there hadn’t been enough consultation and communication between the city and the 15th District Court. So he’d met with the chief judge and the court administrator. He accepted responsibility for not bringing the communication back from the court and not updating the council. Going forward, the consultation with the court would be important so that these issues don’t arise in the future, Powers said. He stressed the importance of the two branches of government doing things in consultation, not confrontation.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the FY 2013 budget adjustments, over the lone dissent of Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

15th District Court: Indigent Representation

Two agenda items related to the law firm that provides indigent representation for defendants in the 15th District Court.

Nader Nassif with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C., which does business as Model Cities Legal Services. Nassif also serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. In the foreground is 15th District Court judge Chris Easthope.

The 15th District Court is required to provide representation to those who cannot afford an attorney, if a conviction would result in jail time.

The council was asked to approve a $240,000 flat-fee contract for representation of indigent defendants – with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C. (f/k/a Funkhouser and Nassif, P.L.L.C.), d/b/a Model Cities Legal Services (“MCLS”). The contract covers FY 2014, which begins July 1.

The reason the contract was structured as a flat fee is that MCLS had customarily delayed billing for services until a defendant’s case was completely closed or additional court action was deemed unlikely.

Even after a guilty verdict, defendants remain under court supervision and can be subject to other court orders.

Delayed billing resulted in another agenda item requesting that the council cover $203,000 of fees to “catch up” the billing.

15th District Court: Indigent Representation – Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that the contracting party is a client of his law firm. He asked the council to vote to excuse him from voting.

They did so, and Taylor took a seat in the audience.

Lumm asked Zeisloft if the court had considered issuing an RFP (request for proposals) for the service. Zeisloft described the negotiation between the court and the law firm. He indicated that the court had not considered issuing an RFP, but it would be possible. Model Cities, however, provides the service at a very competitive cost, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) sat in the audience as the contracts for indigent representation were discussed.

Easthope explained that Model Cities doesn’t just stand in court – they provide far more than that. There’s a value that’s hard to represent, and it doesn’t have to do with just the lowest price. Model Cities has a personal connection to all the social services agencies, Easthope explained.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the two resolutions related to Model Cities for legal services.

15th District Court: Security Billing

In addition to an FY 2013 budget adjustment that included back-billing for security services, the council was asked to approve next year’s $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, which houses the 15th District Court. The estimated annual cost is based on $25.25 per hour per court security officer. The estimated maximum annual cost of $160,000 is $27,000 less than last year. The money comes from the 15th District Court’s budget.

During deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) got clarification on the way the cost of the contract was estimated. Zeisloft explained that it’s based on a wage rate of $25.25 per hour. The reduction from the $187,000 for the previous year was due to a reduction in the projected number of hours that would be worked, he said, not a reduction in the wage rate.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the weapons screening contract.

15th District Court: Specialized Courts

Two other items related to the 15th District Court appeared initially on the council’s consent agenda, a group of items considered routine and voted on as a group. The council was asked to approve $30,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) to provide mental health treatment to 15th District Court defendants. And the council was asked to approve $65,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with Dawn Farm for in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants.

At Sabra Briere’s (Ward 1) request, the Dawn Farm item was pulled out for separate consideration, because the item included a request for a waiver of the city’s living wage ordinance. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Dawn Farm employs 70 people, including 15 employees who are paid less than $12.52 per hour with health care coverage, and 18 people who are compensated at rates less than $13.96 per hour without health care coverage. Those are the rates specified in the city’s living wage ordinance.

Last fall the council engaged in a vigorous discussion of a living wage ordinance waiver for Community Action Network (CAN), which ultimately resulted in the granting of a waiver for that nonprofit at the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Briere led off the discussion saying she wasn’t satisfied with the answers she’s received to questions she had asked about the living wage ordinance exemption that had been requested by Dawn Farm. She wanted to know if the item could be postponed so that adequate answers could be given.

Judge Joe Burke, who runs the Sobriety Court, explained to Briere that the court’s application for a grant was due on Friday, June 21 – so postponement would be difficult. Burke indicated that he was the one who’d asked for the living wage ordinance exemption – and that was based on communication from Jim Balmer, executive director of Dawn Farm, who’d reported that Dawn Farm can’t comply with the living wage.

Burke said he couldn’t speak for Dawn Farm but could speak about Dawn Farm. Briere interrupted Burke, apologizing for doing so, but stressed that her concern was not with Dawn Farm but rather with the living wage compliance: “I just don’t want you to spend too much time telling us what we all agree are the virtues of Dawn Farm as an entity and the work they do for the Sobriety Court.” Burke stressed that Balmer agreed with the city’s living wage ordinance, but was not in a financial position to comply, and Balmer had wanted to be honest about that. Burke then went on to explain the importance of the work that Dawn Farm does in support of the Sobriety Court.

Briere indicated that she didn’t see a process in the application for the living wage exemption that would eventually lead to compliance. Just as working toward sobriety has steps, Briere said, working toward financial solvency also has steps. Her problem was with the exemption, not the contract.

By way of background, the point Briere was raising related to conditions on the exemption that the council can grant under the ordinance. The Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance reads in relevant part [emphasis added]:

… provided further that the otherwise covered non-profit employer shall provide a written plan to fully comply with this Chapter within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed three years, and the City Council then agrees that granting a partial or complete exemption is necessary to ameliorate the harm and permit the non-profit organization sufficient time to reach full compliance with this Chapter.

Briere wanted that process to be included in the application for the exemption.

Outcome: The Dawn Farm contract, with the three-year exemption from the city’s living wage ordinance, was granted by the council over dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1). She did not insist on a roll call vote.

Wind Energy

The council had previously voted unanimously at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting to approve the acceptance of a roughly $950,000 U.S. Department of Energy grant for installation of a wind generator project. On June 17, the council was asked to spend about $50,000 of the proceeds of that grant on the initial environmental assessment, required before the project can proceed. The specific item on which the council was asked to vote was a contract with CDM Smith to perform an environmental analysis (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which includes public engagement.

The wind generator item was on the consent agenda, but was pulled out for separate consideration.

Wind Energy: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off discussion by saying that she’d learned that day that the proposal is to place a wind turbine at Pioneer High School. She felt it was unfortunate that an initial decision had been made to place the generator on the high school property, without more community outreach – but she allowed that part of CDM Smith’s scope of work would include public engagement.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) followed up on Lumm’s remarks by reporting that she’d received a letter from a University of Michigan physics professor – Gregory Tarlè – on the topic of the wind generator. She read aloud some concerns outlined by him in his message:

I am currently teaching a class “Energy for our Future” at the University of Michigan. One of the first things we learn when studying wind power is that the power you can get from a wind turbine goes as the cube of the wind velocity. Effective wind turbines must be sited in places where the wind velocity is high and steady or where there are frequent high velocity gusts. Attached is a map of US Wind Resources from the Department of Energy. As you can see, wind resources are marginal at best in Ann Arbor but are excellent offshore in the Great Lakes. Winds increase with altitude (because of wind shear) and that is why large towers are needed. It is not educational to site wind turbines at sites selected for non scientific reasons.

Kailasapathy summarized Tarlè’s remarks by saying that the only thing this turbine would teach students is that if you place a windmill where there’s no wind, then it won’t move. She didn’t think that’s worth $1 million. She regretted voting for the project earlier, but it’s not too late, she said. She allowed that it was federal dollars, but that’s still taxpayer money and it’s the council’s duty to be a good steward, she said.

City utilities engineer Brian Steglitz, who’s managing the wind generator project, and public services area administrator Craig Hupy were on hand to answer questions. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Steglitz to explain why it’s a good project. He characterized it as a demonstration program for wind energy in an urban environment. The city went through a competitive process with the Department of Energy to obtain the grant, he said. The partnership the city is working on with Wind Products – the company that will install the wind generator – would include a guarantee that the turbine will produce a minimum amount of energy. Wind Products had also looked at wind maps, Steglitz said, and looked at the cut-in speeds for the turbines to evaluate how much of the time the windmills would actually be spinning. Based on that analysis, Wind Products was willing to guarantee a minimum amount of power. The project is also part of the city’s goal to generate alternative energy, Steglitz said.

Briere indicated she’d heard from others that there’s no way the wind generator could produce enough electricity to pay for itself. Steglitz noted that the data provided by Wind Products indicated that the 60kW turbine would not generate a tremendous amount of power, but it would offset some of the power needs of the high school. Wind Products would subsidize any possible shortfall in power generation. The power that the school would purchase from the developer will cost less than conventional power, Steglitz said, which is part of the school district’s incentive to participate in the program – to realize a few thousand dollars worth of electricity savings per year. The city’s role is more like a broker between Wind Products and the school district.

Later in the meeting, Kailasapathy asked if the estimates for energy production were independently verified by a third party. Hupy explained that they had not been verified, but that the estimates would be tied to a financial commitment from Wind Products – that it would subsidize any shortfall in power production.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for more information about the Ann Arbor Public Schools participation in the project. Once the generator is installed, who takes over from there? If AAPS cuts its budget, will it possibly cut support for the turbine? Steglitz indicated that the AAPS will lease the space for the turbine and purchase the power. That’s the extent of AAPS participation. Wind Products would maintain and operate the generator, he explained. Later in the council’s deliberations, information in the staff memo accompanying the resolution was drawn out – that the city would eventually own the generator:

It is anticipated that the wind turbine(s) will be located on AAPS property, that the wind turbine(s) will be owned or purchased by the City, that the developer will construct the wind turbine(s), and that the AAPS will purchase the power from the wind turbine(s) under a power purchase agreement. While the City, AAPS and Wind Products have been meeting and continue to work to come to terms on the several agreements so that they can be ready to be brought forward for review and approval once the NEPA EA and public engagement process are completed and accepted by the DOE.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Petersen ventured that AAPS will have a financial upside, which Steglitz confirmed.

Hupy explained that the item the council was being asked to approve provided funding to look at the environmental impact of the turbine. In arguing against the approval, Lumm cited the same letter from Tarlè that Kailasapathy had mentioned.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked how the public would be notified about the public engagement process. Steglitz explained that the intent would be to broaden the scope beyond the standard requirement that residents within 500 feet be notified. He described how the process would include the city’s public engagement “toolbox.” The intent, Steglitz said, was to conduct public engagement and environmental review over the next six months, and to have the review and assessment finished by the end of the 2013 calendar year.

Higgins ventured that it’ll be a lively debate about whether a wind turbine should be placed at Pioneer High School. Responding to a question from Higgins about the city’s financial commitment, Steglitz described it as around $18,000 worth of staff time. Higgins said she was willing to let the debate unfold and not get in the way of it. She confirmed with Hupy that before any further city commitment is made, the council would have to approve it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked for a refresher on the height of the pole where the wind-turbine would be mounted. Steglitz explained that it’d be about 120 feet tall with a 60-foot diameter blade. Kunselman concluded it’s not really a “turbine” but rather just a “generator.” [Kunselman's day job at UM is as energy liaison with Planet Blue.] He felt that the generator will actually be generating a decent amount of electricity given its educational, demonstration purpose. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) also expressed his support for the project based on its educational impact.

Lumm allowed that she had voted to accept the federal grant back in January. But she’d learned a lot since that vote was taken, she said. She wouldn’t support taking the next step based on the idea that it would be sited in a location that doesn’t have much wind.

As a partial counter to Lumm’s complaint that there had not been community outreach on the siting of the generator, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that public outreach wouldn’t happen unless the city hired CDM Smith to do the public outreach, which the council was being asked to approve. That process would help determine whether this is an appropriate site, she ventured. Steglitz confirmed that’s correct. Briere wondered what the alternative locations are. Steglitz indicated that there aren’t really any alternative sites. Hupy confirmed that the city has looked extensively, even as far north as East Lansing – where it might be sited with a maize-and-blue pole, he quipped. City administrator Steve Powers subsequently assured the council that Hupy was not joking about the idea of trying to find a location in East Lansing.

