Eunice Burns, former Ann Arbor city councilmember and Downtown Development Authority board member, introduces herself to city administrator Steve Powers before the July 2 council meeting started. Burns was on hand to receive a proclamation for Huron River Day, which falls on July 15 this year. Burns, along with Shirley Axon, is co-founder of the event. (Photos by the writer.)

Most obviously fitting that theme was a resolution passed by the council directing the city’s planning commission to incorporate 16 sustainability goals into the city’s master plan. The 16 goals, which were compiled from existing planning documents, had worked their way through a community engagement process and were adopted by several city commissions before arriving before the city council. The goals fall into four categories: climate and energy; community; land use and access; and resource management.

Clearly related to land use and access (the goal of “preserve our natural systems”), as well as resource management (“eliminate pollutants in our air and water systems”) was a resolution directing city staff to develop a “green streets” policy. The policy would formalize an approach to stormwater management that would allow city street projects to incorporate various technologies to mimic natural processes, to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff that goes directly into the city’s stormwater pipes and on into the Huron River. Features like bioswales, for example, would filter stormwater through natural systems so that pollutants from street surfaces would not flow directly to the river.

The river itself was part of the meeting’s sustainability theme as it was highlighted with a mayoral proclamation in honor of Huron River Day, which falls on July 15 this year.

Among the specific sustainability goals in the category of “community” is one that addresses economic sustainability: “Develop a prosperous, resilient local economy that provides opportunity by … rewarding investment in our community …” In that spirit, the council took the first step toward awarding a tax abatement to Barracuda Networks, a company that recently announced it’s moving from its Depot Street location into downtown Ann Arbor as part of a planned expansion of its workforce.

Another agenda item could be analyzed as part of the “integrated land use” and “economic vitality” sustainability goals: final approval of a rezoning request for the Shell station on the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and West Eisenhower Parkway.

Fitting into the “community” sustainability category was a resolution that made Ann Arbor a member of the Washtenaw Health Initiative (WHI) by authorizing a $10,000 annual membership fee. The goal of the WHI is to help local health care providers handle an influx of an estimated 50,000 newly insured patients when federal health care reforms take effect in 2014. The specific sustainability goal is to “provide services that meet basic human needs of impoverished and disenfranchised residents to maximize the health and well-being of the community.”

The council also approved appointments to three city commissions that are connected thematically to the sustainability goals – environmental, greenbelt advisory, and planning.

Making the city of Ann Arbor more financially sustainable is not an explicit part of the sustainability goals adopted by the city council. Yet financial sustainability could be seen as an outcome of the council’s ratification of three different union contracts. All three contracts increase the retirement benefit vesting period for new hires from five to 10 years, and increase the period for the final average compensation calculation to five years from three. The three labor groups that had their contracts ratified were the police professional assistants, civilian supervisors, and the deputy police chiefs.

Some of the public commentary also featured a sustainability theme – as former Allied Bendix engineer Kermit Schlansker outlined the energy efficiency benefits of cisterns. Also weighing in during public commentary were opponents of the new “smart meters” that are being installed by DTE Energy in Ann Arbor and other Michigan communities.

In other business, the council approved a weapons screening contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office – for the 15th District Court, located inside the new justice center along with the Ann Arbor police department.

During communications time, city attorney Stephen Postema updated the council on legal action related to the Dream Nite Club, which had its liquor license revoked earlier this year. He said four significant court rulings on lawsuits filed by the club’s owners against the city had gone the city’s way.

The council’s communications also included mention of two ballot questions that voters might have to decide in November. One is a renewal of the park maintenance and capital improvements millage. The council is almost certain to place that millage renewal on the Nov. 6 ballot. Another question is less certain – one that would change the city charter to require a voter referendum, if the city were to lease parkland. The charter already prohibits the sale of parkland without a referendum.

Sustainability Goals: Master Plan

The council considered a resolution directing the city planning commission to start a process of incorporating 16 sustainability goals into the city’s master plan. While that master plan review process is underway, the council’s resolution directs the city administrator to apply the 16 goals in staff work. [.pdf of 16 sustainability goals]

The sustainability goals are divided into four categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. By way of illustration, from the land use and access category, one of the goals is: “Establish a physical and cultural environment that supports and encourages safe, comfortable and efficient ways for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users to travel throughout the city and region.”

The goals were culled from more than 200 goals that are already found in existing city planning documents, as part of a project that began in early 2011. The work has been funded by a Home Depot Foundation grant.

Development of the work by city staff was initially guided by volunteers who serve on four city advisory commissions: park, planning, energy and environmental. Members from those groups met at a joint working session in late September of 2011. Since then, the city’s housing commission and housing & human services commission have been added to the conversation. A series of panel discussions on each category was held earlier this year, as was a public forum to solicit input.

The city planning commission voted on June 5, 2012 to recommend to the city council that it pass the resolution considered by the council on July 2.

Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” “Sustaining Ann Arbor’s Environmental Quality,” “Land Use, Transit Factor Into Sustainability,” and “Final Forum: What Sustains Community?”

Sustainability Goals: Public Commentary

Alan Haber told the council that in some circles he’s considered a pest. But he perseveres, he said. He supports the sustainability goals and he thinks they’re an important step. He related the notion of sustainability to the efforts of homeless people to organize their own community along the lines of Camp Take Notice. He then pointed to the city-owned building at 721 N. Main and contended that if the city made it available, that would help a community form, and that would be a part of the realization of sustainability goals.

Haber also contended that sustainability requires space for a community on top of the new underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue. That space can change and create its own story, he said. When he attended a recent meeting of the Connecting William Street committee, which is working to develop possible scenarios for alternate uses of city-owned surface lots, all of the scenarios involved developing the top of the parking structure in some way. None of the scenarios allowed for open space there. The committee had not heard a word of the input that had been provided, he contended – because people all over town said they wanted an open space. That’s what the community wants, he said.

Kermit Schlansker.

Kermit Schlansker, a former engineer with Allied Bendix, told the council that the problem with wind and solar power is that it’s intermittent. A way to store the energy is needed, he said. He suggested that cisterns could be part of the solution. In the summer, he said, cistern water can cool buildings. In the winter, the use of a heat pump on cistern water – at 55 F degrees – would be relatively efficient, he said. Forget about rain gardens and rain barrels, he said, because they don’t store energy.

The big problem with cisterns, Schlansker said, is how to build them. The work of digging them has to be done by hand, but that would make jobs for poor people. He compared cistern digging to coal mining. The best way to store carbon is to leave it in the ground, he said. Like apartment houses, cisterns are one of the few energy devices that can last 1,000 years.

Sustainability Goals: Council Deliberations

At the July 2 meeting, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to come to the podium. Rampson introduced Jamie Kidwell, sustainability associate with the city. Kidwell had done most of the work, along with some interns, Rampson said. City environmental coordinator Matt Naud and Rampson had assisted Kidwell, Rampson said. Kidwell ventured that many councilmembers had seen the sustainability goals through commissions and boards they sit on.

Derezinski asked Kidwell to give a succinct definition of sustainability. By way of responding to Derezinski, Kidwell noted that an effort had been made to build the vision of sustainability from existing planning documents. It’s from those documents that the four “chapters” were distilled: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. They build on the city of Ann Arbor’s 10 environmental goals that were adopted in 2007, she said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked Kidwell to talk about how we’ll know if the city is making progress. In responding, Kidwell alluded to the city’s State of Our Environment Report. She indicated that for sustainability, more detailed indicators would be developed along the lines of the environmental indicators. Those indicators will be tied to targets, she said, and she ventured that those indicators would be reviewed on a biennial basis.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution directing the planning commission to integrate the 16 sustainability goals into the city’s master plan.

Green Streets Policy

The council considered a resolution that directs city staff from a range of different departments to work with the environmental commission to develop a “green streets” policy.

The policy would formalize an approach to stormwater management that would allow street projects to incorporate an “array of products, technologies, and practices that use natural systems – or engineered systems that mimic natural processes – to enhance overall environmental quality and provide utility services …” The goals of developing and implementing the policy include a reduction in the amount of untreated stormwater flowing from streets directly to the city’s stormwater system and into the Huron River. By implementing systems like bioswales, for example, a portion of the stormwater runoff from streets, which includes contaminants from the road surface, would be filtered naturally before entering the river.

To emphasize the impact that the city’s streets have on stormwater runoff, a staff memo accompanying the resolution indicates that Ann Arbor’s 27 square miles includes 11.2 square miles of impervious surface, of which about one quarter (2.9 square miles) is the city right-of-way. City staff estimate that half of the runoff in the city’s stormwater system comes directly from the city right-of-way.

At the council’s meeting on June 18, 2012, city environmental commissioner Valerie Strassberg had addressed councilmembers, asking for their support in bringing the resolution forward. At that meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated she’d be bringing the resolution forward at the July 2 meeting. It was co-sponsored by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). Hohnke and Briere are the two city council appointees to the environmental commission.

The city staff who are directed to take part in the development of the green streets policy are in the systems planning, project management, field operations, parks and recreation, and planning departments.

The resolution was introduced by Briere. She noted that the city staff have already worked hard to implement various green streets approaches. However, the city has no policy about how to implement those approaches or what level of priority to assign them. She stressed that the green streets policy that will be developed by the environmental commission under the direction of the council’s resolution would come back to the council for its review. The council would then decide if the policy has been properly developed.

Hohnke characterized it as a move to provide formal guidance. City staff have been involved in the green streets techniques. And this approach has always been a growing part of how the city has thought about managing its streets, he said. Stormwater has an impact on infrastructure and the quality of our water, he continued. The city should bring new technologies to bear on this problem. Those technologies include pervious pavement and a “whole suite of actions that improve stormwater runoff.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) stated that she does support the resolution. She offered her thanks in advance to the staff and the environmental commission for the work they’d be doing. However, she wanted to add that when the green streets policy comes back to the council for review, she hopes to see supporting data that clearly articulates costs and benefits, including benchmark data with other cities. She noted that the council had recent approved a pervious pavement project, and it wasn’t clear what the capital and operational differentials were. She understood that a policy doesn’t mean something is set in stone. But she wanted a solid sense of the costs that are contemplated by the green streets policy.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct the development of a green streets policy.

Huron River

The Huron River was featured twice during the meeting – in connection with a proclamation about Huron River Day, and during public commentary about park rules against swimming in the river.

Misty Lyn and the Big Beautiful from their Sonic Lunch performance during the summer of 2011. From left: Ryan Gimpert, Misty Lyn, Matt Jones, Carol Gray, Jim Roll.

Huron River: Huron River Day

The proclamation in honor of Huron River Day is an annual one. This year the celebration falls on July 15. Co-founders of the event – Eunice Burns and Shirley Axon – were on hand to receive the proclamation.

Burns put in a plug for one of the bands that’s playing this year: Misty Lyn and the Big Beautiful. She noted that her granddaughter, Carol Gray, plays in the band.

In her brief remarks to councilmembers, Burns told them that some new events are included this year, among them a triathlon. The three legs of the event require bicycling from Argo to Gallup, running a circuit on land around Argo Pond and then kayaking back down to Gallup. [Swimming is not a part of the triathlon.]

Huron River: Swimming

David Collins introduced himself as an avid canoeist and occasional swimmer. He told the council he wanted to address some signs he’d seen posted at the Argo Cascades [a new bypass around Argo Dam that includes a series of drop pools]. The posted signs indicate that no swimming is allowed pursuant to Chapter 39 of the city code, which Collins described as apparently prohibiting swimming from city-owned land adjacent to waterways, except for those areas that are designated for it.

By way of background, Chapter 39 reads in relevant part:

3:2. – Restrictions.
While in a park, no person shall:
…
(16) swim, dive or play golf or hockey except in areas specifically designated for such purpose.

The idea of swimming in the Argo Cascades had been discussed at the park advisory commission meeting on May 15, 2012, when commissioners ventured that it might be a way to deal with the heat. From The Chronicle’s coverage:

David Barrett ask about the possibility of people swimming in the pools of the cascades – especially as the weather gets warmer. Colin Smith [the city's parks and recreation manager] noted that there’s a park rule against swimming in the river using parkland as a bank. And given the level of boating activity in the cascades, he said, if the intent was to go for a relaxing dip, it wouldn’t be all that relaxing.

During his remarks to the council on July 2, however, Collins contended that the park rule was unenforceable. He appreciated the city’s interest in promoting safety and in protecting itself from liability. But the city, he contended, does not have the authority to enact an ordinance like Chapter 39 that restricts use of the river. He cited the public trust doctrine that governs riparian rights and referred to a state of Michigan publication – ”Public Rights on Michigan Waters“:

It is quite clear that although a riparian owns the fee to the bed of a navigable (public) stream, his ownership is subordinate to the right of the public to the free and unobstructed use of the stream for navigation, fishing, swimming and other uses inherently belonging to the public.

Collins noted that if the city “invites guests,” it might have additional responsibility. For open and obvious dangers, he said, the city did not have liability. Only when the risks are hidden dangers are there real issues, he said.

Rather than post warnings about violations of an abstract, unenforceable piece of the city’s code, Collins suggested that the signs should provide warnings about real danger – like sharp, hidden rocks. That kind of sign could be more effective to prevent people from trying to use the Argo Cascades chutes as a water slide.

Barracuda Tax Abatement

The council considered setting a public hearing under Michigan’s Act 198 of 1974 on establishing an industrial development district for 317 Maynard St. in downtown Ann Arbor. Setting the hearing – for Aug. 9, 2012 – is the first of several actions that will be necessary to grant a tax abatement to Barracuda Networks, which is relocating from Depot Street to the downtown property owned by First Martin Corp. A letter dated June 1, 2012 from First Martin to the Ann Arbor city clerk requested the establishment of the district.

After the public hearing on the district, the council will need to vote on establishing the district. Then Barracuda Networks will need to apply for the abatement. The city council will need to vote to set another public hearing – this time on the abatement. And then the council will need to vote on the abatement itself. According to reports from Barracuda, the value of the abatement to be requested is estimated at around $85,000.

