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

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

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

The one resolved clause states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The council’s April 7 agenda features two significant items of old business: a first reading of an ordinance that would regulate outdoor smoking in certain locations; and an allocation of funds for the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force.

The pedestrian safety task force funding resolution is now expected to be withdrawn. At the first meeting of the task force, held on Friday, April 4, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, speaking from the audience, told the group that it was her intent to withdraw the funding resolution when the council meets on April 7. Even if the resolution is withdrawn at the April 7 meeting, however, the task force will be able to continue its work.

Pedestrian issues form one of the themes of the meeting agenda – as the council will be approving annual contracts for the sidewalk repair program, as well as applying for a grant to renovate the pathway in Gallup Park – from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. Along with the sidewalk maintenance program contracts, the city council will also be asked to approve the annual street resurfacing program contracts.

Another main theme of the meeting is land use. Carried over as a topic from the council’s March 17 meeting is the surface of the city-owned Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor. After voting on March 17 to hire a real estate broker, the council will consider a resolution on April 7 that would allocate to the city’s affordable housing trust fund half of the proceeds of any sale of the site’s development rights.

But on April 7, the council will also be considering an amendment to the March 17 resolution that directed the city administrator to list the surface of the Library Lane parking structure for sale. The amendment would require a public process to take place before brokerage services are obtained or the real estate is listed for sale. That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. The amendment is sponsored by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

The council will also be considering some items that arrived on its agenda via the city’s planning commission: rezoning of a nature area to PL (public land); and a resolution calling on the University of Michigan to incorporate the city’s land use recommendations as it considers the future use of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street. The April 7 agenda also includes, as an item of communication, a resolution passed by the city planning commission on March 18, 2014 that gives advice to the council about how to develop the Library Lane property.

In other business, the council will be considering a resolution to approve an expansion of the Main Street business improvement zone (BIZ). The geographic area of the self-assessment district – which handles sidewalk snow removal, sweeping and other upkeep for property owners – would more than double. The final decision rests with the property owners in the expanded area.

Also at its April 7 meeting, the council will consider a resolution asking that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages.

The council’s agenda also includes several street-closing approvals for upcoming events: Taste of Ann Arbor on June 2; The Event on Main Street on June 19; the Ann Arbor Jaycees Fourth of July Parade on July 4; and the Townie Street Party on July 14.

Among the reports and communications attached to the agenda is the final report of a council economic collaborative task force.

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

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

Outdoor Smoking

A new local law regulating smoking in some outdoor locations will be given a first reading by the council for the third time at its April 7 meeting. The law would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks.

The most recent action – to postpone the ordinance until April 7 – came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting. The new ordinance had also been postponed at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the proposed new local law, had appeared before the city’s park advisory commission on Feb. 25, 2014 to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

The ordinance would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited.

Where no signs are posted noting the smoking prohibition, a citation could be issued only if someone doesn’t stop smoking immediately when asked to stop.

An existing Washtenaw County ordinance already prohibits smoking near entrances, windows and ventilation systems, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – but the county’s ordinance can be enforced only by the county health department. The memo further notes that the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act does not regulate outdoor smoking.

At the council’s March 3 meeting, other councilmembers expressed concern about the potential disparate impact of such a law on the homeless, and the challenge of enforcement.

Peds: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force

At its April 7 meeting, the council will consider for the second time a resolution that would appropriate $197,250 to fund the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force. Action to postpone the resolution until April 7 came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

The total amount proposed to be appropriated for the task force project budget is $197,250. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

The funds are to be sourced in part from an allocation made during the May 20, 2013 budget deliberations, which appropriated $75,000 for a study to prioritize sidewalk gap elimination. The connection between sidewalk gaps and the task force’s work is based in part on one of the other “resolved” clauses establishing the task force: “… the task force will also address sidewalk gaps and create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps; …”

The pedestrian safety and access task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

Another key “resolved” clause establishing the group’s scope of work includes the following: “… the task force will explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The responsibilities of the task force include delivery of a report a year from now – in February 2015.

The funding for the task force is in part to be used to pay for a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitator support to the task force.

According to a staff memo written in response to councilmember questions, the facilitator would assist with an anticipated 18 task force meetings, 24 resource group (staff) meetings, five stakeholder meetings and three public meetings. The facilitator would be “preparing materials and agendas; facilitating the meetings; summarizing the meetings; facilitating communication and discussions between, and among, the task force members and the resource group; and, developing materials for community outreach in addition to the actual public meetings, including content for press releases and web page publishing, and a community survey.”

According to the staff memo, a “team of staff members has identified Project Innovations, Inc. as a firm in the region that has demonstrated skill in task force facilitation and robust community engagement efforts, and is uniquely qualified with the capacity to facilitate the pedestrian safety and access task force’s rigorous work approach within the specified timeframe.” Based on the phrasing in the memo, the work appears not to have been put out to bid and Project Innovations was identified as a “sole source” provider.

Project Innovations is the same firm currently providing facilitation support to a citizens advisory committee that is attached to a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study being conducted by the city.

The resolution establishing the task force does not explicitly charge the group with a review of the city’s crosswalk law. But the pedestrian safety task force was established in the same time frame as the council was considering an amendment to the city’s crosswalk law. The council ultimately voted to change the language of that law at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting – so that motorists were required to concede the right-of-way only to pedestrians who had already entered the crosswalk.

That change was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Drawing on the phrasing used in Hieftje’s statement of veto, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has indicated he intends to bring forward an amendment that would require motorists to stop at crosswalks for pedestrians only if “they can do so safely.” At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, Kunselman announced he’d be pursuing such an amendment.

Peds: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force – Recent Developments

The funding resolution is now expected to be withdrawn. At the first meeting of the task force, held on Friday, April 4, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, speaking from the audience, told the group that it was her intent to withdraw the funding resolution when the council meets on April 7.

Even if the resolution is withdrawn at the April 7 meeting, the task force would still be able to continue its work. Here’s why. In the resolution that’s expected to be withdrawn, the total amount proposed to be appropriated for the task force project budget is $197,250. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

So the portion of the project budget that requires hard costs to be covered – other than city staff time – is the cost for the consultant to provide facilitation services. And according to a staff memo to the city administrator written after the council’s action to postpone, the bulk of the cost can already be covered in an existing budget allocation. From the March 27, 2014 staff memo to the city administrator: “The estimated amount for the facilitation work is $70,000 to $90,000. Of this amount, $75,000 is currently budgeted for pedestrian safety and sidewalk-gap planning. The remaining $15,000 will be included in the City Administrator’s recommended FY 14 budget amendment.”

In addition to authorizing the funding, the resolution would authorize a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. But now, it’s not clear that particular consultant will be selected for the work. Originally, Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations is familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting. But now the city has decided to issue an RFP (request for proposals) for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893] Responses to the RFP are due by April 22, 2014.

At the April 4 task force meeting, Connie Pulcipher – a systems planner with the city of Ann Arbor – told members of the task force that they could be involved in the process of interviewing respondents to the RFP. The delay in selecting a facilitator means that the original timeline for the group’s work, which included a final report by February 2015, has shifted to around August 2015.

Peds: Belle Tire Easement

On the council’s agenda is approval of an easement related to the Belle Tire site plan at State and Ellsworth. The planning commission recommended approval at its March 18, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

The site plan itself was recommend for approval by the commission at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting, and the project subsequently received city council approval on Oct. 7, 2013. The site is located in Ward 4.

By way of background, a 50-foot-wide right-of-way easement on the front this site was recorded by the city as part of a previously approved land division for this parcel. That easement reduced the front setback of the Belle Tire building from 10 feet to roughly 3 feet. The minimum front setback for this site is 10 feet.

So the property owner, who also owns the adjacent site at 3975 S. State, has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement.

In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback.

Peds: Gallup Park Path

On the council’s consent agenda – a group of items voted on all-in-one-go – is approval of a grant application to fund renovations to a pathway that runs through Gallup Park, which is part of the Border to Border Trail (B2B) connecting the eastern and western borders of Washtenaw County. Renovations would include repairs to the existing asphalt, as well as widening to 10 feet – in part to meet current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards.

The grant application would be made to SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) and MDOT (Michigan Dept. of Transportation) for the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). The grant funds, if awarded, would fund renovation of the pathway from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. The work would include the loop that leads around that part of the park. Total length of the pathway to be renovated is about two miles.

The city would provide a grant match of $200,000, which would be paid out of the parks and recreation capital improvements millage.

Peds: Sidewalk Maintenance Program

Also related to pedestrian issues are two contracts related to the annual sidewalk maintenance and repair program, which is funded out of a five-year millage approved by voters in November 2011.

A sidewalk marked with a “C” – which indicates that it needs to be cut flush – on Fifth Avenue south of William Street.

Some sidewalk slabs are in reasonably good shape but are out of alignment with adjacent slabs. The city takes the approach of shaving the portion that’s out of alignment so that it’s flush.

Cutting the concrete is more cost effective than replacing the entire slab. The contract for the cutting work for the upcoming 2014 program is to be awarded to Precision Concrete Cutting for $207,350.

The other part of the program involves outright replacement of sidewalk slabs.

That contract is to be awarded to Doan Construction Company for $1,707,037.

Areas of the city of Ann Arbor where sidewalk repair will be done in 2013 and 2014.

Asphalt: Street Resurfacing Program

In addition to an annual sidewalk repair program, the city manages an annual street resurfacing program. On the council’s April 7 agenda is the award of a construction contract to Barrett Paving Materials Inc. for $3.409 million for the 2014 program. Also on the agenda is a professional contract for materials testing – with CTI and Associates Inc. for $82,332.

Heavy black highlights indicate stretches of road that are a part of the city of Ann Arbor’s street resurfacing program in 2014.

Text descriptions of the streets to be resurfaced are as follows:

• Washington: First St to Fourth Ave (April – May)
• Fuller: Maiden Lane to Huron River Bridge (May – June)
• Newport: Sunset to south of Bird Rd (June – July)
• Linwood:, Doty to Wildwood (April – May)
• Northside Grill Alley: Broadway to End (April – May)
• Vinewood: Berkshire to Avon (May – June)
• Steeplechase: Whiltshire to Blaney (June – July)
• St. Aubin: Platt to Creek Dr (June – July)
• Woodbury: Astor to Stadium (July – July)
• Prairie: Plymouth to Aurora (July – August)
• Burlington Court: Burlington to End (July – August)
• Waldenwood & Adjacent Courts: Penberton to Earhart (north end) (July – September)

Asphalt: Windemere Tennis Courts

The council will consider a $134,297 contract with Nagle Paving Co. to relocate and rebuild the tennis courts at Windemere Park. The park advisory commission recommended approval of the contract at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting.

PAC’s recommendation on the contract followed its approval on Jan. 28, 2014 of a revised new location for tennis courts at Windemere Park, on the city’s northeast side. The final location approved by PAC was one put forward at a public meeting earlier this year.

The new location for the tennis courts has been disputed among neighbors who live near Windemere Park, a nearly four-acre parcel north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

Nagle Paving was the lowest of five responsible bidders on the project, according to a staff memo. Including a 10% construction contingency, the entire project budget is $147,727. Funding will come from the FY 2014 park maintenance and capital improvement millage revenues. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution] [.pdf of cost comparison chart]

Land: Library Lot Proceeds to Affordable Housing

The city council will consider a resolution at its April 7 meeting that would direct the city administrator to allocate half the proceeds from a possible upcoming real estate sale to support affordable housing. The land in question is the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure, which completed construction in the summer of 2012. [.pdf of draft resolution on Library Lane sale]

The Library Lane underground parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

From the resolution: “Resolved, That City Council direct the City Administrator to allocate 50% of any and all proceeds, after fees and closing costs, from the sale of development rights at 319 S. Fifth Avenue [the Library Lane lot] to the affordable housing fund.” Use of money in the city’s affordable housing trust fund is subject to recommendations by the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB).

Based on a ballpark estimated value for the property of $6-7 million dollars – given by Jim Chaconas of Colliers International at the council’s March 17, 2014 meeting – the resolution would translate to somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million to support affordable housing, depending on fees and closing costs.

No specific deal appears to be in the offing to develop the top of the structure. But the council voted at its March 17, 2014 meeting to hire a brokerage service to list the development rights to the top of the underground parking garage for sale. At the same meeting, the council passed a separate resolution that reserved 6,500-12,000 square feet on the Library Lane site for a publicly owned urban park.

The resolution allocating 50% of proceeds of a Library Lane sale to support affordable housing is now sponsored by four councilmembers: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5),  and mayor John Hieftje.

The strategy of channeling at least some of the proceeds of land sales to support affordable housing efforts has been a consistent part of city policy dating back several years. However, the council has not always agreed on the portion of a sale that should be allocated to support affordable housing. At the March 16 Sunday night caucus, Briere indicated one reason she might be reluctant at the following evening’s council meeting to support the hiring of a broker to list the Library Lane development rights for sale: She did not at that time want to take on the fight with other councilmembers about what to do with the proceeds. But Briere voted with seven of her colleagues on the 8-1 vote that saw only Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) dissenting. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) were not present for that vote.

The sale of another city property – the former Y lot in downtown Ann Arbor, on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues, across the street from the Library Lane site – is expected to generate roughly $1.4 million in net proceeds from the $5.25 million purchase price. That sale to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann had a closing date of April 2, 2014. And the sale was, in fact, completed.

The council voted at its Dec. 16, 2013 meeting to allocate all of those net proceeds to the affordable housing trust fund. More recently, at its March 3, 2014 meeting, the council directed the city administrator to prepare a budget resolution that would – upon completion of the former Y lot sale – allocate $600,000 from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, to support major capital improvements to its properties.

More than a year ago, at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a general policy on proceeds of land sales that was based on a budget committee recommendation. Essentially the policy is to consider land sales on a case-by-case basis, considering all the needs of the city. A nod to affordable housing was included in an amendment added at the council meeting in the form of a statement that all needs of the city would be considered in deciding the use of land sale proceeds – but “especially the need for affordable housing.”

The draft resolution to be considered at the April 7 council meeting cites the budget committee’s recommendation, which was adopted in the Oct. 15, 2012 council resolution, that “no less than 10% of net proceeds of any sale will be allocated and distributed to the affordable housing trust fund …”

Land: Amendment to Library Lane Resolution to List for Sale

On April 7, the council will also be revisiting the March 17 resolution on listing the surface of the Library Lane structure for sale. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) have sponsored a resolution that would delay the hiring of a broker and listing the property for sale until a public process, to be structured by the city administrator, is completed.

That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. From the resolution:

Resolved, That Resolution R-14-098 Directing the City Administrator to List for Sale 319 South Fifth and Retain Estate Brokerage Services be amended to direct the City Administrator to require that retention of brokerage services be delayed and listing not occur until adequate public process has taken place to explore public uses for the entire property;

Resolved, That the City Administrator structure the public process to allow citizens an opportunity to bring forward and discuss any and all appropriate public uses for this City-owned property, including its use, in its entirety, as a park or plaza;

Resolved, That City Administrator schedule a public hearing as part of the public process for citizen input on public uses for the property

Resolved, That City Administrator provide City Council with report on the public process at its completion; and

Resolved, On completion of the required public process, the City Administrator is directed to seek further direction from City Council as to whether the property should be listed or to continue to develop a wholly public or mixed public/private plan for its use.

The vote on the council’s March 17 resolution was 8-1, with dissent only from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent from the start of the meeting and Margie Teall (Ward 4) departed late in the meeting but before the vote was taken.

The April 7 council agenda also includes, as an item of communication, a resolution passed by the city planning commission on March 18, 2014 that gives advice to the council about how to develop the Library Lane property. The commission’s recommendations focused on conditions for developing the site that would garner economic benefits to the city, such as a mixed-use development that generates foot traffic, with an entry plaza or open space and a design that “creates an iconic addition to the skyline.” The recommendations drew on material in several existing documents, including the Connecting William Street report that was completed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority about a year ago.

Also attached to the council agenda as an item of communication is a resolution passed by the Ann Arbor District Library board on March 17, 2014. The resolution asked the council to reject designating a portion of the city-owned Library Lane site – which is adjacent to the downtown library – as a public park or plaza at this time.

Land: Recommendation to UM on Edwards Brothers

An additional land-use item on the council’s April 7 agenda is a resolution recommending that the University of Michigan collaborate with the city of Ann Arbor on the future development of the former Edwards Brothers property at 2500-2550 South State Street, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. The university is purchasing the 16.7-acre property, following the Ann Arbor city council’s decision on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the site.

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

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

The one resolved clause states:

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

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

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

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

Land: Stapp Nature Area Addition Rezoning

The council’s April 7 agenda includes a resolution giving initial approval to rezoning of land that’s been donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp. The 2.2-acre parcel at 3301 Traverwood Drive is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline..

City staff recommended that the donated parcel be rezoned from R4D (multi-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The land reaches from Traverwood Drive to the Leslie Park golf course, south of Huron Parkway. Adding the land expands a corridor of natural areas and parkland. Stapp Nature Area, a 8.11-acre property with a mature native forest and small vernal pool, is adjacent to Tuebingen Park and has a connection to Leslie Woods.

The site is on the northern edge of a larger property that’s being developed by First Martin Corp. as Traverwood Apartments. That project received its final necessary approvals from the city council on Jan. 6, 2014.

First Martin has committed to creating a pedestrian access from the apartment complex to the nature area, which will be formalized with an access easement.

The city has a policy of rezoning city-owned land to PL (public land). This parcel will be differentiated as parkland by its inclusion in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, because it will become part of the Stapp Nature Area, which is already in the PROS plan.

The council would be giving the rezoning initial approval at its April 7 meeting. The final vote would come at a future meeting after a public hearing.

Land: Main Street BIZ Expansion

On the council’s April 7 agenda is approval of an expansion of the geographic area of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The business improvement zone was established in 2010 by a vote of property owners in the zone to provide a mechanism for taxing themselves to pay for items like sidewalk snow removal, sidewalk sweeping and landscaping. [For the state enabling legislation for a BIZ, see Public Act 120 of 1961]

The current geographic area of the Main Street BIZ extends north-to-south from William to Huron on both sides of Main Street, extending to the mid-block alleys. The expansion would extend the area westward by a half block from the alley to Ashley Street. The expansion would also extend the area eastward by a half block along the whole north-south dimension; and between William and Liberty, the zone would expand westward an additional block – to Fourth Avenue.

While the council must give its approval of the plan, the expansion is contingent on a vote among property owners in the area, which has to be set for no later than 49 days after the date of the council’s resolution. The council’s April 7 meeting agenda includes a public hearing on the issue.

Main Street BIZ geographic area and expansion. (Map by The Chronicle from the BIZ plan using Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS services mapping tools.)

Same-Sex Marriage

At its April 7 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council will consider a resolution asking that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages. [.pdf of draft resolution on same-sex marriage]

The ruling in question was issued by federal judge Bernard Friedman on Friday, March 21, 2014 in the case of Deboer v. Snyder. In that ruling, Friedman found that Article I, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution – which limits the benefits of marriage to unions between one man and one woman – did not advance any legitimate state interest. So the ruling had the effect of making same-sex marriages legal in Michigan.

But the day following the decision, on March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on Friedman’s ruling. Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are appealing Friedman’s decision.

The council’s resolution reads in part:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council urges Governor Snyder and Attorney General Schuette to immediately suspend all efforts to appeal or otherwise contest Judge Friedman’s Ruling…

Before the stay on Friedman’s ruling took effect, Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum opened his office for business on Saturday, March 22, and issued 74 marriage licenses for same-sex couples in Washtenaw County. The county board had already set the stage for those couples to receive what practically amounts to a fee waiver for the expedited processing of a license, which ordinarily takes three days. The “fee” approved by the board at its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting reduced the usual fee from $50 to 1 cent.

The resolution passed by the county board on Feb. 19 allows the county clerk, consulting with the county administrator, to establish a “fee holiday” on the day preceding a period during which the office’s vital records division would be closed for four or more days, or when an unusual number of marriage license applicants are expected to appear. During a “fee holiday,” the charge for immediately processing a marriage license is 1 cent.

The resolution to be considered by the Ann Arbor city council on April 7 currently initially had four sponsors: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). Later Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and mayor John Hieftje were added, for a total of six. So that resolution is almost sure to be approved – because it needs only a six-vote majority on the 11-member council.

Economic Collaborative Task Force

Among the many agenda attachments – reports and communications – is the final report of the economic collaborative task force, established by the council last year at its May 20, 2013 meeting. The idea to establish the task force had grown out of a desire to review the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in the context of proposed changes to the city ordinance governing the DDA. The task force drew members from city of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor SPARK and the Ann Arbor DDA.  [.pdf of March 28, 2014 economic collaborative task force report]

In more detail, the task force was supposed to do the following:

• Provide clarity, alignment and specificity on economic development policy and objectives for fiscal year 2014 toward accomplishing city council’s success statement for Economic Development.
• Provide for strategic alignment of priorities between the Task Force member entities.
• Highlight cost sharing and maximizing of resource utilization.
• Identify options for sustaining, modifying, or eliminating operations in a financially-responsible manner through efficiencies and/or partnerships as part of a cohesive economic development plan for the city.

The “success statement” mentioned in the resolution was crafted by the city council at a budget retreat held in late 2012.

Those initially appointed to represent the city on the task force were city administrator Steve Powers, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and then councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

According to the resolution establishing the task force, a report was supposed to be presented to the council in December 2013 and the task force was supposed to expire at the end of 2013.

The 4.5-page report in general calls on the city, the Ann Arbor DDA and Ann Arbor SPARK to continue existing initiatives.

Some highlights of the report include a recommendation that the city consider technology infrastructure that is “essential for companies to compete globally and for communities to attract the necessary talent.” In that category of infrastructure, the report indicates that the city and Ann Arbor SPARK should “continue their work to develop a proposal for high-speed fiber that would accelerate both commercial and residential internet speeds.”