Petersen wanted to know if anyone from AAPS was at the council meeting to talk about the educational component – no one was. Kailasapathy questioned the idea that there could be an educational benefit, if the generator were to be located in East Lansing. Hupy explained how utility regulations require that the power be consumed on the site where it’s generated. Transmission over lines to be used in other locations isn’t allowed except with permission of the electric utility.

Kailasapathy raised a question about noise created by the generator. Steglitz explained that the noise issue would be part of the environmental assessment.

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

In the course of the council’s discussion, the email from Tarlè had been sent to all councilmembers, and Kunselman took the opportunity to comment on it in more detail. He stressed that Tarlè seemed to be talking about wind-farm sized turbines – not the size of the generator that the city is considering. What the city is considering, he said, is a 60 kW wind generator that will be running about 30% of the time. And part of that time, students would have the opportunity to look at a data center that shows all the data. That’s the educational component of the project, he said. And the money is Dept. of Energy grant money, not city money, Kunselman added. He concluded that the city should move forward with the project.

Mayor John Hieftje weighed in for the resolution, saying it’s worth exploring the next stage of the project. Hieftje said he wants to follow the lead of the DoE. Lumm responded to Hieftje’s argument based on the DoE, by questioning whether the DoE is aware of the power generation estimates. Hieftje ventured that DoE is aware of the educational nature of the project.

Outcome: The contract with CDM Smith to conduct an environmental assessment for the wind generator project was approved over dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Video Privacy Ordinance

The council was asked to give initial approval to an ordinance regulating the use of public surveillance cameras in the city.

The council had previously postponed the item at its May 20, 2013 meeting. Before that, the council had postponed the item at its April 15 meeting – due to the length of that meeting – and again on May 6. [.pdf of ordinance as presented to the council on April 15, 2013]

The new ordinance would apply only to a limited range of cameras – those used by the city of Ann Arbor “to monitor human activity without the physical presence of an operator, including cameras on remotely operated aerial vehicles.”

The ordinance would not apply to a range of city of Ann Arbor cameras, for example: cameras used to improve traffic design, security cameras operating in jails, prisons, water treatment facilities, public housing facilities, or the Ann Arbor Airport and other governmental facilities.

The new ordinance would allow for public surveillance cameras to be installed for 15 days or less at the discretion of the city administrator if the purpose is to address a specific criminal problem.

The council’s consideration of the topic dates back a few years. Former Ward 1 councilmember Sandi Smith had announced at a council meeting on Aug. 4, 2011 that she’d be bringing a video surveillance ordinance for consideration at the council’s Sept. 6, 2011 meeting. And a year before that she’d indicated the city’s human rights commission would be working on the issue.

Video Privacy Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) introduced the ordinance. He noted that while Chief John Seto was out of town and not available to answer questions about the potential impact of the ordinance on law enforcement activity. Still, Warpehoski asked his colleagues to move the change forward to a second reading. He characterized the ordinance as striking a balance between the right to privacy and the interests of law enforcement. In light of the full agenda that night, Warpehoski suggested a more in-depth discussion when it came back for second and final reading.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for a clarification of some of the changes that had been made to the proposed ordinance. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Warpehoski for his work, but said that this ordinance was not her favorite idea.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she was hoping it would be postponed, citing Seto’s absence. She also noted that new revisions had been given to the council only last night. She didn’t think the council should pass ordinances at the first reading just to get them to the second reading. So she said she wouldn’t be supporting it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) appreciated Warpehoski’s work to bring the ordinance forward. But he felt it’s a solution in search of a problem. He knew he wouldn’t support it when it came to the second reading – because he felt it tied the city administrator’s hands. Privacy is already protected, he contended. And surveillance cameras do work, he said, giving the West Willow neighborhood as an example. He asked: Where’s the budget for this? Asking the city administrator to run around getting permissions from residents didn’t seem sensible, Kunselman said.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated support for postponement and made a motion to postpone. Warpehoski seconded that motion. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated support for the postponement, but said he’d have probably been inclined to support it at first reading.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the video privacy ordinance until July 1, when police chief John Seto will be available.

Fire Code

The council was asked to give initial approval to an amendment to Chapter 111 (Fire Prevention) of the city code so that it refers to the 2009 International Fire Code instead of the 2003 version.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated that he’d support the ordinance at first reading, but he had some concerns about the inspection of certain areas. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked fire chief Chuck Hubbard about the frequency and cost of fire inspections. Hubbard contrasted inspections with re-inspections. If there are violations found, then an inspector will return to confirm that the violation has been corrected – and that’s a re-inspection. Hubbard allowed that inspections have been stepped up. It’s being done for the benefit to the property owners, he said.

Ann Arbor fire inspections: 2006-2012. (Data is from city financial records. Chart by The Chronicle.)

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the performance of the fire inspection program is being reviewed. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the building department is already using the 2009 code, but the fire department is using the 2003 code. What are the differences? Kunselman got confirmation that the council’s approval is more or less a formality. It’s like “housekeeping.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked how many staff are allocated to fire inspections. Hubbard told Anglin it’s been increased from three people to seven. Anglin felt the overall safety of the community was being improved through that effort.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he’s delighted that the city is conducting more fire inspections.

Outcome: The council voted to give initial approval to the adoption of the 2009 fire code.

Billboard Ordinance

The council was asked to give final approval to an ordinance change that would restrict the way that digital technology could be incorporated into outdoor signs. It would also prevent any digital technology retrofitting of existing billboards, and prohibit billboards generally – although the 28 existing billboards citywide would be allowed to continue as non-conforming structures. The change had been given initial approval by the council and had been up for final action twice before – most recently, on May 6, 2013. Action on May 6 was to postpone a final decision – until the council’s June 17 meeting. [.pdf file of map showing billboard locations in the city]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the agenda item, describing it as enforcing the status quo. He described some changes that had been made to the proposed ordinance revisions, compared to those already given initial approval by the council. One is an exception for churches and schools. The definition of “changeable” copy had also been revised. Taylor said it’s important that billboards not expand beyond their current status.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) reported that he’s heard close to zero support for expanding billboards to use digital technology – other than from those in the outdoor sign industry. He’d heard no support for digital signs to the point where he felt there was a clear consensus for that point of view.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) argued that if Ann Arbor wants to be a tech town, then preserving the status quo is too conservative. She cited the possible negative impact on economic development. The ordinance changes promote blight by not allowing existing billboards to be removed and replaced with new ones, she contended. So she’d oppose the ordinance change. She pointed out that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) relies on digital technology to convey messages along the highways. She called for a more comprehensive look at the ordinance. It’s way too conservative for a town that wants to move forward with technology, she said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that the Ann Arbor Public Schools district is unlikely to go ahead with a proposal to contract with Adams Outdoor Advertising on school property. She said that two of the digital signs proposed by Adams Outdoor Advertising were in Ward 1 – which she represents. The idea of having digital signs there didn’t make her happy, but she conceded she was perhaps an old fogey.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked the city staff for all their research and their work on the ordinance. She thought the proposed changes were reasonable, so she’d be supporting the ordinance change.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked the staff for their work. He said it’s clear that the community doesn’t want any more visual intrusion. He characterized the ordinance change as not an anti-business proposal, but rather a pro-community move.

Outcome: The council voted to give final approval to the billboard ordinance, over dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Fireworks Ordinance

The council was asked to consider a revision to the city ordinance on fireworks. The impact on the upcoming July 4 holiday would be that fireworks use would be limited in Ann Arbor to the time between 8 a.m. and midnight. A necessary revision to state law, in order to make the city’s action legal, had already been passed by the Michigan House and Senate when the council met. It awaited only signature by the governor’s office, which it subsequently received two days later on June 19.

The revision to the city’s fireworks ordinance was given initial approval at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. The impact of the ordinance change is to restrict the use of fireworks on July 3-5 to the period between 8 a.m. and midnight on those days. The ordinance change applies to other national holidays as well. On New Year’s Day, however, the time extends to 1 a.m.

The local ordinance change is made possible by the change to state law, which previously did not allow local governments to regulate fireworks for a continuous 72-hour period – for the day preceding a national holiday, the national holiday, and the day following the national holiday. The statutory change makes it possible for a local government to regulate the time of fireworks use around the time of national holidays.

Fireworks Ordinance: Public Hearing

Two people spoke at the public hearing on the fireworks ordinance change. Thomas Partridge said that July 4 should be a celebration of civil rights and human rights. He objected to celebrating the holiday with fireworks. Michael Benson asked the council to consider allowing people to apply for a permit to use fireworks on other days. He wondered what other costs could be imposed by the ordinance language “plus costs” that are mentioned in connection to a $500 fine.

Outcome: After a brief introduction by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council voted to give final approval to the fireworks ordinance.

CIL Parking for The Varsity

The council was asked to approve a change to the development agreement between the city and The Varsity – a 13-story, 177,180-square-foot apartment building containing 181 dwelling units (415 bedrooms). The council’s requested action was essentially a confirmation of an Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority decision to award the right to purchase a total of seven monthly permits, at a 20% premium cost.

The Varsity is located at 425 E. Washington St. in downtown Ann Arbor. Based on zoning requirements, 76 off-street parking spaces are required. Only 69 were provided on site. The others were provided through the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The seven spaces were approved by the Ann Arbor DDA at its June 5, 2013 meeting. It falls to the DDA to make a decision on the CIL spaces, because the DDA administers the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Outcome: After a recitation of the situation’s background by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council voted to approve the revision to the development agreement.

Site Plans, Brownfield Plans

At its June 17 meeting, the city council was asked to give approvals in connection with three developments.

Site Plan: State Street Center

One request was a site plan approval for the State Street Center, near the intersection of South State and Ellsworth. The project calls for demolishing a vacant 840-square-foot house on this site. In its place, the developer plans a one-story, 1,700-square-foot drive-thru Jimmy John’s restaurant facing South State Street. A one-story, 6,790-square-foot retail building will be built behind the restaurant. The rezoning of the parcel for this site plan was given final approval at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the State Street Center site plan.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St.

The council was also asked to approve the site plan for 544 Detroit St. – a three-story building with offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors. It’s a “planned project” to allow an additional 3.5 feet of building height for a “decorative parapet” on the building’s north end and a stair enclosure to access a roof deck.

A rendering that shows the proposed design for 544 Detroit St., at the corner of Detroit and North Division.

For the 544 Detroit St. project, the council was also asked to approve a brownfield plan. According to a staff memo, the brownfield component – which allows tax increment financing (TIF) to reimburse the developer for eligible costs – includes a total of $698,773 in eligible activities. Some of those eligible activities include soil remediation ($174,620), infrastructure improvements ($70,350), and vapor mitigation ($32,000).

The planning commission gave the 544 Detroit St. project a recommendation of approval at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St. – Public Hearing

Jeff Crockett spoke in favor of the 544 Detroit St. project. He called it a responsive development. The site plan demonstrates serious consideration of citizen input, he said – and he knew of no one who opposed this project. He called for zoning laws that are not driven just by statistics, but rather are value-driven. Thomas Partridge also spoke on the 544 Detroit St. project, criticizing the fact that there was no attached requirement that the site provide affordable housing or access to public transportation.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St. – Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) mentioned briefly that this was one of the better brownfield projects the committee had seen. She serves on the city’s brownfield committee.

Outcome: The council voted to approve both the site plan and the brownfield plan for 544 Detroit.

Brownfield Plan: Packard Square

Finally, the council was asked to approve an amendment to a previously-approved brownfield plan for Packard Square, at the former site of the Georgetown Mall. The amendment adds to the list of eligible activities – including underground parking and urban stormwater management. The total cost of eligible activities is not changed. Demolition at the site began a few weeks ago.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked about payment of back taxes – the project is located in Ward 4. Nathan Voght of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development, which manages the county’s brownfield redevelopment program, fielded Higgins’ questions. The indication was that the back taxes would be paid.