The city is prohibited by state statute from abating taxes on any more than 5% of the total state equalized value (SEV) of property in the city. Responding to an emailed query in May 2012 (in connection with a tax abatement for Sakti3), Tom Crawford, the city of Ann Arbor’s chief financial officer, wrote to The Chronicle that total SEV for the city for 2012 stands at $5,294,974,640, and the total SEV of abated property in 2012 is $8,935,974. That works out to 0.169% – well under 5%.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council voted to set a public hearing for Aug. 9, 2012 on establishing an industrial development district for 317 Maynard St.

Shell Station Rezoning, Site Plan

The council considered final approval of a request to revise the zoning regulations associated with the parcel on the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and West Eisenhower Parkway, where a Shell service station is located.

The city planning commission had previously voted unanimously to recommend approval of the zoning changes at its April 17, 2012 meeting.

The council was also asked to consider the site plan for the project.

Owners of the station are asking for revisions to the site’s planned unit development (PUD), which would allow them to build additions onto the existing 1,000-square-foot convenience store. The new additions would total 4,089 square feet, including 2,189 square feet to the north and east of the store. Their plan also calls for converting the 900-square-foot carwash area into new retail space. The existing access drive to the carwash would be landscaped, and the parking lot would be reconfigured for a new total of 16 spaces.

According to a planning staff memo, the PUD revisions were recommended because they are seen as providing an overall benefit to the city, by: (1) supporting the continued viability of retail options for the surrounding neighborhood; (2) creating job opportunities from this expansion; and (3) controlling the architectural design standards of this building as a gateway into the city.

The initial approval to the PUD rezoning was given at the council’s May 21, 2012 meeting.

Shell Station: Public Hearings

Separate public hearings were held on the PUD rezoning and the site plan.

Thomas Partridge was the only person who spoke at either hearing. He introduced himself as a resident and candidate to represent the 53rd District in the Michigan house of representatives. He called on the city council to come together behind a specific and firm commitment to affordability goals and environmental goals as part of the sustainability goals that were on that evening’s agenda. Those goals should include a commitment by service stations to support the public transportation system, he said. Service stations should be required to provide charging stations for electric vehicles, he contended. They should also be required to provide adaptable technology for hydrogen-powered vehicles.

Partridge called for the zoning change to be revised to require access to affordable housing.

Outcome: Without discussion, on separate votes, the council unanimously approved the site plan and rezoning request for the Shell station at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and West Eisenhower Parkway.

City Membership in Washtenaw Health Initiative

The council considered a resolution that allows the city of Ann Arbor to become a member of the Washtenaw Health Initiative (WHI). The resolution altered the budget for fiscal year 2013 (which began July 1, 2012) by adding $10,000 of general fund money to the budget for the office of community development – to cover the membership fee for this year. The resolution also recommends consideration of renewing the membership next year. [The city of Ann Arbor adopts budgets only one year at a time.]

A goal of WHI is to help local health care providers handle an influx of an estimated 50,000 newly insured patients when federal health care reforms take effect in 2014. The goal is to develop a plan to provide better health care for the county’s low-income residents, the uninsured and people on Medicaid – prior to changes that will be mandated by the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Currently, 2,719 people in Washtenaw County are already eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled – and of those, 958 are city of Ann Arbor residents.

The WHI is a collaboration co-chaired by former county administrator Bob Guenzel and retired University of Michigan treasurer Norman Herbert, along with Ellen Rabinowitz, executive director of the Washtenaw Health Plan. The effort is jointly sponsored by the UM Health System and Saint Joseph Mercy Health System, and facilitated by Marianne Udow-Phillips, director of the Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation – a joint venture of UM and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

Other partners involved in the project include the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce, Arbor Hospice, Catholic Social Services, Dawn Farm, Hope Clinic, Huron Valley Ambulance, Integrated Health Associates, Packard Health, Planned Parenthood of Mid and South Michigan, United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan.

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners voted on April 4, 2012 to make the county a member of WHI – and approved the $10,000 membership fee. The city and county are two of over 30 members of WHI, who have together contributed more than $100,000 to the effort.

Washtenaw Health Initiative: Council Deliberations

Appearing before the council were Bob Guenzel, community co-chair of WHI, and Marianne Udow-Phillips, director of the Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation. CHRT is facilitating the initiative, Udow-Phillips told the council.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that when the council had been briefed about the initiative at a previous working session, councilmembers had been told they’d eventually be asked for funding. Briere asked: What will the $10,000 help accomplish? Guenzel noted that WHI has been a voluntary effort led by the two major health systems in the area – the University of Michigan Health System and Saint Joseph Mercy Health System. Guenzel continued by saying that retired Saint Joseph Mercy Health System CEO Bob Laverty had started the effort and that Udow-Phillips had provided her organization’s support. The first year and a half, Guenzel said, the entire effort had been voluntary. They’d decided they didn’t want to incorporate as a 501(c)(3).

Instead, he said, they’re asking entities to become charter members of the organization. Many of the member agencies contribute in-kind support, he said – like the hospitals and safety-net clinics. For next year, Guenzel said, they’ve developed a budget of about $100,000. That will ensure the availability of a dedicated employee from Udow-Phillips’ CHRT.

Guenzel told the council that WHI had approached the two major health systems for support and they’d agreed to help with $30,000 each. But the two health systems also wanted the community to contribute a piece of the support. Guenzel said that WHI had asked the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, United Way and the Washtenaw County board of commissioners for $10,000 a year. So WHI was now asking the city to contribute the same amount that the county had contributed.

Guenzel felt that this approach is effective and efficient. CHRT has made a great commitment, he said, in terms of their expertise and their ability to draw other agencies together. Whether the Affordable Health Care Act was upheld or not, Guenzel said, WHI thinks the initiative is important. The Supreme Court ruling meant that it had gotten over one hurdle, but he expected there would be others.

Guenzel concluded by allowing he’d given a long answer to Briere’s question. Briere told him it had been a good answer.

Briere followed up by asking how WHI will dovetail with what the state of Michigan does. Udow-Phillips responded to Briere’s question by saying that assuming the state moves ahead with Medicaid expansion, the WHI efforts will help the community plan to provide access to health care for those who’ll be newly insured. Even if the state does not move ahead with an expansion of Medicaid, she said, then the state or the federal government will move ahead by establishing a health care exchange. That will result in 300,000-400,000 people in Michigan who will get subsidies to buy private health insurance. Many of those people will be in Washtenaw County, she said, so by planning, the county’s health care system will be able to serve these newly-insured people.

In Washtenaw County, Udow-Philips continued, there are about 28,000 people who are uninsured. About 13,000 of those would be eligible for Medicaid under a Medicaid expansion, and most of those would be eligible for a subsidy to purchase private insurance, if that’s the route that’s taken.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he’s happy to hear this news. Ann Arbor is a great place to retire, he said, because of the quality of the health care. He asked Udow-Philips if she’d looked at other community health plans before developing an approach. She indicated that the model was Massachusetts – and the planning that Massachusetts had failed to do. When more people became eligible, there were not enough providers to give them access, she said. Massachusetts had not done the kind of planning WHI is doing in this county, she said. Once the Affordable Health Care Act was passed, the WHI organizers decided they wanted to do the necessary planning. No other counties are doing the kind of planning WHI is doing, she said. She’d like Washtenaw to be a role model for other counties in Michigan.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) thanked Udow-Philips for her efforts. If it turns out that WHI determines there’s a lack of health care capacity compared to the needs of the newly-insured, Hohnke wanted to know what some of the options are for expanding that capacity. Udow-Philips told Hohnke that they’re in the final stages of that analysis right now. Both major health systems are bringing in more practitioners to Washtenaw County, she said. But it’s important to make sure those practitioners serve the Medicaid population. So WHI is working with major safety-net providers – like the Packard Clinic, Ypsilanti Family Practice and the Taubman Center – to make sure practitioners will be available. Udow-Philips stressed that not just doctors are considered practitioners – it could mean nurse practitioners, she said. The preliminary numbers would be looked at the following week, she said, to look at what the gap in capacity might be.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the $10,000 of support for the Washtenaw Health Initiative.

Commission Appointments

The council considered confirmation of four nominations to three different commissions; all nominations had been made at the council’s previous meeting, on June 18, 2012.

Toward the end of the July 2 meeting, Ken Clein and Kirk Westphal were considered as appointments to the city planning commission. The late agenda slot is reserved for confirmation of mayoral nominations. The vast majority of board and commission appointments are made by the mayor.

However, nominations to the environmental commission and the greenbelt advisory commission are made by the council as a body. So those confirmation votes came relatively early in the meeting as a part of “council business.” The council considered John German’s nomination to the city’s environmental commission and Archer Christian’s nomination to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Appointments: Christian to Greenbelt

On the greenbelt advisory commission, Christian is replacing Mike Garfield. Garfield is director of the Ecology Center, a nonprofit based in Ann Arbor, and Ms. Christian is the center’s development director. Garfield was term-limited as a GAC member, having served two consecutive three-year terms. The spot vacated by Garfield is not designated for a representative of the Ecology Center. However, the nine-member commission includes two slots for representatives of environmental and/or conservation groups. The greenbelt advisory commission oversees the proceeds generated by two-thirds of the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage, which is levied at a rate of 0.5 mills.

Council deliberations were brief. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the city council’s representative to the greenbelt advisory commission, reminded his colleagues that Ms. Christian is filling a slot on the commission designated for someone who works with a conservation organization. Christian also has a long history of involvement in land conservancy, Hohnke said.

Outcome: The council unanimously confirmed Archer Christian’s appointment to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Appointments: German to Environmental

John German’s term on the environmental commission expired in August 2011, but he has continued to serve. His nomination and confirmation amounted to formalizing what was already the case. German’s background includes work with Chrysler, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Honda, and the International Council for Clean Transportation.

Ann Arbor’s environmental commission was established 12 years ago through a city ordinance, with the charge to “advise and make recommendations to the city council and city administrator on environmental policy, environmental issues and environmental implications of all city programs and proposals on the air, water, land and public health.”

The council’s deliberations consisted of a reminder from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), one of the council’s representatives to the environmental commission, that German is currently serving on the commission, that his re-appointment was missed at its time of renewal last year. So the appointment the council would be making, she said, would extend retroactively. The three-year term would thus end on Aug. 7, 2014.

During her communications time, Briere also announced that applications for a vacancy on the commission would be considered at the commission’s next meeting. She encouraged people to apply.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to confirm John German’s appointment to the environmental commission.

Appointments: Clein, Westphal to Planning

On the city planning commission, Ken Clein, a principal with Quinn Evans Architects, replaces Erica Briggs, who did not seek re-appointment. Among the architectural projects Clein has worked on locally are the University of Michigan’s Hill Auditorium renovation, the new Ann Arbor municipal center, and the Zingerman’s Deli expansion.

Kirk Westphal’s appointment was a re-appointment. Westphal is principal at Westphal Associates, a firm that produces video documentaries. He holds a master’s degree in urban planning from the University of Michigan. City planning commissioners serve three-year terms.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to confirm the appointments of Ken Clein and Kirk Westphal to the planning commission.

Labor Agreements

The council considered separately three collective bargaining agreements with members of the Teamsters Local 214: with the police professional assistants (4 employees), the deputy chiefs (2 employees) and the civilian supervisors (~30 employees). Robyn Wilkerson, human resources and labor relations director for the city of Ann Arbor, responded to questions from Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

From left: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) confers with Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Lumm had questions about the new-hire pension program, which the city began implementing for its employees last year. It involves increasing the vesting period for the pension program from five years to 10 years, and calculating the pension based on a final average compensation of five years instead of three years. All of the collective bargaining agreements include no wage increase, but instead a lump sum payment of $1,000. The contracts for all three units are for two years, through June 30, 2014.

Wilkerson clarified for Lumm that the same pension program language is in previous agreements – for police and fire department employees. It’s now officially city-wide. Lumm inquired if it had been discussed by the council’s labor committee. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that the policy had been considered and moved forward in June 2011.

Higgins, who serves as chair of the council’s labor committee, explained that the contracts came up quickly on the council’s agenda because the items move to the agenda when the bargaining units ratify the contracts. City administrator Steve Powers confirmed that the collective bargaining units had just ratified the agreements the previous Thursday. Lumm briefly mulled the possibility of asking for postponement, but decided simply to express her view that she feels strongly that the city needs to move to a defined contribution plan instead of the defined benefits plan it currently has. She reminded her colleagues that she had been prepared to bring forward a resolution on the night they’d deliberated on the FY 2013 budget – a resolution that would have directed the development of a defined contribution plan. That night she’d declined to put the resolution before the council, due to the meeting’s late hour, but she indicated at the July 2 meeting that she’d bring the proposal to the council’s budget committee.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) observed that with the move to shorter, two-year contracts, the city would basically be in a phase of continuing negotiations. Wilkerson pointed out that they are all two-year agreements with wage re-openers after one year. She observed that since the state legislature has passed a law regulating how much public employers could contribute to employee health care, it means that the focus of the bargaining is on wages. Kunselman ventured that there would be plenty of time to address the issues if concerns come up.

Lumm asked how many employees were in the group of civilian supervisors. Wilkerson told her it was about 30. Lumm wanted to know if Wilkerson had a sense of how many new hires would be made in that category. Wilkerson indicated that based on what she was seeing in other departments, she thinks there will be a significant increase in retirees.

Outcome: On three separate votes, the council unanimously approved the collective bargaining agreements.

Weapons Screening Contract

On the July 2 agenda was a resolution to approve a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office. The city would pay $187,000 annually for the sheriff’s office to provide weapons screening services for the 15th District Court, located inside the city’s new justice center building at the corner of Fifth and Huron.

The contract pays $25.25 per hour per officer, with the number of officers estimated to be roughly three each day. Currently, the weapons screening takes place at metal detectors at the building’s entrance.