Also recommended in the report is the preparation of a plan to market and sell surplus city-owned properties. Properties included on the list include the South Ashley/West William (Kline) lot, the South Main/East William (Palio) lot, Library Lane, and 415 W. Washington.

4:00 p.m. Staff written responses to councilmember questions about agenda items are now available. [.pdf of April 7, 2014 staff responses to councilmember questions]

6:24 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has already arrived in council chambers. She was here earlier for a meeting of the council rules committee – along with Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Dinner for Petersen tonight at the council table is salad.

6:37 p.m. Paul Fulton with the city’s IT department is here, available to comment on an agenda item involving the TRAKiT system.

6:58 p.m. Council chambers are starting to fill up. Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Taylor, and Warpehoski have all arrived.

6:59 p.m. Councilmembers Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) have now arrived.

7:03 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. We’re almost ready to start.

7:08 p.m. And we’re off.

7:08 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance.

7:09 p.m. Approval of agenda. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. Kunselman is bringing back the two resolutions from the last meeting on the Library Lane site for reconsideration. He was on the prevailing side for both of those resolutions – which were both approved.

7:13 p.m. The items will be placed under “unfinished business” which comes right after the outdoor smoking ordinance. And Eaton wants DC-4 to be heard before DC-3.

7:13 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved its agenda for tonight’s meeting, over dissent from Teall.

7:16 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers reports that the amount of funds available from the sale of the former Y lot is $1.42 million. Powers also notes that the homeless shelter had found housing for 107 people this season as of the end of February.

Powers now is alerting the council to the report of the collaborative economic task force, which is attached to tonight’s agenda.

7:16 p.m. INT-1 Veg Week Proclamation. The week of April 21-27, 2014, is being proclaimed as Ann Arbor Veg Week. The proclamation names several local organizations and businesses as supporting it: Nicola’s Books, The Lunch Room, Ann Arbor District Library, Humane Society of Huron Valley, Main Street Area Association, A2 Fitness Professionals, and Current Publications. More than 20 restaurants that will be offering vegan special menu items throughout the week, according to the resolution.

7:21 p.m. INT-2 Elizabeth Dean Day Proclamation. This proclamation honors Elizabeth Russell Dean, who died exactly 50 years ago today, on April 7, 1964. She bequeathed nearly $2 million for the benefit of public trees of Ann Arbor, which is held in a trust with the annual interest income to be used for the planting, care and maintenance of these trees. The proclamation of the anniversary of Dean’s death as Elizabeth R. Dean Day “serves as a reminder of the vast contributions Ms. Dean made to ensure that Ann Arbor will forever remain a ‘City of Trees.’”

7:22 p.m. Edith Fletcher and Jane Immonen are on hand to receive the proclamation.

7:22 p.m. Public commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Eight people are signed up to speak during public commentary reserved time, half of them to address the topic of the Library Lane site: Alan Haber, Odile Hugonot-Haber, Ingrid Ault and Ali Ramlawi. Ault is chair of the park advisory commission. Ramlawi is owner of the Jerusalem Garden restaurant, which is currently located almost directly adjacent to the Library Lane property and will border the lot when it moves into the former Seva building.

Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about affordable transportation. Frank Burdick is signed up to talk about the funding resolution for the pedestrian safety task force. Cliff Douglas is signed up to talk about the outdoor smoking ordinance. Douglas is director of UM’s Tobacco Research Network. And Kermit Schlansker is signed up to talk about “How to Sow the Earth.”

7:28 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for the state legislature and for the city council. He calls attention to the fact that U.S. president Barack Obama visited Ann Arbor last week, to support an increase to the minimum wage. He wishes that Obama had also supported an expanded transit system in his remarks. Partridge calls for affordable housing and the elimination of homelessness. He advocates for affordable healthcare and lifetime education. He notes the needs of the most disadvantaged members of society, saying we must give more attention to the most vulnerable among us. He calls on people to support the transit millage [on the May 6 ballot].

7:29 p.m. Frank Burdick introduces himself as a Ward 4 resident. He asks that the council postpone consideration of funding a consultant for the pedestrian safety task force. He says that city staff are competent to serve the role of a facilitator. He calls on the council to fund concrete, not more consultants.

7:33 p.m. Cliff Douglas speaks in support of the outdoor smoking ordinance. He’s lived in Ann Arbor since 1997, he says, and is speaking as an individual. But he’s also director of UM’s Tobacco Research Network. He names a number of other individuals at the UM School of Public Health who support the ordinance. The key issue, he says, is that although smoking is devastating to its users, it also causes harm to the environment and results in avoidable cleanup costs. In the U.S. there are 921 municipalities with 100% smoke-free ordinances. He has an 11-year-old son and can’t count the number of times the boy has put cigarette butts in his mouth. Cigarette butts are the leading cause of litter, he says.

7:36 p.m. Alan Haber tells the councilmembers that he’s written to each of them asking them to postpone the idea of selling the Library Lane site. They should use the occasion to establish a public process to explore the full public use of the land. There’s a font of creativity in this town to which the council should open the door, he says. There are possibilities for good and the future and for the children of future generations, he says. He urges the council not to press to find out how much it’s worth in terms of monetary value. He urges beginning now with intermediate activities. He’s asking for support and encouragement for people to gather on the surface of the Library Lane underground garage on Earth Day, which falls on April 22.

7:39 p.m. Ingrid Ault introduces herself as a Ward 1 resident and chair of the city’s park advisory commission. She says she’s puzzled about the idea that the listing of the Library Lane site for sale should be delayed until a public process can take place. She cites the Connecting William Street study and the work of the PAC subcommittee on downtown public parks as public process that has already taken place. About public process she says, “This has already been done.” “When will the madness stop?” she wonders. She hopes it will stop tonight. How would the process be different? She says that a “special interest group” [the Library Green Conservancy] can’t take no for an answer. She asks the council to “end the hamster wheel ride tonight.” [Editor's note: Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy has contacted The Chronicle, saying that while some members of the conservancy are certainly in favor of this resolution, the group has not taken a position on it.]

7:41 p.m. Odile Hugonot-Haber says it’s amusing to her to hear that there’s been a lot of public process and when the process has been done, so many people say they want a public space, a green space, a place where people can come together. There is no place for women with their children to go, she says. The people have clearly spoken, she says, but elected and appointed officials refuse to hear.

7:43 p.m. Kermit Schlansker says that the U.S. Senate had an all-night session recently on global warming. He says conservation is overlooked as a solution. We desperately need to reduce our energy consumption, he says. He calls for living configurations like an apartment house on farmland. Bigger buildings are easier to heat, he says.

7:48 p.m. Ali Ramlawi thanks mayor Hieftje for over 10 years of service. even if he’s disagreed with some of Hieftje’s policies. The future of the surface of the Library Lane site has been a hot button issue, he says. He says that the whole western half should be a plaza. It’s too small for just the southwest corner to be used as a plaza, he says. There’s a lot of fear that the next Liberty Plaza will be built. Liberty Plaza is haunted with a poor design, he says. A better design and a better police presence would lead to a successful plaza, he says.

7:48 p.m. Communications from the council. This is a slot on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:49 p.m. Margie Teall is thanking everyone who helped put on FestiFools this past weekend.

7:51 p.m. Jane Lumm announces that there’s a public meeting hosted by MDOT on the Jackson Avenue reconstruction project from Dexter to Maple. The road will be reconfigured to three lanes – one in each direction and a turn lane. She had not supported that configuration. The meeting will take place on April 10 from 4-6 p.m. at the downtown library. Chuck Warpehoski notes that the purpose of the meeting is to inform the public about the construction schedule. It’s being set up as a drop-in, drop-out situation.

7:54 p.m. Mike Anglin says that when city staff, who are extremely competent, are used in projects then it gets good results. When consultants are used, it creates a disconnect, he says. There’s a good dialogue going on between staff and residents along Seventh Street about traffic calming, he says.

7:55 p.m. Communications from the mayor. Hieftje is describing an energy conference and signing the Alliance to Save Energy.

8:00 p.m. Hieftje is saying that the weather at FoolMoon on Friday, April 4 was wet and cold. He’s recounting several other events of the weekend, including Hash Bash. Hieftje reports that Obama told him he likes coming to Ann Arbor.

Hieftje is now following up on the city administrator’s remarks on the homeless shelter. He says that he met with leaders of Washtenaw County on the topic of homelessness. The city administrator will be providing a report on the work of the shelter and costs that were incurred during the past season. Hieftje is reviewing the history of the homeless shelter. The proportion of county residents served there has decreased over the years, he says. The system is not designed to handle these kind of numbers: Is it a regional center for southeast Michigan? If so, then the city needs to work with the state legislature and other regional partners, he says.

8:02 p.m. Briere inquires about the implications of refusing service to anyone.

8:05 p.m. MC-1 Confirmation of appointments. This item will confirm nominations from the council’s previous meeting, on March 17. The appointments are:

• Ann Arbor Commission on Disability Issues: Westley Resendes, filling a vacancy left by Patti Smith, for a term ending May 31, 2015;
• Economic Development Corporation: Dale Leslie and Tim Marshall (re-appointments for terms ending May 31, 2019);
• Historic District Commission: Ellen Ramsburgh (re-appointment for a term ending May 31, 2017);
• Public Market Advisory Commission: Aimee Germain (re-appointment for a term ending May 31, 2017).

8:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the nominations made at its previous meeting.

8:05 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. A raft of nominations is being made tonight. The vote on the appointments will come at the next meeting of the council. The nominations are:

• Airport Advisory Committee: Mary Karen McClellan (filling a vacancy, for a term ending May 30, 2016);
• Ann Arbor Housing Commission: Gwenyth Hayes (serving out rest of term for Gloria Black as a resident’s representative, through May 4, 2015) and Daniel Lee (re-appointment, for a term ending May 6, 2019);
• Design Review Board: Shannan Gibb-Randall (serving out rest of term for Mary Jucari, through May 30, 2015);
• Employees Retirement Systems Board of Trustees: Mark Heusel (re-appointment for a term through May 2, 2017);
• Public Market Advisory Commission: David Santacroce (re-appointment for a term through May 30, 2017).

8:06 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Two public hearings appear on tonight’s agenda.

For the first one, the property owner has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement. In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback. This resolution would approve that arrangement. [For more background, see Peds: Belle Tire Easement above.]

The second public hearing is on the expansion of the geographic area of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The business improvement zone was established in 2010 by a vote of property owners in the zone to provide a mechanism for taxing themselves to pay for items like sidewalk snow removal, sidewalk sweeping and landscaping. For the expansion to be finalized it will need to be approved by property owners in the expanded district. [For more background, see Land: Main Street BIZ Expansion above.]

8:07 p.m. PH-1 Belle Tire ROW Vacation. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:07 p.m. PH-2 Amended Main Street BIZ plan.

8:09 p.m. Thomas Partridge says he thinks that this plan should give more attention and greater priority to seniors and those who need access to public transportation.

8:11 p.m. Jan Culbertson says she’s a property owner in the area. She supports the expansion. The consistency of the services is important, she says.

8:13 p.m. Bill Kinley speaks in favor of allowing property owners to make a decision about whether to participate in the expanded BIZ. He’s eager to see a consistent and attractive sidewalk experience. This is not an expense for general taxpayers, but rather of the property owners in the area, he points out.

8:14 p.m. Jim McDonald asks the council to allow property owners to vote on whether they want to participate in the expanded BIZ.

8:14 p.m. Ed Shaffran introduces himself as chair of the Main Street BIZ board. He thanks councilmembers for the conversations he’s had with them. He’s there in case they have any questions, he says.

8:15 p.m. Approval of previous meeting’s minutes.

8:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting.

8:15 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Approve contract for construction materials testing with CTI and Associates Inc. for the 2014 street resurfacing project ($82,332)
• CA-2 Approve purchase a TS15P R1000 Robotic Total Station and DNA10 Digital Level for Surveying ($33,671)
• CA-3 Approve purchase order for annual maintenance and support of TRAKiT System with CRW Systems Inc. for FY 2014 ($36,500)
• CA-4 Street Closing: Townie Street Party (Monday, July 14, 2014)
• CA-5 Street Closing: Ann Arbor Jaycees Fourth of July Parade (Friday, July 4, 2014)
• CA-6 Street Closing: Townie Party-Ann Arbor Mile (Monday, July 14, 2014)
• CA-7 Approve Transportation Alternatives Program Grant application to SEMCOG and MDOT to fund renovations of the Gallup Park pathway. [For more background, see Peds: Gallup Park Path above.]
• CA-8 Street Closing: Taste of Ann Arbor (Sunday, June 2, 2014)
• CA-9 Street Closing: The Event on Main Street (Thursday, June 19, 2014)

8:15 p.m. Councilmembers can pull out any item on the consent agenda for separate consideration. No one does tonight.

8:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved all items on its consent agenda.

8:16 p.m. C-1 Outdoor Smoking Ordinance. This is still the first reading of a new local law regulating smoking in some outdoor locations. It was previously postponed at two different council meetings. The law would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks. Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building. [For more background, see Outdoor Smoking above.]

8:18 p.m. Warpehoski first moves to replace a substitute resolution. It specifies that it’s a police officer who can enforce the ordinance, not a general employee.

Ellen Rabinowitz, interim health officer for Washtenaw County, is now at the podium sharing the county’s experience in enforcing the county’s ordinance on smoking outside entrances to buildings.

8:23 p.m. Rabinowitz is echoing the sentiments of Cliff Douglas during public commentary. Enforcement has been straightforward, she says. “Our experience in Washtenaw County has been quite good.” There’s been lots of compliance, she says.

Warpehoski is asking about Rabinowitz’s work with the Village of Dexter. Warpehoski invites her to explain why an enforcement mechanism is needed at all, if the idea is that it will be self-enforced.

8:24 p.m. Warpehoski asks Rabinowitz to comment on the benefit of such an ordinance as a public health professional. She ticks through the dangers of smoking. It harms users and innocent bystanders, she says. Anything we can do to limit smoking is a good thing, she says.

8:26 p.m. Eaton confirms that Rabinowitz works for Washtenaw County. He ventures that the county has not made efforts to ban smoking in its parks. She explains that the county parks commission has designated certain areas of county parks as non-smoking. Eaton confirms with Rabinowitz that she is the enforcement officer. He’s quizzing her about how the enforcement mechanism works.

8:28 p.m. Kunselman ventures that the county sheriff does not have a role in enforcement. Rabinowitz confirms that. Kunselman asks if she or her designee has the ability to issue a citation. It seems so. Kunselman says his concern is that he doesn’t want law enforcement officers to be writing tickets. He says it sounds like most people comply when they’re asked to stop.

8:30 p.m. Teall wants information about how other municipalities handle enforcement. Lumm notes that the county has had few complaints filed about violations. Lumm says that the council has received a letter from the People’s Food Co-op. Lumm asks if Rabinowitz has received a complaint from that business. Rabinowtz isn’t sure if People’s Food Co-op was one of the 400 complaints over the last 12 years.

8:31 p.m. Kailasapathy wonders how the city ordinance will add to the county ordinance. Rabinowitz says it will add teeth.

8:33 p.m. Kailasapathy asks for specifics about what Rabinowitz means by “teeth.” She means it in the sense of an additional tool, not in the sense that police officers will enforce it. Kailasapathy wonders if AAPD should be tackling heroin use at the public library or chasing down smokers.

8:34 p.m. Rabinowitz tells Kailasapathy that she’s right: They need to address the problem of heroin overdoses. But the smoking ordinance, she thinks, will be largely self-enforcing.

8:35 p.m. Briere asks if Warpehoski will accept a friendly amendment to the definition of “smoking.” She wants to add e-cigarettes to the definition. Warpehoski says he’d consider that friendly.

8:37 p.m. Warpehoski says he’s continued his outreach to various organizations: merchant area associations and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. He didn’t hear any objections. He recounts the origin of the ordinance – that he’d heard from constituents who felt trapped in situations where they could not get away from second-hand smoke. What drove it home for him was hearing from local businesses in the Sculpture Plaza area.

8:40 p.m. Warpehoski says the allocation of police officers is a red-herring argument. He cites a report out of Toronto that indicates outdoor smoking ordinances don’t cause an additional burden on police. He’s now going over arguments based on litter prevention. He calls it a humble effort. It’s narrow in scope, he says.

8:43 p.m. Warpehoski says it’s a way to make a healthier community. We should have smoke-free playgrounds and bus stops, he says. Taylor thanks Warpehoski for his work in amassing the information. It’s a deeply reasonable effort, he said. Smoking is a scourge, Taylor says, and smokers are accustomed to having a limited set of areas in which they can smoke. The facts are plainly stated, he says. It’s a reasonable ordinance. Concerns about allocation of police resources are not reasonable, Taylor says.

8:46 p.m. Kunselman reports the experience he had of walking behind a group of women who were walking down the sidewalk, three of whom were smoking. That would still be legal, he says. He ventures that receptacles for butts are provided. He brings up the issue of wood smoke, like that generated at Bill’s Beer Garden. He’s received complaints from constituents about wood burning in neighborhoods. He asks Warpehoski if he’d be willing to remove the penalty of a $50 ticket. If there’s a problem with compliance, then the council can revise the ordinance, Kunselman says.

8:48 p.m. Warpehoski ventures that Kunselman might be right that the new law would just move smokers to the sidewalk. But he sees that as an improvement. Warpehoski is now talking about the general issue of good and bad behavior in parks. If there’s a park where smoking is common, that would drive him and his kids out of that park.

8:49 p.m. On the wood smoke issue, Warpehoski says that he’d tried to keep his effort focused and targeted.

8:51 p.m. On the idea of removing the penalties, Warpehoski says we have a set of ordinances – not a book of suggestions. He invites Kunselman to move an amendment and see where it goes.

8:53 p.m. Hieftje says we’ve been talking about this for a while. He says that the information available now is typical of what the council has for a second reading. He says that he doesn’t understand why the council is overthinking the idea of banning smoking in city parks. Lumm says it’s not rational to pass ordinances at first reading just to get to second reading.

8:53 p.m. Lumm is talking about Satchel’s BBQ on Washtenaw Avenue and the wood smoke that comes from there.

8:56 p.m. Lumm says the ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. She appreciates that the ordinance has been amended. She calls it a pretty big step to regulate smoking in city parks. Many of the issues have not been addressed to her satisfaction, she says.

8:58 p.m. Kailasapathy says that the ordinance is structured to be punitive and not educational. Lower socio-economic groups have higher smoking rates, she says. She worries about the disparate impact. She wishes that the police can be taken out of the equation.

8:59 p.m. Warpehoski reiterates his response to Kunselman – that an amendment removing the penalty could be made, but he wouldn’t support it.

9:01 p.m. Eaton asks why e-cigarettes were added through Briere’s amendment – because he thought they did not emit harmful fumes. Cliff Douglas is explaining that these devices are not regulated and that they do contain nicotine.

9:02 p.m. Eaton and Douglas are engaged in a back-and-forth on e-cigarettes.

9:05 p.m. Eaton and Douglas are now discussing enforcement issues.

9:07 p.m. Douglas tells Kunselman that smoking rates have dropped on the UM campus.

9:08 p.m. Kunselman ventures that there’s no enforcement on the UM campus of the no-smoking ordinance, but it still works. Douglas allows that the campus police don’t enforce it, but there is an enforcement mechanism – through an employee’s supervisor, for example.

9:10 p.m. Teall says, “I want to say something!” If there’s a sign you can point to, that allows an ordinary citizen to have something to back up a request made to someone to stop smoking, she notes.

9:12 p.m. Eaton is in a back-and-forth with Rabinowitz on how compliance works.

9:14 p.m. The chief health officer for UM is now at the podium. UM had wanted to be respectful of smokers, but also wanted to create a healthy campus. The medical campus had been smoke-free since 1998, he says. Only one person had been discharged from employment for repetitive smoking, he says.

9:16 p.m. People are not issued citations at UM for smoking anymore than people would be issued a citation for not eating their five vegetables. Warpehoski asks how smoking at UM stadium is handled.

9:18 p.m. Petersen calls the question, saying that the ordinance has a lot of common sense in it and is very practical. Hieftje says everyone needs to have had a chance to speak.

9:20 p.m. [The council isn't voting on calling the question.]

9:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval of the ordinance regulating smoking in some outdoor locations, over dissent from Kailasapathy, Lumm and Eaton.

9:21 p.m. C-2 Stapp Rezoning. This item would give initial approval to rezoning of land that’s been donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp. The 2.2-acre parcel at 3301 Traverwood Drive is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course. [For more background, see Land: Stapp Nature Area Addition Rezoning above.]

9:21 p.m. Briere gives some brief background.

9:21 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval of the rezoning.

9:21 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

9:35 p.m. We’re back.

9:36 p.m. Reconsideration: Library Lot – Designation of Area as Urban Park

9:37 p.m. The council has voted to reconsider the resolution. It was a voice vote, with some dissent, not clear who.

9:38 p.m. Kunselman calls the situation that has arisen – the “unpredictability of posturing politicians trying to please people.”

9:42 p.m. Kunselman is proposing that the previous resolution be amended so that the square footage for the urban plaza is approximately 12,000 square feet. [This is prompted by the fact that Briere proposed the amendment at the March 17 meeting that changed the square footage from 12,000 square feet to a range – from 6,500 to 12,000. And now Briere has co-sponsored the resolution by Eaton and Anglin, later on the agenda, that calls for a public process that could result in the entire surface of the parking structure being used as an urban plaza.]

9:44 p.m. Briere responds to Kunselman by drawing the distinction between a civic use and a greatest and highest use. Hieftje ventures that the council’s action is making it difficult to follow what is going on. He says that using the entire South Fifth Avenue frontage (12,000 square feet) would cost the city $2 million in terms of potential selling price. He’s hesitant to give that up – $1 million of which could go to support affordable housing.

9:45 p.m. Kunselman says he supports the idea of a cantilevered building. He cites the comments from Jerusalem Garden owner Ali Ramlawi during public commentary in support of the idea that a plaza of 6,500 would be too small.