Higgins noted that the demolition is in progress, so Voght gave an update. May 28 was the start of demolition. The Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) indicated that additional asbestos mitigation was needed. Soil excavation to remove contamination is ongoing and a vapor barrier will probably need to be installed, Voght said. He thought by mid-July the demolition will be done. The developer indicated that construction would begin as soon as possible after that.

Higgins said that residents are pleased to see the project going forward. Mayor John Hieftje thanked Higgins for her efforts.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Packard Square brownfield amendment.

$382K for Housing Commission

The council was asked to provide $382,000 of operational support to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

The resolution was held over from the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. That’s when the council took several steps to move the Ann Arbor Housing Commission forward along a path to converting the properties it manages to project-based vouchers. A similar operations funding resolution had appeared on that meeting’s agenda, but was withdrawn.

The additional funding, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, is needed to mitigate against the impact of federal sequestration. The memo puts that impact at about $300,000 less for public housing and $50,000-$75,000 less for capital funding.

Of the total amount, $159,000 is appropriated from the city of Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund, and $223,000 would be appropriated from the general fund. The city’s housing and human services advisory board had voted to recommend the $159,000 be appropriated from the affordable housing trust fund.

$382K for Housing Commission: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the resolution, noting that it will empty the affordable housing trust fund – but that fund will receive $100,000 on July 1, because of the budget allocation the council passed as part of the FY 2014 budget. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked city CFO Tom Crawford if there were sufficient funds in the general fund reserve to cover the allocation. Crawford projected a fund balance of $13.9 million at the end of the fiscal year. That’s about 17% of operating expenses. But he did have some concerns, Crawford said. At the end of FY 2015, based on the council’s recent action, the fund balance would be around 13%. In general, he has some concerns about how the fund balance is being used.

City administrator Steve Powers noted that the current council policy is to maintain 8-12% of operating expenses in the fund balance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Jennifer Hall, executive director of the AAHC, for her work.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the AAHC allocation.

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main

The council was asked to make a commitment of up to $750,000 from the city’s general fund – to undertake planned improvements to the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. The commitment is a requirement for a grant application that the city is making to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund for $300,000.

If the city’s plan unfolds as it expects, then none of the $750,000 in general fund money would be needed.

The improvements to 721 N. Main have resulted from work done by a North Main Huron River corridor task force that has been working at the direction of the city council since the summer of 2012 to make recommendations for the corridor.

Of the $1.2 million estimated cost for the planned trail and stormwater improvements to the site, the city plans to use $150,000 from the city’s stormwater fund. To cover part of the remaining $1.05 million, the city hopes to use $600,000 from a grant it has applied for from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) – through SEMCOG’s transportation alternatives program (TAP).

The council approved the application for the SEMCOG grant at its April 15, 2013 meeting. To cover the remaining $450,000, the city hopes to use $150,000 from a Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Connecting Communities grant and $300,000 from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) grant. The council approved the application for those last two grants at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

The council’s resolution considered on June 17 came in response to an MNRTF grant requirement that the council commit the city to funding the other grants itself – from general fund money – if those grants fail to materialize. The $750,000 figure comes from adding the $600,000 SEMCOG grant to the $150,000 Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation grant.

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main: Public Commentary

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Bob Galardi addressed the council on the MDNR grant application in connection with the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. He’s a member of the city’s park advisory commission, but spoke on behalf of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. He’s president of the conservancy’s board. Galardi asked the council for their support of the resolution that commits the city to as much as $750,000 of general fund money for the project. The conservancy, he said, is confident that the grant funding for which the city has applied will materialize. [That would mean that the city wouldn't need to spend that money.]

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main: Council Deliberations

When she introduced the item, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) stressed that the commitment the council was being asked to make is not an expenditure.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Briere for her service on the North Main Huron River task force. Lumm indicated support for the resolution. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if any park millage dollars would be spent on this project. Briere noted that the property is not yet a park. When will it be a park? asked Kunselman. That’s a decision for the park advisory commission (PAC), not for her, Briere responded.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as an ex officio member of PAC, noted that park staff are sensitive to the funding requirements of maintaining existing parks. Mayor John Hieftje described the general context of two city-owned properties – 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main – and how those properties fit into the context of greenway planning. Hieftje talked about the need to focus on the provision for long-term maintenance.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said it’s important that this resolution commits money. Anglin said a chain of parks through the city – like the greenway – would have a positive economic impact.

Outcome: The council voted to commit the funds for the 721 N. Main site.

Pizza in the Park

Several speakers addressed the council in connection with a petition they delivered to the city – a copy of which was attached to the council’s electronic agenda. The petition asked the council to take action to ensure that no fees are required to be paid by organizations that are providing humanitarian aid in the city’s parks.

The general petition stemmed from concerns about protecting a specific event – Pizza in the Park, a homelessness ministry of the Vineyard Church that includes distribution of food and other aid at Liberty Plaza, located at Liberty and Division streets in downtown Ann Arbor. A few months ago, the parking of a vehicle in a private driveway and the subsequent application of a park shelter rental fee by the city led to protests raised during public commentary at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. Assurance was given at that meeting that the Pizza in the Park event could continue. That was affirmed when speakers again addressed the issue at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Speakers on those occasions – many who are affiliated with Camp Take Notice, a self-governed homeless community – asked for a written assurance of the city’s commitment. During council communications time on June 17, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as one of two city council ex officio representatives to the city’s park advisory commission (PAC), announced that PAC would be considering a related resolution at its meeting the next day. And on June 18, 2013 PAC considered and passed a resolution recommending the waiver of rental fees associated with Liberty Plaza – a waiver that would apply to any group. That recommendation will need the approval of the city council.

First to address the council on the topic during June 17 public commentary was Peggy Lynch, who took the podium to applause. She described an unmet and tragic humanitarian need in Ann Arbor. She thanked the council for the eliminating the fee that was being applied to Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza. But she was hopeful that the gentleman’s agreement could be replaced with something in writing. David Williams echoed the request for a written commitment.

Thomas Partridge assured the council that if he were elected mayor or councilmember, he would be giving voice to the concerns of the residents of Camp Take Notice. He called for the advancement of Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights agenda. He recalled King’s “I have a Dream” speech.

Jose Galofre addressed the council through a sign language interpreter, calling for the passage of an ordinance – put down in writing for the future to ensure that fees would not be applied to Pizza in the Park. Michael Ramirez told the council he has medical issues that require him to go to the University of Michigan health system, and he spoke in support of Pizza in the Park ministry. Christine Kern told the council she lives on the street with her boyfriend. They’d be sleeping outside that night. She recited a definition of basic human rights, and asked the council to enact an ordinance that protects the right to distribute humanitarian aid on public land.

At the end of the meeting during public commentary time, Seth Best and Peggy Lynch again addressed the council on the idea of the fee waiver for Liberty Plaza. They wanted something in writing – and they wanted it to be possible for humanitarian aid to be distributed in any park.

Caleb Poirer quipped that it felt wonderful staying up late with the council. [By that point, it was about 12:30 a.m.] It reminded him of staying up late as a kid, but with adults – just without “the blankets and the socks with the bottoms.” He allowed that there was a concern that someone could drive a semi-trailer truck through the loophole of the phrase “humanitarian aid.” But he asked the council to wrestle with the language that would make an ordinance work to allow humanitarian aid to be distributed. There are a lot of people who want to do kind things, he said, and urged the council not to let fees get in the way.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Millage Rate Correction

The council was asked to correct a .0031 error in the specification of the rate of the FY 2014 tax levy for the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage. The FY 2014 fiscal year begins on July 1.

The millage rate that was listed in the FY 2014 budget resolution – approved by the council at its May 20, 2013 meeting – was 1.0969 mills. The park maintenance and capital improvements millage should have been listed as 1.10 mills. The corresponding correction from the total millage rate was from 16.4470 to 16.4501 mills. Measured in dollars, the correction is estimated to bring in an additional $14,460 in revenue.

Outcome: After a brief introduction from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), the council approved the correction to the millage rate.

Police Unions Wage Bump

The council was asked to approve contracts with city police unions that award 2% and 1% wage increases.

Re-openers for the final year of their contracts resulted in new contracts with six police department unions: Teamster Civilian Supervisors, Teamsters Local 214; Police Professional Assistants, Teamsters Local 214; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association – Police Service Specialists; Command Officers Association of Michigan; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association; and Deputy Chiefs, Teamsters Local 214.

Membership in these unions breaks down as follows: Deputy Chiefs (2); Teamster Civilian Supervisors (35); Teamster Police Professionals (5); AAPOA (90); COAM (22); and Police Service Specialists (5).

Common to all the contracts is a 2% wage increase starting July 1, 2013 and a 1% increase starting Jan. 1, 2014.

Also common to the contracts is the acceptance of the change in pension board composition, which was approved by voters on Nov. 8, 2011 with a 68% majority. The change retained the body as a nine-member group but distributed the membership differently, as follows: (1) the city controller; (2) five citizens; (3) one from the general city employees; and (4) one each from police and fire employees. Eliminated from the mix was the city administrator.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) thanked the staff for their work. It’s the first time since she’s been on council that all the contracts have been resolved before expiration, she said. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked the staff and recited the nature of the agreements.

For the AAPOA an administrative correction was made to the phone allowance – $600, instead of $550.

The council voted to approve all the police department union contracts.

Resolution on SEMCOG Highway Plan

The council considered a resolution opposing the proposed expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners had passed a similar resolution at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The interstate highway expansion is a part of SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan with an estimated cost of $4 billion.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) stated that there are a lot of good elements in the SEMCOG plan. But there are not forecasts for additional traffic and population, so it didn’t make sense to expand the highways instead of maintaining them.

Warpehoski then quoted Picasso in explaining where the text for the resolution had come from: “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” He’d copied much of the resolution from resolutions that have been passed by other municipalities.

Outcome: The council voted to pass the resolution opposing SEMCOG’s 2040 plan. SEMCOG’s general assembly subsequently voted to adopt the plan.

Annual Contracts: SPARK, Lobbyist

As part of its consent agenda, the council was asked to approve two annual contracts for services at its June 17 meeting. One was a $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. (GCSI) for lobbying services with the state legislature. The council also approved a $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for business support services.

Items on the consent agenda are considered routine, and include contracts for less than $100,000. They’re voted on as a group.

The contact with the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK is one that has been renewed annually since the Washtenaw Development Council and Ann Arbor SPARK merged in 2006. Previously, Ann Arbor had contracted with the WDC for the business support services for which it now contracts with SPARK. On June 20, 2005, the city council authorized that one-year contract with WDC for $40,000. The resolution authorizing the $75,000 contract with SPARK again this year describes the organization’s focus as “building our innovation-focused community through continual proactive support of entrepreneurs, regional businesses, university tech transfer offices, and networking organizations.”

Ann Arbor SPARK is also the contractor hired by the city’s local development finance authority (LDFA) to operate a business accelerator for the city’s SmartZone, one of 11 such districts established in the early 2000s by the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC). The SmartZone is funded by a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism, for a TIF district consisting of the union of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts.

Revenue is generated only in Ann Arbor’s district, and the LDFA is a component unit of the city’s budget. In the FY 2014 budget, the LDFA is expected to receive $1,655,647 in revenue. The specific taxes on which the increment since 2002 is captured are the school operating and state education taxes, which would otherwise be sent to the state and then redistributed back to local school districts.

GCSI’s Kirk Profit, an Ann Arbor area resident and former member of the state House of Representatives, typically makes an annual presentation to the council with an update on state-level legislative issues relevant to the city’s budget situation. Written updates to councilmembers on legislative activity are sent on a weekly or daily basis.