During the brief council deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) recalled the council’s previous discussion about the location of the security checkpoint within the building.

The city council engaged in lengthy deliberations at its April 2, 2012 meeting about the placement of the security check. The context of those deliberations was a vote on the acquisition of Ed Carpenter’s proposed “Radius” sculpture, at a cost of $150,000, to be installed in the lobby of the justice center building. As proposed, and eventually approved by the council, viewing the sculpture from inside the building during normal business hours would require going through a security check.

Lumm asked about a meeting of the city council’s building committee that had been mentioned at the time. City administrator Steve Powers told her that a meeting of that committee had been set for July 16. The meeting will include a discussion of the location of the security checkpoint.

Ballot Questions

The Ann Arbor city council has until its second meeting in August to put various questions before voters on the Nov. 6, 2012 ballot.

Ballot Questions: Charter Amendment on Leasing Parks

During communications time at its July 2 meeting, the council heard from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) that she and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) are working to bring a ballot question to Ann Arbor voters that would further tweak a city charter provision related to the sale of parkland.

The charter provision had been approved in November 2008 by a 81%-19% margin (42,969 to 9,944). The tweak would involve adding actions like “lease,” “license,” or “re-designate” to the set of actions on city parkland that require a voter referendum.

The 2008 ballot question had asked voters if they wanted to add a clause to the city charter that would prevent the sale of city parkland without a voter referendum. Michigan’s Home Rule City Act already lists among a city’s prohibited powers: “… to sell a park, cemetery, or any part of a park or cemetery, except where the park is not required under an official master plan of the city …” But that year some residents were concerned that the city was looking to sell Huron Hills golf course – and they saw the exception in the state statute as a possible loophole. The council voted to place the question before voters that year over dissent from councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and former councilmember Leigh Greden.

That year, the council had consciously settled on wording that included just selling, as opposed to leasing. In an Oct. 31, 2008 Ann Arbor News article, mayor John Hieftje was quoted as follows: “From time to time, we’ve thought about how nice it might be to have a restaurant near the river. I think it’s something people would really enjoy … That would be impossible if the ballot measure was expanded to include leasing.”

What prompts the current desire to contemplate adding “leasing” and other arrangements to the mix is concern that a portion of Fuller Park could eventually be used for a new rail station. Amtrak currently operates a station on Depot Street near the Broadway bridges. [See coverage of the council's June 4, 2012 meeting, when it accepted a $2.8 million federal grant to complete a planning study to confirm the Fuller Road site as the locally preferred alternative location for a new rail station.]

One draft of the ballot question that Lumm and Anglin are crafting reads: “Shall the voters of the City of Ann Arbor amend the city charter to require that the city shall not sell, lease, license, re-categorize or repurpose, without the approval, by a majority vote of the electors of the city voting on the question at a regular or special election, any city park, or land in the city acquired for a park, cemetery, or any part thereof?” Lumm indicated that she’d bring the resolution to the council for a vote at its July 16 meeting.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Lumm recounted much of the history of the previous charter amendment and thanked assistant city attorney Mary Fales for her help in drafting the ballot question.

Later during a second round of council communications, Anglin followed up on Lumm’s remarks. He described the history of the 2008 resolution as not enjoying support from some environmental groups – saying that many people knew the language was imperfect when it was presented. Still, Anglin said, the charter amendment was a way of moving something forward that was needed at the time. There’s always been a group of people who are interested in how to further protect our parks, he said. When the PROS (parks and recreation open space) plan was adopted [at the city council's March 7, 2011 meeting], Anglin said he refused to voted for it because he felt that the plan was not as assiduous as it should be about protecting the city’s own land.

From The Chronicle’s coverage of Anglin’s opposition to the PROS plan in early 2011:

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) weighed in saying that he was 95% in favor of the plan but had some problems with it that would lead him to vote against it. He then read aloud a statement with objections, including issues with the proposed Fuller Road Station and public-private partnerships in the parks.

Speaking about the upcoming charter amendment resolution, Anglin allowed that there are a number of “tricky” items in it. But he felt it’s important to continue to work to fulfill the intent of the 2008 charter amendment. He said he’d be talking to individual councilmembers about it, and he hoped it could make it onto the ballot in November.

Ballot Questions: Park Maintenance & Capital Improvements Millage

While council support for placing a parkland lease question on the November 2012 ballot is uncertain, it’s likely that the council will follow the park advisory commission’s recommendation to place a renewal of the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage on the ballot. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who is one of two council ex officio members of PAC, indicated that consideration of that millage question would take place at the council’s July 16 meeting.

Taylor described PAC’s approach in evaluating the millage renewal as a long and diligent process to put the renewal of the existing parks millage before voters in November. PAC has also recommended that the council re-affirm the administrative policies that guide the use of the taxes generated by the millage.

Ballot Questions: Art, Non-Partisan Elections?

Other possible ballot questions that have received some consideration by councilmembers include a charter amendment that would make city elections non-partisan.

And during deliberations on May 7, 2012 about a piece of public art to be commissioned for the city’s new justice center, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) mentioned the possibility of establishing a millage just for public art. That would require placing a question on the ballot.

Locally, any city of Ann Arbor ballot questions might be joined by one that is likely to be put forward by the Ann Arbor District Library to support a downtown building project. A countywide transportation millage is less likely to be placed on the November ballot, given the delays in approval of all the necessary documents.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Voting

During his turn at public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Thomas Partridge called on all clerks in all jurisdictions in the next few days to promote voter registration before the deadline [July 9, 2012 for the Aug. 7, 2012 primary].

Example of a voter registration card recently mailed to Ann Arbor residents.

It’s important that citizens express themselves at the polls, Partridge said. Voting should be made more accessible and barriers to voting must be removed, he said. It should also be possible to vote without producing undue amounts of personal information and documentation. He also stated that serious consideration should be given to internet voting in the state of Michigan

And during his communications time at the start of the meeting, city administrator Steve Powers noted that residents have received in the mail an updated voter registration card. The reason for that is related to redistricting in connection with the 2010 census. The outcome of the changes in the city ward boundaries had not changed the voting location for the vast majority of residents, Powers noted, but the notification is required by law to be sent out.

Comm/Comm: Pool Closing

During his communications time, city administrator Steve Powers reported that the closure of Veterans Memorial Park pool had been caused by a pump failure – caused by a small towel getting into the mechanism. Staff are looking at ways to prevent that in the future, he said. [The pool is expected to be closed until July 11, 2012.]

Comm/Comm: 4-3 Jackson Lane Conversion

At its April 2, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council voted to submit a request to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to convert the segment of Jackson Road between Maple Road and South Revena from four traffic lanes to three. At the council’s July 2 meeting, during his communications time, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) called that action by the council premature. [He and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had voted against submitting the request.] Because of the public outcry, Anglin said, MDOT had scheduled another meeting: on Tuesday, July 10 from 5-8 p.m. at Abbott Elementary School, 2670 Sequoia Parkway.

Anglin said that commuters, who will be affected by the conversion, are also part of the community. He allowed that he’d also heard from members of the bicycling community on the issue [many of whom support the lane conversion].

Comm/Comm: Affordable Services

As he typically does, Thomas Partridge addressed the city council at the beginning of the meeting during public commentary reserved time and at the conclusion of the meeting as well. During his first turn at public commentary, he told councilmembers he’s running for state representative in the 53rd District of the Michigan house of representatives. He called for greater attention to affordable housing, transportation, health care and education. He also stated that it’s important to provide economic development and job growth for the city, the county and the region. As a representative, he said, he’d take on these goals and build from the ground up and fully fund these areas.

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Several people reprised public commentary from previous council meetings – on the topic of “smart meters,” which can record electricity consumption at relatively small intervals (less than an hour). The meters then communicate that usage information to the utility for monitoring and billing purposes. For the first time at an Ann Arbor city council meeting, a resident questioned the scientific and health claims made by those who oppose installation of the meters.

DTE smart meter.

Linda Kurtz expressed her objection to smart meters based on health effects. She described the biological mechanism by which smart meters affect the human body – by disrupting the regular voltage differences across cellular membranes. RF radiation dislodges calcium ions and causes membranes to leak, she contended, and it disrupts the blood-brain barrier.

Carol Neylon called it unconscionable that DTE has been allowed to install smart meters. She cited a multitude of independent issues, including personal privacy concerns and health issues. She contended that in Toronto, where such meters had been installed, the impact had been that customers received higher bills. She was concerned about the ability of DTE to shut off someone’s power remotely and to track energy usage 24/7. She characterized smart meter installation as being about a big company doing whatever it takes to make profits.

Bethanni Grecynski cited privacy concerns. She expressed concern about the ability to hack the system and obtain people’s energy consumption information. Although an option was being discussed to opt out of smart meter installation, she contended that it would cost $50/month. Many people can’t afford to pay that. She also contended that the smart meters can cause people’s bills to go up. She questioned whether it’s fair that only the rich can opt out – that didn’t seem like an American idea to her.

But her real interest, said Grecynski, is health. She allowed that statistics have shown the smart meters are safe – but she asked councilmembers to remember how cigarettes and processed food were once thought to be safe.

Nanci Gerler told councilmembers that she’d lived in Ann Arbor 44 years. She noted that she had appeared before the city council previously. She’s not happy about the continued installation of smart meters in the community. A recent meeting about smart meters held at Crazy Wisdom bookstore was standing-room only, she reported, so concern is growing. She noted that a Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) report recommends an opt-out provision. Now, she said, DTE has 90 days to respond. But in the meantime, the community will be saturated with smart meters, she said. She contended that the effect is already palpable for those who are hypersensitive to electromagnetic radiation.

Michael Benson introduced himself as a Ward 2 resident, but wanted to address the council as a graduate student in the University of Michigan radiation laboratory. He deals with electromagnetic radiation on a regular basis, he said. He’s not an expert, he allowed, but felt it was appropriate to provide a few facts. He noted that public commenters had said that smart meters provide additional RF radiation – sure, that’s true, he said. A cell phone, or a computer, or even the microphone he was speaking into are radiating a little bit. The FCC provides standards for levels of radiation that are acceptable, he continued, and testing is done by the NIH (National Institutes of Health). Cell phones operate at a maximum of 1W of transmitting power compared to smart meters at 250 mW – or about 1/4 the level of a cell phone, he said. Those figures are the maximum – and they’re often below that, he said.

Benson also observed that during public commentary, councilmembers had heard about electromagnetic hypersensitivity. He contended that WebMD is a pretty good reference source for medical conditions, and this condition is not listed on WebMD. Benson told the council he was not there to comment on the public policy issue of smart meters, but as far as the science goes, he suggested that councilmembers take everything they’d heard “with a grain of salt.”

By way of anecdotal illustration, no apparent impact can be seen on The Chronicle’s measured residential electricity use since installation of a smart meter in March 2012:

Over the last four fiscal years, electricity usage at The Chronicle’s residence has shown essentially the same seasonal variation. Green bars are the most recent year. Lines are previous years.

In this gas-furnace house (thermostat 60 F), supplemented by electric space heaters, the electricity usage (blue bars) patterns with heating/cooling degree days.

Comm/Comm: Dream Nite Club Lawsuit

During his communications time, city attorney Stephen Postema told the council that before that night’s meeting, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) had asked Postema to mention the Dream Nite Club cases. [The city had taken steps that led to the revocation of the club's liquor license. For some previous Chronicle coverage, see the March 19, 2012 city council meeting report.]

Four significant rulings – two in federal court and two in state court – had gone the city’s way, Postema reported. The ruling illustrated the importance of the process the city followed, he said. The courts had upheld every aspect of the city’s action. Postema stressed that a liquor license does not involve just rights, but also responsibilities.

Postema described Derezinski’s handling of the liquor license hearing, over which Derezinski had presided, as requiring “great patience.” Postema felt like the judges in the cases had read the entire transcript of the hearing. The conclusion had been that all the due process elements were met. Postema stated that the city was ready to be challenged, and it was gratifying to have the courts confirm the city’s position. He also emphasized that the entire process associated with revoking the Dream Nite Club liquor license had taken a lot of work – and people sometimes forget the amount of work that it takes to do the business of the city.

Not reported by Postema to the council at their meeting was the filing earlier that day, July 2, of a motion to set aside the judgment that had been made against the Dream Nite Club owners by judge Paul Borman. The motion seeks to set aside the judgment and to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint lists out a number of specific allegations, including the use of racial epithets by individual Ann Arbor police department officers in their interactions with Dream Nite Club management staff. The amended complaint alleges that AAPD officers had indicated a desire to shut down the club because of its black clientele, and had scrutinized black patrons in a manner that white patrons were not forced to undergo.

The original complaint did not include those specific allegations.

Borman’s opinion in dismissing the case had been based on the unamended complaint. Borman’s ruling relied in part on a U.S. Supreme Court case, Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009).

Defendant City of Ann Arbor’s increase in police activity outside of Plaintiffs’ nightclub after a violent incident may have incidentally impacted the racial minorities who happen to patronize Plaintiffs’ nightclub, but the purpose of increasing the police presence was not to target racial minorities. The facts alleged impel the conclusion that police activity increased as a result of crime at and in the vicinity of the nightclub. Thus, Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations of racial animus “are … not entitled to be assumed true.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681.

Inferring racially discriminatory intent from the sequence of events alleged in the Complaint, as Plaintiffs ask the Court to do, requires an inferential leap that is not supported by the facts.

The Iqbal case was significant, because it’s been analyzed as signaling a change in the basic way that courts are supposed to consider motions to dismiss a case. Following Iqbal requires district courts to distinguish allegations that are statements of fact from those that are conclusions of law. It’s been analyzed as a return to “fact pleading” – which requires a claim to include all the relevant facts in support of the claims that have been asserted. From 1938 until Iqbal, the prevailing system had been “notice pleading,” which requires only sufficient facts to put someone on notice about the claims asserted against them. Under “notice pleading,” the expectation is the facts would be introduced partly under the discovery process – where a plaintiff would be able to depose witnesses and subpoena additional documents from a defendant.