9:47 p.m. Teall says she shares Hieftje’s concerns. She likes the flexibility of the range – 6,500 to 12,000 square feet. She says 6,500 is not too small. Petersen is glad to see these resolutions come back. She says that passing the resolutions “jumped the gun” a little bit. Petersen is pitching the idea of a postponement.

9:48 p.m. Petersen says she wants the time of the postponement to be used to put together a group of stakeholders: the Ann Arbor District Library, Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, First Martin, Dennis Dahlmann, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and the Library Green Conservancy, among others.

9:49 p.m. Petersen says she wants to postpone until the first meeting in October. Hieftje points out that the question before the council right now is Kunselman’s amendment. So the council goes back to the amendment.

9:50 p.m. On the amendment, Taylor says that it’s inconsistent with the library’s view and with the park advisory commission’s view. It’s a blunt instrument that has been deployed for a delicate task, he says. If it’s passed as amended, it would be an impediment to the development of this important parcel.

9:51 p.m. Petersen gets confirmation that the amendment would be consistent with a cantilevered building over the northwest portion of the property.

9:53 p.m. Briere says she hopes that a public space is going to be built. The language change at the last meeting was recommended to her by those who supported the park, she says. Her interest was in making the northern boundary of a plaza flexible. She responds to the talk about a cantilevered building by saying she’s not interested in trying to design a building at tonight’s meeting.

9:56 p.m. Briere quips that it’s an interesting challenge to not posture politically on the council. She won’t support Kunselman’s amendment. Anglin says the question of when we will have a community space in this town has been discussed for a long time. Anglin says he’s not running for office; he’s speaking for the public. He wonders if the council’s action at the last meeting was really what the public wants. He can’t support 12,000 square feet because he’s thinking about something much larger.

9:59 p.m. Warpehoski said at the last meeting there had been a dual narrative that we’d done a lot of process and that we’d not done enough process. He seeks a solution that 1. works for park advocates; 2. works for the city; 3. works for the AADL. He won’t support the amendment. Lumm says she will support it, saying the difference between 6,500 and 12,000 is small.

10:00 p.m. Taylor stresses that the PAC recommendation had not been 12,000 but rather more than the 5,000 that had been indicated in the Connecting William Street study.

10:01 p.m. Part of Warpehoski’s comments included the sentiment that he wanted to see a park on the Library Lane site in time for his kids to be able to play on it.

10:02 p.m. Eaton reminds the council that a sale of this property would require an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council. He said that there wouldn’t be eight votes without 12,000 square feet of parkland. He’ll support the amendment.

10:03 p.m. Kunselman says that the surface has been a surface parking lot for a very long time and he thought it would stay that way.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The amendment passes over dissent from Briere, Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

10:06 p.m. Petersen moves for postponement. Powers asks an opportunity to provide the council with better than just a guess about how long the stakeholder work would take. So the postponement would be to the next meeting, on April 21.

10:07 p.m. Kailsapathy says the resolution should be voted on tonight, and that the stakeholder meetings can be a separate resolution. She doesn’t want to drag it out. Hieftje also won’t support the postponement. There’ve been over 40 public meetings and it’s been going on for years, he says.

10:09 p.m. Taylor says he’ll support the postponement. The reconsideration was appropriate from a parliamentary perspective. But the AADL would probably have a hard time swallowing that as a proper process, he says. The notion that it was amended and passed at the previous meeting, then at this meeting restored to its original form, would be seen as borderline contemptuous of the library’s position, Taylor says.

10:11 p.m. Lumm says that the council is well informed of the AADL’s position. She says she’s going to oppose postponement.

10:13 p.m. Warpehoski says that once upon a time, a pig and a chicken decided to go into business that would serve ham and eggs. Then they said they weren’t sure if they should do that because one of them was bringing the ham and the other was bringing the eggs. Different stakeholders on the Library Lane site would be bringing ham and others would be bringing eggs. He would support the postponement because he was optimistic that the stakeholders could work something out.

10:15 p.m. Petersen explains to Kailaspathy that the postponement for two weeks would allow the city administrator to provide an update on the progress of hiring a broker, which would also include information on programming and maintenance of the public space on top of the Library Lane site.

10:16 p.m. Hieftje wants to move toward a vote on the postponement. Anglin asks a procedural question about reconsideration.

10:17 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t support the postponement. He appreciates Petersen’s effort to coordinate everyone, but he thinks that will create additional unneeded complexity. He ventures that Powers has not yet hired a broker, so there wouldn’t be much of an update.

10:19 p.m. Kunselman says that it’s important for the broker to have a clear understanding of what the council’s intent is. He cautions against postponing to get more information, when there is not going to be any additional information.

10:21 p.m. Outcome: The postponement fails on a 5-6 vote. Voting against were Kailasapathy, Lumm, Kunselman, Eaton, Anglin and Hieftje.

10:21 p.m. Taylor says this resolution is borderline contemptuous of the library. It’s also unwise – because predetermining the size of the public space without the full context of the site is inconsistent with that open space being successful.

10:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the resolution as amended to stipulate the 12,000 square footage – over dissent from Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

10:23 p.m. Reconsideration: Direct Library Lot Listing for Sale

10:23 p.m. The council has voted to reconsider the resolution from last meeting.

10:24 p.m. Kunselman reports that he met with the outside bond counsel last Friday – on the private and public use questions related to the Build America Bond financing. The post-construction analysis had not been done, Kunselman says.

10:27 p.m. Kunselman says there wouldn’t be a post-construction analysis until the property was listed for sale. He says the number of private use spaces available will affect the value of the property. He’s going through the actual costs paid for construction and asks how much of the debt was actually applied. What if the number of spaces is significantly less than the 29% that were calculated pre-construction? He brought it back for reconsideration to let his colleagues know why it was important to list it for sale.

10:28 p.m. Anglin asks why the council can’t get the post-construction analysis just by asking for it.

10:31 p.m. Hieftje tells Anglin that he can just send the city attorney an email asking for it. Kunselman says that he wants the outside bond counsel to put in writing that it agrees with the analysis – because he wants the outside bond counsel’s insurance to cover any errors and omissions. City attorney Stephen Postema says it would be a normal process to get that information as part of putting the property on the market. Kailasapathy says the council should be able to get the information directly. She wants the outside bond counsel to analyze the post-construction numbers.

10:32 p.m. Kailasapathy says we should not rush into selling the land, just in order to get this post-construction analysis. Postema reiterates that it would be a normal part of selling the property.

10:33 p.m. Briere says that now that she understands Kunselman’s motivation for wanting to list the land – and given that it’s clear he didn’t necessarily expect the land to be sold, she thinks it would be easy to vote it down.

10:36 p.m. Kunselman now adds that he brought up the issue because nobody else had brought it up. When he put it forward, community outcry had been heard and some of his colleagues had gotten cold feet. Instead of delaying the listing (as Anglin and Eaton’s resolution later in the meeting would do), he invited his colleagues to vote down the resolution. He’d still vote to list the property, however. Kunselman ventures that the Library Lane site has been an uncomfortable topic – and had caused people to lose elections. It doesn’t hurt to get the information and it doesn’t hurt to list the property for sale, Kunselman says.

10:38 p.m. Anglin wonders why they can’t just ask for the information. Kunselman says he’s not about to put millions of dollars to construct a park on the Library Lane site. There are other park needs – a tunnel to complete the Border to Border Trail, for example – that he would vote to spend money on before he’d spend money on a park on top of the Library Lane parking structure.

10:40 p.m. Kunselman says that through all this discussion, no one has talked about where the money is coming from to build a park on the Library Lot. By listing it for sale, it at least starts a conversation with someone who has some money, he says.

10:41 p.m. Kunselman is reviewing the DDA’s proposed budget and concludes that the DDA would not have money to put into it.

10:44 p.m. Taylor says he wants to provide some context. To look at the Library Lane site on its own is misleading, he says. The parking system as a whole generates revenues that are used to pay the debt, he says. The Library Lane parking structure had allowed tech companies to locate in the downtown and was a success by any rational measure, he says. Hieftje agrees with Taylor. Lumm says she voted for the resolution last time. She seems inclined to support it this time around.

10:45 p.m. Lumm is now talking about the resolution later on the agenda that would delay the listing. She says that’s also important.

10:47 p.m. Heiftje says he’ll vote for the resolution because he doesn’t see any other way to fund a plaza. Briere says she’ll vote for it because there’s an opportunity to amend it later on the agenda.

10:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to affirm its vote from the last meeting over dissent from Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin.

10:48 p.m. DC-1 Same-sex Marriage. This resolution asks that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages. The ruling in question was issued by federal judge Bernard Friedman on Friday, March 21, 2014 in the case of Deboer v. Snyder. In that ruling, Friedman found that Article I, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution – which limits the benefits of marriage to unions between one man and one woman – did not advance any legitimate state interest. So the ruling had the effect of making same-sex marriages legal in Michigan.

But the day following the decision, on March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on Friedman’s ruling. Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are appealing Friedman’s decision. [For more background, see Same-Sex Marriage above.]

10:49 p.m. Taylor is reviewing the content and background of the resolution.

10:51 p.m. Warpehoski echoes the thanks Taylor gave to Washtenaw County clerk Kestenbaum. He didn’t remember crying at his own wedding, but he’d cried at the weddings of some same-sex couples immediately after the Friedman ruling.

10:52 p.m. Lumm was pleased that it had been brought forward and was pleased to add her name as a co-sponsor.

10:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimosuly to approve the resolution calling for state officials to stop opposing the Friedman ruling on same-sex marriage.

10:53 p.m. DC-2 Amended Main Street BIZ plan. This resolution would approve expansion of the geographic area of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The business improvement zone was established in 2010 by a vote of property owners in the zone to provide a mechanism for taxing themselves to pay for items like sidewalk snow removal, sidewalk sweeping and landscaping. For the expansion to be finalized it will need to be approved by property owners in the expanded district. [For more background, see Land: Main Street BIZ Expansion above.]

10:54 p.m. Taylor is reviewing the background. He encourages the council’s support.

10:56 p.m. Kailasapathy asks Ed Shaffran to the podium. She’s comparing the situation to Russia and Crimea. Shaffran explains that they’re following the state statute.

10:57 p.m. Kailsapathy says that the sidewalks on Main Street are wider than on Fourth Avenue. Shaffran ventures that the square footage of sidewalks might differ, but he alludes to 13 iterations to come up with an equitable approach.

10:58 p.m. Shaffran tells Kailasapathy that as a property owner on Main Street and on Fourth Avenue, he’s not hearing snow removal contractors say that they’d charge less to remove snow on Fourth Avenue.

11:02 p.m. Kailsapathy tells Shaffran that she’s weighing in on behalf of property owners who could not attend the meeting. Shaffran notes that the vote needs a 60% majority. Eaton asks what would happen if everyone in the existing BIZ voted for it and in the expanded zone voted against it – and Shaffran tells him it would fail. The new area is larger than the existing area.

11:02 p.m. Hieftje says he’ll vote for it. Warpehoski says he’ll vote for it because it’s an accessibility issue.

11:02 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the amended Main Street BIZ plan.

11:03 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

11:12 p.m. We’re back.

11:12 p.m. DC-4 Amend March 17, 2014 resolution directing Library Lot to be listed for sale. This item revisits a March 17, 2014 resolution on listing the surface of the Library Lane structure for sale. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) sponsored the item which delays the hiring of a broker and listing the property for sale until a public process, to be structured by the city administrator, is completed. That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. [For more background, see Land: Amendment to Library Lane Resolution to List for Sale above.]

11:15 p.m. The reconsidered resolution – to list the Library Lane development rights for sale – from the last meeting was approved (again) earlier tonight. This resolution would amend that resolution to delay the listing until after additional public process.

11:16 p.m. Anglin is giving the background on this proposal to amend the council’s previous resolution. This is to create something the entire city can be proud of, Anglin says.

11:20 p.m. Briere says that more than four years ago, she and Anglin and Kunselman were among those who’d requested that the task force reviewing the responses to the Library Lot RFP also consider those proposals that proposed public space. This resolution would allow the city administrator to structure a public process. She says if she had her way – which she ventured she would not – the city would bring in someone from the outside, because we as a community have become polarized, she says.

11:21 p.m. Briere will support this because having the community discussion is vital to having that public space work. If we don’t have community buy-in, it won’t be a successful space, whether there are eight votes or not, she says.

11:22 p.m. Hieftje is inviting Ault to the podium. He’s asking her to review the outreach that the downtown parks subcommittee had done. Ault, who is chair of the park advisory commission, also chaired that subcommittee.

11:25 p.m. Hieftje says it’s been going on for years. He calls it kicking the can down the road. He says there’s no way to build something on the Library Lane site without selling something. Hieftje highlights the part of the resolution that contemplates the use “in its entirety” of the surface as a public plaza. He calculates that this would entail throwing away $16 million. He says he’d prefer to spend a half million redeveloping Liberty Plaza. “I don’t understand it,” he says about the resolution.

11:27 p.m. Hieftje says that when a pretty narrow interest group wins, then maybe people will say that there’s been enough public process. Kunselman says he also won’t support the resolution. He says the public process described in the resolution could be done in parallel with listing the property for sale.

11:29 p.m. Kunselman says he’d support the resolution if the part about delaying the hiring of a broker were deleted. He says, “I’m not sellin’ without getting a 12,000 square foot plaza or public use space.” He also won’t support considering the entire parcel as a “commons.” Kunselman says that he’s had a conversation with a member of the Library Green Conservancy and that group is not behind this proposal, he says. That group had done its homework and worked to figure out what was possible.

11:30 p.m. Kunselman points out that a planter can get really heavy when it fills up with water.

11:32 p.m. Eaton notes that at the March 17 meeting, the library had asked the council to delay the resolution. And since that meeting, the planning commission had passed a resolution asking the council to use an RFP process. He felt there was still an interest among stakeholders in a continued conversation.

11:34 p.m. Petersen is asking Anglin and Eaton what they intend to happen.

11:35 p.m. She wants to know if the intent is to have a conversation with the stakeholders about keeping the entire site green. Yes, says Anglin.

11:38 p.m. Warpehoski says he can’t vote for this resolution at the same time he voted to accept the PAC recommendations that called for some kind of mixed use. This evening the council had thumbed its nose at the library but now is saying they need to be a partner. Warpehoski says Kunselman has this one right. He thinks that a sales agreement can have a rider agreement just like the former Y lot did. He thinks that the public process can unfold in a parallel way. Warpehoski ventures that there will be a “hot mess” discount when a developer thinks about trying to do business with the city.

11:39 p.m. Lumm says that Warpehoski is right about the conversation being a little bit weird. But she says that if you step back and think about it, it’s about making sure that the public has a chance to provide input.

11:42 p.m. Lumm says more discussion is not a terrible thing. Taylor agrees with Warpehoski’s point about voting for the PAC recommendations and voting for this resolution – that they’re inconsistent. Taylor says that Kunselman has it right – that we’ll see what a developer has to propose, quipping “whoever dares” to bid on the property.

11:44 p.m. Hieftje is suggesting some sort of compromise.

11:44 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess so that councilmembers can figure out some compromise.

11:46 p.m. We’re back.

11:48 p.m. The council has essentially agreed to vote this down and possibly bring it back at a future meeting.

11:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to reject the resolution that would have halted the listing of the Library Lane surface development rights for sale, until a public process has been completed.

11:49 p.m. DC-3 Library Lot sale proceeds. This resolution would direct the city administrator to allocate half the proceeds from a possible upcoming real estate sale to support affordable housing. The land in question is the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure, which completed construction in the summer of 2012. [For more background, see Land: Library Lot Proceeds to Affordable Housing above.]

11:51 p.m. Briere is explaining the background of the resolution. She didn’t think the minimum 10% recommendation of the council’s budget committee over a year ago would be enough. She calls this as modest as possible – and made it 50%.

11:55 p.m. Eaton says that because we have no idea how much the property might sell for, he asks Briere if she would accept an amendment to say “up to 50%” – in case the property generated a greater-than-expected amount of money. Briere says if the property hypothetically generated a sale price of $15 million, she wouldn’t hesitate to put $7.5 million into the affordable housing trust fund.

11:56 p.m. Hieftje says that it would be a “game changer” to be able to work with Washtenaw County on the Platt Road property to develop affordable housing. There would be no harm done in passing this tonight. Taylor concurs with Hieftje that Ann Arbor needs more affordable housing and that’s a capital-intensive endeavor.

11:58 p.m. Taylor says that using the proceeds for affordable housing is consistent with a deeply held community value. Lumm says she supports the concept. She points out that this is what the council had done with the former Y lot. Earmarking half for affordable housing is not unreasonable, she says. But she questions why this decision needs to happen now. It makes more sense to not make this decision now. We should think this through in the context of all city council priorities, she says.

12:02 a.m. Kunselman echoes Lumm, saying that it’s counting our chickens before they hatch. This is not a binding resolution, he says. He ventures that the council won’t see a sale until at least next year, and many councilmembers here tonight won’t be here then. It would make a great statement, he says, but wouldn’t do much for what the council needs to focus on – working on the budget process. He wonders why some of this money would not go toward downtown beat cops.

12:03 a.m. Kailasapathy is focusing on the part of the resolution that puts the other half of the proceeds into the general fund. She wants to see the part of the proceeds not going to affordable housing to go toward capital investments.

12:04 a.m. City administrator Steve Powers ventures that it could be restricted as capital investments. Kailasapathy says she’s not sure if she wants to put in the energy to amend the resolution now, given that a sale is so far away.

12:05 a.m. Petersen says that even if it’s premature, that doesn’t mean it should be voted down. She wants to postpone it until after the budget is approved.

12:06 a.m. The postponement being discussed is until the first meeting in June. [The council ratifies the FY 2015 budget at its second meeting in May.]

12:07 a.m. Briere is arguing against the postponement by drawing a distinction between policy and budgeting.

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the resolution allocating 50% of the net proceeds of a future Library Lot sale to the affordable housing trust fund. Dissenting were Briere, Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

12:08 a.m. DB-1 Belle Tire ROW Vacation. The property owner has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement. In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback. This resolution would approve that arrangement. [For more background, see Peds: Belle Tire Easement above.]

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the Belle Tire non-motorized easement.

12:09 a.m. DB-2 Request UM regents consider city land use recs. This resolution, which originated with the planning commission, recommends that the University of Michigan collaborate with the city of Ann Arbor on the future development of the former Edwards Brothers property at 2500-2550 South State Street, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. The university is purchasing the 16.7-acre property, following the Ann Arbor city council’s decision on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the site. [For more background, see Land: Recommendation to UM on Edwards Brothers above.]

12:10 a.m. Petersen said that when she heard the resolution was coming forward, she was eager to support it. She wished that the city had more leverage, which could have resulted from exercising the city’s right of first refusal on the property. The dialogue has been a long time coming.

12:11 a.m. Lumm said she also wished that the city had exercised its right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property. “Let the talks begin,” she says.

12:11 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the resolution asking UM regents to consider city planning documents as it plans the future of the former Edwards Brothers property on South State Street.

12:11 a.m. DS-1 Pedestrian safety task force funding resolution. This would appropriate $197,250 to fund the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force. It was postponed to tonight from the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitation services. This item is expected to be withdrawn, and the city is putting the facilitator contract out for bid. [For more background, see Peds: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force above.]

12:12 a.m. Briere says she’d like to withdraw the resolution, saying that the staff memo makes it clear that no allocation needs to be made at this time. She gives an update on the first task force’s meeting.

12:13 a.m. Outcome: The resolution has been withdrawn.

12:14 a.m. Eaton raises the question of whether Briere can withdraw the resolution, given that it was placed on the agenda by staff.

12:15 a.m. Hieftje says he’s uncomfortable not voting on it.

12:16 a.m. So the council is now discussing the resolution. Lumm moves to table it. Warpehoski notes that a motion to table is not subject to debate.

12:19 a.m. Briere explains that her intent was not to prevent people from talking, but rather to save time, given that it was a null point. If the staff doesn’t need an allocation of funds, there’s no reason to allocate funds. Briere points to the memo from staff. Powers concurs that the resolution is no longer needed. Lumm withdraws her motion to table.

12:20 a.m. Kailasapathy questions why there’s an RFP being issued for the consultant.

12:22 a.m. Eaton says he’s troubled that the city is considering spending this much money on a consultant to support a task force.

12:24 a.m. Warpehoski is arguing for the need for the labor of a consultant.

12:28 a.m. Powers reminds the council that the $75,000 for sidewalk gaps was to prioritize gaps, not to install concrete. Lumm appreciates the fact that now an RFP is being issued.

12:39 a.m. Lumm is arguing against the resolution. Hieftje points out that those who moved the resolution also want to see it voted down. Kailasapathy asks why the city is hiring a consultant when it’s not clear what kind of consultant is needed. Teall doesn’t understand why Briere and Warpehoski – as the mover and seconder – want to see the resolution voted down. She thinks a task force should be supported. Warpehoski reviews the background. Teall ventures that it’s really all about Project Innovations. Many of the sanitary sewer wet weather citizens advisory committee members were satisfied with Project Innovations work on that project. When there were some complaints, they got a lot of traction, Teall said, and she wasn’t sure that was fair. Briere raises the point that many people objected to the fact that Project Innovations would have been given a no-bid contract.

12:40 a.m. Briere tells Teall that the task force doesn’t need an allocation of funds right now.

12:40 a.m. Outcome: The council votes unanimously to reject the resolution.

12:41 a.m. DS-2 Windemere Tennis Court contract with Nagle Paving Company. The council will consider a $134,297 contract with Nagle Paving Co. to relocate and rebuild the tennis courts at Windemere Park. [For more background, see Asphalt: Windemere Tennis Courts above.]

12:41 a.m. Lumm thanks staff and the neighbors who worked hard on it.

12:43 a.m. Taylor piles on with thanks to PAC, who listened and worked with the neighbors.

12:43 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to to approve the Windemere tennis courts paving contract.