Outcome: As part of the consent agenda, councilmembers approved contracts with GCSI and Ann Arbor SPARK.

Council Rule Changes

The June 17 agenda included an item related to changes in the council rules. Possible changes include adding a period of public commentary to the council’s work sessions, but reducing public speaking time per turn from three minutes to two minutes. [.pdf of draft rules changes]

The procedure for reserving one of the 10 reserved speaking slots at the start of the meeting is also proposed to be revised. Only people who did not address the council at its immediately previous meeting would be eligible to reserve a slot. And of the 10 slots, eight would be designated for people who want to address the council on agenda action items. Two slots would be provided for those who want to address the council on any topic.

Councilmember speaking time is also proposed to be reduced. Councilmembers are allowed two speaking turns per agenda item. Under the current rules, time limits for those speaking turns are five minutes for the first turn and three minutes for the second turn. Under the proposal, those times would be reduced to three minutes and two minutes, respectively.

The proposed addition of an opportunity for public commentary at council work sessions would ensure that councilmembers could freely deliberate toward public policy decisions at those sessions and still conform to Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

The proposed rules changes would move mayoral communications from the end of the meeting to a spot closer to the start of the meeting. That would give nominations to boards and commissions – which are a part of those communications – somewhat greater prominence.

[For previous Chronicle coverage, see: "Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes."]

Council Rules Changes – Frequent Speakers

A consequence of reducing the speaking time limit from three minutes to two minutes is that the total speaking time a single speaker could take at a meeting would be reduced by one-third. It’s not unusual for a meeting to include a half dozen or more formal public hearings, in addition to the public commentary slots on the agenda. The June 17 meeting, for example, featured seven public hearings. With a three-minute time limit, it’s not uncommon that one person could have a total of about a half hour available to address the council.

Thomas Partridge typically reserves one of the 10 slots at the start of the meeting and speaks at most of the public hearings at any given meeting of the council – generally connecting his remarks to the topic of the hearing with general themes of affordable housing, transportation and education, as well as calls for social justice. Occasionally mayor John Hieftje, who presides over the council’s meetings, will deem Partridge’s remarks to be insufficiently related to the topic of the public hearing and admonish Partridge to stay on topic. The June 17 meeting featured one occasion when Hieftje offered that admonishment to Partridge.

And at the conclusion of the meeting’s seventh public hearing – on the brownfield plan for Packard Square – after  Partridge had held forth several times at previous hearings, Ann Arbor resident Todd McWilliams addressed the council, but not on the topic of the brownfield plan for Packard Square. He told the council he’d attended several of the council’s meetings over the last six months and wanted to address Partridge. McWilliams told Partridge that Partridge was doing an injustice to the public hearings, and was abusing the council’s time. At that point, McWilliams earned an admonishment from Hieftje to speak to the topic of the hearing.

Partridge responded to McWilliams from the audience by accusing McWilliams of abusing Partridge’s civil rights. McWilliams said: “There’s got to be another way of doing this; because this isn’t the right way to do it.” Partridge’s rejoinder was: “See you in court.”

Council Rules Change: Public Comment

During public commentary time at the conclusion of the meeting, two people addressed the council on the topic of the rules changes.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and resident Michael Benson. Benson serves on the city’s taxicab board.

Michael Benson thanked the council for staying late. He commended the rules committee, saying that the proposed rules represent a step forward. He suggested that reducing the speaking time from three minutes to two minutes might not be so bad, given that when people hand over written remarks to the clerk, those documents can eventually be added to the agenda. He told the council they should consider constraining their own question time during the meeting – as that was where the council spent the majority of its time. He also suggested that reserved time at the start of the meeting be confined to true action items.

Jeff Hayner thought it’s great that someone talked about the rules. He agreed with Benson’s point about the ability to submit written remarks. He suggested, however, that some of the time saved through a reduction in speaking time be re-allocated to council discussion of items that sometimes didn’t receive much discussion – like the appointments to boards and commissions.

Council Rules Changes: Deliberations

Council conversation was scant. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the council’s rules committee, said she’d like to see the item postponed. By way of background, the council’s current meta-rule on changing the rules requires that the council be notified of changes at the meeting prior to a vote on the changes – which had not happened yet. The proposed rules revisions include a change to that meta-rule.

Outcome: With no further discussion, the council voted to postpone the rules changes until July 1.

Appointments

The June 17 agenda included several items regarding appointments to city boards and commissions.

The council was asked to confirm the extension of Sabra Briere’s (Ward 1) appointment as the councilmember representative to the planning commission. She’s served in that capacity since November 2012. The council was asked to extend the term through Nov. 7, 2013. At that point the membership on the new, post-election city council will be settled. Briere is unopposed in the Democratic primary. An independent candidate, Jaclyn Vresics, has taken out petitions for that seat but has not yet filed them with the city clerk’s office. The deadline for independent candidates to submit petitions is Aug. 7.

Later, toward the end of the meeting, the council was asked to confirm Bonnie Bona’s reappointment to the planning commission.

Although Tony Derezinski had appeared on the list distributed to the council at its June 3 meeting as a nomination to the city planning commission – and was reported (mistakenly) by The Chronicle as having been nominated – Derezinski’s name was not actually read aloud that evening. The Chronicle learned that there was pushback on the council about Derezinski’s nomination for reappointment. He was filling out the remainder of Evan Pratt’s term – through June 30, 2013. Pratt was elected as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner in November 2012 and resigned from the planning commission at that time.

At the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, councilmembers had voted – over dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – to appoint Derezinski to that partial planning commission term. Up to that point, he’d served as the city council’s representative to the planning commission. However, he did not prevail in the August 2012 Democratic primary in his Ward 2 race against Sally Petersen.

On June 17, Jeremy Peters was nominated to replace Derezinski on the planning commission. Peters works in creative licensing and business affairs with Ghostly Songs. A council vote to confirm his appointment will occur on July 1.

Other appointments the council was asked to confirm on June 17 included members of the downtown area citizens advisory council: John Chamberlin, Ray Detter, Joan French, Jim Kern, Sue Kern, Kathleen Nolan, Herbert Kaufer and Hugh Sonk. They had been re-nominated at the council’s June 3 meeting, having first appeared on the council’s May 13 meeting agenda for reappointment. The names had not been presented to the council for confirmation on May 20. The terms of all the members had expired.

Also at its June 17 meeting, the council was asked to confirm LuAnne Bullington’s nomination to the taxicab board, having been nominated on June 3. Bullington had submitted an application to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority earlier this year, which resulted in a divided vote by the council on the nomination that was put forward by mayor John Hieftje – Eric Mahler. Mahler was confirmed on a 7-4 vote as the AATA board appointment at the council’s May 13, 2013 meeting. He recently ended his service as a planning commissioner.

Other reappointments confirmed on June 17 were: Barbara Clark to the cable communications commission; Paul Fontaine and Chester Hill to the design review board; and Tom Stulberg to the historic district commission.

In the last few months, the council has taken an increased interest in mayoral appointments. That’s reflected in a change recommended by the council’s rules committee – to move the mayor’s communications time closer to the start of the meeting, instead of near the end. The mayor’s communications include nominations to boards and commissions and the council’s confirmation votes.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to confirm all the appointments.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Public Safety

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) alerted her colleagues that a resolution regarding a public safety task force that she wants to form will be on the council’s July 1 agenda.

Comm/Comm: Stop Signs

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) called for a focus on safety as people move around the city during the summer. He called for the installation of stop signs to slow traffic on streets over which the city has control.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Housing

Thomas Partridge expressed disappointment with the council and the mayor for leaving the city without sufficient affordable housing. He said they lack the courage to stand up and bring the facts to the voters for support of tax increases to fund what’s needed.

Comm/Comm: AAHC Complaint

Diane Chapman introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. She reported that she’s been physically attacked on the property and complained about the lack of response by AAHC staff.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, July 1, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings 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 15th District Court’s portion of that adjustment stemmed from $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000.

Related to the FY 2013 budget adjustment to account for 15th District Court indigent representation were two other agenda items regarding the law firm that provides that kind of representation. [The 15th District Court is required to provide representation to those who cannot afford an attorney, if a conviction would result in jail time.]

The council approved a $240,000 flat-fee contract for representation of indigent defendants – with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C. (f/k/a Funkhouser and Nassif, P.L.L.C.), d/b/a Model Cities Legal Services (“MCLS”). The contract covers FY 2014.

The reason the contract was structured as a flat fee is that MCLS had customarily delayed billing for services until a defendant’s case was completely closed or additional court action was deemed unlikely. Even after a guilty verdict, defendants remain under court supervision and can be subject to other court orders. So for the previous year, the council was asked at its June 3 meeting to cover $203,000 of fees that accrued due to the delayed billing practice used by MCLS.

In addition to approving the city’s FY 2013 budget adjustment that included back-billing for security services, the council approved next year’s $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, which houses the 15th District Court. The estimated annual cost is based on $25.25 per hour per court security officer. The estimated maximum annual cost of $160,000 is $27,000 less than last year. The money comes from the 15th District Court’s budget.

Two other items related to the 15th District Court appeared initially on the council’s consent agenda, a group of items considered routine and voted on as a group. The council was asked to approved $30,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) to provide mental health treatment to 15th District Court defendants. And the council was asked to approve $65,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with Dawn Farm for in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants.

The Dawn Farm item was pulled out for separate consideration, because the item included a request for a waiver of the city’s living wage ordinance for Dawn Farm to provide its counseling services. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Dawn Farm employs 70 people, including 15 employees who are paid less than $12.52 per hour with health care coverage, and 18 people who are compensated at rates less than $13.96 per hour without health care coverage. Those are the rates specified in the city’s living wage ordinance.

Last fall the council engaged in a vigorous discussion of a living wage ordinance waiver for Community Action Network (CAN), which ultimately resulted in the granting of a waiver at the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting.

On June 17, the council ultimately voted to approve the Dawn Farm grant over dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – based on the living wage issue.

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]

Jeff Speck’s “Walkable City” was a volume brought to the Jan. 9, 2013 Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board meeting by local developer Peter Allen. (Photos by the writer.)

The budget adjustments to FY 2013 were made in order to account for roughly $2.6 million in construction costs associated with the Library Lane underground parking garage. They had been allocated in the previous year’s budget, but not paid last year – because the completion of the construction extended into this fiscal year.

The FY 2012 audit report, which the board also approved at its Jan. 9 meeting, shows that for FY 2012, the DDA spent about $2.5 million less than anticipated for that year – because the construction invoices were not all submitted to the DDA by the time books closed for the year.

The result of those changes leaves a budget with $22,237,924 in revenues against $26,339,555 in expenses for the year – which translates to a planned use of the DDA’s fund balance reserve of $4,101,632. That’s about half of the existing fund balance.

Not a part of the revised budget was the approval of two allocations made by the board – one of $50,000 in connection with the DDA’s existing energy grant program, and another of $150,000 for a grant to Dawn Farm, a nonprofit offering both residential and out-patient services supporting recovery for alcoholics and drug addicts. The energy allocation will essentially attempt to leverage energy audits completed through the DDA’s program for use in the Michigan Saves program, which offers low-interest financing for energy improvements.

The board also approved recommendations to be forwarded to the city council on the future redevelopment of five city-owned sites currently used for parking. The project, which is now named Connecting William Street (CWS), began with an April 4, 2011 city council resolution that directed the DDA to seek “robust public input” from experts, stakeholders and residents to develop a plan for those parcels.

In connection with the parcels in that area, the board also adopted a policy on possible grants from the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) funds to support development of the CWS properties. The policy makes clear that the DDA would not forgo its TIF capture on any property – but the amount of the grant would be calculated based on TIF revenue.