Comm/Comm: Human Rights

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) who also serves on the city’s human rights commission, announced that the commission is partnering with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights to hold a public hearing on Thursday, July 12, from 6:30-9 p.m. in the city council chambers in city hall. The purpose of this hearing is to hear testimony on discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity – especially as it relates to the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

Comm/Comm: Nuclear Weapons

Odile Hugonot Haber addressed the council on the topic of nuclear weapons. She recalled how 10 years ago she’d organized a week-long teach-in on nuclear weapons. She lamented the fact that not very much progress is being made – nuclear states are not reducing their stocks. The weapons will be smaller and meaner, she said. We’re spending a trillion dollars on nuclear weapons rather than on life, she said, and that’s concerning to her.

Comm/Comm: Half-Crosswalks

Kathy Griswold told the council that in the course of her work to document crosswalks and intersections that do not have adequate sight distance, she’d noticed two crosswalks that are only “half a crosswalk.” One is in front of Casey’s Tavern on Depot Street – on the north side of the street there’s not anything, but on the south side there’s a curbcut. The other location is on Traver at Nixon. She said there’s a curbcut on the south side of the street, but nothing on the north side.

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

Absent: John Hieftje.

Next council meeting: Monday, July 16, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

From left: Ann Arbor city councilmembers Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) as they arrive to the March 19 meeting. Lumm was clearly feeling ill and was encouraged by her colleagues to head home, advice she heeded. (Photos by the writer.)

The council postponed for a second time (without deliberation) a resolution that would direct Ann Arbor’s city attorney to delay enforcement activities against medical marijuana dispensaries, except in limited circumstances. The only reason offered for postponing was to allow the absent councilmembers to participate in that vote. The same resolution had been postponed previously, at the council’s March 5 meeting. On that occasion, other deliberations had pushed the council’s meeting past midnight, and councilmembers had wanted to deal with the issue while they were fully awake.

And the council found itself unable to muster a six-vote majority for any intermediate action on a proposed change to the landscape and screening ordinance – and thus wound up simply defeating it. The changes would have restricted additional landscaping requirements just to those site plans requiring planning commission or city council approval, and would have exempted R4C (multi-family residential) districts from certain buffering requirements. Attempts to amend, postpone and table the resolution all failed on 5-3 votes, one vote short of the majority needed.

Several agenda items highlighted the Ann Arbor police department in some fashion. The council authorized the purchase of four new police vehicles, along with a street sweeper. And a new contract with the command officers union was one of two labor contracts ratified by the council at its meeting – the other was with the firefighters union. Deputy chief John Seto, who’ll be interim police chief when Barnett Jones retires at the end of the month, briefed the council on police activity on St. Patrick’s Day as well as during a severe storm the week before. Seto also was criticized during public commentary for a traffic stop he’s alleged to have made as a patrol officer in the mid-1990s.

The police department was also a key actor in the city council’s action to recommend to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission that the liquor license not be renewed for Dream Nite Club, located on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. At an administrative hearing earlier in the day on that issue, much of the evidence presented by the city was based on police reports or police officer testimony.

In other business, the council approved an upgrade to control room equipment for Community Television Network. The city also added a total of around 160 acres to its greenbelt program, while selling a tiny wedge of property on Summit Street that had a murky history. Also related to land and its use, the city gave final approval to a rezoning request for the Les Voyageurs Society property located near Argo Dam.

The council passed a resolution expressing opposition to pending state legislation, which has already won approval from the Michigan house of representatives, that would allow grass clippings to be dumped in landfills under certain conditions.

The topic of Fuller Road Station emerged during public commentary as well as during remarks at the council table.

And councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) alerted his council colleagues that he’d be pressing two issues in the near future: (1) getting a written, public legal opinion from the city attorney regarding the city’s Percent for Art program; and (2) getting a calculation by the city treasurer of the tax capture to which the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is entitled.

Direction on Medical Marijuana

The council considered for a second time a resolution that would direct the city attorney, Stephen Postema, to “delay all enforcement activities against medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities except for claims that they violate Section 5:50.1(3) of the City Code [zoning regulations], until the Council amends or rejects amendments to the zoning and licensing ordinances for medical marijuana.”

The part of the city code called out for continued enforcement in the resolution, Section 5:50.1(3), specifies the zones in the city where medical marijuana businesses may be located. From the code: “Medical marijuana dispensaries shall only be located in a district classified pursuant to this chapter as D, C, or M, or in PUD districts where retail is permitted in the supplemental regulations. Medical marijuana cultivation facilities shall only be located in a district classified pursuant to this chapter as C, M, RE, or ORL.” [.pdf of Section 5:50.1(3)]

The attempted resolution reflects an ongoing tension between the city’s medical marijuana licensing board and the city attorney’s office.

That tension between the medical marijuana licensing board and the city attorney’s office is highlighted in a statement sent by members of the board to city councilmembers on March 2, which reads in part: “[The city attorney's office] has been aggressively trying to shut [dispensaries] down while we actively try to license them.” The statement goes on to point out that a representative from the city attorney’s office had been present at all of the board’s meetings and that the board’s recommendations had been reported to the city council. But after that, the city attorney’s office had sent out new letters to all dispensaries requesting them to provide information about how their business operates. [.pdf of entire statement from Ann Arbor's medical marijuana licensing board to the Ann Arbor city council]

The attempted council resolution stemmed from a meeting of the city’s medical marijuana licensing board on Feb. 28 that was convened in response to concerns by several dispensary owners, who had received letters dated Feb. 24 from the city attorney’s office. The letters make specific inquiries into several aspects of the business model of dispensaries – in order to assess whether they are in compliance with Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act. Compliance with the MMMA is a requirement for issuance of a medical marijuana license, and recipients of the letters have license applications pending with the city. Although the legal position of the city attorney appears to be that it’s possible for a dispensary to operate in compliance with the MMMA, no explication of what that model would entail has been set forth publicly.

Among the questions being posed to all dispensaries in the letters is the following: “Does any person or entity deliver marijuana to [Dispensary Name]? If so, does [Dispensary Name] ever pay, donate, or in any way give money to the person or entity who delivers the marijuana or to anyone else? If so, to whom is the money paid, donated, or given and how much?” [.pdf of set of letters]

The city council resolution was sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who is the council’s representative to the medical marijuana licensing board. After its Jan. 31, 2012 meeting, the board submitted a required report to the council with recommendations on the issuance of the first dispensary licenses and revisions to the city’s medical marijuana ordinance. The report recommends to the council that 10 dispensaries be issued licenses.

The city council enacted zoning and licensing regulations for medical marijuana businesses at its June 20, 2011 meeting.

The resolution requested that the council decide on recommendations for amendments to the city’s medical marijuana ordinance before June 18, 2012.

Direction on Medical Marijuana: Public Comment

Chuck Ream told the council that he helps operate a medical marijuana dispensary in town that helps a lot of people. He offered councilmembers a pile of medical benefit report forms that they could read and see how medical marijuana can help people. Ream said he’d sent councilmembers an email about the science of medical marijuana, which he described as incontrovertible and conclusive. Right now they can get the medicine to the people, he said.

Ream told the council that the attempt at marijuana prohibition has nothing to do with marijuana, it’s about social control, he said. He told the council, “You guys have done the right thing in the past, even though it’s difficult.” He said he was confident they would do the right thing in the future. He reviewed the voter support for medical marijuana locally – 74% voted in favor of a charter amendment in 2004, he said. The voter-initiated state law in 2008 had enjoyed support of 79% of Ann Arbor voters, he noted. He said he didn’t think apple pie could bring in that kind of numbers.

What’s needed is a legal basis for dispensaries to exist and to be regulated in a reasonable and consistent manner, Ream said. Ann Arbor has demonstrated how that can be done [through its licensing ordinance]. He told councilmembers that they should be proud of themselves. He called the medical marijuana licensing board almost as smart as the council.

Local attorney Dennis Hayes, who represents some of the dispensaries in Ann Arbor, said he thought it would be a long time before he and Thomas Partridge agreed on everything, but he agreed with everything Partridge had said that night. [Partridge spoke about a right to affordable transportation, health care, education and housing. In the past, Partridge has also spoken against the city's initiative to license medical marijuana dispensaries.]

Hayes described the background of the resolution that the council was considering. The issue arose after a letter was sent to dispensaries asking for additional information. And the medical marijuana licensing board had proposed the resolution that was before the council that night. All the questions posed in the letter, Hayes said, were items in the original licensing ordinance drafted back in October 2010.

Those items were removed from the ordinance because it was clear that city couldn’t prevent that information from being disclosed, Hayes said. The licensing ordinance was discussed over a period of time, he said, and it was recognized in the course of that discussion that the city would wind up with information that it couldn’t protect, if the information were collected that’s asked for in the recent letter. Yet the questions have come back, he noted. He stated that it’s inappropriate for the city attorney to ask dispensaries for information that the city can’t protect against disclosure.

Direction on Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) immediately asked for a postponement of the measure. Mayor John Hieftje said he had no problem with a postponement. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked on what basis Briere wanted to postpone. Briere indicated that some of the absent three members had expressed a desire to participate in the vote on the issue. To give them an opportunity to vote would be “good manners,” she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the resolution giving the city attorney direction on enforcement of the city’s medical marijuana ordinance.

Liquor Licenses: Dream Nite Club, Rush Street

The council considered resolutions with recommendations concerning the renewal of annual liquor licenses for two downtown bars – Rush Street and Dream Nite Club.

For Rush Street the recommendation was for the Michigan Liquor Control Commission (MLCC) to renew the license, because the bar had finally paid nearly $10,000 in back taxes.

Assistant city attorney Bob West at the liquor license hearing on March 19, 2012.

But for Dream Nite Club, the recommendation approved by the city council was to object to the renewal of that bar’s license. The recommendation was consistent with the finding of hearing officer Tony Derezinski, a city councilmember representing Ward 2 who presided over a hearing earlier in the day on March 19. The hearing was scheduled to begin at 8 a.m., and lasted until the early afternoon.

The March 19 hearing had been set at the council’s March 5 meeting, when councilmembers had passed a resolution with an initial recommendation that liquor licenses for both businesses – Dream Nite Club and Rush Street – not be renewed this year. That initial vote was based on the recommendation of the city council’s liquor license review committee, which met on Feb. 23, 2012 to conclude its annual review of licenses in the city.

Initially, no one appeared on behalf of Rush Street at the March 19 hearing, but later, a representative did appear. Derezinski re-heard the matter and based on the report that back taxes had been paid, which was verified by city treasurer Matt Horning, Derezinski made the recommendation that the council recommend renewal of Rush Street’s license to the MLCC.

[.jpg file of map showing liquor license locations in Washtenaw County] [link to dynamic map showing liquor license locations in Washtenaw County] Note: Maps include all liquor licensees, not just those with on-premise consumption.

Liquor Licenses: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) summarized what had happened at the hearings earlier in the day.

He characterized the rationale for the recommendation against renewing the liquor license for Dream Nite Club as based on numerous complaints and conduct on the premises and violation of state liquor laws. He told his colleagues that the hearing earlier in the day had included testimony from police officers, and a number of police reports had been provided as evidence. He noted that there were two court reporters taking notes – one for the city and one for Dream Nite Club.

Liquor Licenses: Hearings

During the portion of the Monday morning hearing observed by The Chronicle, at least a dozen different Ann Arbor police officers offered testimony, elicited by assistant city attorney Bob West, in support of the city’s contention that Dream Nite Club constitutes a nuisance. Legal counsel for Dream Nite Club – Roger Farinha and Brent Leder – sharply questioned the officers about their reports and the conclusions they drew from what they’d witnessed.

Roger Farinha, attorney for Dream Nite Club, at the March 19 liquor license review hearing.

Objections by Dream Nite Club’s counsel, contending hearsay evidence or a lack of foundation, became routine during the hearing – to the point that on several occasions, a “standing objection” was made to subsequent testimony and introduction of evidence. At one point Leder rose to object that the police officer who was providing testimony was doing so on behalf of another officer who could not attend the hearing, and that the absent officer’s testimony was itself hearsay – which made the testimony double hearsay.

Derezinski’s response to the objections was simply to advise that they were noted; however, he allowed the testimony and the admission of the evidence. During the hearing, assistant city attorney Bob West argued for admission of the evidence and the testimony, saying that the rules of evidence for administrative hearings are different from that for courts of law. From Michigan’s Administrative Procedures Act 306 of 1969 [emphasis added]:

24.275 Evidence; admissibility, objections, submission in written form.
Sec. 75. In a contested case the rules of evidence as applied in a nonjury civil case in circuit court shall be followed as far as practicable, but an agency may admit and give probative effect to evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs. Irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence may be excluded. Effect shall be given to the rules of privilege recognized by law. Objections to offers of evidence may be made and shall be noted in the record. …

The general direction of much of the cross examination by Dream Nite Club’s legal counsel mirrored the themes in a federal lawsuit that the owners of the club have filed against the city of Ann Arbor, which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division).

Tony Derezinski presided over the liquor license hearing on March 19, 2012.

The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 17, 2012, names the city of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor’s police department, chief of police Barnett Jones, city administrator Steve Powers and former city administrator Roger Fraser. [.pdf of the complaint in V.R. Entertainment v. city of Ann Arbor]

The city of Ann Arbor answered the complaint, filing a motion to dismiss the claim. [.pdf of city of Ann Arbor's motion to dismiss] In responding to the city’s motion, V.R. Entertainment (Dream Nite Club) re-asserted its claim. [.pdf of response to motion to dismiss] A motion hearing is scheduled before judge Paul Borman on May 30, 2012.

The lawsuit contends violations of Section 1983 and 1985 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 as well as violations of the U.S. Constitution – Fourth Amendment (prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure), Fourteenth Amendment (guarantee of due process), and Eighth Amendment (prohibition of unusual punishment). The lawsuit also claims infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy.