12:43 a.m. DS-3 Annual street resurfacing contract with Barrett Paving This resolution approves a construction contract to Barrett Paving Materials Inc. for $3.409 million for the 2014 street resurfacing program. [For more background, see Asphalt: Street Resurfacing Program above.]

12:43 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the annual street resurfacing contract.

12:44 a.m. DS-4 Annual sidewalk repair contract with Doan Construction Company. Part of the city’s sidewalk repair program involves outright replacement of sidewalk slabs. This resolution approves that contract with Doan Construction Company for $1,707,037. [For more background, see Peds: Sidewalk Maintenance Program above.]

12:45 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the annual sidewalk repair contract.

12:45 a.m. DS-5 Annual sidewalk cutting contract with Precision Concrete Cutting. Some sidewalk slabs are in reasonably good shape but are out of alignment with adjacent slabs. The city takes the approach of shaving the portion that’s out of alignment so that it’s flush. This resolution approves the contract for the cutting work for the upcoming 2014 program is to be awarded to Precision Concrete Cutting for $207,350.

12:45 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the annual sidewalk cutting contract.

12:46 a.m. Communications from the council. Warpehoski thanks the Veg Week sponsors for bringing food. He mentions that the rules committee is looking at an ethics policy that might also include a gift acceptance policy.

12:48 a.m. Kunselman is quoting out a correction made in The Ann Arbor Observer, that vindicates statements by him and Kailsasapathy in a December 2013 article and apologizes to him. “Apology accepted,” Kunselman says.

12:53 a.m. Kunselman is quoting out incident reports from the AADL that documented heroin overdoses at the downtown location. Kunselman says he’d asked the city administrator to find out what exactly is going on. He says he hasn’t seen anything about arrests being made. He wonders why someone who ODs and survives is not prosecuted and why the dealers are not tracked down and prosecuted. Hieftje ventures that the police might be pursuing this matter “quietly.” Kunselman doesn’t agree with that approach. Warpehoski says that he’s inquired with Jim Balmer of Dawn Farms and the indication was that treatment is an appropriate response to addiction. Kailasapathy says that this doesn’t apply to those who are peddling the drugs.

12:54 a.m. Briere says that Kailasapathy is right, but that it can take time to develop a case against a drug dealer.

12:55 a.m. Clerk’s report of communications, petitions and referrals. Outcome: The council has accepted the clerk’s report.

12:55 a.m. Public comment general time. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:56 a.m. Stefan Trendov says that in all the time he’s watched the council, he thinks that the councilmembers are finally talking to each other. They’re going in a good direction and he wishes them a good night.

12:58 a.m. Kai Petainen says that he wants the Ann Arbor station study process to be transparent. He says that a label on one of the maps covers up green dots that show areas of environmental concerns near the Fuller Road site. He wants maps that don’t look like marketing materials, he says.

1:02 a.m. Alan Haber says he’s sat through the deliberations and gives them great honor for persevering through all the detail. He’s always considered the whole surface of the Library Lot parking structure as a community space. He objects to the characterization of his group as a narrow interest group.

1:04 a.m. Odile Hugonot-Haber expresses disappointment at the council’s decisions on the Library Lot. She reports that she’s heard about a greenbelt property that sold its development rights for mineral extraction through fracking.

1:07 a.m. Caleb Poirer says that he was impressed with the patience that councilmembers had shown each other tonight. He thanks the attendees of the March 17 meeting on homelessness. He was moved by Briere’s point that affordable housing is a priority, but not a funded one. He tells the story of “Million-Dollar Murray.” Sometimes affordable housing reduces the need for policing.

1:08 a.m. Hieftje asks Powers if new mics can be purchased – as they generate a fair amount of static.

1:09 a.m. Closed session. The council is going into closed session to discuss pending litigation.

1:25 a.m. We’re back.

1:25 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the April 7, 2014 meeting agenda.

The council’s April 7 agenda features two significant items of old business: a first reading of an ordinance that would regulate outdoor smoking in certain locations; and an allocation of funds for the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force.

[Updated 5 p.m. April 4, 2014. The pedestrian safety task force funding resolution is now expected to be withdrawn. At the first meeting of the task force, held on Friday, April 4, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, speaking from the audience, told the group that it was her intent to withdraw the funding resolution when the council meets on April 7. Withdrawing the resolution at the April 7 meeting would not mean that the task force will not be able to do its work. Details are included after the jump.]

Pedestrian issues form one of the themes of the meeting agenda – as the council will be approving annual contracts for the sidewalk repair program, as well as applying for a grant to renovate the pathway in Gallup Park – from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. Along with the sidewalk maintenance program contracts, the city council will also be asked to approve the annual street resurfacing program contracts.

Another main theme of the meeting is land use. Carried over as a topic from the council’s March 17 meeting is the surface of the city-owned Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor. After voting on March 17 to hire a real estate broker, the council will consider a resolution on April 7 that would allocate to the city’s affordable housing trust fund half of the proceeds of any sale of the site’s development rights.

But on April 7 the council will also be considering an amendment to the March 17 resolution that directed the city administrator to list the surface of the Library Lane parking structure for sale. The amendment would require a public process to take place before brokerage services are obtained or the real estate is listed for sale. That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. The amendment is sponsored by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

The council will also be considering three items that arrived on its agenda via the city’s planning commission: rezoning of a nature area to PL (public land); approval of a site plan for the gym expansion at Concordia University [now expected on the April 21 meeting agenda]; and a resolution calling on the University of Michigan to incorporate the city’s land use recommendations as it considers the future use of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street.

In other business, the council will be considering a resolution to approve an expansion of the Main Street business improvement zone (BIZ). The geographic area of the self-assessment district – which handles sidewalk snow removal, sweeping and other upkeep for property owners – would more than double. The final decision rests with the property owners in the expanded area.

Also at its April 7 meeting, the council will consider a resolution asking that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages.

The council’s agenda also includes several street-closing approvals for upcoming events: Taste of Ann Arbor on June 2; The Event on Main Street on June 19; the Ann Arbor Jaycees Fourth of July Parade on July 4; and the Townie Street Party on July 14.

Among the reports and communications attached to the agenda is the final report of a council economic collaborative task force.

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

Outdoor Smoking

A new local law regulating smoking in some outdoor locations will be given a first reading by the council for the third time at its April 7 meeting. The law would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks.

The most recent action – to postpone the ordinance until April 7 – came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting. The new ordinance had also been postponed at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the proposed new local law, had appeared before the city’s park advisory commission on Feb. 25, 2014 to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

The ordinance would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited.

Where no signs are posted noting the smoking prohibition, a citation could be issued only if someone doesn’t stop smoking immediately when asked to stop.

An existing Washtenaw County ordinance already prohibits smoking near entrances, windows and ventilation systems, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – but the county’s ordinance can be enforced only by the county health department. The memo further notes that the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act does not regulate outdoor smoking.

At the council’s March 3 meeting, other councilmembers expressed concern about the potential disparate impact of such a law on the homeless, and the challenge of enforcement.

Peds: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force

At its April 7 meeting, the council will consider for the second time a resolution that would appropriate $197,250 to fund the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force. Action to postpone the resolution until April 7 came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

The total amount proposed to be appropriated for the task force project budget is $197,250. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

The funds are to be sourced in part from an allocation made during the May 20, 2013 budget deliberations, which appropriated $75,000 for a study to prioritize sidewalk gap elimination. The connection between sidewalk gaps and the task force’s work is based in part on one of the other “resolved” clauses establishing the task force: “… the task force will also address sidewalk gaps and create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps; …”

The pedestrian safety and access task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

Another key “resolved” clause establishing the group’s scope of work includes the following: “… the task force will explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The responsibilities of the task force include delivery of a report a year from now – in February 2015.

The funding for the task force is in part to be used to pay for a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitator support to the task force.

According to a staff memo written in response to councilmember questions, the facilitator would assist with an anticipated 18 task force meetings, 24 resource group (staff) meetings, five stakeholder meetings and three public meetings. The facilitator would be “preparing materials and agendas; facilitating the meetings; summarizing the meetings; facilitating communication and discussions between, and among, the task force members and the resource group; and, developing materials for community outreach in addition to the actual public meetings, including content for press releases and web page publishing, and a community survey.”

According to the staff memo, a “team of staff members has identified Project Innovations, Inc. as a firm in the region that has demonstrated skill in task force facilitation and robust community engagement efforts, and is uniquely qualified with the capacity to facilitate the pedestrian safety and access task force’s rigorous work approach within the specified timeframe.” Based on the phrasing in the memo, the work appears not to have been put out to bid and Project Innovations was identified as a “sole source” provider.

Project Innovations is the same firm currently providing facilitation support to a citizens advisory committee that is attached to a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study being conducted by the city.

The resolution establishing the task force does not explicitly charge the group with a review of the city’s crosswalk law. But the pedestrian safety task force was established in the same time frame as the council was considering an amendment to the city’s crosswalk law. The council ultimately voted to change the language of that law at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting – so that motorists were required to concede the right-of-way only to pedestrians who had already entered the crosswalk.

That change was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Drawing on the phrasing used in Hieftje’s statement of veto, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has indicated he intends to bring forward an amendment that would require motorists to stop at crosswalks for pedestrians only if “they can do so safely.” At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, Kunselman announced he’d be pursuing such an amendment.

The council’s April 7 deliberations on the funding of the task force could be impacted by the first meeting of the task force, which is scheduled for April 4. Based on the agenda for that first task force meeting, recommendations on the funding question could come from the task force to the council to consider on April 7. Indications at the March 3 council meeting were that the budget for the task force and the scope of work for the staff and consultant support could change considerably.

[Updated 5 p.m. April 4, 2014]  The funding resolution is now expected to be withdrawn. At the first meeting of the task force, held on Friday, April 4, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, speaking from the audience, told the group that it was her intent to withdraw the funding resolution when the council meets on April 7.

Withdrawing the resolution at the April 7 meeting would not mean that the task force will not be able to do its work. Here’s why. In the resolution that’s expected to be withdrawn, the total amount proposed to be appropriated for the task force project budget is $197,250. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

So the portion of the project budget that requires hard costs to be covered – other than city staff time – is the cost for the consultant to provide facilitation services. And according to a staff memo to the city administrator written after the council’s action to postpone, the bulk of the cost can already be covered in an existing budget allocation. From the March 27, 2014 staff memo to the city administrator: “The estimated amount for the facilitation work is $70,000 to $90,000. Of this amount, $75,000 is currently budgeted for pedestrian safety and sidewalk-gap planning. The remaining $15,000 will be included in the City Administrator’s recommended FY 14 budget amendment.”

In addition to authorizing the funding, the resolution would authorize a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. But now, it’s not clear that particular consultant will be selected for the work. Originally Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations is familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting. But now the city has decided to issue an RFP for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893] Responses to the RFP are due by April 22, 2014.

At the April 4 task force meeting, Connie Pulcipher – a systems planner with the city of Ann Arbor – told members of the task force that they could be involved in the process of interviewing respondents to the RFP. The delay in selecting a facilitator means that the original timeline for the group’s work, which included a final report by February 2015, has shifted to around August 2015.

Peds: Belle Tire Easement

On the council’s agenda is approval of an easement related to the Belle Tire site plan at State and Ellsworth. The planning commission recommended approval at its March 18, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

The site plan itself was recommend for approval by the commission at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting, and the project subsequently received city council approval on Oct. 7, 2013. The site is located in Ward 4.

By way of background, a 50-foot-wide right-of-way easement on the front this site was recorded by the city as part of a previously approved land division for this parcel. That easement reduced the front setback of the Belle Tire building from 10 feet to roughly 3 feet. The minimum front setback for this site is 10 feet.

So the property owner, who also owns the adjacent site at 3975 S. State, has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement.

In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback.

Peds: Gallup Park Path

On the council’s consent agenda – a group of items voted on all-in-one-go – is approval of a grant application to fund renovations to a pathway that runs through Gallup Park, which is part of the Border to Border Trail (B2B) connecting the eastern and western borders of Washtenaw County. Renovations would include repairs to the existing asphalt, as well as widening to 10 feet – in part to meet current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards.

The grant application would be made to SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) and MDOT (Michigan Dept. of Transportation) for the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). The grant funds, if awarded, would fund renovation of the pathway from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. The work would include the loop that leads around that part of the park. Total length of the pathway to be renovated is about two miles.

The city would provide a grant match of $200,000, which would be paid out of the parks and recreation capital improvements millage.

Peds: Sidewalk Maintenance Program

Also related to pedestrian issues are two contracts related to the annual sidewalk maintenance and repair program, which is funded out of a five-year millage approved by voters in November 2011.

A sidewalk marked with a “C” – which indicates that it needs to be cut flush – on Fifth Avenue south of William Street.

Some sidewalk slabs are in reasonably good shape but are out of alignment with adjacent slabs. The city takes the approach of shaving the portion that’s out of alignment so that it’s flush.

Cutting the concrete is more cost effective than replacing the entire slab. The contract for the cutting work for the upcoming 2014 program is to be awarded to Precision Concrete Cutting for $207,350.

The other part of the program involves outright replacement of sidewalk slabs.

That contract is to be awarded to Doan Construction Company for $1,707,037.

Areas of the city of Ann Arbor where sidewalk repair will be done in 2013 and 2014.

Asphalt: Street Resurfacing Program

In addition to an annual sidewalk repair program, the city manages an annual street resurfacing program. On the council’s April 7 agenda is the award of a construction contract to Barrett Paving Materials Inc. for $3.409 million for the 2014 program. Also on the agenda is a professional contract for materials testing – with CTI and Associates Inc. for $82,332.

Heavy black highlights indicate stretches of road that are a part of the city of Ann Arbor’s street resurfacing program in 2014.

Text descriptions of the streets to be resurfaced are as follows:

• Washington: First Ave to Fourth Ave (April – May)
• Fuller: Maiden Lane to Huron River Bridge (May – June)
• Newport: Sunset to south of Bird Rd (June – July)
• Linwood:, Doty to Wildwood (April – May)
• Northside Grill Alley: Broadway to End (April – May)
• Vinewood: Berkshire to Avon (May – June)
• Steeplechase: Whiltshire to Blaney (June – July)
• St. Aubin: Platt to Creek Dr (June – July)
• Woodbury: Astor to Stadium (July – July)
• Prairie: Plymouth to Aurora (July – August)
• Burlington Court: Burlington to End (July – August)
• Waldenwood & Adjacent Courts: Penberton to Earhart (north end) (July – September)

Asphalt: Windemere Tennis Courts

The council will consider a $134,297 contract with Nagle Paving Co. to relocate and rebuild the tennis courts at Windemere Park. The park advisory commission recommended approval of the contract at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting.

PAC’s recommendation on the contract followed its approval on Jan. 28, 2014 of a revised new location for tennis courts at Windemere Park, on the city’s northeast side. The final location approved by PAC was one put forward at a public meeting earlier this year.

The new location for the tennis courts has been disputed among neighbors who live near Windemere Park, a nearly four-acre parcel north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

Nagle Paving was the lowest of five responsible bidders on the project, according to a staff memo. Including a 10% construction contingency, the entire project budget is $147,727. Funding will come from the FY 2014 park maintenance and capital improvement millage revenues. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution] [.pdf of cost comparison chart]

Land: Library Lot Proceeds to Affordable Housing

The city council will consider a resolution at its April 7 meeting that would direct the city administrator to allocate half the proceeds from a possible upcoming real estate sale to support affordable housing. The land in question is the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure, which completed construction in the summer of 2012. [.pdf of draft resolution on Library Lane sale]

The Library Lane underground parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

From the resolution: “Resolved, That City Council direct the City Administrator to allocate 50% of any and all proceeds, after fees and closing costs, from the sale of development rights at 319 S. Fifth Avenue [the Library Lane lot] to the affordable housing fund.” Use of money in the city’s affordable housing trust fund is subject to recommendations by the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB).

Based on a ballpark estimated value for the property of $6-7 million dollars – given by Jim Chaconas of Colliers International at the council’s March 17, 2014 meeting – the resolution would translate to somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million to support affordable housing, depending on fees and closing costs.

No specific deal appears to be in the offing to develop the top of the structure. But the council voted at its March 17, 2014 meeting to hire a brokerage service to list the development rights to the top of the underground parking garage for sale. At the same meeting, the council passed a separate resolution that reserved 6,500-12,000 square feet on the Library Lane site for a publicly owned urban park.

The resolution allocating 50% of proceeds of a Library Lane sale to support affordable housing is sponsored by four councilmembers: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje.

The strategy of channeling at least some of the proceeds of land sales to support affordable housing efforts has been a consistent part of city policy dating back several years. However, the council has not always agreed on the portion of a sale that should be allocated to support affordable housing. At the March 16 Sunday night caucus, Briere indicated one reason she might be reluctant at the following evening’s council meeting to support the hiring of a broker to list the Library Lane development rights for sale: She did not at that time want to take on the fight with other councilmembers about what to do with the proceeds. But Briere voted with seven of her colleagues on the 8-1 vote that saw only Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) dissenting. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) were not present for that vote.

The sale of another city property – the former Y lot in downtown Ann Arbor, on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues, across the street from the Library Lane site – is expected to generate roughly $1.4 million in net proceeds from the $5.25 million purchase price. That sale to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann had a closing date of April 2, 2014. And that sale was, in fact, completed.

The council voted at its Dec. 16, 2013 meeting to allocate all of those net proceeds to the affordable housing trust fund. More recently, at its March 3, 2014 meeting, the council directed the city administrator to prepare a budget resolution that would – upon completion of the former Y lot sale – allocate $600,000 from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, to support major capital improvements to its properties.

More than a year ago, at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a general policy on proceeds of land sales that was based on a budget committee recommendation. Essentially the policy is to consider land sales on a case-by-case basis, considering all the needs of the city. A nod to affordable housing was included in an amendment added at the council meeting in the form of a statement that all needs of the city would be considered in deciding the use of land sale proceeds – but “especially the need for affordable housing.”

The draft resolution to be considered at the April 7 council meeting cites the budget committee’s recommendation, which was adopted in the Oct. 15, 2012 council resolution, that “no less than 10% of net proceeds of any sale will be allocated and distributed to the affordable housing trust fund …”

Land: Amendment to Library Lane Resolution to List for Sale

On April 7, the council will also be revisiting the March 17 resolution on listing the surface of the Library Lane structure for sale. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) have sponsored a resolution that would delay the hiring of a broker and listing the property for sale until a public process, to be structured by the city administrator, is completed.

That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. From the resolution:

Resolved, That Resolution R-14-098 Directing the City Administrator to List for Sale 319 South Fifth and Retain Estate Brokerage Services be amended to direct the City Administrator to require that retention of brokerage services be delayed and listing not occur until adequate public process has taken place to explore public uses for the entire property;

Resolved, That the City Administrator structure the public process to allow citizens an opportunity to bring forward and discuss any and all appropriate public uses for this City-owned property, including its use, in its entirety, as a park or plaza;

Resolved, That City Administrator schedule a public hearing as part of the public process for citizen input on public uses for the property

Resolved, That City Administrator provide City Council with report on the public process at its completion; and

Resolved, On completion of the required public process, the City Administrator is directed to seek further direction from City Council as to whether the property should be listed or to continue to develop a wholly public or mixed public/private plan for its use.

The vote on the council’s March 17 resolution was 8-1, with dissent only from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent from the start of the meeting and Margie Teall (Ward 4) departed late in the meeting but before the vote was taken.

The April 7 council agenda also includes, as an item of communication, a resolution passed by the city planning commission on March 18, 2014 that gives advice to the council about how to develop the Library Lane property. The commission’s recommendations focused on conditions for developing the site that would garner economic benefits to the city, such as a mixed-use development that generates foot traffic, with an entry plaza or open space and a design that “creates an iconic addition to the skyline.” The recommendations drew on material in several existing documents, including the Connecting William Street report that was completed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority about a year ago.

Also attached to the council agenda as an item of communication is a resolution passed by the Ann Arbor District Library board on March 17, 2014. The resolution asked the council to reject designating a portion of the city-owned Library Lane site – which is adjacent to the downtown library – as a public park or plaza at this time.

Land: Recommendation to UM on Edwards Brothers

An additional land-use item on the council’s April 7 agenda is a resolution recommending that the University of Michigan collaborate with the city of Ann Arbor on the future development of the former Edwards Brothers property at 2500-2550 South State Street, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. The university is purchasing the 16.7-acre property, following the Ann Arbor city council’s decision on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the site.

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

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

The one resolved clause states:

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

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

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

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

Land: Stapp Nature Area Addition Rezoning

The council’s April 7 agenda includes a resolution giving initial approval to rezoning of land that’s been donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp. The 2.2-acre parcel at 3301 Traverwood Drive is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline..

City staff recommended that the donated parcel be rezoned from R4D (multi-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The land reaches from Traverwood Drive to the Leslie Park golf course, south of Huron Parkway. Adding the land expands a corridor of natural areas and parkland. Stapp Nature Area, a 8.11-acre property with a mature native forest and small vernal pool, is adjacent to Tuebingen Park and has a connection to Leslie Woods.

The site is on the northern edge of a larger property that’s being developed by First Martin Corp. as Traverwood Apartments. That project received its final necessary approvals from the city council on Jan. 6, 2014.

First Martin has committed to creating a pedestrian access from the apartment complex to the nature area, which will be formalized with an access easement.

The city has a policy of rezoning city-owned land to PL (public land). This parcel will be differentiated as parkland by its inclusion in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, because it will become part of the Stapp Nature Area, which is already in the PROS plan.

The council would be giving the rezoning initial approval at its April 7 meeting. The final vote would come at a future meeting after a public hearing.

Land: Concordia University Gym Expansion

An additional land-use issue that appears was expected on the city council’s April 7 agenda is approval of a site plan to expand the existing Concordia University gym.

Corrected: This item is now expected to be considered at the council’s April 21 meeting. 

The plan also includes reconfiguring nearby parking lots and stormwater management features on the 187-acre site at 4090 Geddes Road, just west of US-23 and north of the Huron River. The city planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its March 4, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of Concordia University campus, south of Geddes Road and west of US-23.