Also in connection with the CWS project, the board heard remarks during public commentary from representatives of the city’s park advisory commission as well as the State Street Area Association. The board also invited Doug Kelbaugh, a University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning, to share his thoughts on parks versus plazas – and why he thinks the site on top of the Library Lane parking garage is more likely to succeed as a plaza instead of a park.

FY 2013 Budget Revisions, Audit

The board was asked to consider $2.6 million in changes to the current year’s budget – FY 2013, the 12-month period starting July 1, 2012. They stem primarily from costs that had been budgeted for the previous year for construction of the Library Lane underground parking garage, but not paid for.

The result of those changes leaves a budget with $22,237,924 in revenues against $26,339,555 in expenses for the year – which translates to a planned use of the DDA’s fund balance reserve of $4,101,632. That’s about half of the existing fund balance. The FY 2013 budget projects a fund balance at the end of FY 2013, on June 30, 2013, of $4,380,341. [.pdf of revised FY 2013 DDA budget]

The budget originally approved by the DDA board on March 7, 2012 showed revenues of $22,097,956 against $24,101,692 in expenditures – for an excess of expenditures over revenues of $2,003,736.

Much of the roughly $2 million in additional expenses in the adjusted budget is attributable to construction costs of the Library Lane underground parking structure, which was completed in July 2012. That money had been budgeted, but not spent in FY 2012. To account for Library Lane parking structure construction, the adjustments to this year’s budget show an additional $850,000 to be expended from the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) fund and $1,792,388 from the DDA’s parking fund.

The DDA’s audited finances show that for FY 2012, the DDA spent about $2.5 million less than anticipated for that year – because the construction invoices were not all submitted to the DDA by the time books closed for the year. The board was also asked to adopt the auditor’s report.

Budget Adjustment: Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt introduced the agenda items by explaining that the completion of the Library Lane underground parking structure had come near the end of the fiscal year.

In addition to the construction cost adjustments, Hewitt highlighted changes to the DDA housing fund budget. Those changes included the additional expense of a $246,000 allocation made as a grant to replace the roof on Baker Commons – an Ann Arbor Housing Commission property. That was balanced against the $400,000 that would not be spent to support the Near North affordable housing project, because that project has fallen through.

But given the energy saving grant allocation ($50,000) and the Dawn Farm grant ($150,000) approved at the board’s same meeting, Hewitt noted that the budget adjustments the board would be approving were already $200,000 off from the actual expenditures.

Outcome: Without substantive deliberations, the board unanimously approved the budget adjustments.

Audit: Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt noted that the audit report, from Rehmann, had been reviewed previously at a meeting of the operations committee, which Rehmann’s Mark Kettner had attended. The highlight that Hewitt wanted to draw out from the report was this: “The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.” [.pdf of DDA FY 2012 audit]

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to accept the auditor’s report.

Dawn Farm Grant

The board was asked to consider awarding Dawn Farm a $150,000 grant to reduce the debt on two of the organization’s existing properties. By way of background, Dawn Farm is a nonprofit offering both residential and out-patient services supporting recovery for alcoholics and drug addicts. In 2001, the DDA had made a $135,000 grant to Dawn Farm to assist with the purchase of the property at 112 Chapin St.

The current request being made to the DDA is for $150,000 to help pay down the debt on two other Dawn Farm properties, at 343 Beakes and 324 Summit. The grant from the DDA would free up cash to expand the existing total 159 beds in Dawn Farm’s residential treatment facilities to 200 by early 2013, according to the nonprofit.

Jim Balmer, president of Dawn Farm, had addressed the DDA board at its Dec. 5, 2012 board meeting, asking the DDA to support the request.

Dawn Farm: Board Deliberations

Joan Lowenstein introduced the item on Dawn Farm, saying that the organization had approached the DDA to ask for money that would help the nonprofit refinance existing property. That would allow Dawn Farm to provide additional transitional housing units and free up money for services in the downtown area.

Newcombe Clark said that independent of all the work Dawn Farm does, the organization has very detailed capital expenditure and depreciation schedules. Dawn Farm has been setting money aside for capital costs. The reason the DDA asks for that, Clark said, is because it shows rigor. He indicated that in general, helping an organization to pay off debt is not something he thinks the DDA should get in the habit of doing. But in the case of Dawn Farm, he was satisfied that the DDA would not be backfilling a legacy of a failure to set aside sufficient funds. He described it as “refreshing” to see an organization have rigor in the way it approached capital costs. He felt that fact made it easier to approve Dawn Farm’s request without contention.

John Splitt indicated his concern that the DDA housing fund was being tapped to provide the funding – because he felt that Dawn Farm was more of an “outreach program” than a housing program. If this were the “housing and outreach fund,” he said, he’d be more willing approve the grant – but he added that the work Dawn Farm does is marvelous. Clark pointed out that Dawn Farm would be able to add beds as a result of the DDA’s grant – but Splitt indicated he already knew that when he’d made his comments.

Outcome: Despite reservations from Splitt, he joined his board colleagues in voting unanimously to approve the grant.

Energy Audit Grant

The board was asked to consider a $50,000 allocation to its existing energy saving grant program to support additional costs for energy audits ($40,000) and the administrative support of those audits ($10,000). The idea is to leverage energy audits completed through the DDA’s program for use in the Michigan Saves program, which offers low-interest financing for energy improvements – in the form of loans from $2,000-$150,000.

The DDA’s energy grant program provides funds to cover the complete cost of energy audits for downtown businesses and a rebate on the cost of undertaking the actual improvements indicated by the audit.

Sandi Smith reviewed the point of the energy saving grant program and described the connection to the Michigan Saves program. Michigan Saves has offered to provide food and staff support to help the DDA promote the new program.

Mayor John Hieftje pointed out that the city’s Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program staff could be tapped for expertise and assistance as well.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the $50,000 allocation to the energy saving grant program

Varsity Parking Permits

The board was asked to consider granting the right to purchase two monthly permits in Ann Arbor’s public parking system to The Varsity, in order to satisfy the project’s 76-space parking requirement under the city’s zoning regulations. The project, located on East Washington Street, is a 13-story, 173-unit, 178,380-square-foot apartment building for approximately 418 people. Construction on the project is well underway.

The request from The Varsity was before the DDA board, because the DDA manages the public parking system – including parking permits – under contract with the city. The DDA in turn subcontracts out the day-to-day parking operations to Republic Parking.

The developer of The Varsity had originally planned to satisfy part of its parking requirement through a contract with Zipcar, a car-sharing service. That arrangement turned out not to be feasible.

The purchase of the two monthly permits will be arranged through the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program, which allows a developer to meet a parking requirement by making an upfront payment of $55,000 per space or by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits – with a commitment of 15 years.

The D1 zoning district, where The Varsity is located, does not have a parking requirement for construction that has less than a 400% floor area ratio (FAR). However, if a development exceeds 400% FAR – which is allowed for projects that include residential units – then parking spaces must be provided. The number of spaces provided is based on a formula of 1 space per 1,000 square feet in excess of 400% FAR.

The approval of The Varsity’s monthly permits is just the second time the CIL program has been invoked. On Oct. 3, 2012 the DDA voted to approve the purchase of up to 42 monthly permits by the 624 Church St. project, another residential development.

The specific parking structure where the permits can be purchased has not been determined for either of the two projects. The topic of location – and the idea that a general policy should be developed to guide the choice of which parking structure can be used for permits sold under the CIL program – was part of the DDA’s operations committee meeting on Dec. 19, 2012.

Roger Hewitt described the arrangement for his board colleagues.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to sell two monthly permits to The Varsity, with the location of the parking structure to be determined.

Connecting William Street Parcel Plan

On the board’s Jan. 9 agenda were recommendations related to future development of five city-owned parcels in the DDA district – known as the Connecting William Street project. The recommendations cover: (1) the Kline lot (on the east side of Ashley, north of William), (2) the lot next to Palio restaurant (northeast corner of Main & William), (3) the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure, (4) the old YMCA lot (on William between Fourth and Fifth), and (5) the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage on South Fifth, north of the downtown library. [.pdf of presentation made at Dec. 5, 2012 board meeting]

The recommendations stemmed from a directive given to the DDA by the Ann Arbor city council in an April 4, 2011 resolution to engage in a public process with experts, stakeholders and residents, and then to develop a plan for those parcels. The council’s resolution describes a step in the process when the city council and the planning commission would adopt the recommendations on the five parcels into the city’s downtown plan. The downtown plan is one component of the city’s master plan. Other components include: the land use element, the transportation plan, the non-motorized transportation plan, parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, and the natural features master plan.

Streetscape view looking down William Street toward the east from Ashley Street – a schematic rendering of the Connecting William Street recommendations.

Based on the phasing described in the council’s April 2011 resolution, any request for proposals (RFP) to be made for the five parcels would come after the planning commission and the city council formally adopt recommendations on the five parcels into the downtown plan.

The vote on the recommendations came as preparation for the DDA’s presentation scheduled for a joint DDA/city council work session on Jan. 14. That session will begin at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron.

Also on the DDA board’s Jan. 9 meeting agenda was a policy on grants to be made by the DDA in the Connecting William Street area of study. Among other things, the policy gives priority to projects that promote public benefits related to connectivity and walkability improvements; environmental design features; significant architecture and design investment; public landscaping & plazas/urban open spaces; and infrastructure investments.

The grant policy makes clear that the DDA would not forgo its TIF (tax increment finance) capture on any property, but the amount of the grant would be calculated based on TIF revenue. The policy would apply only to the four city-owned properties in the area of the CWS study that are currently surface parking lots. [.pdf of grant policy draft]

CWS: Grant Policy

Sandi Smith pointed out the similarity of the language to that of a policy the DDA had adopted to guide the award of grants for brownfield projects. [The brownfield policy was created to provide guidance on the 618 S. Main project. The policy and the project grant were given approval at the DDA board's June 6, 2012 meeting.]

The policy establishes the public elements that the DDA would consider as items qualifying a project for a grant. The 17-25% of TIF capture that’s specified in the policy is a way to calculate the potential amount of a grant, but Smith stressed that the DDA will not forgo its TIF capture to help.

Joan Lowenstein echoed Smith’s characterization that the grant policy really is similar to what was done with the DDA’s brownfield policy. The idea is to give developers some criteria.

Newcombe Clark drew out the fact that the grant policy applies just to the city-owned parcels in the CWS geographic area, not to all parcels in the area.

Roger Hewitt floated the idea of a friendly amendment, which was accepted, that would characterize the grant calculator as 17-25% of the first 10 years of TIF capture for a completed project.

In discussing one of the criteria in the policy – “Environmental design exceeds City requirements” – DDA board members mulled whether that meant LEED requirements and wondered if there were other standards. From the audience, Doug Kelbaugh – a UM professor of architecture and urban planning – suggested that relevant standards could be found in Architecture 2030.

Outcome: The TIF grant policy for Connecting William Street parcels was unanimously approved.

CWS: Public Comment – Parks, Plazas

Addressing the board during public commentary on behalf of the city’s park advisory commission (PAC), was Ingrid Ault. She told the board she was there primarily because she had attended the CWS forum on Jan. 3, and she wanted to update the board on how PAC had been approaching the issue. She said her takeaway – shared by PAC members Bob Galardi and Alan Jackson – was that there’s a lot of support for some kind of open space in the downtown. But she described the evening’s discussion as yielding no real consensus one way or the other, calling it a spirited discussion.

Ault described a recent retreat held by PAC. An outcome of that retreat was to form a subcommittee to talk about downtown open space. She and Jackson serve on that subcommittee. One of the steps the subcommittee will take is to take an inventory of what’s in place, and talk about what works and doesn’t work – before thinking about what PAC might want to add.