The set of facts alleged in the lawsuit includes the following:

10 On or about May 29, 2011, the City of Ann Arbor brought a nuisance action against the Plaintiffs for an alleged altercation and shooting that occurred in the vicinity of the Plaintiffs night club.

11 The fight and shooting in fact occurred on federal government property after the club was closed specifically the United States Postal Service Parking Lot, a property that does not belong to the club and is overseen by federal authorities.

12 The Defendants unjustly sought and obtained without a full hearing and without consideration to the facts a Temporary Restraining Order shutting the Plaintiffs club for several weeks; thereafter, a ‘security receiver’ was appointed to oversee the security at the club.

13 The report that was submitted by the ‘security receiver’ Mr. John Phillips indicated that the problems in the area came allegedly from the parking garage immediately next to the club, not from the club itself, albeit without evidence.

14 Throughout the State Court case, Case No. GCW-11-597-CH and up to the filing of this action, the Defendant Police Department has focused extraordinary police attention on the club without justification, routinely targeting surveillance on the club as evidenced by parked Police vehicles directly in front of the Plaintiffs club.

During the liquor license hearing, AAPD officers were asked under cross examination to comment on the assignment of patrol officers to the general vicinity of the Dream Nite Club. They were also asked to assess the demographic makeup of the crowd at the club.

Liquor License: Outcomes

Derezinski’s conclusion as hearing officer was based on the police reports as well as violations of the Michigan Liquor Control Code. His conclusion was that the city of Ann Arbor had a basis to object to the renewal of Dream Nite Club’s liquor license. For Rush Street, he concluded that the city should have no objection to the renewal. The council handled those issues on separate votes.

Outcome: On separate votes, the council’s unanimously recommended to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission that Rush Street’s license be renewed, but that Dream Nite Club’s license not be renewed. The license renewal will be decided by the MLCC.

Policing in Ann Arbor

Like the Dream Nite Club liquor license renewal, a number of other items at the March 19 council meeting touched on Ann Arbor police department activity. Blair Shelton led things off during public commentary at the start of the meeting – he’d attended the Dream Nite Club liquor license hearing earlier in the day as well.

Shelton had filed a lawsuit in 1995 against the city of Ann Arbor, after he’d been targeted in an investigation and eventually provided blood evidence for DNA testing. He sued for the return of his blood evidence and was successful. The complaint in the lawsuit alleged a set of facts that essentially amounts to racially profiling of Shelton, which is parallel to allegations in the current Dream Nite Club lawsuit. [.pdf of Shelton v. city of Ann Arbor police department]

Policing: Public Commentary

Blair Shelton told the council he was there to talk about the new police chief. By way of background, current chief Barnett Jones will be retiring at the end of the month. Deputy chief John Seto has been appointed interim chief.

Blair Shelton at the liquor license hearing for Dream Nite Club on March 19.

Shelton told the council that before he’d filed a lawsuit against the city in 1995, he’d been pulled over by Seto on Geddes near Forest Hill Cemetery in a brand new Camero. It was around 7 a.m., Shelton said. Seto didn’t say why he’d pulled Shelton over, he said.

Shelton told the council that when he looked at Seto, he thought, “Oh, great, an Asian police officer, I don’t have to worry about any, you know, typical Ann Arbor police.” Shelton then described how Seto had verified that Shelton had a driver’s license, had insurance and was the owner of the vehicle and had no police record. When Shelton asked Seto why he’d pulled him over, Shelton contended that Seto had replied, “You’re a smart guy, you can figure it out.”

Shelton told the council that he had figured it out. He concluded that there is no way Seto should be police chief. He said he’d spoken to many African Americans about trouble they’ve had with the police department, and that Seto’s name came up quite a bit.

Shelton wondered why Barnett Jones was being “pushed out.” He ventured that it was because Jones did not agree with DNA testing of everyone in the city. He said he’d spoken with Jones and liked him. He’d warned Jones that the city will turn on you and make you a scapegoat the first chance they get, he said. He contended that Jones had replied: I’m beginning to see that. Shelton stressed the importance of vetting the new police chief.

Former police chief Carl Ent wasn’t vetted, Shelton said, and it was discovered that he was having sex in the back of a patrol car. Dan Oates was also not vetted properly, he said, and alluded to an occasion when Oates had used his lights and siren in order to catch a plane. Shelton then concluded with an intended reference to city attorney Stephen Postema, saying that if adopting an African American child meant Postema couldn’t be labeled a racist, then he could still be labeled a “slave owner.”

Responding later in the meeting to Shelton’s remarks about chief Barnett Jones, mayor John Hieftje described Jones as his friend and stated that Jones’ decision to retire was entirely personal. The city would get Jones to stay on as chief, if that were possible. Jones’ decision came as a surprise, Hieftje said. He ventured that the deputy chiefs would be glad to have Jones stay on as chief. Jones deserves his time off, Hieftje said.

Policing: Fire, Police Labor Contracts

The council considered a resolution approving new contracts with its firefighters as well as with its police command officers.

The contract with Local 693 of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) is retroactive to July 1, 2010 and runs through June 30, 2014. Ann Arbor’s firefighters have been working without a new contract since the previous agreement expired on June 30, 2010. Features of the new contract include the restoration of pay to the 2008 level – the union had previously accepted a wage decrease of 3% in order temporarily to preserve jobs. The restoration to previous wage levels will take place over the course of two years, at 1.5% each year.

The contract reduces the food allowance for firefighters, who work 24-hour shifts. The contract also includes a change in the firefighters’ schedule to increase the average number of hours worked from 50.4 to 54. Health care provided under the contract meets the new state mandated hard caps on health care contributions by public employers.

The new contract with the Command Officers Association of Michigan runs retroactively from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2013. The command officers have been operating without a contract since the expiration of the previous one.

The health care plan in the contract is similar to the health care offered to non-union city staff, with the state of Michigan’s mandated hard cap on the amount that a public employer can contribute to employees’ health care.

The council considered the two contracts on separate votes – they were listed as different items on the agenda. Up first was the contract for the firefighters. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she was pleased to bring the firefighters resolution forward for the council’s labor committee, which has worked hard on it. [In addition to Higgins, others on the labor committee are Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Margie Teall (Ward 4), and mayor John Hieftje.] Higgins praised the firefighters union for working to resolve the contract outside the framework of arbitration. She called the agreement a “win-win,” and said she thinks it’s a good contract. She urged other councilmembers to support it.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he wanted to thank the labor committee for its work – as someone who does not serve on that committee. He also thanked the union for working with the city outside the arbitration process. Mayor John Hieftje complimented the labor committee and the members of the firefighters union. He remarked that this would be the first time in a long time that the city has all of its labor contracts settled. Higgins quickly interjected that this would be true as soon as the command officers contract was approved. When that contract came up as the next item on the agenda, Higgins said she hope this meant there would be labor peace for at least some period of time.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved both labor contracts on separate votes.

Policing: Police Cars

The council considered separate resolutions that authorized the purchase of a total of four police cars from three different vendors: two from Gorno Ford for $49,420; one from Signature Ford for $27,067; and one from Shaheen Chevrolet for $26,081.

The acquisition of the vehicles comes in the context of the city’s planned evaluation of pursuit-rated vehicles from all three major manufacturers in the wake of the retirement of the Crown Victoria, a model that was retired by Ford last year.

Outcome: The council voted without comment to approve the purchase of the vehicles.

Policing: Graffiti

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d heard a lot about graffiti and that there’s been a lot of dialogue about it. There’d been a commercial building completely cleaned and hit from top-to-bottom within 72 hours of it being cleaned. The issue is “creeping,” She thought it would be a good time to have an update from the police about what the public can do. People are getting very frustrated, she said.

Mayor John Hieftje (left) and deputy chief of police John Seto, who'll serve as interim chief when Barnett Jones retires at the end of March.

When deputy chief John Seto was at the podium to report on St. Patrick’s Day policing issues, mayor John Hieftje asked Seto about the graffiti. As he typically does, Hieftje mentioned the fact that he attends a weekly Wednesday meeting with the city administrator and the police department about crime in the city. Hieftje said he knew that the police department is “engaged on this issue,” saying that graffiti has risen to a higher priority than he’d ever seen. Hieftje said it’s not just an Ann Arbor problem – there’s a surge of graffiti among communities nationwide, he said. And one of the theories for that is that it’s been glorified on the Internet, Hieftje said.

Seto said the police had heard the frustration from citizens and the community. He said there’s a detective assigned to graffiti cases, and the department is trying to combat the problem. There’s a lot of awareness of the issue within the police department, but also in the community, he said. And the department continues to explore all its options.

Smith asked Seto for recommendations for homeowners or business owners. She’s told people to call community standards. Seto allowed that calling community standards is a good option for correcting the situation once the graffiti is there. But it’s also important to be alert so that the police can be notified when perpetrators are doing the graffiti – in the act or soon afterwards, he said.

Policing: Tornado

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reminded the public that the neighborhood of the broader community had suffered from a tornado. [On March 15, a tornado touched down in the Dexter area, west of Ann Arbor.] She said that who are able should be doing what they can to help rebuild houses, schools, businesses and lives.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) reported that on Thursday night [March 15] she’d called city administrator Steve Powers to see how Ann Arbor was faring as a city after the storm. The southwest side (which includes Ward 4, represented by Higgins) got hit really hard. As she was driving home, lightning hit a transformer, and there was a live wire dancing around the street. She’d also watched a garage get hit and a resulting fire. She said that city staff had responded well.

Several “lakes” had formed and were named for the streets where they were located, Higgins said. It was good to see people helping each other, Higgins said, getting cars out of the deep water. There were two firefighters injured, she said, and she hoped the city would get a report that they’re doing better. The staff did a good job and it was quite a display, she said.

During his report to the council, Powers noted that by the luck of nature, the storm on Thursday was less damaging than it could have been. Two firefighters were injured by the live wire Higgins had described earlier. One firefighter had been off-duty until the previous day.

Six roads were barricaded in connection with the storm, Powers said. High-priority roads were chosen for those barricades. There’d been six reports of basements flooding and two property owners had accepted the city’s offer of assistance for catastrophic cleanup. Compared to surrounding communities, Ann Arbor was very fortunate, he said.

Deputy police chief John Seto told the council that between 6-9 p.m. the police department received 64 calls for service, the majority of which were to assist motorists who’d been trapped in the rising water. The police department also assisted the fire department in responding to a structure fire as well as to some smaller fires created by downed wires.

Craig Hupy, interim public services area administrator, also stepped to the podium to respond to councilmember questions about the city’s response to the storm. Briere said that after the storm she’d driven through several low-lying areas. She’d spoken with a crew that was staffing a truck dealing with cleanup efforts, and one of the crew members said next time the city repaves Depot Street, the stormwater pipes should be enlarged. Briere said she had no way to assess whether that was a good idea or a bad idea. But she wanted to know when Depot Street is up for repaving.

Hupy said he didn’t know off the top of his head when Depot Street would be repaved. Generally, he said, stormwater on Depot Street flows to the west. He described a project that had been put in to give some relief in Depot Street and take the water directly to the Huron River. The challenge there is that you have to cross the MichCon site, and the cost of constructing across a contaminated site is so high that the project never went to its full scale. Hupy and Briere agreed that the basic problem is that the area is in the floodplain.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked for information on the amount of rainfall. Hupy gave a report out from the city’s rain gauges, but noted there was a possibility that accuracy had been affected due to the hail.

Policing: St. Patrick’s Day

City administrator Steve Powers described the St. Patrick’s day events as also somewhat weather-related, but ventured that the outcome was determined not by luck but by decisions made by police officers on Saturday evening.

Deputy police chief John Seto noted that this year, St. Patrick’s Day fell on a Saturday and came in conjunction with unseasonably warm weather. From the 24 hours from 6 a.m. to 6 a.m., the police department had received 308 calls for service, Seto told the council. By way of comparison to a similar timeframe for the previous week, he said, that’s twice as many. Five arrests were made in which someone was taken into custody, three of which were for fighting.

There was a period of time when the crowd grew to a point where South University Avenue needed to be closed off for the safety of the public, Seto said. Working with the University of Michigan department of public safety, he said, officers were able to clear the street of people in 90 minutes without any major incidents.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) told Seto she’d begun receiving complaints about debris left from Saturday. She wondered what the role of community standards officers would be in addressing that debris. Briere had alluded to football Saturdays in her question, and Seto described how that’s addressed through the day on a Saturday and on that evening. Seto indicated that community standards officers had gone out to address the St. Patrick’s Day litter on Monday morning.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked what kind of people took part in the St. Patrick’s Day revelry – were they students, or did they come into the city from out of town? Seto said the police don’t keep track of whether someone is a student, but said that they were not all students. A lot of visitors came from outside the city, Seto said.

Landscaping Buffer Change

The council considered a resolution that would have made changes in landscaping and land use buffer requirements in the city code. The council had previously postponed the vote from its March 5, 2012 meeting.

The first change would have restricted some requirements that have been added recently just to those plans that require city planning commission or city council approval: (1) providing landscaped islands for every 15 parking spaces; and (2) providing bioretention areas in 50% of the interior landscaping areas. Administrative amendments to existing plans would not trigger the requirements.

The second change would have involved existing requirements to provide buffers between parcels with conflicting land uses. Recent amendments to the code had added requirements that properties in R3 (townhouse dwelling) and R4 (multiple-family dwelling) districts include a buffer along the side and rear property lines if the parcel is immediately adjacent to a property that is principally used or zoned as residential.

The change considered by the council on March 19 would have removed the R4C zoning district from the recently-added land use buffer requirement. The rationale for exempting the R4C sites from the requirement was characterized in the staff memo as due to the fact that the R4C sites “are typically located on small lots in older neighborhoods near downtown. Most R4C lots are too small to accommodate a 15-foot wide conflicting land use buffer along the entire side and rear property lines.”

City councilmembers’ discussion included their interest in first receiving the report of a study committee, which has been looking at possible revisions to the R4C and R2A zoning code. The committee has looked at the issue of establishing maximum lot sizes in R4C districts, to prevent the accumulation of multiple parcels for a single project.