As a separate item, planning commissioners were asked to grant a special exception use for the project. That’s required because the private university is located on a site zoned R1B (single-family residential district).

The site plan requires city council approval, but the special exception use does not.

The proposal calls for a three-story, 34,391-square-foot addition to the current 22,021-square-foot gym that was built in the early 1960s, located on the west side of Concordia’s main campus. [.pdf of campus map] The addition will include men’s and women’s locker rooms, athletic office space, classrooms and an auxiliary gym. A second phase of the project entails constructing a single-story, 5,280-square-foot athletic training room.

An existing gravel parking area west of the gym will be paved and landscaped, and another lot north of the gym along Geddes will get new landscaping and bioswales. A total of 92 new parking spaces will be created, mostly in the former gravel lot. A new stormwater management system will be completed to address a 100-year storm event, including a detention pond with an outlet into a bioswale south of the developed area.

The site plan is for a planned project, which allows variations in height and placement. The proposed addition would be 39 feet high. The site’s zoning has a height limit of 30 feet. The existing gym is about 33 feet high, measured at the midpoint of the roof.

Land: Main Street BIZ Expansion

On the council’s April 7 agenda is approval of an expansion of the geographic area of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The business improvement zone was established in 2010 by a vote of property owners in the zone to provide a mechanism for taxing themselves to pay for items like sidewalk snow removal, sidewalk sweeping and landscaping. [For the state enabling legislation for a BIZ, see Public Act 120 of 1961]

The current geographic area of the Main Street BIZ extends north-to-south from William to Huron on both sides of Main Street, extending to the mid-block alleys. The expansion would extend the area westward by a half block from the alley to Ashley Street. The expansion would also extend the area eastward by a half block along the whole north-south dimension; and between William and Liberty, the zone would expand westward an additional block – to Fourth Avenue.

While the council must give its approval of the plan, the expansion is contingent on a vote among property owners in the area, which has to be set for no later than 49 days after the date of the council’s resolution. The council’s April 7 meeting agenda includes a public hearing on the issue.

Main Street BIZ geographic area and expansion. (Map by The Chronicle from the BIZ plan using Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS services mapping tools.)

Same-Sex Marriage

At its April 7 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council will consider a resolution asking that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages. [.pdf of draft resolution on same-sex marriage]

The ruling in question was issued by federal judge Bernard Friedman on Friday, March 21, 2014 in the case of Deboer v. Snyder. In that ruling, Friedman found that Article I, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution – which limits the benefits of marriage to unions between one man and one woman – did not advance any legitimate state interest. So the ruling had the effect of making same-sex marriages legal in Michigan.

But the day following the decision, on March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on Friedman’s ruling. Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are appealing Friedman’s decision.

The council’s resolution reads in part:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council urges Governor Snyder and Attorney General Schuette to immediately suspend all efforts to appeal or otherwise contest Judge Friedman’s Ruling…

Before the stay on Friedman’s ruling took effect, Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum opened his office for business on Saturday, March 22, and issued 74 marriage licenses for same-sex couples in Washtenaw County. The county board had already set the stage for those couples to receive what practically amounts to a fee waiver for the expedited processing of a license, which ordinarily takes three days. The “fee” approved by the board at its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting reduced the usual fee from $50 to 1 cent.

The resolution passed by the county board on Feb. 19 allows the county clerk, consulting with the county administrator, to establish a “fee holiday” on the day preceding a period during which the office’s vital records division would be closed for four or more days, or when an unusual number of marriage license applicants are expected to appear. During a “fee holiday,” the charge for immediately processing a marriage license is 1 cent.

The resolution to be considered by the Ann Arbor city council on April 7 currently has four sponsors: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Economic Collaborative Task Force

Among the many agenda attachments – reports and communications – is the final report of the economic collaborative task force, established by the council last year at its May 20, 2013 meeting. The idea to establish the task force had grown out of an idea to review the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in the context of proposed changes to the city ordinance governing the DDA. The task force drew members from city of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor SPARK and the Ann Arbor DDA.  [.pdf of March 28, 2014 economic collaborative task force report]

In more detail, the task force was supposed to do the following:

• Provide clarity, alignment and specificity on economic development policy and objectives for fiscal year 2014 toward accomplishing city council’s success statement for Economic Development.
• Provide for strategic alignment of priorities between the Task Force member entities.
• Highlight cost sharing and maximizing of resource utilization.
• Identify options for sustaining, modifying, or eliminating operations in a financially-responsible manner through efficiencies and/or partnerships as part of a cohesive economic development plan for the city.

The “success statement” mentioned in the resolution was crafted by the city council at a budget retreat held in late 2012.

Those initially appointed to represent the city on the task force were city administrator Steve Powers, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and then councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

According to the resolution establishing the task force, a report was supposed to be presented to the council in December 2013 and the task force was supposed to expire at the end of 2013.

The 4.5-page report in general calls on the city, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and Ann Arbor SPARK to continue existing initiatives.

Some highlights of the report include a recommendation that the city consider technology infrastructure that is “essential for companies to compete globally and for communities to attract the necessary talent.” In that category of infrastructure, the report indicates that the city and Ann Arbor SPARK should “continue their work to develop a proposal for high-speed fiber that would accelerate both commercial and residential internet speeds.”

Also recommended in the report is the preparation of a plan to market and sell surplus city-owned properties. Properties included on the list include the South Ashley/West William (Kline) lot, the South Main/East William (Palio) lot, Library Lane, and 415 W. Washington.

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 The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Wendy Woods, Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh. (Photos by the writer.)

One day after the Ann Arbor city council took action related to the Library Lane site, planning commissioners made recommendations to the council about how to develop that South Fifth Avenue property. The council’s action on March 17 included asking the city administrator to hire a brokerage service to sell development rights to the Library Lane surface, on top of an underground parking structure. The council also voted, after a long debate, to designate part of the surface for an urban public park.

On March 18, the commission’s advice focused on conditions for developing the site that would garner economic benefits to the city, such as a mixed-use development that generates foot traffic, with an entry plaza or open space and a design that “creates an iconic addition to the skyline.” The recommendations drew on material in several existing documents, including the Connecting William Street report that was completed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority about a year ago.

After the vote, Sabra Briere – who serves on both the planning commission and the city council – noted that many members of council don’t believe that the Connecting William Street project was successful in its public outreach. She also said that many councilmembers “do not believe that maximizing density, scale and mass of a building on that site is in the public interest.” Briere said she hadn’t raised these issues during the commission’s deliberations because she didn’t want anyone to feel that she was trying to tell the planning commission what to do.

In separate action on March 18, commissioners passed a resolution with recommendations on uses for the Edwards Brothers site on South State Street, which the University of Michigan is acquiring. The intent is to encourage representatives from the city and UM to discuss their mutual interests in that area – weighing the university’s need to expand its facilities against the city’s interest in strengthening its tax base. Issues include the possible private development of the section that fronts South State, impact on the park-and-ride lot in that area, and the extension of Oakbrook Drive from South State to South Main, through UM property. The city council is expected to consider the same resolution at its April 7 meeting.

Further south on the State Street corridor, at the intersection with Eisenhower Parkway, a proposal to renovate the Shell station, tear down the car wash, and add a drive-thru restaurant was recommended for approval by the commission on March 18. The existing convenience store and gas station would remain open during construction. The specific drive-thru restaurant to be located there is still being negotiated, according to the owner.

Some of the discussion on this project related to upcoming ordinance revisions that the commission will consider on April 1 regulating drive-thru restaurants.

Also recommended for approval on March 18 were an expansion to an office on Collingwood near West Stadium Boulevard, and an easement related to a new Belle Tire on West Ellsworth.

Library Lane Site

On March 17, the Ann Arbor city council had passed a resolution directing the city administrator to hire a brokerage service to sell development rights to the Library Lane surface, where an underground parking structure is located. The council also engaged is a lengthy debate – two and a half hours of sometimes heated commentary – over a proposal reserving part of the surface for a publicly owned urban park. That resolution also passed, over dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

The resolved clauses from the city council resolution passed on March 17 are:

RESOLVED, That City Council approve the reservation of the site for an urban public park of between approximately 6,500 and 12,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street curb to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future date;

RESOLVED, That the City will encourage the creative use of this space to commence on an occasional basis during the transition from parking to public park even before the urban park design and installation work is complete, and hereby requests that Community Services and the Park Department work together with DDA and the AADL to encourage groups to reserve the space for public activities including, but not limited to, craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, fine arts performances, and other activities and consider modification of permit requirements in order to eliminate fees for those seeking to put on public programs on the Library Lane site;

RESOLVED, That the City will work with the developer of the remaining portion of the Library Lane site to ensure that the designs for both spaces, an urban public park and the adjacent development, complement and support each other’s successful uses;

RESOLVED, That all development on the Library Lane site, whether public or private, will proceed in close collaboration with neighboring properties and businesses including, but not limited to the Ann Arbor District Library, First Martin Corporation, the University of Michigan Credit Union, the Inter-Cooperative Council, and the businesses fronting on Fifth Avenue and Liberty Street. Possible goals of this collaboration include:

• Reorientation of the physical design and uses of these adjacent properties so that they help to create pedestrian interaction with the public park on the Library Lane Structure,
• Creation of pedestrian walkways that connect the Library Lane Structure and public park to Liberty Plaza, Liberty Street and William Street;
• Discussion about incentives, such as premiums or subsidies, that the City or DDA might offer to encourage both physical reorientation and pedestrian access/easements through adjacent properties, and
• Consideration of possible joint development on the Library Lane Structure’s remaining build-able portion.

The following night at the March 18 planning commission meeting, commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona brought forward a resolution that gave guidance to the council about the Library Lane site. It’s similar in intent to the recommendations that the commission gave to the council last year regarding the use of the former Y lot. Those recommendations were approved at the commission’s Aug. 20, 2013 meeting.

The planning commission resolution on the Library Lane structure makes recommendations about elements to include if the city sells the Library Lane development rights. [.pdf of advice resolution at start of March 18 meeting] [.pdf of advice resolution, as amended during March 18 meeting] The two resolved clauses, as amended during the March 18 meeting, are:

RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFQ/RFP process be utilized that conditions the sale of the property in order to obtain a long-term, ongoing and growing economic benefit for the residents of the city;

RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFP contain all of the following conditions:

• A building that generates foot traffic, provides a human scale at the ground floor and creates visual appeal and contains active uses on all first floor street frontage and open space;
• A requirement for an entry plaza or open space appropriately scaled and located to be properly activated by adjacent building uses and to be maintained by the developer;
• A “mixed use” development with a density at around 700% FAR that takes advantage of the investment in footings and the mid-block location with active uses that have a high level of transparency fronting the plaza and at least 60% of Fifth Avenue and Library Lane frontages, while encouraging large floor plate office or lodging as a primary use, residential as a secondary use, and incorporating a cultural venue.
• A requirement for the entry plaza or open space to incorporate generous landscaping;
• A requirement that discourages surface parking, limits vehicular access for service areas to be located in alleys where available and prohibits service areas from being located on Fifth Avenue
• To seek a design for this site that is meant to be visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;
• A requirement for high quality construction; and
• A request for a third party environmental certification (e.g., LEED Gold or Platinum)

The March 18 planning commission meeting included a public hearing on this item, but no one appeared at the public hearing to speak.

Library Lane: Report from Council

At the start of the March 18 meeting, Sabra Briere – who serves on the planning commission as the representative from city council – gave an update to commissioners about council action. She reported that the council approved designating a section of the Library Lane site as an urban park, bordered by Fifth Avenue on the west, Library Lane on the south, and the elevator stacks on the east. The northern border isn’t defined at this point, she noted. The council resolution states that the park will be between 6,500 and 12,000 square feet.

Paras Parekh and Sabra Briere.

The council also directed the city administrator to hire a broker to put up for sale the right to partner in a condominium arrangement on the remainder of the site, Briere said, rather than an outright sale of the land. It would allow a condominium partner to build there. It’s also possible that the successful respondent will design or construct or provide security or program the park, she noted.

What’s really important in all of this, Briere said, is that the city has opened the door to having a downtown park on the Library Lane site. The park advisory commission, the city administrator and the broker will help determine the details, she added.

Diane Giannola asked whether the council resolution stated “park” or “plaza.” The resolution states that it would be an “urban public park,” Briere replied. She noted that “those people who want to define it as trees and grass would be disappointed in this location.”

Giannola then asked what language had been deleted from the original resolution. Briere explained that the council deleted language that would have added the site to the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan and that would have required it to remain a city-owned public park. That was done because the council cannot, by fiat, add something to the PROS plan, she noted – because the PROS plan is part of the city’s master plan, which the planning commission must also approve.

The other amendment during the council’s meeting changed the definition of the site’s northern boundary, Briere said.

Kirk Westphal asked whether the council resolution designated that the park would be under city ownership. Briere replied that the city “has no choice. The city is not selling the top of the underground parking structure – that’s public land.” Rather, the city is forming a condominium arrangement and allowing someone to build, she said, in the same way that the city handled the Liberty Square (Tally Hall) parking structure and the City Apartments project at First and Washington, which includes public parking.

Bonnie Bona.

Bonnie Bona asked Briere to provide insight into any sense of urgency that exists regarding the Library Lane site. Bona noted that this council resolution had come up so quickly after the city had sold the former Y lot, which is located nearby. What’s the basis for moving so quickly?

Briere noted that people who have been advocating for a park on top of the Library Lane structure have been doing that for several years. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) worked with those advocates before he became a member of council, Briere said, and he worked with them to draft the resolution. But the city isn’t willing to commit to a public park today, she added, without also discussing how to pay for the design, maintenance, capital improvements and other things. There’s an expectation among many councilmembers, Briere said, as well as among people who advise those councilmembers, that the developer will design, construct and maintain the public park, thus providing the funding for it.

So to set aside the parkland without a funding stream means that the parkland would never get built upon, Briere said. That was the rationale behind going forward with the two resolutions. She noted that potential developers will have guidelines for what can be done on the site, and where, and the council will be able to determine which of the concepts work best, in consultation with the park advisory commission.

The question is “which comes first?” Briere said. Some people felt strongly that it made no sense for a park to be designated before there’s an opportunity to develop it. Others felt that deciding to sell to a developer made no sense. “It was an interesting discussion,” she said.

Ken Clein asked whether the portion of the site designated for a park would be rezoned. Briere responded that “it doesn’t need to be rezoned. It’s public land already. All parkland is public land.” Clein said he thought some portions weren’t zoned as public land. Briere then indicated that he was right – in fact, she said, the city had zoned that site as D1, the designation that allows the maximum density of development. So it would need to be rezoned, she said. Clein pointed out that a rezoning request would first need to be reviewed by the planning commission, before going to council.

Library Lane Site: Commission Discussion

When she introduced the planning commission resolution, Bonnie Bona noted that it’s meant to offer planning advice to the city council – and that’s the planning commission’s charge.

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

She said the second “whereas” clause was important, because it refers to the council’s direction to the planning commission to review downtown zoning. Citizens have raised concerns that are not yet incorporated into the downtown zoning, she noted.

Bona pointed out that since the city put its new downtown zoning in place in 2009, the Connecting William Street plan was completed, which included lots of public input, she said. [That project, conducted by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, looked at how the city might develop five city-owned downtown properties, including the Library Lane site.]

Other factors guiding this advice are the Midtown Character Area intent statement in the zoning ordinance, the downtown design guidelines, and the recommendations for downtown parks by the city’s park advisory commission. A lot of this isn’t yet reflected in the zoning, Bona said.

The city has only a few sites that it owns where it has the opportunity to provide some ongoing economic and aesthetic impact – beyond just the minimum requirements of the zoning code, Bona noted. So she and Diane Giannola took some of the information from these sources that aligned with what the planning commission has discussed in the past, and identified those elements as priorities.

The resolution is similar to the one that the planning commission passed regarding the former Y lot, Bona said. One major difference is the recommendation to seek an “iconic design” for the Library Lane site, because there are potentially four visible sides to a development and it is more centrally located.

Sabra Briere weighed in with what she called a “nitpick.” She commented on the use of the word “iconic” twice in the same bullet point: “To seek an iconic design for this site that is visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;…”

Ken Clein and Diane Giannola.

It’s overkill, Briere said, and she recommended that one of the instances be removed. “I felt that in drafting it, you became overly enthusiastic,” she told Bona and Giannola.

Giannola said it didn’t matter to her, but noted that the same wording was used in the Connecting William Street plan.

Bona said she’d struggled with the wording. The intent is to seek a design that is meant to be viewed from all four sides. One of the issues with buildings like Zaragon West is that two sides of the building were meant to never be exposed, she noted, because the expectation is that tall buildings will be constructed next to them in the future. So Bona preferred to remove the first mention of iconic, and revise the text to reflect the viewed-from-all-sides intent.

The bullet point was revised to state: “To seek a design for this site that is meant to be visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;…”

Jeremy Peters objected to the phrase “and public” in the following “whereas” clause:

WHEREAS the City Planning Commission requests that the City Council and public recognize the sale of “Library” Lot without an RFP may result in a development that 1) does not fulfill the overarching or site-level recommendations of the Connecting William Street Framework Plan, 2) does not meet the Intent statement for the Midtown Character Overlay Zoning District in the zoning ordinance, 3) ignores the recommendations of the Design Guidelines, and 4) ignores the recommendations of the Parks Advisory Commission (PAC) Downtown Parks Subcommittee Report;

Giannola replied that the same wording was used in the planning commission’s resolution regarding the Y lot. To her, the resolution was speaking both to the council and the public – because the public will weigh in on this, she said.

Briere’s problem with this whereas clause was that it’s an action statement, using the verb “requests.” So it shouldn’t be a “whereas” clause, she said.

Kirk Westphal recommended rephrasing the clause to make it more of a background statement: “WHEREAS the City Planning Commission recognizes the sale of ‘Library’ Lot …” Bona and Giannola accepted his suggestion as a friendly amendment.

Ken Clein said the phrase “cultural venue” gave him pause in one of the bulleted points of the final resolved clause:

A “mixed use” development with a density at around 700% FAR that takes advantage of the investment in footings and the mid-block location with active uses that have a high level of transparency fronting the plaza and at least 60% of Fifth Avenue and Library Lane frontages, while encouraging large floor plate office or lodging as a primary use, residential as a secondary use, and incorporating a cultural venue.

Bona noted that the bullet point reflected the Connecting William Street study. The idea was that it seemed like this location would provide a good opportunity to incorporate a cultural venue, she said. It wasn’t a directive to include a cultural venue, she added. Clein suggested adding the word “possibly” to the phrase – “and possibly incorporating a cultural venue” – which Bona and Giannola accepted as a friendly amendment.

Eleanore Adenekan asked what the term “generous landscaping” meant in one of the bullet points of the final resolved clause. Bona replied that “you pick a word that helps get the point across.” Bona didn’t think anyone wanted to put a percentage on the amount of landscaping a site should have. Bona was comfortable with the term “generous” because it conveyed the intent that landscaping should be noticeable, not just a couple of trees. If the resolution became too specific, Bona cautioned, “we could create unintended consequences.” Council can decide whether they want to be vague and use the power of suggestion, or if they want to be more specific, she said.

Jeremy Peters.

Wendy Woods wondered about the recommendation to use an RFP/RFQ process, pointing out that the council has already given direction to use a brokerage service – as the city did with the former Y lot. She noted that Briere had indicated the city was going to use a condominium arrangement on the site.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, noted that the issue of a condominium arrangement was brought up at the council meeting because there seemed to be some misunderstanding about how the financial arrangement would work. She indicated that the planning commission resolution might not need that level of detail.

Westphal asked Rampson to comment on the difference between an RFP/RFQ process and what occurred at the former Y lot, when the city hired a broker to find a buyer. Rampson replied that with a broker, there would still be proposals that describe what the developer would do with the site. That would be available to the public at some point, she said. An RFP/RFQ process would “bake in” additional public process, she noted. Typically a committee is formed to review the proposals, and give recommendations about the proposal that would best meet the criteria of the RFP.

Briere said that the council felt the process of hiring a broker for the former Y lot had been very successful. It was easier and more straightforward, and resulted in a variety of different proposals, she noted. They’d seen that previous RFP attempts by the city had not been successful, she added, and that experience has influenced whether the council decides to do an RFP.

Giannola thought that the resolution passed by the planning commission about the Y lot had an indirect effect, because a lot of what the commissioners had wanted was incorporated into the proposals that the city received. So even though the council isn’t likely to issue an RFP, she thought it was important for potential developers and the community to know what the planning commission would want.

Bona added that it’s not yet clear what will happen on the former Y lot. “We don’t have a building,” she said. [The agreement between the city and local hotelier Dennis Dahlmann, who has offered $5.25 million for the lot, hasn't yet closed. The current closing date is April 2.] Her caution comes from the fact that the city has a downtown zoning ordinance that “doesn’t always get us what we want, because it’s words instead of a building,” Bona said.

She thought the power of suggestion might result in something that the community wants, in spite of not being a “protracted process.” Bona noted that an additional step in the RFP process is actually writing the RFP, which can take a lot of time. “So I’m not opposed to the process that the council is taking now,” she said.

Clein agreed with Briere that hiring a broker is more expedient, and he agreed with Bona that the ultimate test is whether the outcome is what the community wants. At the former Y lot, “the jury’s out on that until we see what happens,” he said.

Woods supported the resolution. She pointed to the wording of the final resolved clause: “RESOLVED that … an RFP contain some or all of the following conditions:…” Woods said the resolution makes a wonderful case for all of the conditions, so why say “some or all”? She proposed a revision to delete “some or” – adding that obviously the decision about the Library Lane site is up to the city council.

Giannola didn’t want the resolution to come across as “all or nothing.” Woods replied: “You know they’re bright enough to know that.” Giannola thought some people might think the commission was asking for too much, saying she’d be happy if most or even some of the suggestions were taken.