There are 157 parks in Ann Arbor, Ault said. She said that PAC is concerned about adding space that has no active use. PAC doesn’t want to add open space that just sits empty, she said. PAC at this point is in the early stages of its discussion, she said, and had talked about different land uses in the CWS area. There’s no initial consensus on that. She said that the next step for PAC was to provide the DDA board with information, so that they could move forward in a thoughtful manner with the community. [For more background on PAC's discussions, see Chronicle coverage: "PAC: Downtown Park, More Input Needed."]

Introducing herself for public commentary as the new executive director of the State Street Area Association was Frances Todoro. She indicated that the former executive director, Tom Heywood, would still be around for a year to help with the transition.

She was interested in speaking to the board on the subject of adding parks downtown – by first focusing on an existing park downtown, Liberty Plaza, located at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division. [Todoro holds a masters in urban planning and geography from the University of North Carolina.] It’s been a struggle to make the park work on a consistent basis, but she allowed there’d been spurts here and there when it’s been cleaned up and it’s worked for a few months. She noted that Sonic Lunch, sponsored by the Bank of Ann Arbor, is a hugely successful program – for a few days out of the year.

The State Street Area Association, she said, would want to see the park maintain a consistent success year round. SSAA was interested in focusing first on that success before bringing any additional parks online, she said. A lot would be learned from solving the existing problem of Liberty Plaza park, she said. And learning from those solutions would be beneficial to the existing community. It would help SSAA realize its vision of a clean and safe community.

During public commentary Eileen Ilene Tyler reported that she attended the Jan. 3 meeting on the CWS, but couldn’t stay until the end. She agreed the city should be proactive in defining the opportunities for development that are compatible with the central area plan. She supported the inclusion of a greenway-streetscape connection between downtown and the University of Michigan campus. She appreciated that the DDA had contracted with a local design professional [SmithGroup JJR] to illustrate the designs, saying she respected their work. [Tyler is an architect with Quinn Evans.]

However, Tyler didn’t see any actual “connecting” going on – especially along William Street. She asked that this be articulated in a more detailed way in the schematics, by adding nodes or oases along the route. That approach would break up the linear street, which is depicted as a straight and narrow “chute,” with a little bit of green cover around the street edge. Things like benches should be included, she said, or variation in paving material, and additional greenery. By including such elements in schematics now, developers might be more inclined to include them, instead of deferring only to minimum zoning requirements – which require no setbacks.

She wanted to be able to point to the CWS project as a positive force by the city to encourage better design from developers. Lawyers and developers are too quick to use precedence, she said, as the sole argument against the need to provide better design. She wanted to encourage the features of good urban design to be included in the final documents.

CWS: Public Comment – 413 Huron Street

The conversation at the board meeting connected concerns about the CWS recommendations and a proposed project outside the CWS area – at 413 Huron St.

The 413 Huron St. project is a proposed 14-story building at the northeast corner of Huron and Division – which calls for 213 apartments, about 3,000-square-feet of street-level retail space, and 163 on-site underground parking spaces. The complex would consist of two main towers and an “inset upper level garden and pool courtyard,” according to the proposal.

Toward the end of her remarks, Tyler noted that the lack of adequate setbacks of buildings in the schematics for CWS was one of the same problems with the 413 Huron St. project.

And when Ray Detter reported out from the previous evening’s meeting of the downtown citizens advisory council, the main highlight of his remarks was the CAC’s strong opposition to the 413 Huron St. project.

Detter supported the commitment to good architecture in the CWS proposal. He called the best public art a good building that’s well designed. Pedestrian-friendly setbacks should also be encouraged. He said he was very pleased that future projects undertaken in the CWS area will allow the planning commission to ask developers how they have responded to the design review board (DRB) process. He allowed that compliance with DRB recommendations was voluntary.

Detter noted that the city’s historic district commission had approved a resolution critical of the 413 Huron St. project, because it would have a negative impact on the Old Fourth Ward historic district. Regarding two members of CAC who live in Sloan Plaza, Detter said that as a result of the 413 Huron St. project “their sunlight will be gone forever.”

And during a presentation made to the board by Doug Kelbaugh, a University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning, he offered as an aside that he agreed with comments by Detter and Tyler about the proposed 413 Huron project – adding that it did not lie within the area he considered to be the “downtown core.”

CWS: Board Response to Commentary

Mayor John Hieftje responded to remarks from Ault and Todoro, by commenting on Liberty Plaza. He said the city is just now in the beginning stages of taking a look at Liberty Plaza. The parks staff have developed a preliminary timeline, he said, but he appreciated the comments people had made. He contended that he feels comfortable in Liberty Plaza, but allowed that some community members don’t feel comfortable there. He said that it needs to be improved so that it’s more inviting to all city residents. [Hieftje had made similar comments in a presentation at the Aug. 21, 2012 meeting of the city's park advisory commission.]

John Splitt indicated that as a member of the State Street Area Association board, he wanted to thank First Martin for doing the best job they can, by contributing their help in emptying trash and helping with the upkeep of the public park. [First Martin owns the building adjacent to Liberty Plaza.]

Sandi Smith responded to Tyler’s points about the specificity in the CWS drawings by saying that the leadership outreach committee had struggled to balance the amount of detail shown in the buildings. They’d started with “blocky” buildings, and by giving them a little more design they didn’t want to go down the path of designing an entire building. Tyler responded that some of the elements she was talking about could be put it in the narrative to the recommendations, if not in the schematics.

Joan Lowenstein told Tyler that she loved Tyler’s use of the word “oasis,” saying that was the intended concept.

CWS: Executive Summary

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, began by thanking the board and others who had worked on the Connecting William Street project. She sketched an overview of the process, but did not go through the PowerPoint presentation that had been shown at the last board meeting and at two subsequent public meetings. [.pdf of CWS presentation made at Dec. 5, 2012 board meeting]

She reviewed how the process had been undertaken over the last 15-18 months, when the DDA got approval from the city council to take charge of an RFP process for city-owned properties in the downtown. The DDA had set out with a belief that the process would build on a lot of good planning that had already been done, she said, without starting from scratch. So the first step was to review all the existing city planning work – the downtown plan, the central area plan, the A2D2 process, the Calthorpe study and the city’s design guidelines.

The community was then asked to speak to that planning in a more granular way. In the past, she said, when the city had issued vague RFPs, potential developers had essentially been directed to those plans and told, “Just look to those plans, they’ll tell you what to do.” The result was “strange polarities,” Pollay said, which were reflected most recently in competing visions for the top of the Library Lane underground garage – as people talked about an ice-skating rink versus a hotel/conference center. She compared the issue to one where you try to choose between a stick or a bagel.

So the Connecting William Street project was a chance for the community to decide for itself what it would like to see on the five sites, without immediate development pressures.

Pollay noted that part of the public input had included a survey to test whether the goals distilled out from previous planning efforts were still embraced. She stressed that the survey was not an attempt to conduct a vote for a particular use on a particular site. What they’d heard consistently was that the values reflected in previous planning were confirmed – walkability, density, diversity of use, and quality of buildings.

Scenarios were developed to test in more detail what public reaction was, and Pollay said that what they’d heard in several different meetings was consistency. People might not have agreed with the building height as depicted in a scenario, but weren’t opposed to having a building there at all. Or people did not oppose having active uses on the first floor. They’d found many areas of agreement, she said.

There are many areas where the plan has to come together and work together, Pollay said. As an example, she said there are opportunities to pursue jobs in the downtown by providing for large floor-plate office space. But there are also opportunities to provide housing for the workers who might be employed in those jobs. There are a great number of opportunities not just in the downtown, but also specifically in the area of downtown that makes up the study area, she continued, pointing out that the AATA’s Blake Transit Center is located there. Something like 600,000 people a year visit the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library, she said, which is a great strength. [The downtown library is located at the northeast corner of Fifth and William.] But that meant that surrounding uses needed to be complementary to that.

Pollay said that for 95% of the plan, there was very little controversy. There was some quibbling about density, but generally there was a lot of agreement, she said. They’d strived for a diversity of voices in gathering input, and made a point to reach out to as many neighborhood groups and civic organizations as possible – at least 100. A mailing list of interested citizens was developed that had over 700 people on it. A total of 300 people had attended meetings and over 2,000 people had responded to a survey.

They’d strived for a diverse and robust response, she concluded. About the question of parks and open space, Pollay ventured, “We are saying different things, yet saying the same thing: We want more open space downtown, whether it’s a park or a plaza, whether it’s green, whether it’s sized this way or that.” She said there was still some dialogue going on.

The previous evening, she’d met with the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) and talked about affordable housing. There was no one of the five sites that seemed to call for affordable housing – but instead there seemed to be a lot of consensus at HHSAB for selling the property and rebuilding the city’s affordable housing trust fund. That would give flexibility for the location of affordable housing.

The idea was discussed that a contribution in lieu program could be provided for the density incentives that are available under by-right zoning. [Currently, up to 900% FAR (floor-area ratio) is allowed in by-right projects, if the use of a project includes a suitable amount of affordable housing.] There was a strong willingness to explore a contribution to the affordable housing trust fund in lieu of providing the affordable housing units within a project.

She concluded by thanking everyone, and cautioning that there is a lot of work yet to be done.

Sandi Smith noted that some of the outreach for the project that had been directed was to connect to the University of Michigan. So she invited Doug Kelbaugh, a UM professor of architecture and urban planning, to present some of the work his students had done.

CWS: Kelbaugh Connection

In the summer of 2011, Kelbaugh had pitched his services to facilitate a public process for the Connecting William Street project [though it had not yet been given that name], but ultimately the DDA board declined the offer.

Kelbaugh began by discussing the question of whether the open space on the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage should be a plaza or a park. He offered three reasons why it should be a plaza, not a park.

1. Urban rationale – downtowns need outdoor living rooms that are:
   (a) spatially well defined, enclosed by buildings on at least three sides (ideal width is 100 feet – which is the distance at which you can recognize somebody’s face);
   (b) activated by programmed, spontaneous and informal activities for diverse demographics – so that it’s not dominated by rich, poor or anybody in between;
   (c) with lots of entrances, windows, retail on the edges, as well as “eyes” on the plaza. Kelbaugh contended that Ann Arbor has great streets and great parks but not a lot of good plazas, i.e. “outdoor living rooms.” These characteristics meant that Liberty Plaza will never actually be a plaza – it will always be a park. It could become a better park, but would never be a plaza – because the historic building to the south [Kempf House] would never have windows and doors opening onto it from that side. However, the Library Lane site had the potential to be a plaza, he said. Kelbaugh said that the side of the Earthen Jar restaurant would never be an adequate activator of a plaza.
2. Architectural rationale – a plaza is better suited structurally for construction on top of a parking garage than a park, which needs deep soil for trees and berms.
3. Environmental rationale – it’s greener to have a dense, complete downtown than suburban sprawl (urban residents have smaller ecological footprints per capita).

Kelbaugh then showed the board some student projects for the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage, highlighting how they made a connection from a plaza on the Fifth Avenue side of the parcel to the Liberty Plaza park. For one of the buildings that the students had designed, the connection went through the buildings – with an elevated exterior “public street” that led past retail shop entrances. When you come out the other side, he said, you are greeted with a “true green park” – where Liberty Plaza is. That would require the cooperation of Bill Martin and his son, Kelbaugh allowed – because of property that is owned by Martin, situated between the Library Lane parking garage and Liberty Plaza.

Kelbaugh included in his remarks a sketch of how he imagined it might be possible to get from the Kline lot on the western edge of downtown to the University of Michigan campus, using mid-block cut-throughs.

CWS: Board Deliberations

Newcombe Clark ventured that what the DDA board would be approving was a snapshot – saying that the minute you collect data, it starts to degrade. It could become more or less relevant as time goes by and various macro forces act on the situation. He ventured that the plan will be trotted out years later as proof of something. He felt it might not hold up well if it’s put on a shelf.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he appreciated all the work that had been done. He asked for an amendment to the resolved clause [added text in italics, bolded type for contrast]:

Resolved, The DDA approves the Connecting William Street Plan, and anticipates that the Plan will be presented to City Council later this month, with the expectation of working to implement this Plan in the future, following further input from city commissions and the public.