The change had been recommended 6-2 by the planning commission.

Landscape Buffer: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by noting that she’d raised the point at the council’s previous meeting that the focus of the proposed ordinance change is on property zoned R4C. Because the R4C/R2A study committee is still going through its process and has not yet issued its report, Briere was interested in making sure the council did not modify the zoning code to eliminate protections for R4C properties. Briere noted the staff memo had described R4C parcels as generally small, so it would be difficult to apply the code and include a buffer.

However, Briere continued, it’s possible to combine R4C parcels to make a larger site for building. So Briere proposed to include R4C back into the list of zoning classifications that require a buffer. In terms of the actual wording of the proposed change, that meant eliminating the listing of R4 types, of which R4C is one. If all R4 types required a buffer, then R4C would as well.

City councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

It’s worth pointing out that the “amendment” considered by the council with respect to R4C would essentially have taken the proposed revision to the city code and restored it to the status quo.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) inquired of Briere when the issue of R4C property might be taken up – after the study committee’s report comes out? Briere allowed that the council might see that report and decide not to revise the buffer requirement at all.

Higgins wanted to postpone consideration until the council sees the study committee report. She felt it would be “cleaner” to handle all the ordinance revisions that were going to be undertaken all in one go, instead of piecemeal. Briere wanted to know if Higgins was making a formal motion to that effect. Higgins said she would move for postponement, but that Briere would need to withdraw the effort to amend the proposal. Her amendment, explained Briere, was a effort to respect the planning staff recommendation to move ahead on the other aspects of the proposed revision – which related to the kinds of projects that trigger the landscaping requirements.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) described how a final draft of the R4C study committee is currently being circulated. He agreed with Higgins that it’s better to handle everything together. His own view was that postponing the resolution would be better, and it could then be folded into the broader ordinance revision.

Higgins asked city planner Alexis DiLeo if it would be burdensome to the staff if council postponed the proposed revision. DiLeo indicated that postponing all of the revisions might be burdensome – there’s a somewhat pressing need for some of them, she said. However, with respect to Briere’s proposed amendment, it would not have a very large impact. For the part Briere wanted to amend out, it’s workable to deal with a postponement of a few months, DiLeo said.

Higgins observed that over the years, when the council has done things piecemeal, it’s created some of its own problems. She was less inclined to approve just part of the proposed revision. She said it sounded like, based on Derezinski’s remarks, that the study committee report is coming soon, so she’d support postponing. At that, Briere withdrew her proposed amendment.

Derezinski then moved to postpone the issue until the second meeting in April.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked if the R4C/R2A study committee would include recommended ordinance changes. Derezinski indicated that it would not include explicit proposed ordinance changes. Rather, it would include the relevant concepts – setbacks, bundling of parcels and the like. That report would go first to the planning commission for drafting of ordinance language.

Based on Derezinski’s description of what would be included in the study committee’s report, Taylor said he would not support postponement. The work of the committee has been hard and difficult, but it’s taken longer than expected, he observed. Clean language is not going to be brought forward in the report. And the city planning staff says some of the revisions being proposed now would be useful now. So let’s get it done, Taylor suggested.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) indicated he was in favor of postponement and alluded to the hard work of the citizen study committee.

Mayor John Hieftje wanted to know why R4C was not included in the R4 classifications that would require a buffer. DiLeo reviewed how about nine months ago, the ordinance was revised to require the buffer – for R4C as well. Subsequently, the planning staff felt it would be good to remove the R4C area, so that R4C areas could be treated comprehensively. Based on DiLeo’s remarks, Hieftje said he would not support postponement, but would like to go back to consider Briere’s previous amendment.

City councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Higgins expressed her disappointment at the view of Hieftje and Taylor, noting that the council had tasked the committee to do the work, and now a report was a month away from being produced. She felt if the council were not going to see the report for another six to eight months, she’d be less amenable to postponing.

Higgins cited Derezinski’s status as the city councilmember representative to the planning commission, saying that if the city council’s planning commission liaison says it makes sense to postpone, she felt she was willing to support postponement, and she encouraged her colleagues to support postponement as well.

Hieftje pointed out to Higgins that Derezinski had said the report would not contain specific ordinance language. Derezinski, however, followed up by saying that Higgins was “right on the money on this one.” Derezinski recalled how the study committee was first formed with one citizen representative per ward. That was then doubled to two citizens per ward. That doubled the amount of input, Derezinski said. Additional extended meetings were held so that other groups in the community could be included, he said. The council’s resolution didn’t ask for ordinance language from the study committee, he said. Derezinski said no one likes to kick the can down the road – but it’s a short road and a small can, he contended.

Taylor again pointed out the difference between two portions of the proposed revision under the council’s consideration – the portion that refers to R4C and portion that refers to site plan review, which the planning staff indicated would be useful to have in place now.

Anglin mentioned that small R4C parcels near downtown are not the only properties zoned R4C. Briere agreed with Anglin and noted that R4C areas near downtown could be at risk of a consolidation of lots, yielding a large lot where no buffer would be required. She felt it’s premature to go ahead with that portion of the revision that deals with R4C areas, but indicated agreement with Taylor’s point of view, saying that her bias is to go forward with the things that can be done today. Even with the study committee report in hand, she said, it could take a long time before an ordinance revision was drafted.

Outcome on postponement: The vote for postponement failed on a 5-3 vote. Voting for it were Anglin, Smith, Derezinski, Kunselman and Higgins. Voting against it were Briere, Taylor and Hieftje.

The council then returned to Briere’s amendment, which she re-introduced. It would have restored R4C as a zoning classification that required a buffer. Briere said she felt she was not causing conflict by essentially removing a staff-proposed revision to the ordinance. If it needed to be revised in the future, she said, the council could do that.

Derezinski indicated that rather than bounce back and forth, he felt the best way would be to consider the issue in the context of the study committee report, and he asked his colleagues to join him in voting against the amendment.

Taylor said he understood the vote for Briere’s amendment as a vote for the status quo. It does no violence to the ordinance and the consistency principle is maintained, Taylor said. He’d support the amendment. Hieftje said the amendment would continue to protect R4C areas.

Higgins characterized the amendment as yet another example of making changes at the council table when extensive work on a complex project had been done. She said she would not support the amendment or main motion.

Outcome on amendment: The amendment failed on a 5-3 vote. Voting for it were Hieftje, Smith, Briere, Taylor and Kunselman. Voting against it were Anglin, Derezinski and Higgins.

With the main motion back before the council, Briere said she’d take Higgins’ advice and vote no.

Kunselman said he’d also lean toward a no vote. He sought confirmation from the city attorney that all the council’s options would be preserved, even if the council voted down the proposed revisions.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) indicated that instead of voting it down, she would prefer to table the resolution. [Tabling is functionally similar to postponing, but does not include a specific time at which the council needs to consider the action again. After six months, if a tabled agenda item has not been taken back up, it automatically dies.] So Smith put forward a motion to table the issue.

Higgins pointed out that a tabled item needs to be brought back in six months. She felt that would allow enough time for the planning commission to put together an entire package of recommended revisions based on the R4C/R2A study committee recommendations. Derezinski indicated that he totally agreed with Higgins.

A Community Television Network technician swapped out mayor John Hieftje's microphone during the March 19 meeting.

Briere pointed out that if the revision were simply defeated, they could be brought back to the council in whatever form it’s deemed appropriate. But with a motion to table, the resolution would need to be taken up off the table with exactly the same language that is currently in front of the council. So tabling would be the best outcome only if the council wants to see the same language again in the future.

Kunselman wondered if that night’s agenda could simply be re-opened – with the idea that the council could simply solve its dilemma by taking the item off the agenda. Hieftje, who presides over the meetings, indicated no enthusiasm for getting Smith to withdraw her motion to table, so that Kunselman’s suggestion could be pursued. So he simply told Kunselman there was a motion on the floor to table. Hieftje observed that the council did not seem to be accomplishing very much.

Taylor briefly reiterated his view that there’s part of the proposed revision that has current usefulness, indicating his disinclination to support tabling.

Outcome on tabling: The motion to table failed on a 5-3 vote. Voting for tabling were Anglin, Smith, Derezinski, Kunselman, and Higgins. Voting against it were Briere, Hieftje and Taylor.

On the question of the (unamended) ordinance revision, Hieftje said he wouldn’t support it, because the amendment had not been approved.

Outcome on the main question: The council rejected the ordinance revision on a 1-7 vote. The sole supporting vote was from Taylor.

Les Voyageurs Rezoning

The council considered a resolution to give final approval to a rezoning request and a site plan for an addition to the Habe Mills Pine Lodge – owned by the Society of Les Voyageurs. The rezoning was unanimously recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its Jan. 19, 2012 meeting. It also received initial approval from the city council at its Feb. 21, 2012 meeting.

The property owned by the society, at 411 Long Shore Drive near Argo Pond, is zoned public land, even though it’s owned by a private entity. The society is asking that the land be rezoned as a planned unit development (PUD), which would allow the group to build a 220-square-foot, one-story addition to the rear of the existing lodge, on its east side.

The nonprofit society is a University of Michigan student and alumni club, focused on nature and the outdoors. Named for French-Canadian voyageurs of the Great Lakes fur trade, it was founded in 1907 and is one of the university’s oldest fraternal student groups. The lodge was built in 1925 – about the same time as the city’s first zoning ordinance and zoning map. Five student members live at the lodge, and society alumni gather there for potluck Sunday dinners from September to April.

Les Voyageurs: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge stated that he felt the French name of the society illustrated that what was being requested was a decision based on privilege, and claimed that it was related to the society’s connection with the University of Michigan. He called for every rezoning request to be tied to a requirement of paying into a fund to establish adequate and radically expanded affordable housing within the city of Ann Arbor.

Les Voyageurs: Council Deliberations

Responding to Partridge’s comments immediately following his turn at the microphone, mayor John Hieftje described the society’s house as an old house down by the river – not fancy. Hieftje ventured that it was hard to see how it could be criticized.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that he believed there was a regular Sunday night dinner that would provide an opportunity for Partridge to visit and mingle with members of the society. Kunselman also ventured that the society had a backyard chicken permit so they’re doing what they can to maintain the property in a sustainable fashion. It’s a benefit to the society and the whole community to provide the proper zoning, Kunselman said.

Outcome: The council gave unanimous final approval to the Les Voyageurs rezoning.

Greenbelt Acquisitions

The council considered a resolution authorizing the purchase of development rights for two additional properties under its greenbelt program – the Van Natter Farm in Webster Township (about 25 acres for $126,867) and the Boike Farm in Northfield Township (about 136 acres for $502,307). Both owners agreed to make a donation of 20% of the fair market value of the property as part of the deals.

Greenbelt: Related Public Commentary, Council Communication

Kermit Schlansker addressed the council by saying that the government is breaking the Golden Rule – by not planning for the future. By not making material sacrifices that would help our children, we’re not treating our progeny in the way that we’d like to be treated, if we were them. We face a sure prospect of eternal poverty for our grandchildren and grandchildren, he said. As the price of oil grows so high that poor people can’t buy the gasoline they need to go to work, great hardships will follow, he warned. Urban sprawl is not just deplorable, it will become a killer if we don’t start to deal with it.

The only way to reduce energy use to sustainable levels is to use compact housing that reduces energy use by having reduced heating and transportation needs, Schlansker said. Common sense says we should put as much biomass back into the soil as possible, to make it more fertile, yet we ignore these basic concepts of sustainability, he said. He told councilmembers that when they are his age, they might be desperate because of the increased costs for everything. Schlansker reported that he’d attended a recent city forum on sustainability and based on that compared the city’s efforts to using a toothpick to shovel out from a snowstorm.

Schlansker called for a ring of farms around the city that could help feed the city. The starting point should be a series of colloquia, not lectures, he said. He called for an expansion of the city’s energy commission, in order to start implementing that.

Mayor John Hieftje responded to Schlansker’s comments by saying he was glad that Schlansker had mentioned the series of sustainability forums. He contended that the city was, as Schlansker had recommended, planning for local agriculture and doing more in that area than any other city Hieftje was aware of. He alluded to the building of hoop houses on greenbelt properties.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) followed up later in the meeting on the issue of sustainability, by mentioning that the city is looking at updating its solid waste plan. At some point, she said, that plan will come before the city council. There will be public engagement meetings in May 2012, she said. She ventured that it’s well past time to rewrite the solid waste plan.

During the brief council deliberations about the greenbelt acquisitions, Briere connected the acquisition of the land to Schlansker’s remarks during public commentary. Hieftje observed that the size of the Van Natter property was small, but good for growing food that could be sold at the farmers market.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked for a future update on the finances of the greenbelt program, including the endowment and what the endowment is being used for. [A detailed financial update for the past fiscal year, which ended June 30, 2011, was given at the greenbelt advisory commission's September 2011 meeting.]

Outcome: On separate votes, the council approved both greenbelt acquisitions.

Grass in Landfills

The council considered a resolution supporting the continued maintenance and enforcement of a 1990 statewide ban on adding yard waste, like lawn grass clippings, to landfills.

The city council’s resolution came in opposition to two bills, HB 4265 and HB 4266, passed by the Michigan state house of representatives on March 15 on a 67-40 and 66-41 vote, respectively. Together the bills would allow for yard waste to be added to landfills under certain conditions – when the landfill has a gas collection system and that gas is used in the production of electricity. Ann Arbor’s now-closed landfill uses such a gas collection system, which has produced around 3,000 MWh (mega-watt hour) of electricity a year. [.pdf of analysis of HB 4265 and HB 4266]

The council’s resolution was accompanied by a staff memo contending that methane gas-fueled generation is a less effective way to manage wastes, citing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s municipal solid waste assessment: “Combustion or gasification with energy recovery, or waste-to-energy (WTE), is the environmentally preferable route for mixed solid wastes that are neither recyclable nor compostable.” The council’s resolution cites in situ composting as a more beneficial policy than adding yard waste to landfills in order to create and collect methane gas for electricity generation.