When Giannola said she thought it was overreaching to say “all,” Woods pointed out that it’s overreaching to even pass the resolution. She advocated against sounding “wishy-washy.” Westphal supported Woods, and at that point Giannola and Bona agreed to delete “some or” as a friendly amendment.

Westphal then called for a vote. All other commissioners voted, but Briere hesitated. Westphal called for another vote.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the resolution, as amended, regarding the Library Lane lot.

After the vote, Briere said she hesitated because the council did not embrace the Connecting William Street report. Many councilmembers do not believe that the project was successful in public outreach, she said. Personally, Briere added, she believed that some of the advice in the planning commission’s resolution is excellent. However, she said, she’ll “take it worth a grain of salt as a member of council, because of the insistence on density as a result of having made the commitment to put footings in that could hold a dense building. Many members of council that I have spoken with do not believe that maximizing density, scale and mass of a building on that site is in the public interest.”

From left: Planning manager Wendy Rampson and Sabra Briere, who serves on both the planning commission and city council.

Briere said she was making these comments after the discussion and vote because she didn’t want other commissioners to feel that she was trying to tell the planning commission what to say or think. And despite Giannola’s belief that the planning commission’s recommendations were heeded on the Y lot, Briere wasn’t sure the recommendations were “knowingly heeded.”

Giannola noted that the council had approved the Library Lane parking structure with the additional footings, and at that time the majority of councilmembers did believe that a dense building should go on that site. There might be a change in viewpoint on council now, she added, but “we’re still going on what was in the plans back then.”

As for Connecting William Street, Giannola said it involved much public input. The majority of councilmembers at that time felt the same way, she added, and it’s the newer councilmembers who haven’t supported it. “To me, just because you have a different viewpoint and you’re a new councilmember, you can’t override everything that’s happened in the past,” she said. “History to me is important.”

Briere agreed that history is important, but noted that it’s not the past councilmembers who’ll be receiving the commission’s current resolution. People change on council, she noted, and that’s “sometimes in reaction to the very things that you’re citing.”

Briere noted that some of the documents mentioned in the commission’s resolution – the downtown plan, the design guidelines, the midtown character district – give strength to the resolution. They are documents that councilmembers can and should cite when they need to, she said.

The biggest thing that people should be talking about is what it means to have a strong frontage along South Fifth Avenue, Briere said. All of the documents cited in the commission’s resolution that refer specifically to the Library Lane site have recommended putting a public plaza along the South Fifth Avenue side. But a public plaza is not a strong frontage, she said. The structure was designed to hold at least very low or moderate intensity fronting South Fifth, she noted. “I don’t know how to reconcile those things,” Briere concluded.

Edwards Brothers Site

Planning commissioners also considered a resolution regarding the former Edwards Brothers Malloy property at 2500-2550 South State Street. The resolution recommended that the University of Michigan collaborate with the city of Ann Arbor regarding the future development of the site, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. The university is purchasing the 16.7-acre property, following the Ann Arbor city council’s decision on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the site.

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

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

Rampson said the city has struggled with this issue for many years, in terms of understanding the university’s need to expand its facilities weighed against the city’s interest in retaining its tax base. In the case of the Edwards Brothers site, there’s the added city desire to have redevelopment there provide a catalyst for other redevelopment in the South Street corridor, she said.

The hope is that representatives from both the city and UM will get together to talk about some of these issues, Rampson said. One question is whether there’s an opportunity for economic development along that section of the corridor. If UM would agree to “carve off” part of the site into smaller parcels fronting South State, she said, that might help to activate the corridor. Another issue is the existing park-and-ride lot, which will likely be displaced by UM’s expansion. Also of concern is the Oakbrook Drive extension that’s been planned for decades, she noted. What’s missing is a way to link from South State to South Main, through UM property.

The draft resolution at the start of the meeting had one resolved clause, which stated:

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

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be sold for the purpose of developing complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus;
• Discussing options for the relocation of park and ride facilities as the South Athletic Campus develops; and
• Discussing the opportunities for a future pedestrian and vehicular connection between South Main Street and South State Street via the planned Oakbrook Drive extension through the South Athletic Campus site.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

Edwards Brothers Site: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere began the discussion by asking whether it makes sense for the resolution to address UM president Mary Sue Coleman, given that Coleman is retiring this summer. Briere suggested addressing it instead to the new president, Mark Schlissel. Jeremy Peters recommended taking out reference to any specific name, and simply address it to the regents and president.

Kirk Westphal.

Ken Clein said he could imagine that the regents and president wouldn’t want the city to suggest how they should dispose of their property. Instead of stating that the parcels fronting South State should be sold, Clein suggested recommending how those parcel should be developed. Whether those parcels are sold or leased would be a matter for the university to decide, he said.

Peters thought the reference to selling the land was intentional, because it would add to the city’s tax base if the land were in private ownership. Clein thought the resolution might get a better reception from UM if the city didn’t try to stipulate how the university should deal with the property.

Bonnie Bona thought there’d be a taxable value to having development, even if the property remained in UM ownership. That’s because it would help motivate other development on private property elsewhere in the corridor, she noted.

Paras Parekh asked about the phrase “complementary uses.” Does that refer to uses that complement the South State corridor, or that complement activities on the UM campus? Westphal interpreted it as complementing land uses that the city would like to see in that corridor.

Rampson said both interpretations are appropriate. She’d intended it to refer to uses that would complement UM’s athletic campus, but it could also relate to the corridor too, she said.

Peters advocated for leaving in a reference to the front parcels possibly being sold. It’s been brought up frequently in community discussions, he noted. Briere pointed out that a reference to selling the land is in the fifth “whereas” clause:

WHEREAS, City Council, the Planning Commission, and concerned city residents have indicated a desire for community benefit to be incorporated into The University of Michigan’s plans for development of the Edwards Brothers site, including the possibility for frontage parcels to be created and sold for private development; …

Wendy Woods said her sense is that this resolution is intended to get some kind of a conversation started, based on the city’s goals for that area. In that regard, the resolution shouldn’t be a non-starter, she said.

Further wordsmithing resulted in this revised bullet point:

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be developed, preferably privately, for complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus that also follow the South State Street plan recommendations;

Westphal said he expected the city council would want to make changes to the resolution. If they do, would it come back to the planning commission, given that it’s a joint resolution? Rampson indicated that bringing it back to the commission would take more time. She suggested communicating that the commission wouldn’t object to changes that the council might make.

Briere noted that the next meeting of the planning commission, on April 1, falls before the next meeting of the council, which is on April 7. So it would be possible to take another look at this resolution, she said.

There was no particular interest among commissioners in postponing the resolution. Rampson said she’s already shared a draft of resolution with UM planner Sue Gott and Jim Kosteva, the university’s director of community relations.

The resolved clause, as amended, stated:

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

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

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed the resolution as amended. The resolution will be forwarded to the city council, with the understanding that changes made to the resolution by the council will be supported by the planning commission without further review.

Shell Station Site Plan

The site plan for an overhaul to the Shell station and a new drive-thru restaurant at 2991 S. State was on the March 18 agenda. The site is located at the northeast corner of the East Eisenhower Parkway and South State Street.

Aerial view of the site for a Shell station and drive-thru restaurant at the northeast corner of South State and East Eisenhower.

The plan calls for demolishing the current one-story convenience store and car wash on this site, which total 2,435 square feet. In its place, the owner – Joseph Kafi of JAK Cubed LLC – would put up a single building with a 1,250-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,000-square-foot convenience store. The existing gas pump island canopy will remain in place, and two pumps will be relocated to spots under the canopy.

According to a staff memo, a single lane drive-thru would be primarily accessed from the existing East Eisenhower Parkway curb cut. Vehicles would move in an east-to-north direction before exiting onto either South State or looping back south to East Eisenhower. The drive-thru lane provides stacking for up to nine vehicles and would be screened to the west by the proposed new building. A total of 22 parking spaces are proposed for the site, including eight that are located at the four gas pump islands.

A new sidewalk connection with a striped crosswalk would connect the southern building entrance to the public sidewalk along Eisenhower.

Approval was needed to modify landscaping requirements in Chapter 62 of the city code – the landscape and screening ordinance. A minimum 10-foot right-of-way buffer is required. The owner is asking that the width of the buffer be reduced to the existing 4-foot wide right-of-way landscape buffer fronting South State Street, which contains a 30-inch-high screening wall and landscaping. That would allow for continued use of the two gas pump islands on the western portion of this site. Other landscaping would be added along South State Street and East Eisenhower Parkway to screen the vehicular use area. The site is zoned C3 (fringe commercial).

The project, located in Ward 4, is estimated to cost $800,000. The business is expected to remain open during construction. The existing convenience store will then be demolished after the new building is finished. The specific restaurant to be located there is still being negotiated, according to the owner.

Planning staff recommended approval of the plan. [.pdf of staff report]

Shell Station Site Plan: Public Hearing

Brad Cousino of Terratek Design Inc., the project’s engineer, began by noting that his older brother, Ken Cousino, had spoken to commissioners earlier in the meeting about a different project – the Collingwood office building site plan (see below). Cousino said he and the owners were on hand to answer any questions.

Shell Station Site Plan: Commission Discussion – Traffic, Parking

Eleanore Adenekan wondered if traffic would be congested coming in from the Eisenhower side. City planner Chris Cheng replied that the owner had submitted a traffic study. The city’s traffic engineer had commented that the site will capture drive-by traffic – that is, traffic that is already in the area. So the project isn’t expected to increase traffic significantly, he said. Within the site, there will be space for nine vehicles to queue up in the drive-thru lane.

From left: Joseph Kafi and Brad Cousino.

Sabra Briere wondered how the drive-thru would be accessible from State Street. Cheng noted that vehicles coming in from State Street would need to loop around the site. Briere observed that it seems vehicles from State would be routed across incoming traffic from Eisenhower.

Wendy Woods noted that 8 of the site’s 22 spaces are located at the gas pumps. She wondered if those gas pump spaces would be tied up when someone wanted to buy gas and eat in the restaurant and there were no other parking spaces available. Brad Cousino said that technically, the spots at the gas pumps do qualify as parking spaces. But he wouldn’t expect people to park there while getting food from the drive-thru.

Jeremy Peters asked about the pedestrian crosswalk that goes across South State Street, near the southern entrance into the Shell site. He noted that South State is a road with higher speeds. In discussions about traffic and pedestrian access, Peters said, was there any talk about that crosswalk and traffic flow? Cousino said he didn’t see that as a high-speed area, because vehicles would be slowing down at the intersection of State and Eisenhower.

Diane Giannola said she uses this gas station frequently, because it’s in her neighborhood. She suggested that the walkway should be well-marked to indicate that it’s a pedestrian crossing, so that cars entering from Eisenhower can see it. Cousino said they could put some kind of pedestrian crossing sign there.

Ken Clein noted that the parking along the proposed building gives him pause. Vehicles would be backing out into an area where other cars would be pulling into the pumps.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that there’s a six-foot space between the building and the parking spots, but that includes a two-foot overhang from vehicles – so there would only be four feet between a vehicle’s bumper and the building. She asked planning staff to verify that there’s enough space for the walkway. She assumed that the business wouldn’t be putting items like propane tanks on the walkway. The area looks really tight, she said.

Following up on Bona’s comments, Clein suggested that the project team look at the location of the entry doors to the convenience store, to make sure they are accessible from the parking area. He didn’t think it would meet ADA requirements, but noted that it’s not in the planning commission’s purview. Cousino described the plans as not yet finalized, so the issue that Clein raised would be addressed.

Bona asked how the 22-space parking minimum had been calculated. Cheng replied that it’s calculated by taking a combination of the requirements for the restaurant and for the convenience store. Bona said she supports less parking in general, so she’s not concerned about counting the eight spaces at the pumps. In the past, the planning commission has even discussed counting the stacked spaces in the drive-thru queue, she said.

Shell Station Site Plan: Commission Discussion – Canopy, Dumpsters

Sabra Briere noted that the canopy over the gas pumps, a chevron shape, is clearly designed for three sets of pumps, but there will only be two sets. Briere said she was curious about that. Chris Cheng noted that the entire canopy covers the pumps and the walkway to the convenience store.

Ken Clein clarified with Cheng that the dumpster enclosure on the site plan is proposed, but doesn’t currently exist. Jeremy Peters wondered if the enclosure would have room for a grease dumpster, in addition to trash and recycling. Brad Cousino said that the 20-foot-wide enclosure is generous, so there might be room for a grease container.

Shell Station Site Plan: Commission Discussion – Landscaping

Regarding the landscape buffer, Bonnie Bona said she’s very supportive of maintaining the existing plants, adding that she knows how difficult it is for plants to survive in those kinds of locations. She wondered if the trees there are growing. The owner, Joseph Kafi, replied that in the six years he’s had the site, the trees appear to be growing. He’s also planted a crabapple tree and shrubs, which are doing well, he said.

Shell Station Site Plan: Commission Discussion – Drive-Thru

Wendy Woods asked what kind of drive-thru restaurant would be located there. Brad Cousino said they’re negotiating with several different chains, but it hasn’t been decided.

Wendy Woods.

Jeremy Peters wondered where signs for the restaurant would be located. Cousino replied that he wasn’t sure what the sign ordinance would require, but the signs would be visible. Peters hoped that the signs for the Shell station and the restaurant would be put on the same signpost.

Sabra Briere asked if the proposal complies with the proposed changes to the city’s zoning ordinance regarding drive-thrus. Wendy Rampson noted that the proposed changes would limit the drive-thru lane in a site’s front open space, to make sure it’s well-screened. She said this project wouldn’t be affected by the proposed amendments to the ordinance. [.pdf of proposed ordinance amendments, to be considered by the commission on April 1.]

Kirk Westphal wondered whether this kind of project would require special exception use approval, if proposed amendments to the ordinance are passed. Yes, Cheng replied, but currently drive-thru uses are permitted in C3 zoning.

Westphal asked Cheng to comment on why drive-thrus are currently allowed in this zoning district. Cheng replied that the city’s master plan does recommend commercial uses for this particular corner, with pedestrian amenities. The site plan includes a pedestrian connection from Eisenhower and six bike hoops. Rampson noted that C3 is the only zoning district that now allows drive-thrus without requiring a special exception use permit. She reported that the commission’s ordinance revisions committee is interested in putting more restrictions on this type of use because it’s not in alignment with the city’s master plan objectives.

The planning commission’s April 1 agenda includes proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to the ordinance. Drive-thrus would need special exception use permits, which would be allowed in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use permit. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

Wendy Woods said that given the site’s location near an expressway – the I-94 exchange is located just south of this intersection – she thought the drive-thru would make sense.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and landscape modifications for the Shell station project.

Collingwood Site Plan

A proposal to expand an office building at 278-280 Collingwood was reviewed by planning commissioners on March 18.

Aerial view indicating location of 278-280 Collingwood Drive.

The site plan calls for removing the existing second floor on the east side of the office building and constructing a 2,451-square-foot second floor over the entire building for office use. A new staircase will be added at the southwest corner of the building. The second floor will overhang the first floor along the front of the building and along part of the north side.

An existing curbcut on the north side of the property will be removed. The current 22 parking spaces on the site will be reduced to 17.

Planning commissioners were also asked to approve modifications to the city’s landscaping requirements for this site. Some of the required interior landscaping – the right-of-way screening and interior landscaping island – would be in the critical root zone of two landmark trees, so the owner requested permission to move the landscaping to other parts of the site. That change is supported by the city’s urban forester.

Total construction cost for this project is estimated at $300,000. The office building is located in Ward 4. Collingwood Drive is a street off of West Stadium Boulevard, just south of West Stadium’s convergence with South Maple Road. [.pdf of staff memo]

Planning staff had recommended approval of the site plan.

Collingwood Site Plan: Public Hearing

Ken Cousino spoke during the public hearing, and noted that the project’s two owners were attending the meeting as well to answer questions.

Ken Cousino.

Collingwood Site Plan: Commission Discussion

Jeremy Peters asked for clarification about the curbcut off of Collingwood. City planner Chris Cheng explained that after the staff report was written, it was determined that there was no need to actually increase the width of the curbcut to meet the current code. The curbcut had been installed in 1978, so it would be considered an existing, non-conforming curbcut and wouldn’t be changed.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, noted that the entire area had originally been zoned for parking. It had been intended as a buffer between the commercial corridor of West Stadium Boulevard and the office district to the east. The area was rezoned from parking to office in 1965.

Peters supported removing one of the curbcuts, saying it made things easier for pedestrians. He also supported landscaping modifications so that the landmark trees would be preserved.

Bonnie Bona clarified with Cheng that the pavement currently in place for the north curbcut would be replaced with turf and landscaping.

Bona also asked if the building would require an elevator. Ken Cousino responded that it did not. Bona noted that the project is only taking about half of the allowable floor-area ratio (FAR). She said she always likes to know why a project doesn’t take full advantage of the density that’s allowed. Cousino replied that an additional floor would require that an elevator be installed.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and modifications to the city’s landscaping requirements. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Belle Tire Easement

The March 18 agenda included an easement related to a new Belle Tire at 590 W. Ellsworth.

The commission had recommended site plan approval at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting, and the project subsequently received city council approval on Oct. 7, 2013. The site is located in Ward 4.

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

A 50-foot-wide right-of-way easement on the front of this site was recorded by the city as part of a previously approved land division for this parcel. That easement reduced the front setback of the Belle Tire building from 10 feet to roughly 3 feet. The minimum front setback for this site, which is zoned C3 (fringe commercial), is 10 feet.

So the property owner, who also owns the adjacent site at 3975 S. State, has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement. In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet.

Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback.

The planning staff recommended approval of this proposal. No one spoke during the public hearing.

Belle Tire Easement: Commission Discussion

Ken Clein asked whether the intent is to have a future pedestrian pathway on the easement. Planner Chris Cheng, who gave the staff presentation, said there are no current plans other than the sidewalk that will be installed as part of the site plan. But if in the future there are road improvements on Ellsworth and the sidewalk must be removed, then a sidewalk or other non-motorized use could be located in the easement.

In response to another query from Clein, Cheng noted that the site plan addresses a grade change along that edge of the property by including a walkway and some steps.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of this proposal. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. No one spoke during public commentary on March 18.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Commission Bylaws

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the city council had approved some revisions to the planning commission’s bylaws – but not all of the revisions that have been recommended by planning commissioners were brought forward. The council approved the revisions that planning commissioners had passed about six months ago – at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

The changes relate to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations. The bylaws, as revised, call for additional lead time so that special accommodations, including a sign language interpreter, can be made for people with disabilities, when requested at least two business days in advance of a meeting. The previous bylaws specified just a one-day advance request.

Revisions that were approved by planning commissioners more recently – at their Feb. 20, 2014 meeting – have not yet been forwarded to the council. Rampson reported that assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald wanted to have some additional discussion about those revisions related to public hearings.

Wendy Woods wondered whether the city attorney’s office would work quickly, “so that we aren’t waiting a long time.” Rampson replied that she asked McDonald to draft language that he would find acceptable, and that could be forwarded to the commissioners for consideration. She said she’d communicate with him that commissioners would like to see that as quickly as possible.

One revision clarifies the limitations on a city councilmember’s interaction with the commission. The revised section states: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.” The intent is to prevent undue influence on the commission, and to avoid the possibility of legal action against the city.

Other revisions affect speaking turns at public hearings. The intent is to clarify how many turns the same person can speak at a public hearing, and how public hearings are continued if an item is postponed.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Jeremy Peters, Paras Parekh, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Next meeting: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

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

The one resolved clause states:

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

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

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

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

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

The Ann Arbor city council declined to exercise its right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Malloy property at its special session on Feb. 24, 2014. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) compared the process of reviewing the options over the last few weeks to riding a “see saw.” (“Art” by The Chronicle.)

That’s because the meeting was a special session, dealing with just one substantive issue: a resolution to exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the 16.7 acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street, and a closed session to discuss that issue.

The council’s 5-6 vote on the land acquisition fell short of a simple majority, let alone the 8-vote majority it needed. That vote came after the closed session, which lasted an hour and 40 minutes. The council then deliberated for about an hour and 10 minutes.

The council’s decision came four days after the University of Michigan’s board of regents had authorized proceeding with a purchase of the property for $12.8 million. The site is located at 2500-2550 South State Street, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. It’s assumed the university would use the land at least in part to support its athletic campus.

Voting to exercise the right of first refusal were: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Margie Teall (Ward 4), and mayor John Hieftje.

Voting against exercising the right of first refusal were: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Deliberations focused on two main issues: (1) the financial risks and benefits; and (2) the city’s relationship with the university.

The motivation for the city to exercise its right of first refusal on the property was based in large part on a desire to protect the city’s tax base. The property current generates roughly $50,000 in annual real property tax revenue to the city’s general fund. But the city’s total revenue from the parcel is just 28% of the total taxes levied by all jurisdictions. The net present value over the next 25 years of the levy from all jurisdictions is roughly $6 million. That was weighed by the council against a purchase price of $12.8 million that reflected a “premium” over the appraised value of around $8 million.

Also a factor weighed by the council was a $218,000 annual holding cost for the land, which reflected a 1.7% interest rate that Flagstar Bank had offered. That’s about half the rate the council was assuming in its earlier review of its options.

Another piece of the financial equation was that the some of the tax abatement previously granted by the city to Edwards Brothers would be coming back to the taxing jurisdictions. That’s because by selling the property, Edwards Brothers would not be meeting all the terms of the tax abatement. There’s a clawback provision in that case – which returns taxes to jurisdictions amounting to a total of $200,000. Of that total, the city’s portion is $90,000. It’s under the terms of that tax abatement that the city had obtained a right of first refusal on the sale of the property.

The deal would have been financed from the general fund. According to the city’s year-end audited statements for FY 2013, the general fund unassigned balance stood at $14,392,854 as of June 30, 2013.