Sandi Smith indicated that unfortunately she didn’t consider that amendment to be friendly. Joan Lowenstein suggested tweaking the change as follows, which was amenable to Smith and to Hieftje:

Resolved, The DDA approves he Connecting William Street Plan, and anticipates that he Plan will be presented to City Council later this month, with the expectation of working to implement this Plan in the future, in conjunction with further input from city commissions and the public.

Smith called it a significantly different statement. John Mouat expressed some caution about the added language, saying that the project had already lasted one and a half years, so he hoped to see some timely action on it. Clark ventured that the next step could be for the DDA to develop an RFQ (request for qualifications).

Outcome: The board unanimously voted to adopt the Connecting William Street recommendations.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council.

Comm/Comm: Parking Report

Roger Hewitt delivered the report on monthly parking, which has been covered in more detail in previous reporting: “Parking as Residential Incentive: Where?”

Comm/Comm: Downtown Marketing Task Force

Mayor John Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board as mayor, reminded DDA board members of a first-Tuesday monthly meeting – of the downtown marketing task force. He called the meetings productive and encouraged DDA board members to attend.

Comm/Comm: WATS

John Mouat reported that the executive director of the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), Terri Blackmore, had resigned. Blackmore is taking a position at North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization in Fort Collins, Colorado. Mouat indicated that Leigh Greden is leading the effort to find a replacement for her at WATS. [Greden sits on the WATS policy committee – in his capacity as the executive director of government and community relations for Eastern Michigan University.]

Comm/Comm: River Up!

Elizabeth Riggs, deputy director of the Huron River Watershed Council (HRWC), addressed the board on the topic of River Up! She told the board that she and HRWC director Laura Rubin had met with DDA executive director Susan Pollay a couple of times, and that Pollay had suggested Riggs make a presentation to the DDA board.

Left to right: DDA board member Sandi Smith and Huron River Watershed Council deputy director Elizabeth Riggs.

She said the point of the presentation was to start a dialogue and to promote future communication between the DDA and HRWC about River Up! She described River Up! as “nothing short of a renaissance for the Huron River.” She said the partners on the project were “thinking big.” Partners include the HRWC, Michigan League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation and a group of community and business leaders called the Wolfpack. [For previous Chronicle reporting on River Up!, see "River Up! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"] It’s a group that has worked in the past on environmental initiatives on the state and the national level, she said. River Up! is an initiative to look at an asset in “our own backyard – the Huron River.”

Riggs told the board that the HRWC has been around since 1965 working to protect the river and the eco-system. She called River Up! a bold initiative to turn the communities on the river to face the river – as a new Main Street. In the past, the Huron River has been a working river, she said, and it showed signs of that. It was understandable that people wanted to put their backs to the river – because it didn’t smell very good. But in the last few decades, she said, there’s been quite a turnaround, and the river is now something to celebrate. It’s the only river in this part of Michigan with a “natural river” designation. It’s an important place for recreation and respite. The river could be a part of the place-making effort for Ann Arbor, helping it to be an economic engine. Other river towns besides Ann Arbor are Milford, Dexter, Ypsilanti, and Flatrock. The concept is very broad but there are three specific areas that the River Up! project involves: (1) fix up; (2) clean up; and (3) build up.

Fixing up means investing in the river, making it safer and more accessible, she explained. The creation of a 104-mile paddling trail is part of that effort, which includes fixing portages and installing wayfinding. And soon a waterproof flipbook map of the whole river will be available.

Cleaning up means supporting ecological improvement. The DTE cleanup of the old MichCon site on Broadway, adjacent to the river, fits in with part of that effort, she said. That cleanup will help establish the connection between the river and the downtown, she said.

Riggs concluded by saying she looked forward to potential future collaboration.

Comm/Comm: Connector Study

Roger Hewitt reported that a meeting had been held by the funding partners for the connector study – an effort that’s exploring alternatives for high-capacity transit in a corridor that swoops in a boomerang shape from the northeast part of the city to the south. The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and farther south to I-94. The city council approved its part of the funding on Oct. 15, 2012 to support an alternatives analysis phase of the study, which will result in identifying a preferred mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and the location of stations and stops.

At the group’s meeting they’d received a report on the first public outreach effort, which had taken place at six different locations – including Briarwood mall during the Christmas shopping season. The point of the outreach, Hewitt said, was to gauge the public response to the concept of a high-capacity connector. The people who’d been asked had reported their priorities for transportation in the following order: higher frequency of service, extended hours of service, and reduced emissions.

The result of asking people to put dots on maps indicating their desired travel destinations showed a large cluster in the area of downtown Ann Arbor, Hewitt said. Around 90% of people said they wanted some kind of enhanced system – compared to the current bus system. About 275 people total had been contacted at the six locations, he said. The next outreach effort would take place in a couple of months, Hewitt concluded. [.jpg of dot map]

Present: Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Nader Nassif, Russ Collins, Keith Orr.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2013, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. 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!

Ann Arbor public parking system: monthly permit use by length of stay. An example of the kind of data that’s possible to track for the public parking system. The DDA board has requested that Republic Parking start including additional data in its monthly parking report.

The DDA manages the city’s public parking system, and a report presented to the board for October 2012 – the most recent month for which data is available – showed $1.675 million in revenue, which amounts to an increase in revenue compared to October 2011 of about 15.5%. The increase is at least partly a function of rate increases, changes to the billing method, and an increase in the parking system inventory. The recently completed Library Lane underground parking garage offers more than 700 spaces, which were not available a year ago. The use of the parking system as measured by hourly patrons showed only a 1.8% increase.

At the meeting, DDA board member Roger Hewitt announced that future monthly reports would begin including more detailed information on the length of time patrons park in the system. Currently the board uses revenue levels as a kind of imperfect proxy for system usage.

Also related to the parking system, the stats for November will include the fact that the parking system maxed out – with all spaces in the entire system filled – on the night of the Midnight Madness holiday shopping promotion. That’s an event sponsored by the Main Street Area Association (MSAA), which took place on Nov. 30. Maura Thomson, executive director of the MSAA, relayed her appreciation to the board during public commentary for the DDA’s financial support of the holiday lights strung on trees downtown.

Again related to parking were brief remarks made to the board by local attorney Scott Munzel, who spoke on behalf of the developer of the proposed new residential project at 624 Church St. The DDA board had given its support for around 40 parking spaces to be provided for that 14-story, 81-unit apartment building through the city’s contribution-in-lieu program. Munzel alerted the board that the project was anticipated to be on the city planning commission’s Jan. 15, 2013 agenda. Munzel was hoping the location of the parking spaces in the public parking system could be determined by then.

Ray Detter, speaking for the downtown citizens advisory council, updated the board on another major development – 413 E. Huron. The northeast corner of Huron and Division is the location of a planned residential and retail development with 213 apartments – which does not need any variances in the D1 zoning district. Detter reported the developer’s intention to proceed with the development even through it was strongly criticized by the city’s design review board.

Addressing the board on a non-parking topic was Jim Balmer, president of Dawn Farm, a nonprofit offering both residential and out-patient services supporting recovery for alcoholics and drug addicts. Dawn Farm’s Chapin Street facility has been supported in the past by the DDA, and Balmer addressed the board to thank them for that support and to highlight a future funding request – $150,000 to pay down debt. The grant is intended to help Dawn Farm achieve a target of 200 beds for its residential facilities, up from the current 159 beds.

The board received news that the preliminary draft audit report indicates that the fiscal year 2012, which ended June 30, 2012, will be unqualified – that is, “clean.” The unrestricted net assets held by the DDA at the end of the fiscal year totaled about $8.65 million.

Parking

As usual, parking was a dominant theme of the DDA’s board meeting.

Parking: Profit-Loss

Roger Hewitt gave the parking report. It included a profit-and-loss statement on each facility for the year ending June 30, 2012. [.pdf of profit-loss statements] The second to the bottom line, he noted, reflects whether a particular structure “made money or not.” The key to that is three lines above that bottom line – bond payments.

Four structures still have bond payments being made, he pointed out. The Fourth & Washington and the Fourth & William structures still have the original construction bonds that need paying off, he noted. Two other structures have related bond payments: Maynard and Forest – which both underwent significant renovations. Hewitt pointed out that even after the bond payments are factored in for Maynard and Fourth & William, they’re still making money – unlike Fourth & Washington and Forest.

Hewitt said the more significant point is not to evaluate whether an individual structure is making money but rather whether the parking system as a whole is working. And the net annual income is nearly $800 per space, Hewitt said. So net revenue from the parking system is anticipated to be about $5.6 million for last fiscal year.

Responding to a question from Sandi Smith, Hewitt indicated that the $5.6 million figure was after making the payment due to the city of Ann Arbor, for 17% of gross parking system revenues. The total paid to the city was about $3 million or roughly $300,000 more than was budgeted, Hewitt said. It also includes the rent paid to privately-owned parking lots the DDA uses.

Parking: Midnight Madness

Hewitt also reported on a unique occurrence that, depending on your viewpoint, was either good or bad, he said. The previous Friday night, on Nov. 30, was Midnight Madness – and it maxed out the parking system. At some point during Friday night, every single spot at every structure and surface lot was filled, Hewitt said. That had happened only once before – on the Friday of the art fairs this year. That’s nearly 5,600 spaces, he said. The two structures at Maynard and at Fourth & Washington had parking activity that would be the equivalent of filling and emptying four times, Hewitt reported. If the new Library Lane structure had not been on line, it would have been necessary to shut down the system for 2 hours at the beginning of evening. There were almost 1,500 more parkers entering the system between 5-8 p.m. than last year on Midnight Madness.

John Mouat ventured that more important than the parking numbers were the people who were downtown. Hewitt said: “There were a lot of people downtown Friday night!” He saw that reflected in his restaurant. [Hewitt owns the Red Hawk.] Hewitt thanked the Republic Parking staff for their work in getting people in and out as quickly as possible.

Leah Gunn added that based on a conversation with Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association, “business was booming.” People were not just walking around, Gunn said, they were buying.

Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association.

Thomson also appeared before the board during public commentary time to thank the DDA publicly for the downtown holiday lights display. She felt it contributes to stimulating the downtown economy, and has an impact on the experience people have downtown that can’t be measured. It creates an environment that helps people feel connected to the downtown and makes people want to talk to other people about how great they think this downtown is, she said. As someone who works to promote downtown, she thanked the DDA for making her job easier.

Board member Nader Nassif responded to Thomson’s remarks by noting that he now lives on Fourth Avenue. He’d like to see the holiday lights expanded to other areas of downtown, not just Main Street. Sandi Smith echoed Nassif’s sentiments, calling it an easy piece of low-hanging fruit. Smith also suggested adding some wayfinding directions from the downtown to the Border-to-Border trail and the new Argo Cascades.

Parking: Monthly Report

The monthly parking report – comparing October 2012 against October 2011 – showed a 15.5% increase in revenue, with the number of hourly patrons up 1.8%. Hewitt pointed out that the new underground Library Lane structure showed about $77,500 in revenue, which he called “pretty good for a new structure.”

Hewitt indicated that the operations committee will be looking at the kind of statistics it requests from Republic Parking, the DDA’s subcontractor for parking operations. After adding the new Library Lane underground garage, the committee will be asking that Republic produce more detailed statistics on hourly users and how they affect the system. He said the format of the report would likely be modified to get a better idea of the impact of hourly users on the system.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Revenue. Compared to October 2011, revenue was up again (green trend line) – by 15% after showing about nearly the same revenue year-over-year in September. The revenue increase reflects increased rates, billing by the hour, and 865 additional spaces compared over the 6,955 in the system that were available in October 2011. It’s not clear how much additional usage of the system it reflects.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Patrons. Compared to October a year ago, the number of hourly patrons was up incrementally by 1.8%.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Focus on structures. The new Library Lane structure showed a clear upward trend in revenues per space (black trend line).