The council’s resolution also criticizes the pending state legislation for creating an “unfair competitive environment for yardwaste resources, impacting current tipfees and pricepoints.” Ann Arbor’s current costs for disposing of waste in a landfill is $24.83/ton, while its composting costs are $19/ton.

Mayor John Hieftje said that the legislation was being pushed by landfill owners. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that in his past he’d worked as an intern with the city and delivered yard waste. He said the politics of landfills and solid waste are well known.

Outcome: The resolution against putting yard waste into landfills was passed on a unanimous vote of the eight councilmembers present.

Sale of Land Wedge

The council was asked to consider the sale of 877 square feet of city land on Summit Street for $7,500.

The wedge-shaped parcel of land on Summit Street that is being sold by the city.

The parcel apparently had a murky history and was a part of the right-of-way for Wildt Street. Sale of the land to the owner of the immediately adjacent property will allow the new owner to construct a duplex after demolishing a dilapidated nuisance property.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the land sale.

New Street Sweeper

The council considered a resolution authorizing the purchase of an Elgin street sweeper from Bell Equipment Co. for $175,175. It’s a replacement of a 10-year old sweeper that has required frequent repair over the last two years. The staff memo accompanying the resolution indicates that over the last two years, the old sweeper required maintenance and repairs 82 times with a total cost of more than $104,300.

The old sweeper will be cannibalized for high-value parts to be used by other sweepers in the city’s fleet, all of which are Elgin sweepers. The remaining vehicle shell will be sold as scrap metal.

Outcome: The council voted without comment to approve the purchase of a street sweeper.

Television Upgrades

The council considered a resolution approving a purchase order for $118,620 with VTP Inc. for an upgrade to the Community Television Networkstudio and control room equipment. The equipment will give CTN high-definition video capture capabilities to create television productions and internet content.

Outcome: The council approved the CTN equipment upgrade without deliberation.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Public Art – Attorney Opinion

Toward the end of the meeting, during time reserved for councilmembers to communicate to the public and to their colleagues on upcoming issues, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told his colleagues he’d be bringing forward a resolution that would provide the necessary direction to get a written opinion from the city attorney regarding the legal basis of the city’s public art ordinance. Kunselman contends, along with many others in the community, that the use of dedicated millage funds or fees by the public art program does not conform with Michigan law.

It’s an issue Kunselman has talked about for over two years, but he has never gone as far as to bring a resolution to the council table.

Comm/Comm: DDA TIF Capture

Kunselman also alerted his colleagues to the fact that he’d be bringing forward a resolution related to the computation of the taxes that can be captured by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in its tax increment finance (TIF) district.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wrangles his computer power cord at the start of the March 19 meeting.

By way of background, in May 2011 the city pointed out a provision in the DDA ordinance that indicates a limit on the amount of taxes that can be captured, based on the rate of increased taxable value in the DDA TIF district. It resulted in a return of taxes by the DDA to other taxing authorities. It’s an open question as to whether the amount of returned money was correct.

Subsequently, the DDA took a completely different position, saying that the ordinance does not limit TIF capture, and that it had not needed to return the money it had already paid.

One of the other taxing authorities, which has some of its taxes captured under the DDA TIF, is the Ann Arbor District Library. At the library board’s most recent meeting, AADL director Josie Parker indicated that the library’s position has not changed with respect to the interpretation of the ordinance. It’s up to the DDA as to whether they want to have a conversation, she said.

In a phone interview after the library board meeting, Kunselman told The Chronicle that he had not had any communication with Parker about the TIF capture issue.

[For background, see Chronicle coverage: "Library Weighs DDA Excess Tax Decision" and "Column: Tax Capture Is a Varsity Sport"]

Comm/Comm: Fuller Road Station

During public commentary, Rita Mitchell reviewed how the University of Michigan pulled out of a university-city partnership to build a parking structure at the Fuller Road location. [See Chronicle coverage: "UM, Ann Arbor Halt Fuller Road Project"] She felt it’s a good time to reassess where the city is going with the project, and it’s time to have open discussion about it. That discussion, she said, had started the previous Friday in the form of a walkaround on the property across from the current Amtrak station, organized by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). It was great to have members of the city staff there to have a give-and-take discussion about the kinds of things that can happen for rail service to Ann Arbor, she said.

During a walkaround on Friday, March 16, 2012, an Amtrak train pulled into the station as the group of residents and staff were talking.

Mitchell felt that everyone supports non-motorized transportation into town and out of town with less use of cars. But she said the discussion needs to be careful and open – more open than she felt it’s been so far. She then ticked through some questions that she said should be answered: (1) How would a station be funded? (2) Should Ann Arbor own and operate a train station? Does Ann Arbor have the resources to do that? (3) What’s a good design, and what’s the appropriate location? (4) How can the alternative locations be assessed impartially?

Mitchell then indicated some attributes she felt the location of a train station should have: It should support the downtown and the Lowertown area, and provide easy non-motorized access to its location. She suggested a continuation of the dialogue.

Following public commentary, when Mitchell had made her remarks on the location of a new train station, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) took the occasion of the council communications time to address the Fuller Road Station project and Fuller Park – he said he liked to refer to it as Fuller Park because it is a park. He said he wanted to review the four resolutions the council had considered in connection with the project. The very first one, he said, he’d voted for. In November 2009, Anglin said, there’d been additional money appropriated. The specific council votes to which Anglin referred to were these:

• 2009-Aug-17: Ann Arbor city council approves $213,984 of city funds for an environmental study and site assessment. Of that amount, $104,742 was appropriated from the economic development fund.
• 2009-Nov-05: Ann Arbor city council approves memorandum of understanding with UM on Fuller Road Station.
• 2009-Nov-05: Ann Arbor city council authorizes additional $111,228 for environmental study and site assessment.

A subsequent action that Anglin contends is connected to the Fuller Road Station project was taken by the council on June 20, 2011. That was the award of a $1,216,100 construction contract to Hoffman Brothers Inc. The project involves relocating a sanitary sewer south of Fuller Road, and east of the Maiden Lane and East Medical Center Drive intersection.

Standing is councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5) as he talks with city administrator Steve Powers before the start of the meeting.

The project includes moving and replacing an 825-foot, 30-year-old section of 60-inch sanitary sewer pipe. It also includes construction of 525 feet of 24-inch stormwater pipe, as well as construction of 925 feet of a new 12-inch water main for service to Fuller Pool. The water main portion of the project will be completed in two phases, the second of which is planned for 2013.

Anglin voted for that contract award at the June 20 meeting, but then brought it back for reconsideration on July 5, 2011 and voted against it. His was the only dissenting vote.

At the council’s March 19, 2012 meeting, Anglin said he felt the city was starting to wade into the water of the project without the council’s approval. He said he was glad that the walkaround had taken place on Friday. But he said that as a council, they are tiptoeing into the water and it’s getting deeper and deeper. He wanted to re-evaluate the whole item so the city doesn’t keep spending staff time on it.

During his own communications, mayor John Hieftje responded to Anglin’s remarks by saying the Fuller Road Station process is ongoing, and there would be council action requested in the next little while. With respect to Anglin’s review of the action to date, Hieftje said, he believed that those expenditures will help secure the $2.8 million federal grant that is part of the federal funding for the a train station.

If you go back and read the record, Hieftje said, the $1.3 million utilities relocation work was a “free-standing effort” that benefited the Fuller Pool area and the UM hospital – and something like 30,000 people in Ward 1. It had been part of the program of utility work for some time, he said. It could have been done this year or next year, Hieftje said, but it was something that the council had decided was a free-standing effort.

Comm/Comm: Warming Center

Alexandra Hoffman made some remarks in support of medical marijuana dispensaries, but told the council she was there to talk about the Imagine Community. She reminded the council that representatives of the community have been coming to council meetings since the fall of 2011, and they’d been talking about the possibility of using the city-owned building at 721 N. Main since December. It would be a simple space, she said, that the city would still own, for the people of Ann Arbor to work on and congregate in. Liability has been an often-voiced concern, she noted, so one of their community, Alan Haber, has suggested that a lease could be signed and the liability could be transferred to her organization. She then showed the council a lease drawn up on poster board to illustrate what elements such a lease might contain.

Hoffman allowed that the winter is over, but the community will continue to work to prepare for next year, she said. There will be a fundraising benefit held on April 1, 2012, after the FestiFools parade, she said. [The April 1 event will be held at Hathaway's Hideaway from 5:30-7:30 p.m.] Every Wednesday from 4-6 p.m. the group has been holding a vigil in front of the old Borders store on East Liberty. She reported that last week a police officer had asked the group to take their banner down: “Let the people in.” Their banner would continue to say that and she hoped that they would not allow Ann Arbor to be turned into a city that silences protest.

Comm/Comm: Access to Knight’s

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked staff for ensuring that businesses along Dexter Avenue will remain accessible during the construction work along that road, including Knight’s restaurant. Knight’s will remain open, he said.

Comm/Comm: Argo Cascades

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) gave a brief update from the park advisory commission, on which he serves as one of two councilmember representatives. The newly-constructed bypass around the Argo Dam – which has been named the Argo Cascades – is quickly becoming a favorite, he reported. A new bridge is being installed at the entrance. It’ll be poured the following week, he said, so it’s expected to be open again by the middle of April, but is currently closed in connection with the bridge construction. The Border-to-Border Trail segment in that area is also due to be paved by the end of April or the beginning of May, Taylor said.

Comm/Comm: Basic Rights

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge said he was there to call attention of the public to the ongoing onslaught against civil rights of Americans, perpetrated by Republican candidates for president. There’s an attempt to deny the basic civil right to affordable transportation, housing, education, and health care, Partridge said, and the denial of those rights is being given the deceptive heading of “budget reductions.”

At the end of the meeting, Partridge called for radical improvement in support of the full range of services that make life worthwhile, including for the poorest members of the community.

Present: Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor

Absent: Jane Lumm, Carsten Hohnke, Margie Teall

Next council meeting: April 2, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

For Rush Street the recommendation was for the Michigan Liquor Control Commission to renew the license, because the bar had finally paid nearly $10,000 in back taxes.

But for Dream Nite Club, the recommendation approved by the city council was to object to the renewal of that bar’s license. The recommendation was consistent with the finding of hearing officer Tony Derezinski, a city councilmember representing Ward 2 who presided over a hearing earlier in the day on March 19. The hearing was scheduled to begin at 8 a.m., and lasted until the early afternoon.

During the portion of the hearing observed by The Chronicle, at least a dozen different Ann Arbor police officers offered testimony, elicited by assistant city attorney Bob West, in support of the city’s contention that the establishment maintains a nuisance. The legal counsel for Dream Nite Club sharply questioned the officers about their reports and the conclusions they drew from what they’d witnessed. Objections by Dream Nite Club’s counsel, contending hearsay evidence or a lack of foundation, became routine during the hearing – to the point that on several occasions, a “standing objection” was made to subsequent testimony and introduction of evidence.

In the end, Derezinski concluded that the city of Ann Arbor had a basis to object to the renewal of Dream Nite Club’s liquor license. With its vote on the evening of March 19 the city council forwarded that recommendation to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission. The license renewal will be decided by the MLCC.

The March 19 hearing had been set at the council’s March 5, 2012 meeting, when councilmembers had passed a resolution with an initial recommendation that liquor licenses for both businesses – Dream Nite Club and Rush Street – not be renewed this year. That initial vote was based on the recommendation of the city council’s liquor license review committee, which met on Feb. 23, 2012 to conclude its annual review of licenses in the city.

Initially, no one appeared on behalf of Rush Street at the March 19 hearing, but later, a representative did appear. Derezinski re-heard the matter and based on the report that the back taxes had been paid, which was verified by city treasurer Matt Horning, Derezinski made the recommendation that the council recommend renewal of Rush Street’s license to the MLCC.

[.jpg file of map showing liquor license locations in Washtenaw County] [link to dynamic map showing liquor license locations in Washtenaw County] Note: Maps include all liquor licensees, not just those with on-premise consumption.

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]

Dream Nite Club door sign. Reflected in the glass is the AATA bus stop next to the Blake Transit Center, across Fourth Avenue from the bar. (Photos by the writer.)

At their meeting, also attended by several city staff, the trio set in motion a process by which the licenses of Dream Nite Club (314 S. Fourth Ave.) and Rush Street (312 S. Main St.) might not be renewed by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission (MLCC).

The committee had begun the work at its previous meeting, on Feb. 7. City staff from various departments – building inspection, police, city attorney’s office and treasurer’s office – identified around a dozen establishments with problems ranging from delinquent taxes to building permit issues. Those businesses were sent letters notifying them of the problems. The majority of those businesses took steps before the Feb. 23 meeting to rectify their situation.

Left unresolved were licenses for two businesses. So the committee voted to recommend to the city council that licenses for those businesses not be renewed – Dream Nite Club (for maintaining a nuisance) and Rush Street (for delinquent taxes) – with a hearing on the matter to be set for March 19. That recommendation will appear on the city council’s March 5 agenda.

After the council authorizes notification of the licensee, and is followed by the hearing, the recommendation of the hearing officer will be forwarded to the council for its meeting that same day, on March 19. The hearing officer, previously appointed by the council, is chair of the liquor license review committee, councilmember Tony Derezinski.

The council will then need to confirm Derezinski’s recommendation at its March 19 meeting. The timeline is determined by the MLCC’s March 31 deadline for the city council to submit an objection to the renewal of a liquor license. The Ann Arbor city council’s last regular meeting before then is March 19.

Also discussed at the committee meeting was the Elks Lodge on Sunset Road, which holds a club liquor license. The regular entertainment that takes place at the lodge is a violation of the residential zoning of the parcel, according to city planning staff. The city has sent a letter to the Elks Lodge in an effort to bring the Elks into compliance with zoning regulations. Added on March 5, 2012 after initial publication of this article: [.pdf of letter from city of Ann Arbor to the Elks Lodge]

Introduction to the Meeting

After approving the minutes from the previous meeting and the agenda, committee chair Tony Derezinski welcomed several students from Skyline High School, who were completing a course requirement for a government class.