Councilmembers like Eaton and Kailasapathy were clearly opposed to exercising the city’s right of first refusal, based on the substantial risk they thought the city would be taking. Everything would need to go right, in order for the city to come out ahead, they said. Kailasapathy indicated that the “premium” price to be paid by the city for the real estate was a significant reason to vote against it.

Kunselman, in voting against the resolution, relied on what’s become for him a familiar criticism of “speculative development.” He cited in part what he’d learned taking a course on real estate from local developer Peter Allen, a lecturer at UM.

Councilmembers like Warpehoski and Taylor were less adamant about their no votes. Warpehoski thought the odds were “better than even” that the city would come out ahead long-term. But because the city would be gambling with public funds, he wondered if “better than even” was good enough. “Right now, I’m thinking maybe not,” he concluded. Earlier in the meeting Taylor had offered similar sentiments, saying that he’d “regretfully” vote no. “We could have pulled it off; we had a reasonable shot at pulling it off. In light of our mission, I think a reasonable shot is not good enough,” Taylor said.

The sixth vote against the resolution came from Anglin. He responded to one of the arguments made by those who supported the resolution – that by exercising its right of first refusal, the city could leverage some collaboration with the university on the future of the parcel. For Anglin, the price was too high just to sit at the same table with the university.

Petersen, Briere and Lumm specifically mentioned the ability to leverage some cooperation from the university on the future of the land as one argument for exercising the city’s right of first refusal. Kunselman called that trying to take the parcel hostage and holding a gun to the university’s head. But some who supported the resolution saw the possibility that exercising the right of first refusal could lead to improved city-university relations.

Hieftje ventured that the city-university relationship is as good now as it has ever been, adding: It’s a good relationship as long as things happen the way the university wants them to.

Those voting yes generally felt that the risk to the city posed by exercising the right of first refusal justified the potential benefit to the city’s tax base. They also cited the opportunity to control the future of the parcel, and to influence development in that part of the city. Responding to a remark from Warpehoski earlier in the meeting – that the South State Street corridor did not give him “warm fuzzies” – Teall said: “I like it. It’s my neighborhood.”

Some background information on the possible acquisition of the property by the city was released last week, on Feb. 18, the day of a regular council meeting. [Edwards Brothers chart] [Additional offer for Edwards Brothers] [Feb. 18, 2014 memo to council]

This article provides more background on the council’s handling of the issue, a sketch of the deliberations, and a more detailed presentation of the deliberations.

Background on Prior Council Action

Prior to the Feb. 24 session, the council most recently had voted to postpone the question of using its right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property. That happened at its Feb. 18, 2014 meeting – after a closed session that lasted about 25 minutes.

Before that, the council had on Feb. 3 postponed the item “to our next meeting” – which at that time was scheduled for Feb. 18. But subsequently a special meeting was called for Feb. 10 to consider the question. That special meeting was then cancelled.

Earlier, at its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its following meeting, on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

The pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

An item authorizing the $12.8 million purchase was approved on Feb. 20, 2014 by the UM board of regents, so that the university could move ahead if the city did not exercise its right of first refusal.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s right-of-first-refusal window of 60 business days was a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. According to a staff memo from city administrator Steve Powers, the city had until Feb. 26, 2014 to exercise its right of first refusal. If the city decided to exercise that right, it had to close on the purchase by Feb. 28, 2014.

Deliberations: Brief Overview

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had possibly telegraphed his intent to vote no on the question by voting against going into closed session on Feb. 18. Discussion of land acquisition is one of the exceptions in the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which otherwise requires that all parts of a meeting be open to the public. Votes to go into closed session require a roll call vote of the council under the OMA.

At the council’s Feb. 24 special session, Kunselman repeated his no vote on the question of going into a closed session.

Before the meeting, Community Television Network staffer Christopher Maassen explained to city clerk Jackie Beaudry that a new microphone had been provided for her.

So when deliberations opened, a provisional tally would have already had Kunselman in the no column. But the first four councilmembers to speak indicated they’d be supporting the resolution: Sally Petersen (Ward 2), followed by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), then Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Then Jack Eaton (Ward 4) weighed in against the resolution, followed by Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Another no vote besides Kunselman’s anticipated expression of opposition would at that point have provisionally settled the issue.

That indication of opposition came from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), which was a surprise to many – including Kunselman. But Taylor’s position was not adamant. In fact, he wound up arguing that the case for voting yes was stronger than other no-voters had let on.

By the time Kunselman weighed in, that brought the tally to four councilmembers who said they’d be opposing the resolution. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) then added sentiments against the resolution, as did Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Warpehoski and mayor John Hieftje both noted when they spoke that it was already apparent how the vote was going to turn out.

The tally for mayoral candidates on the vote was 2-2: Briere and Petersen voted for the resolution; Kunselman and Taylor voted against it. All of these councilmembers have declared their candidacy for mayor in this year’s Democratic primary.

Deliberations

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) led off deliberations by saying they all had known University of Michigan has been interested in the property, and that it’s a special situation for the city.

From left: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

They’d heard consistently from UM that on topics of mutual interest, the university would certainly collaborate with the city, she noted. This is a situation where the city and the university literally have common ground and mutual interest, Petersen said. And figuratively, the parcel’s tax base makes a significant contribution to the ability of the city to provide quality of life to its residents. She said that the issue of quality of life was of mutual interest to both UM and the city of Ann Arbor. It’s a pivotal time and a chance to collaborate well with UM – if the city chooses to purchase the land. And collaborating with the UM is just one option available, she said.

So Petersen was prepared to vote yes – because the city’s acquisition of the land could help improve the city-university relationship in precedent-setting ways. If for some reason the university and the city can’t collaborate, she added, then other options are available. The council was not voting that evening on what to do with the property. Rather, the council was just voting on whether to exercise the right of first refusal. Petersen called it a great opportunity for the city that the city doesn’t have very often. That opportunity was the chance to own an asset that could be mutually beneficial for the quality of life for both the city and the university.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was up next. She thanked Petersen for her comments, saying they echoed many of her own thoughts over the last day.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Briere reported she’d talked to the most fiscally conservative people she knows – who have advised her to exercise the right of first refusal if given a choice. That surprised her, because those are people who she would have called “risk averse” and people who look askance at government spending. Yet those people have uniformly asked her to exercise the right of first refusal. She had also spoken with University of Michigan representatives about the mutual relationship and about the development the university has engaged in and the university’s expectations of support from the city. Of particular interest to her was a conversation that made it clear that if the city exercised its right of first refusal, then the university would have a reason to talk with the city.

The only reason the university  was even considering thinking about the city’s South State Street corridor plan or how the property could be used to benefit both the city and the university is because city was considering exercising the right of first refusal, Briere said.

So Briere said she’d join Petersen in thinking it could be an opportunity to engage in a productive discussion with the university. It might benefit the city’s fiscal situation as well as benefiting the university’s ambition. And for those who urged her to exercise the right of first refusal not because they were conservative but because they were aggressive, she felt that many people would like the UM to understand its impact on the community.

Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked Briere and Petersen for their comments about collaborating with University of Michigan. She saw it as a positive opportunity for the city as well – something that could be very beneficial to the city. She thanked the city staff who had done a very thorough job of reviewing the information and “looking under every rock,” she said. The due diligence has been great, and the information that’s been shared has been very valuable, Teall said. She’d be joining Briere and Petersen in supporting the resolution.

Jane Lumm (Ward 4) was the fourth voice of support out of the first four councilmembers to speak. She called it a difficult decision. She said she could understand how councilmembers could end up in different places on this issue. As a general rule, the city should not be in the real estate business, she said. But as councilmembers, they should decide when it’s appropriate and should not just avoid any and all risk.

She had reached out to UM, but it became clear that it the university was not interested in talking to the city before now. Even though she’d tried to see if the city and university could have a conversation about what could be mutually beneficial, there was not much interest on the university’s side – unless the city exercised the right of first refusal.

Lumm saw this as an opportunity to work with the university. As Teall pointed out, she said, the city staff has conducted a lot of analysis and due diligence. And that’s helped guide the council. The city would be taking on financial risk, she said, with outcomes ranging from a potential $2.2 million loss to a $1.2 million gain. If the city retained control, that would best serve the city’s long term financial interest, Lumm said. When you consider the value of taxes retained for other taxing jurisdiction – if the city exercised its right of first refusal – the financial equation tilts to the positive side, she said. She allowed that she works for the city – not the other taxing jurisdictions – but retaining taxes for the other jurisdictions is a significant interest, too. Risking tax dollars now, in order to protect the tax base for the city and other jurisdictions, would ultimately serve the taxpayers. On balance, Lumm concluded the benefits of the city purchasing the property warranted the risk.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) offered the first sentiments against exercising the city’s right of first refusal. At the beginning of the process, he said, he wanted nothing more than to keep the property on the tax rolls. It’s a unique parcel in that if the city purchased it, the University of Michigan can’t just go out and buy another 17 acres that serves the same purpose. As he looked at the numbers, however, he’d become more skeptical. Everything has to go absolutely right, he said, in order for the city to come out on the positive side.

In the meantime, Eaton said, the city would be spending about $218,000 a year on an interest-only loan, which would “dwarf” the city’s general fund reserves. The city would also need to try to obtain a $1.5 million brownfield grant. Every aspect of the acquisition of the property by the city is full of potential, but also full of risk. He couldn’t see “gambling with taxpayers’ money,” when the potential for disaster seems to be equal to that of coming out ahead. So he’d vote against the resolution.

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

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) picked up on Eaton’s thoughts, saying that for her it’s a risk-reward calculus. Everything we do in life is full of risks, she said, but we should weigh that against benefits and rewards.

Her main concerns included the fact that the valuation of the property had come out at about $8 million. The city would be purchasing the property for about $12.8 million. Based on the information the council had been provided, the downside could realize capital loss of up to $4 million. She allowed that would be a worst-case scenario. If the property remains on the tax rolls, 28% of the benefit would accrue to the city. But the city would be taking 100% of the risk. She might have felt differently if all the taxing jurisdictions split the risk.

A third issue was the holding cost of $218,000. That would come out of the general fund, and she wondered what would have to be cut as a result – because nothing is certain. What if the city needed to hold the land for three or four years? That would add up to another $1 million. She did not feel confident enough that there’s a market for commercial development. She hasn’t seen a market study that says an additional mall or apartment complex is needed. The downside could be devastating, she said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) led off his remarks by echoing the thanks that had been expressed to staff. At each and every turn, when he’d had questions, the staff had come through with answers that were as clear as possible in a shifting environment. Along the way he had felt well supported.

City of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford. City staff received praise around the table from councilmembers in connection with the due diligence process.

Like Eaton, when this first came up, Taylor said, he was enthusiastic and quite willing to explore the possibility, because the loss of land and tax base is an important long-term challenge with respect to the university. Great benefits accrue to the city due to UM, Taylor said, but one downside is that when the university expands, it does draw land off the rolls. And that’s a long-term challenge to the city: to maintain services to residents and to improve quality of life for residents. So when this issue first came before the council, he felt it was an exciting opportunity to have some agency over that long-term challenge.

Taylor would have liked the university to have engaged in a conversation with the city before an offer had been made to Edwards Brothers. That would have been a fruitful and collaborative effort, he felt. It didn’t turn out that way, and he understood that the interests of the city and the university are not necessarily at odds, but they are not entirely congruent.

So it comes to the city council to decide whether to exercise the right of first refusal, Taylor said. As others had already said, it could go either way: There could be gain or loss. The city has had conversations with people who are interested in purchasing the property – and the city knew that the university is interested in purchasing the property. All those things suggest there is some market opportunity, he said.

Taylor addressed the issue of asymmetric risk: The city stands to get 28% of the benefit in exchange for bearing 100% of the risk. “That’s pretty big for me,” he said. If he were in the business of purchasing real estate, and selling it to developers, he felt it was a deal that could easily work. “There is plainly demand here,” he said, and he thought that the risk is not as great as other councilmembers had indicated. But there is plainly risk, he allowed.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

So he stepped back and asked: “What is mission here?” For Taylor, the mission is to provide quality of life for residents, and to maintain and improve that quality of life with residents, to provide services and to do “the things that residents demand of us.” That requires money, he noted, and so those things are somewhat at odds.

As Taylor approached his conclusion, he set himself up to express the position opposite to the one he wanted to take: “In the end, however, I don’t think that the risk here is – I framed that wrong. I think that the risk here is greater than the reward, in light of our mission.” The city’s mission is municipal, it’s not economic, he said. “We’re not in the real estate business. We’re in the business of providing services and creating a city where people can live and thrive.” So he said he’d “regretfully vote no.”

“We could have pulled it off; we had a reasonable shot at pulling it off,” Taylor said. “In light of our mission, I think a reasonable shot is not good enough.”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off his remarks thanking Taylor, saying, “That was well said,” and adding “actually, I’m surprised.” Kunselman then laid out his own position by saying: “I am risk averse.” [At this point, four votes against the resolution were clear.] He’s consistently been opposed to speculative development using taxpayer dollars, he said, noting that he was one of the first to “jump off the bus” on the former Y lot project.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

At one of the first council meetings after Kunselman was elected, the city was partnering on the Broadway Village, he said – and that’s still vacant land. He thought the city was going to get a parking structure out of it. In considering what other communities have done with speculative development, he looked at Sylvan Township and the added tax cost to that community. None of the Sylvan elected officials are still there, he said, but the community is paying for it.

Kunselman looked at Ypsilanti and the Water Street project. He could only imagine the conversations that officials were having when that project was proposed – but he ventured that they were similar to those the Ann Arbor city council had just had in closed session. “How great it would be, how unique, how thoughtful and foresighted … that the community would spend lots and lots of money for future development that nobody had any idea of what they were doing.”

He looked at the city of Troy, which had partnered with a developer. They got a new train station but can’t figure out who owns the land, so that’s going to end up in court, Kunselman ventured. He also pointed out that the city of Ann Arbor borrowed millions of dollars in connection with the Library Lane underground parking structure, to put in infrastructure [stronger foundations, among other elements] to support future development, but “we have no idea what we’re doing there.”

“No, I’m not into speculative development,” Kunselman continued. That’s out of the realm of health, safety and welfare, he said. About the holding cost for the land, he characterized $218,000 annually as three FTEs [full-time equivalent employees]. If the city has that much money to put toward interest-only payments, then the city had money it could put toward three beat cops downtown, he ventured. “What’s our priority? Beat cops or speculative development?” he asked.

As far as working with the university, “that bus left the station a while ago,” Kunselman said. What is being talked about now is “holding the property hostage and putting a gun to the university’s head” and saying, “come talk to us now.” That’s not a great way to start a relationship, Kunselman said. But he agreed with Taylor: If UM keeps buying property, Ann Arbor’s quality of life is going to go down. He hoped UM at some point understands, that at some point it’s going to “kill the goose that lays the golden egg” that provides quality of life for students.

All the students who come from around the world to this community will be isolated downtown, “while the rest of us are trying to fill potholes out in our neighborhoods,” Kunselman said. Speculative development is always based on assumptions, and as Eaton had pointed out, every piece has to work, and if one piece misses, then it fails, Kunselman said. If it winds up in court, the city would lose, he ventured. Local government doesn’t have governmental immunity when it comes to speculative development, he said. So he would not be supporting this.

Petersen took a second turn to reiterate something Kunselman had said: If UM continues to buy up property, the quality of life is going to go down. That’s what would be prevented by exercising the city’s right of first refusal, she contended. When she heard Eaton say that everything has to go right, and when Kunselman says that he doesn’t support speculative development, she wanted to stress that the council was not voting on speculative development that night. The council was not voting on a purchase agreement with a developer. So not everything has to go right, she said.

The council would be buying itself an opportunity to “make things more right,” Petersen said. The downside of not exercising the right of first refusal is a $6 million net present value hit to all the taxing authorities over 25 years, she noted. That was significant to her. She allowed that the city is not in the business of speculative development, but the city is in the business of protecting revenue streams for the city. If the right of first refusal is not exercised, then there will be a significant loss to the city’s revenue stream. If the city does exercise that right, the city has a better chance of increased revenue, Petersen concluded.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked other councilmembers and staff. He said that when the property on State Street came on the market, the right of first refusal looked like a great opportunity. But when you think about it, he said, it seems speculative. It might be a way to have a conversation with the university, he said, nothing that there’s going to be a new administration at UM. [UM president Mary Sue Coleman is retiring this year, to be replaced by Mark Schlissel.]

Purchasing land and holding it as a “gift” to the university would distract the city from its focus on serving the citizens, Anglin said. There are many things that are not being done that should be done, he noted, and this purchase would make the city potentially vulnerable. About the idea that the land could be used to leverage a conversation with the university, Anglin said, “That’s too high a price to sit at the table with the university.”

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) began by saying that for him, the process has been a see saw: He’s been for it, then against it, for it, then against it. Counting the votes expressed in the deliberations up to that point, Warpehoski ventured that it doesn’t matter what he thinks, so that gave him some freedom to “do whatever I want! I think we should open up a Chuck E. Cheese’s there! ”

He rejected Kunselman’s comparison that acquiring the property was a way to put a gun to the head of the university. That’s just not accurate, Warpehoski said. There’s a lot of detailed collaboration between the city and the university on issues of infrastructure, he said. But sometimes on larger issues it’s difficult to get traction for an agreement. The only way to have a successful negotiation is when you have something the negotiating partner wants or fears. When it comes to the university, he said, the city typically has neither.

Some of the council’s conversation up to that point had been about risk and reward, Warpehoski noted. And that is a big question as the council has looked at the issue from the financial side of things. If the city declines to exercise its option, the city would have a guaranteed loss to the general fund of $50,000 over 25 years. If the city does exercise its right of first refusal, there’s a possible loss or possible gain – but it’s a roll of the dice, he said.

Warpehoski felt the odds were better than even, but it’s still a roll of the dice. Another element is the quality of life piece. The city had been approached by people who develop housing and by people who develop retail. When he thinks of that stretch of South State Street, he doesn’t “get warm fuzzies.” It’s not his favorite part of the city. He was not confident that if UM bought it or the city bought, that his attitude toward that stretch would change. But that quality of life component is a part of the risk-reward calculation.

The conversations at the table reminded Warpehoski of the three questions of Rabbi Hillel. The first question is: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?” That cuts both ways, Warpehoski said: If the city is for itself, there’s the risk of losing tax revenues or incurring a loss to the general fund. But there’s a potential gain of taxable value. Rabbi Hillel’s second question was: “If I am only for myself, what am I?” There are other people this conversation affects, Warpehoski said. Hillel’s third question: “If not now, when?” On the third question, Warpehoski said, “Well, we’re out of time so that one is easy.” He thought the city’s odds are better than even, he said, but it’s public funds he’d be gambling with, so he wondered if better than even is good enough. “Right now, I’m thinking maybe not,” he concluded.

Lumm allowed that it was an academic argument at this point [given the nose count of councilmembers who'd expressed opposition]. But she followed up on a point Petersen had made: that the other taxing jurisdictions stood to lose $6 million in tax revenue over the next 25 years, if the city did not exercise its right of first refusal.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and city attorney Stephen Postema.

She called protecting the tax base a “share responsibility,” allowing that it was unfortunate that the city would be bearing all the risk. There’s an upside to controlling a major parcel, she said. It’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity on one of the city’s busiest corridors, she said. It could be a potential catalyst to redevelopment of the corridor and realizing master plan goals. It would not only protect the tax base, it would increase it. She’d done her best to reach out to the university. She commended city administrator Steve Powers for extending an olive branch many times to the university.

It’s unfortunate when she heard from the university that if the city exercised its right of first refusal, it would have a chilling effect on the city-university relationship: “What does that say?” Lumm asked. That’s not something that partners say to each other, she said. Powers has put forth a superb effort and tried “valiantly” to reach out to the university, Lumm said. The city needs the university to understand that the city is serious about protecting its tax base. Because of the lack of interest up to now, the city didn’t have negotiating leverage, she said.

Kunselman followed up on some of the commentary about the city-university relationship. “Everyone knows I work for the university,” he said. He pointed out that this was the first year that the council has not had an invitation to a regent-council dinner or cocktail hour. “So our relationship is obviously not doing very well,” he ventured. Last year, the event was canceled because of the UM basketball team made the Final Four. In prior years, the council and regents had some social interaction around this time of year, Kunselman noted. He didn’t think that purchasing the property would be a nice way to say that the city wants to restore its relationship.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

Everything has unintended consequences, Kunselman said, and that why it’s called speculative. It’s an admirable goal to try to protect the tax base. But the city could not be able to outbid the university on every piece of land it wants over the coming years. And the city knows which property the university wants: It’s next to the land they already own. That’s strategic planning on their part, he said. The university has an “institutional patience” that the city council does not have, Kunselman said. The university can plan ahead for decades.

The question is whether the city can establish a better relationship with UM and encourage the university to start building “up instead of out.” Kunselman ventured that when UM bought the Pfizer property, “none of us were complaining then. We looked at it as a good thing.” [Across the table from Kunselman, Teall was visibly exasperated at Kunselman's remarks about Pfizer, expressing some incredulity.] Kunselman responded to Teall, saying he remembered being happy about it. There were people talking about how good it was that the property was being “backfilled with people,” Kunselman said. At least, he said, the city was not trying to outbid the university. He didn’t think it was the greatest thing either, because the acquisition of the Pfizer property by UM resulted in the city losing 4% of its tax base. But the buildings were at least not sitting empty. [The former Pfizer campus is now the UM North Campus Research Complex (NCRC).]

As a real estate deal, the city would be buying high so it was priced at a premium, Kunselman said. That’s not good real estate business sense to flip this and think you’re going to make some money, Kunselman said: He’d learned in that in Peter Allen’s real estate class. The idea that the city will protect the tax base by buying high, hoping to sell at a greater profit, doesn’t make a great argument, he said. Public health, safety and welfare – that is the city’s mission, Kunselman said. When the city’s quality of life is higher than other communities, that creates a strong tax base.