Ann Arbor public parking system: Focus on surface lots. The Fifth & William lot (purple trend line), near the newly opened Library Lane structure, may have lost some patrons to the new structure.

Ann Arbor public parking system: Focus on system. Revenue-per-space systemwide continues upward.

The different statistics that will be included in the standard monthly reports reflect an attempt to get a clearer picture of how different patrons are using the parking system. The DDA makes monthly permits available at prices that yield less revenue per space than the DDA would receive, if all spaces were paid at the standard hourly rate. For example, the standard hourly rate for a parking structure is $1.20 per hour. A standard monthly permit in some structures costs $145 per month. So a downtown worker who used a permit for eight hours daily would break just about even after three weeks, compared to paying hourly. [145/(1.2*8)]

The strategy the DDA is using to free up spaces for hourly patrons in structures near the University of Michigan campus has been to offer discounted permits in the new Library Lane structure – for new patrons or for people willing to shift their permits from Liberty Square or Maynard to the new Library Lane structure. That discounted rate is $95 per month. In the first week of December, 260 of the cheaper permits for Library Lane had been sold, with an additional 336 permits sold at the regular rate of $145 – for a total of 596 permits sold for the 738-space structure.

Revenue from permits alone for Library Lane would translate into about $73,000 per month. [336*145 + 260*95] Back in October, with fewer monthly permits sold, and about 8,000 hourly parking patrons using Library Lane, the structure generated $77,500 in revenue.

With additional statistics about how long hourly patrons are staying and how long monthly permit holders are parking, the DDA hopes to get a clearer understanding of the impact that pricing policies have on parking behavior.

Parking: Spaces for Bicycles

Two of the parking spaces in the Maynard structure will be given over to bicycle parking starting in March or April. John Mouat gave an update on the project, which getDowntown director Nancy Shore has suggested be called the “Bike House” – on analogy with the Big House, as University of Michigan’s football stadium is known.

Sketches and preliminary pricing has been done by designer Dan Mooney. At its Oct. 3, 2012 meeting, the DDA board authorized a $30,000 budget for the facility, which is expected to provide room for about 50 bikes.

Similar “cages” in other cities use a chain-link fencing material. However, the DDA hopes that a more aesthetically pleasing option can be identified. The preliminary drawings include a laminated glass half wall, instead of a chain-link design.

The facility is designed for commuters who would pay a rental amount for use of the “cage.” Bicyclists would still be responsible for securing their own bikes in racks inside the cage. [.jpg of rack configuration].

Development

A number of items on the Dec. 5 agenda related to the Ann Arbor DDA’s role as a development authority.

Development: Parking

Under city policy, the public parking system is used as a development tool – and that policy is implemented by the DDA. So local attorney Scott Munzel appeared before the board during public commentary time representing Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minn. – which is developing a residential project at 624 Church St. in downtown Ann Arbor. It will be a 13- or 14-story, 83-unit apartment building with approximately 181 beds. A request had already been made to the DDA by the developer to provide the required 40-42 parking spaces by contracting for them in the public parking system. That’s instead of building the spaces on site as part of the project.

The authorization to work out the parking agreement in the context of the city’s “contribution in lieu of parking” program came on a vote taken at the Oct. 3, 2012 meeting of the DDA board. The DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Ann Arbor’s “contribution in lieu of parking” program was authorized by the city council on April 2, 2012. That program allows essentially two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% more than the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space. It’s option (1) that the 624 Church St. project will be pursuing.

At the DDA board’s Dec. 5 meeting, Munzel reported that the site plan for the project had been submitted and is expected to be on the Jan. 15 agenda of the Ann Arbor planning commission. Munzel ventured that the planning commission will want to know where the authorized spaces will be, and he told the board that the size of the building had settled in on a slightly smaller square footage, so that 40 spaces would be needed, not 42.

Munzel reiterated the developer’s request that those spaces be provided in the Forest parking structure, which is the closest one to the development. Munzel said that location would best meet the intent of the payment-in-lieu policy and would help stabilize revenue to the DDA. He offered to sit down and chat about that informally.

Development: Grant Request – Dawn Farm

Jim Balmer, president of Dawn Farm, told the board he guessed they all knew who he was, and that they’d seen the request that had been made for financial assistance to reduce the debt on two of the organization’s existing properties. By way of background, Dawn Farm is a nonprofit offering both residential and out-patient services supporting recovery for alcoholics and drug addicts. In 2001, the DDA had made a $135,000 grant to Dawn Farm to assist with the purchase of the property at 112 Chapin St.

The current request being made to the DDA is for $150,000 to help pay down the debt on two other Dawn Farm properties, at 343 Beakes and 324 Summit. The grant from the DDA would free up cash to expand the existing total 159 beds in Dawn Farm’s residential treatment facilities to 200 by early 2013, according to Dawn Farm.

Development: Update on 413 E. Huron

Reporting from the downtown citizens advisory council, Ray Detter told the board that in recent weeks, representatives of the eight downtown and near-downtown residential neighborhood associations had been negotiating directly with the developer of the project at 413 E. Huron St., which Detter described as a “massive 14-story … student housing building.” It’s located just east of Sloan Plaza and immediately adjacent to the Old Fourth Ward historic district.

Greenfield Partners is a financial backer of the project, Detter said. They have rejected all suggestions and requests from the city’s design review board to improve the design of the building, he reported. The design review board had recognized that context is important, and that the project is part of a specific character area, Detter said. [The city's development process of design review is mandatory, but compliance with the recommendations of the design review board is voluntary.] According to Detter, Greenfield Partners said that any further changes would affect the profitability of the project. The bottom line, Detter continued, is that the developer wants to make the maximum he can. “They call it ‘by right’ and they’re going to build it to make that money…”

Detter expressed some optimism based on the draft recommendations from the Connecting William Street project. A draft indicates that the planning commission would be required to report to the city council about how a project team responded to the recommendations of the design review board. The downtown citizens advisory council will join with other groups to work toward improving the design review process for all buildings, he said, not just those on public property.

Development: Board Retreat

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, summarized the recent board retreat that was held on Nov. 17. The board had talked about the basics and what DDAs are created to do. They’d talked about what the board felt the Ann Arbor DDA did well and what outside stakeholders felt they did well, as well as what they did not do as well. A smaller group of the board had met after the retreat, she reported, and distilled the discussion from the retreat into key tactics:

1. Identity. There’s a lot of information that’s currently captured by the DDA about the downtown. More efforts could be made along these lines, Pollay said.
2. Infrastructure. It’s what the DDA is known for. The walkability and attractiveness of downtown is due in large part to DDA dollars, she said.
3. Transportation and parking. There’s more the DDA could do to merge the two areas. The DDA needs to look at the results of the Connector Study [on the corridor between US-23 and Plymouth, through University of Michigan campus and downtown to I-94 and State].
4. Business encouragement. The DDA should include a focus on “clean and safe” and should make conversations with the Main Street business improvement zone (BIZ) a part of that – which would help tap into the private sector.
5. Housing. It’s a key ingredient of the DDA’s success, Pollay said. The city and Washtenaw County, as well as the nonprofit community, have a role to play, she added. The DDA’s specialized role could be in supporting work-force housing. The DDA is trying to make it possible for people to live and work in the downtown.

Audit

Roger Hewitt reported that the operations committee had received a draft of the audit. The final version hasn’t been received yet, but he said it was completely clean as an accurate reflection of the DDA’s financial condition.

The statements include total net assets of $8,767,926 – nearly a $1 million increase over the previous year. That is primarily held in the balances of the DDA’s four different funds: TIF – tax increment finance ($4.7 million), parking ($2.1 million) and the two combined funds of housing and parking maintenance ($1.7 million). For the formal audit, the housing fund and the parking maintenance funds are lumped together as “non-major governmental funds.”

Bike Share

DDA board member John Mouat briefed his colleagues on a bike-share program that the DDA is being asked to support. A bike-share program would allow members to take a bicycle from a station and use it for a period of time. The concept is that several stations would be placed in a geographic area, so that a bicyclist could, as much as possible, ride from one station to another.

By way of background, a year ago – at the DDA’s Dec. 7, 2011 meeting – Mouat had briefed the board on a request from the Clean Energy Coalition for in-kind support for the bike-sharing program. The bike-sharing program would work on analogy to car-sharing programs like Zipcar. The initial request for only an in-kind contribution from the DDA was based on the hope that a grant award from the Federal Transit Administration’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) would cover both capital costs and operations. But it turns out that the FTA has limited the program to capital costs only.

At the partnerships committee meeting of June 27, 2012 the grant request by the CEC to the DDA was described as $5,000 in calendar year 2012 and $10,000 annually for the three years from 2013-2015. Other organizations that had been asked to contribute financially include: the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority ($18,000 this year and $40,000 annually for three years); the city of Ann Arbor ($15,000 this year and $40,000 annually for three years; and the University of Michigan ($66,000 this year and $200,000 annually for three years). The university was described as contributing the lion’s share because UM is interested in controlling the advertising component of the program.

At the board’s Dec. 5 meeting, Mouat described the project as having “run into a speed bump.” The CEC is looking to increase the amount of the requests. The question of how to ensure adequate operating expenses is crucial. Mouat indicated that his inclination was to put as much as possible of the responsibility on the University of Michigan. He described it as a complicated issue.

At the operations committee meeting of the DDA the previous week, Mouat had reported that the most recent meeting of the potential partners had become a bit contentious. At that operations committee meeting, DDA executive director Susan Pollay had supported the idea of having the University of Michigan take the lead with a launch that would be confined to the campus. When the program was established, it might be expanded – roughly on analogy with the way that the Zipcar program was rolled out in Ann Arbor.

The city of Ann Arbor is represented in the bike-share discussions by Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager who also serves on the AATA board. In a telephone interview with The Chronicle, he indicated that he hoped the initial deployment would not be confined only to the University of Michigan campus. He pointed out that the concept of a bike-share is actually different from Zipcar.

When a patron of a Zipcar uses a vehicle, then the expectation is that the driver will use the vehicle for some period of time, perhaps driving somewhere and parking it for an hour or two, then returning it to the same Zipcar parking space. A bike-share program, in contrast, depends on the availability of a station near the intended destination, so that a user pays for the time of the travel, not for the entire “outing.” So Cooper hoped that the initial geographic deployment of stations would be as broad as possible. Cooper stressed that one of the challenges is that bike-share as a transportation strategy is relatively new.

Misc. Communications

The DDA board’s meeting included a range of other comments and communications.

Comm/Comm: Calendar

The board decided to move its January 2013 meeting to Jan. 9. Ordinarily it would have fallen on Jan. 2.

Comm/Comm: Thank You

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, addressed the board at the end of the meeting during the public commentary time, saying she was wearing her citizen of Ann Arbor hat. She thanked DDA board member Sandi Smith for her tenure as a city councilmember. This year, Smith chose not to seek another two-year term after serving four years representing Ward 1 on the council.

Pollay also thanked DDA board member Leah Gunn, who was going to attend her final session of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners that night.

Comm/Comm: Adopting a Theme

Addressing the board at the conclusion of the meeting was Thomas Partridge. He encouraged the board to adopt a freedom theme for the 21st century. He called for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to provide transportation under the theme of Freedom Rides. Ann Arbor hasn’t adopted a theme and has been scooped by other cities like Atlanta, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Boston, he said. He criticized what he described as the Caucasian dominance of elected and appointed boards in Ann Arbor.

Present: Nader Nassif, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Newcombe Clark.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2013, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. 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!