The Feb. 23 Ann Arbor liquor license review committee meeting. Starting with committee chair Tony Derezinski at the head of the table, in the foreground, clockwise around the table are: city clerk Jackie Beaudry, city treasurer Matt Horning, councilmember Mike Anglin, city council administrative coordinator Anissa Bowden, deputy treasurer Mike Pettigrew, assistant city attorney Bob West, assistant city attorney Mary Fales, city councilmember Jane Lumm, Lt. Bob Pfannes of the Ann Arbor police department, and the city's chief development officer Ralph Welton.

Derezinski sketched out what the students would witness. One was a fairly typical issue for the committee – a liquor license transfer.

The second agenda item, said Derezinski, was the continued review of the roughly 120 liquor licenses in the city for compliance with various requirements in the context of the annual renewal of those licenses. The committee would make recommendations to the city council, he explained – ordinarily the council would go along with the committee’s recommendations. The committee, he said, does “the spade work.”

Derezinski described the committee and the council’s recommendations on liquor license renewals in the context of a perception that there’s a lot of movement at the level of state government to “buck more authority down” to the local units. But Derezinski noted that the ultimate decision on license renewals rests with the Michigan Liquor Control Commission.

License Transfer: Mélange

Before the committee for consideration was the proposed transfer of a liquor license to Mélange Bistro LLC located at 312 S. Main from the previous owner of the restaurant – 314 S. Main LLC (resident agent Dilip K. Mullick).

Asked by Derezinski to summarize and review the transfer to Mélange, city clerk Jackie Beaudry led off by noting that the committee had considered the item at its previous meeting, but had postponed it. She said she was not sure the item was ready, but the committee had wanted it on the agenda.

Sign for Mélange on Main Street in Ann Arbor.

The committee had asked that the staff follow up on a letter received from the Michigan Liquor Control Commission (MLCC) outlining violations related to the way that some of the ownership interest in the license had been transfered. Bob Pfannes, of the Ann Arbor police department, described the communication from the MLCC as a vaguely-worded letter on some issues the MLCC was looking into regarding the transfer of ownership.

And because of that letter, Pfannes wanted further clarification before he gave the police department approval. He reported that he’d spoken with the MLCC investigator. The issues identified by the MLCC are separate issues from the transfer, he said. Regardless of what the local recommendation was, the MLCC would finish up with their investigation. The MLCC was focused on the previous owner. So, if all the other city departments have signed off, Pfannes felt like the license transfer could move forward. He would not withhold his approval – because of what he’d learned from the MLCC investigator, he said.

Linda Mayer, attorney for Mélange, attended the committee meeting and was asked if she wanted to comment. She essentially confirmed the description that Pfannes had given, saying the issue that’s pending with the MLCC involves the current owner of the licensed business, who transfered membership interest without prior approval from the MLCC. She wanted to be clear that it’s the seller’s violation, not the buyer’s. She was asking the local review committee to move ahead, because the MLCC won’t put Mélange on its docket until it has local approval. She wanted to assure the committee that the local body was not at risk.

Derezinski also noted that two assistant city attorneys were present – Bob West and Mary Fales. Neither commented on the statements that had already been made.

Outcome: The committee unanimously approved a recommendation for transfer of a liquor license to Mélange, and had it placed on the city council’s March 5, 2012 agenda.

Annual Review of Licenses

City clerk Jackie Beaudry reviewed how the committee at its previous meeting, on Feb. 7, 2012, had gone over most of the businesses for on-premise licenses – they’d met all the city requirements and had been approved. There were, however, quite a few businesses with outstanding issues – with the building department or with the treasurer’s office, due to failure to pay taxes.

At the committee’s direction, the city clerk’s office had sent letters to those businesses, Beaudry said. After receiving the letters, many of the businesses had rectified their outstanding issues, but some remained.

Annual Review of Licenses: Clarion Hotel

Clarion Hotel is still an issue, Beaudry said. The hotel, located at 2900 Jackson Road, had paid delinquent taxes ($2,070.97), but Ralph Welton, the city’s chief development officer, still had some issues with a building permit. Welton indicated that he’d now been contacted by Clarion and he was dealing with it. He called it a “weird situation” because there was another hotel that had started construction on the same site with the same address. That was something he would not allow to happen, he said. Some of the open permits are for that other construction. But there are also some open permits on the Clarion itself, he said. He felt the fact that Clarion has been in contact with him is enough to move it forward. Once his department is in the loop, compliance can be gained, he concluded.

After checking with city treasurer Matt Horning, Tony Derezinski allowed a motion to recommend renewal of Clarion Hotel’s liquor license.

Outcome: The committee unanimously recommended Clarion’s license be renewed.

Annual Review of Licenses: Rush Street

City clerk Jackie Beaudry characterized Rush Street as having the largest tax delinquency of all the licensees, at $8,040.42. Just that day, the letter that the city had sent to Rush Street had been returned as undelivered. She said her recollection was that the city had the same difficulty the previous year – the city had sent it to the business address and that mail was returned.

Beaudry wondered if city treasurer Matt Horning had the same experience with property taxes. Beaudry said the treasurer’s office notifies delinquent accounts monthly, so she felt the business was aware of the delinquency. But the letter that the city clerk’s office had sent was returned, she said. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales asked Horning if the treasurer’s office had records indicating whether mail has been returned – yes, but Horning didn’t know the status of the Rush Street parcel.

From left: city treasurer Matt Horning and city councilmember Mike Anglin, who represents Ward 5 and serves on the liquor license review committee.

Tony Derezinski wanted to know what happened last year. Beaudry indicated that Rush Street was delinquent last year, but they finally paid – they’re perpetually a year behind. Horning, having checked his records, indicated that 210 S. Fifth is the address where his office sends the tax bill. That’s the address where it’s legally required to be sent – the owner’s address of record, which comes from the assessor’s database. If it’s returned, Horning continued, his office sends it to the address of the property addressed to “current occupant.”

Beaudry indicated that the clerk’s office had been using a different address, the address of the business – 314 Main St. Derezinski asked what Beaudry’s recommendation would be, noting that the time for sending another letter was getting short.

Beaudry suggested that one option would be to advance Rush Street to a hearing on non-renewal of the liquor license. Her recollection was that a city clerk staffer last year had walked down to Rush Street and handed the letter to someone at the bar. Fales acknowledged Derezinski’s point that time was tight – the city council’s recommendation needed to go to the MLCC by March 31. Fales suggested that given the amount of taxes owed, the committee could move for non-renewal of the license, and that would still allow Rush Street time to correct the tax issue.

Derezinski recollected that last year, there were some businesses who rectified their taxes, once they got the notice of an actual hearing. He said he felt it’s important to send the hearing notice to both addresses and have someone go down to the business. He ventured that he “would undertake the burden myself” but he couldn’t go that night.

Some back-and-forth between Fales and Beaudry established that the hearing date could not be set sooner than 10 days after notification for the hearing, and that would take place on March 5, when the city council was advised of the committee’s recommendation for non-renewal.

Mike Anglin ventured that based on his experience in the District of Columbia, the onus is on a business owner to keep their contact information up to date. Jane Lumm said that hand-delivering a notice seemed like it was “bending over backwards.” Derezinski allowed that it shouldn’t be necessary, but that every effort needed to be made to make sure that the business was notified.

Outcome: The committee unanimously approved a resolution to set a hearing on its recommendation for non-renewal of Rush Street’s liquor license for March 19, 2012.

Annual Review of Licenses: Yamato Not Zal Gaz Grotto

Next up was Yamato, which had a tax delinquency of $710.06. Beaudry said she was not sure where the error arose, but on a list maintained by the city, Yamato was listed immediately above Zal Gaz Grotto. So the city had incorrectly identified Zal Gaz Grotto as the delinquent party. That’s why Yamato, a Japanese restaurant in Kerrytown, was not notified in the original cycle.

Based on her conversation with the city treasurer’s office, due to the lack of notification by the city, and because it’s such a small amount, Beaudry would suggest the treasurer continue to pursue compliance. However, the committee could simply approve a recommendation for annual license renewal. And if Yamato did not pay the taxes, they would automatically appear next year on the list for possible non-renewal.

Outcome: The committee unanimously approved a recommendation for the annual renewal of Yamato’s liquor license.

After the vote, Beaudry stressed that, for the record, Zal Gaz Grotto‘s status with respect to its liquor license is fine. The club is located at 2070 W. Stadium Blvd.

Annual Review of Licenses: Misc.

The committee then considered in one group nine business that had been notified of various issues: Live at PJs, Fraser’s, Mediterano, Paesanao’s, UMI Sushi, Ashley’s Miki Japanese, Theory, and West End Grill. Beaudry summarized the issues as either delinquent taxes that have been paid, a transfer of ownership issue, or building department issues that have now been cleared up. Staff had no remaining objections, Beaudry said.

Outcome: The committee unanimously approved a recommendation for the annual renewal of liquor licenses for the nine businesses.

Annual Review of Licenses: Elks Lodge

Assistant city attorney Mary Fales reported that the city was aware of potential zoning violations by the James L. Crawford Elks Lodge, located at 220 Sunset Road. She described the violations as stemming from “uses currently being activated at the site” that are not in conformance with the residential zoning of the site. Zoning compliance issues are initially handled by the city’s planning staff, but the planning staff hadn’t given notice to the Elks. However, it’s their intention to do so, said Fales.

On the liquor license issue, Fales said she was recommending approval of the license renewal, and the planning staff could then conclude their communication with the Elks Lodge. If the Elks Lodge is not complying with the constraints of their zoning, then they’ll come back on the list next year, she said.

Tony Derezinski asked if any other representative of different departments had any objections. They did not. He noted that the Elks Lodge would be sent a letter on the zoning issues. The zoning is one thing and the liquor license is another, he said. He said that recommending approval of the liquor license renewal gets the process going and doesn’t hold up the liquor license.

Mike Anglin asked what the activities were that the Elks Lodge was engaged in that had drawn the planning staff’s attention. Fales clarified that the Elks Lodge is located in a residential district, and the Elks are engaged in activities there that are not authorized under the city’s zoning code for residential districts. The planning staff, said Fales, would like to bring the Elks into compliance. Anglin asked what type of license the Elks held – was it the same or different from Zal Gaz Grotto?

City clerk Jackie Beaudry clarified that the Elks Lodge holds a club license similar to the kind held by the Performance Network Theater, The Ark, or Zal Gaz Grotto. Jane Lumm charcterized it as a “relatively minor zoning issue.”

By way of additional background, the Elks Lodge hosts an event with food and live jazz every Thursday–Saturday, from 6-10 p.m. and a DJ with dancing from 10 p.m.-2 a.m. Based on the listing in the printed edition of the March 2012 Ann Arbor Observer events calendar, most events don’t have a cover charge – but occasionally a cover of $3 or $5 is charged.

Outcome: The committee unanimously approved a recommendation for the annual renewal of the Elks Lodge’s liquor license.

Annual Review of Licenses: Dream Nite Club

Assistant city attorney Mary Fales reported that the police department has updated the violation list for the club. The police and the city attorney are recommending non-renewal, she reported – on the grounds of maintaining a nuisance, a pattern of patron conduct, numerous police reports, and specific liquor code violations. Bob Pfannes of the Ann Arbor police department noted that the department had documented details of the violations under Chapter 109, Rule 406 of the liquor control act. The club is located at 314 S. Fourth Ave., across from the Blake Transit Center.

City treasurer Matt Horning noted that Dream Nite Club had no delinquent taxes, so he had no objections to renewal of the club’s license on those grounds. But he concurred with the city attorney’s recommendation.

Tony Derezinski explained that with a recommendation of non-renewal, a hearing would need to be set. He described the hearing as a careful process where the committee provides the owner of the license with due process. The hearing is set up under the rules in the city ordinance, he said.

Mike Anglin noted that there’s just one hearing officer – a role to which Derezinski had been appointed by the city council. Anglin wanted to know if the hearing would be open to the public. Derezinski confirmed that such hearings are indeed open to the public. Last year, he said, there were attorneys and witnesses present. The owner of the license has a right to present evidence and to question the evidence that’s submitted. A recommendation goes from the hearing officer to the council, he said.

Back-and-forth between Fales and city clerk Jackie Beaudry established that the city council needed to be presented with a recommendation from the committee for non-renewal, then council would formally authorize notification of the licensee about the hearing (to be held no sooner than 10 days after notification). That would be followed by the hearing, and a recommendation would then come back to the council. [.pdf of Chapter 109 Section 9:79] The council would at that point be able to make a recommendation to the MLCC for non-renewal.

By way of background, the confusion on the sequencing of events likely stemmed from the fact that last year, the committee itself set the hearing on the recommendation for non-renewal and forwarded the final recommendation to the council only after the hearing. The language of the city’s ordinance indicates that it’s the city council that needs to serve notice to a licensee about a potential non-renewal recommendation: “… the city council shall do the following: Serve written notice on the licensee, which shall include: Notice of the proposed action and the reasons for the action …”

Outcome: The committee unanimously approved a recommendation for non-renewal of the Dream Nite Club’s liquor license and set a hearing date for March 19, 2012.

Next Steps

The timeframe in which the liquor license review committee is operating will be tight. The city council will have the recommendations for non-renewal – for Dream Nite Club and for Rush Street – on its agenda for the Monday, March 5 meeting. As of the morning of March 3, the item had still not been added to the agenda, but it’s expected that it will appear before the Monday meeting. The hearings associated with those non-renewal recommendations will be held March 19.

As the hearing officer, Tony Derezinski will need to turn around a recommendation to the council on the day of the hearing – March 19 is also the last regular city council meeting before the MLCC’s March 31 deadline.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local government and civic affairs. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!