About the zoning in the area, Kunselman said that the master plan for South State Street doesn’t call for C3 (commercial) zoning. So he was not about to throw all the master planning documents out just to speculate. The planning documents reflect what the community wants in that part of the city, he said. He urged councilmembers to vote down the resolution, encouraging those who’d expressed support to change their minds.

Briere responded to Kunselman. The city didn’t exercise a right of first refusal on the Pfizer property, she said, because the city didn’t have one. And to suggest that the might have had such a right she found “a little distracting.” She recalled how many residents suggest that when someone proposes a use for a piece of property they oppose, that the city should simply purchase the land. She allowed there are no arguments to say that exercising the right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property is a safe risk.

But the question the council was considering was land acquisition, not zoning or a particular project, Briere stressed. The discussion was about being in control of how a piece of property was used in the future. She called that a rare situation for the city. Making the conversation about the University of Michigan is the “lowest hanging fruit” argument, she said. She didn’t look at it as being about the university. She ventured that the council would have had some of the same discussions about the land, if Edwards Brothers had chosen to sell it to a different party. In some cases, the university is a distraction. She understood both sides of the risk argument. “To me this is an acceptable risk,” she said, because she believed it was short-term.

Kailasapathy reiterated the fact that the $8 million appraisal compared to the $12 million purchase price reflected a 50% premium. The city would be paying a premium, and the clock was ticking. That 50% premium made the city vulnerable, she said. The city’s options would be narrowed by agreeing to pay that premium.

Taylor used his second turn to “defend the yes voters,” even though he was voting no. The argument based on the premium purchase price was not as strong as it was portrayed, because the terms of the deal include a rental payment and cell tower revenue. The city is also in a position that is distinct from an ordinary purchaser, Taylor said. The city’s economic return is influenced by the purchase price, but is not solely dependent on it. It’s not required that the city buy the property at $X and sell it as $(X + Y) – because the city can make it up on the back end. So the case for voting yes is stronger than what some councilmembers had portrayed, he said.

Taylor also thought that the council’s decision on this matter was not an “existential question” on the university-city relationship. Generally, the city and the university get along, he said. The university’s mission is distinct from the city’s, he said. He characterized the existing relationship as “cordial.” He said that an initial conversation between the university and the city would have been good at the point when the university was thinking about buying the property. But that didn’t happen and that was a disappointment.

Responding to a point Petersen had made that the loss was guaranteed, if the city did not exercise its right of first refusal, Taylor allowed that if the city did act, there was a chance to eliminate the loss and to achieve a benefit. But he concluded that the chance was not sufficient and the risk was off-mission.

From left: city attorney Stephen Postema and mayor John Hieftje.

Mayor John Hieftje ventured that the outcome was pretty clear at this point. He got clarification that some of the tax abatement granted by the city would be coming back to the other taxing jurisdictions. That’s because by selling the property, Edwards Brothers would not be living up to the terms of the tax abatement. City CFO Tom Crawford explained that there’s a clawback provision in that case. It returns taxes to jurisdictions amounting to a total of $200,000. The city’s portion of that is $90,000.

Hieftje called the opportunity to exercise the city’s right of first refusal as a very good thing to investigate. It was something that needed to be investigated thoroughly. He commended city staff for making that happen. Due diligence was indeed performed, he said. That had been necessary to satisfy the council and the public that everything had been looked into.

Hieftje ventured that the city-university relationship is as good now as it has ever been, adding: It’s a good relationship as long as things happen the way the university wants them to. He continued by saying that when university representatives produce their standard list of benefits that the university brings to the community, it’s as if UM is pretty much responsible for anything good that happens. But the items on the list are just what a state-financed university should be doing, he said.

Hieftje wished the university had reached out to the city before it got to this point. He’d made a call, and the city administrator had made efforts. It would have been be a perfect time to say: Let’s talk about this. But that didn’t happen, he said. At some point, Hieftje added, the university’s continued expansion will severely impact the quality of life in the city. He also pointed out the impact on other taxing jurisdictions, saying at some point, “They’re [UM] going to wear us all out.”

Hieftje responded to Kunselman’s earlier comments about the Library Lane parking structure as including speculative development. That had opened up the ability of downtown to have high tech jobs, Hieftje said, and the only way to build it smartly was to put it underground, with extra strong foundations.

Hieftje felt like the exercise of the right of first refusal would be going out on a little bit of a limb, not a big limb. He ventured that it could go either way – plus or minus $1 million.

Teall concluded by expressing disappointment about how the vote was going to turn out. She was also disappointed in the “over the top language” and the “posturing” that she’d heard around the table. She responded to Warpehoski’s remarks about the State Street corridor not being his favorite part of town: “I like it – it’s my neighborhood.” Lots of wonderful businesses are located along there, she said.

She ventured somewhat sardonically that perhaps the University of Michigan would put up a giant electronic billboard on the Edwards Brothers property. She expressed disappointment that the university would likely not extend Oakbrook to connect State Street and South Main, as it’s envisioned in the city’s corridor plan. She indicated that the university probably did not plan on making it a public road.

Teall concluded that it was a disappointing decision for her.

Outcome: On a 5-6 vote, the council rejected a resolution to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the Edwards Brothers property. Voting to support exercising the right of first refusal were: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Margie Teall (Ward 4), and mayor John Hieftje. Voting against the resolution were: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

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

Next regular council meeting: March 3, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

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

The site is located at 2500-2550 South State Street, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. It’s assumed the university would use the land at least in part to support its athletic campus.

The resolution in front of the council, which needed an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council, was defeated on a 5-6 vote. It would have approved the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriated necessary funds, and directed the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right.

The vote came after a closed session lasting an hour and 40 minutes. The council then deliberated for about an hour and 10 minutes.

Some background information on the possible acquisition of the property by the city was released last week, on Feb. 18, the day of a regular council meeting. [Edwards Brothers chart][Additional offer for Edwards Brothers 2-18-14] [Feb. 18, 2018 memo to council]

Voting to exercise the right of first refusal were:  Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Margie Teall (Ward 4), and mayor John Hieftje.

Voting against exercising the right of first refusal were: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

In their remarks, most councilmembers cited the overall risk to the general fund that remained in most scenarios that might play out. Those that voted in support of the resolution indicated that their understanding was that the University of Michigan would not be interested in collaborating on the future of the property, unless the city exercised its right of first refusal.

Most recently, the council had voted to postpone the question at its Feb. 18, 2014 meeting after a closed session that lasted about 25 minutes.

Before that, the council had on Feb. 3 postponed the item “to our next meeting” – which was scheduled for Feb. 18. But subsequently a special meeting was called for Feb. 10 to consider the question. That special meeting was then cancelled.

Earlier, at its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its following meeting, on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

The pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

An item authorizing the $12.8 million purchase was approved on Feb. 20, 2014 by the UM board of regents, so that the university could move ahead if the city did not exercise its right of first refusal.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s right-of-first-refusal window of 60 business days is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. According to a staff memo from city administrator Steve Powers, the city has until Feb. 26, 2014 to exercise its right of first refusal. If the city decides to exercise that right, it must close on the purchase by Feb. 28, 2014.

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

The council will next take up the question at a special session on Feb. 24, 2014, which will also possibly feature a closed session.

The council voted to postpone the question at its Feb. 18, 2014 meeting after a closed session that lasted about 25 minutes. The resolution delayed by the council would approve the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriate necessary funds, and direct the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. Some background information on the possible acquisition of the property by the city was released earlier in the day. [Edwards Brothers chart][Additional offer for Edwards Brothers 2-18-14] [Memo to council]

The council had on Feb. 3 postponed the item “to our next meeting” – which was scheduled for Feb. 18. But subsequently a special meeting was called for Feb. 10 to consider the question. That special meeting was then cancelled.

Earlier, at its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its following meeting, on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

The pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

An item authorizing the $12.8 million purchase is on the Feb. 20 UM board of regents agenda, based on the assumption so that the university can move ahead if the city doesn’t exercise its right of first refusal.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s right-of-first-refusal window of 60 business days is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. According to a staff memo from city administrator Steve Powers, the city has until Feb. 26, 2014 to exercise its right of first refusal. If the city decides to exercise that right, it must close on the purchase by Feb. 28, 2014.

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

The council’s Feb. 18, 2014 agenda is highlighted by public art policy issues leftover from its previous meeting, as well as several items related to acquiring various pieces of basic equipment – from a garbage truck to a wood chipper.

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

The possible acquisition of land is also on the agenda, in the form of a resolution postponed from an earlier meeting. The resolution would exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street. This process began when the University of Michigan offered to buy the property. An item authorizing the $12.8 million purchase is on the Feb. 20 UM board of regents agenda, based on the assumption that the city won’t exercise its right of first refusal earlier in the week.

In other action, the council will consider an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance for a second and final vote on Feb. 18, having given initial approval to the item on Feb. 3. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment are two competing resolutions that would return money from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. And that point of possible disagreement is reflected in the amounts specified in the two resolutions. A resolution sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) would transfer $819,005 back to the funds of origin.

A resolution added later to the agenda is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Briere’s proposal would eliminate funding for the stalled Argo Cascades art project and would return $957,140 to the funds of origin. Briere’s resolution also directs the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

Either of the two proposed resolutions related to public art funds would require eight votes to pass.

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 agenda is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. It would need eight votes to pass. The result of the Feb. 3 council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid. The contract is supposed to be back on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled.

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda also features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is the repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost. The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. So the council will be asked to approve the purchase of one for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800. The purchase of two vans for a total of $50,320 is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation staff to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 wood chipper.

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations.

In addition to the Edwards Brothers deal, several other real estate matters are on the Feb. 18 agenda. The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the greenbelt millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335.

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

On the consent agenda is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items for the Feb. 18 meeting, which was shifted to Tuesday because of the Presidents Day holiday on Monday. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Tuesday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

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

Public Art

Four items related to public art are expected to be handled at the Feb. 18 council meeting: (1) a final vote on an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance; (2) two resolutions enabled by that change, which would transfer money out of the city’s public art fund back to the funds from which the money was drawn; and (3) a resolution extending by six months the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator and appropriating funds to cover the $18,500 contract extension.

Public Art: Ordinance Amendment

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3, 2014 meeting, the council is considering the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years.

The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

This ordinance revision reprises a previous effort to amend the public art ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin. That unsuccessful effort came eight months ago at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. At that meeting, the council did eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism from the public art ordinance, and also allowed the most recent year’s accumulation of money to be returned to the funds of origin. The council also returned that most recent year’s worth of funding – $326,464.

The former Percent for Art program required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. As a part of the June 3 ordinance change, the council replaced the Percent for Art funding program with a new approach that would allow city staff, working with the public art commission, to identify capital projects suitable for “baking in” art. In addition to city funding of art designed to be an integral part of a specific capital improvement project, the approach envisioned general donations to a public art fund, and public art projects paid for with a combination of public and private funds.

The balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund as of Jan. 14, 2014 is $839,507. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Any actual transfer of money would require separate council action.

Public Art: Resolution on Return to Funds of Origin

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment are two items now on the Feb. 18 agenda. Both are resolutions that would return money from the public art fund to the funds from which the money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. Under the city charter, resolutions like this require eight votes on the 11-member council.

Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. That’s already reflected in the two competing resolutions. The first is sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), joined by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Lumm’s resolution would transfer $819,005, which would leave $20,500 – which is the total amount needed to fund an extension of the public art administrator’s contract and some additional administrative costs. It would also leave funds for three projects in the works at the following locations : East Stadium bridges, Argo Cascades, and the Kingsley & First rain garden.

A breakdown of the amounts that could be returned – and the funds to which that money would be returned – is covered here: [Art budget summary]

A second resolution transferring money from the public art fund to its funds of origin has now been added to the agenda as well. The second resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and escalates the one initiated by Lumm. Briere’s resolution eliminates funding for the Argo Cascades art project – because the committee making the final selection between two artists has not been able to come to a consensus to move forward with either one of them. So Briere’s resolution would return $957,140, compared to the $819,005 called for in the proposal originally put on the agenda by Lumm.

The $138,135 difference in total amounts for the resolutions falls $5,000 short of the $143,134 cost of the Argo Cascades art project. That’s because Briere’s resolution allows $5,000 of funds to remain for a memorial to Coleman Jewett. The public art commission authorized $5,000 in Percent for Art funds for the project roughly five months ago, at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private foundation has committed $5,000 to create a memorial at the market, in the form of a bronze replica of one of Jewett’s Adirondack chairs. The current proposal, at a total cost of $15,000 is to create an artwork that includes  two such chairs. The $5,000 from the city plus the match from a private donor leaves a  $5,000 gap to be covered in private fundraising.

Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to be implemented by staff and the public art commission, and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015. Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the former Percent for Art program.

A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

The need for continued funding for arts administration is based on the new approach to the public art program established by the city council in June 2013. That new approach can include city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, as well as projects funded through a combination of private and public money.

If the issue of the amount to be returned isn’t settled on Feb. 18 and the resolution does not pass in any form, another option would be to take up the question in the context of the annual budget resolution, which is considered at the council’s second meeting in May every year. Under the city charter, the budget resolution as a whole requires seven votes to be approved. But amendments to the budget resolution are subject only to the six-vote majority requirement.

On Feb. 10, the city released a list of budget requests made by department heads for the next fiscal year. And $80,000 from the general fund has been requested to fund a transition from the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new public art program. The $80,000 would include compensation for a full-time art administrator for a year. In the meantime, the council will likely again consider a six-month extension of the part-time administrator’s contract at its Feb. 18 meeting.

Public Art: Resolution to Extend Public Art Administrator’s Contract

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. The result of the Feb. 3 council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid.

The contract will likely be taken up on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled. The art administrator’s contract was first considered at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, but was postponed in the context of a political horse trade – support for the administrator’s contract being contingent on beginning a process to transfer money accumulated under Percent for Art in previous years, back to the money’s funds of origin.

The conversation between mayor John Hieftje and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table toward the end of the Feb. 3 meeting indicated that Eaton would be bringing the item back for reconsideration on Feb. 18, provided that public art money was returned to its funds of origin. Only someone who voted on the prevailing side on Feb. 3 could bring back the item for reconsideration. Those councilmembers include Eaton, Lumm, Kailasapathy and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Equipment

The Feb. 18 agenda is relatively heavy on items related to acquiring basic equipment: a combination sewer truck, a hydraulic excavator, a garbage truck, two vans, a wood chipper, and a firefighter training unit.

Equipment: Water Main Breaks

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost.

Here’s a sampling of recent water main breaks – from alerts the city of Ann Arbor has sent out:

• Jan. 15: West Madison between Fourth and Fifth
• Jan. 22: Devonshire between Washtenaw and Melrose
• Jan. 28: S. Industrial between Jewett and Eisenhower
• Jan. 28: Yost between Washtenaw and Parkwood
• Jan. 31: Pontiac Trail at Brookside
• Feb. 5: Washtenaw east of Brockman
• Feb. 11: Pauline between Seventh and Stadium

The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break.

City of Ann Arbor water main breaks by year. It’s not unusual to have several water main breaks in a given year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor financial records, chart by The Chronicle)

Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. The council will be asked to approve the purchase of this type of equipment for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

In more detail, according to the memo accompanying the resolution, the combination sewer truck is to be procured from Jack Doheny Supplies Inc. It will replace a 2005 truck with 6,685 hours of use. Over the last two years, the truck had broken down and needed repairs 63 times – taking it out of service anywhere from fours hours to more than two weeks each time.

When that truck is unavailable to do water main break repairs, a similar truck used for stormwater system maintenance is re-tasked for water main breaks. But that poses a challenge to keep up with the scheduled preventive maintenance of the stormwater system. And failure to meet the cleaning schedule puts the system at risk for clogging and backing up into structures.

On the hydraulic excavator, the staff memo explains that the John Deere model 135G hydraulic excavator to be purchased will replace a 2002 mini excavator. The primary use for that excavator is for water main repair.

The new hydraulic excavator will be able to dig down to 19 feet, which is 7 feet deeper than the 2002 mini excavator. So the larger water mains, which are typically deeper and older, will be reachable.

The mini excavator has been in service over 5,350 hours of use and half its total repair costs have accumulated in the last 3.5 years. The old excavator will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Garbage Truck

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800 from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It’s a smaller truck – with a 6-yard capacity. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The new truck will replace a 2002 model with over 14,500 hours of operation. According to the staff memo, in the last three years, 57% of all time spent maintaining the vehicle has been spent on breakdowns while only 14% has been for preventive maintenance. In that three-year period, the cost of breakdown repairs has been more than $78,000, which is more than half of the 13-year lifetime total of $141,480.

Equipment: Vans

The purchase of two vans – from Red Holman GMC in Oakland County, for a total of $50,320 – is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation staff to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. The van purchase was recommended by the park advisory commission at its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting.

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. The van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

Equipment: Wood Chipper

Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. The unit is a whole-tree chipper – it will process up to 21-inch diameter logs.

The chipper to be replaced has been in service for 11 years. It has 4,100 hours of use and 35% of its total repair cost ($74,600) has accrued in the last 2.5 years. The old chipper will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Firefighting Simulator

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit]

Land

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several land and land use items: two greenbelt properties; a green streets policy; a zoning issue; and the possible exercise of the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Mallow property on South State Street.

Land: Greenbelt

The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor, through its greenbelt program, will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The deal was recommended by the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at its Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended moving ahead with this deal at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

Land: Green Streets

On the council’s agenda is a policy item related to land: infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

Land: Hofmann Rezoning

Related to land use, council will be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting.

The two parcels in question – just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor Township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission and the city council. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

During council deliberations on Jan. 21, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he hadn’t been sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. Warpehoski told other councilmembers that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property

A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land, and a resolution to authorize that purchase is on the Feb. 20 agenda of the UM board of regents. A UM staff memo notes that the site is “strategically located next to the Donald R. Shepherd Women’s Gymnastic Center, Varsity Tennis Center, and Bahna Wrestling Center and contiguous to other University of Michigan property…”

The council had on Feb. 3 postponed the item “to our next meeting” – which at that time was scheduled for Feb. 18. But subsequently a special meeting was called for Feb. 10 to consider the question. That special meeting was then cancelled.

The Feb. 18 resolution would approve the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriate necessary funds, and direct the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. The agenda item contained no other background information.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its meeting on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

The pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. The council will still be within the 60-day window when it votes at its Feb. 18 meeting.

The resolution the council will be taking up on Feb. 18 requires an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council – because the resolution changes the city budget and involves a purchase of real estate.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

On the Feb. 18 consent agenda is  a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” Responding to an emailed request from The Chronicle, city engineer Patrick Cawley provided the following accident history for the locations:

• Fuller Road (2) on May 13, 2009 and Feb. 11, 2010.
• S. University (3) on Feb. 7, 2006, Nov. 24, 2007, and Sept. 8, 2008.
• Geddes (1 involving a bicyclist) on Feb. 9, 2008.

Road Salt

Also on the agenda is a resolution to approve purchase of additional ice-control salt. Based on the $47,200 amount to be appropriated, and the $36.23 price per ton, the council will be authorizing the purchase of roughly 1,300 tons of additional salt.

A city staff estimate provided to The Chronicle puts the amount of salt used so far this season – through early February – at about 6,600 tons. That’s roughly at least as much or more than has been used in each of the previous five winter seasons. If the city uses all of the additional salt to be purchased – bringing this season’s total to about 7,900 tons – that would approach the maximum amount of salt used by the city over the last seven seasons. In the 2007-2008 season, the city of Ann Arbor used 8,500 tons of salt on its roads.

Ice-control salt usage in the city of Ann Arbor by year. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle.)

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city’s snowplow equipment uses “electronically calibrated spreader controls” to keep the amount of salt used to the minimum amount that is still consistent with traffic safety. The price the city is paying for the salt to be authorized on Feb. 18 is established through a state of Michigan’s MIDEAL program. According to the staff memo, the cost for purchasing additional material on the open market would be about $140, or nearly four times as much as under the MIDEAL program.

3:37 p.m. City staff responses to city councilmember questions are now available: [Feb. 18, 2014 responses to agenda questions]

4:09 p.m. Additional information on the Edwards Brothers land sale is now available: [Edwards Brothers Chart][Additional Offer for Edwards Brothers 2-18-14][Memo to Council]

4:53 p.m. From the due diligence memo: “The analysis shows that there is a possible negative impact in every scenario, except where the benefit of the taxes to all taxing jurisdictions is taken into account. Also, we note that if the City is unable to recoup the $4.5 million of General Fund balance that is assumed will be used to finance the acquisition of the site, the General Fund balance would fall to the 9% to 10% of expenditure range from the existing 14% to 15% range.” Indications are that the council will have two resolutions to choose from – one waiving the right of first refusal and another exercising it.

6:38 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Chambers are relatively quiet. Four members of the audience have arrived. No councilmembers or staff are in chambers.

7:04 p.m. Nearly everyone is here. We’re settling in.

7:09 Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers except for Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. Jack Eaton wants DC-2 (the return of Percent for Art funds and timeline, sponsored by Sabra Briere) to be heard before DC-1 (return uncommitted public art funds, sponsored by Eaton, Jane Lumm, Sumi Kailasapathy and Mike Anglin). Briere wants DC-3 (a resolution to recommend the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s request for an allocation from the Ann Arbor Affordable Housing Trust Fund) until just after the consent agenda.

7:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved its agenda as amended.

7:12 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers is highlighting the street closures on the consent agenda that are signs of spring – street closures for art fair and the Ann Arbor marathon.

7:13 p.m. Powers encourages people to help clear out storm drains as the snow melts. The frost is down to about four feet, he says. A hard rain would be problematic. The city released a map of all catch basin locations today.

7:13 p.m. Public commentary reserved time This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Tonight’s lineup for reserved time speaking includes four people speaking on public art topics: Margaret Parker (former Ann Arbor public art commission chair), Bob Miller (current AAPAC chair), Dave Olson and Mary Underwood.

Rita Loch-Caruso is signed up to talk about the green streets policy. And Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about a more racially and politically just Michigan.

7:17 p.m. Margaret Parker is now at the podium. She introduces herself as co-owner of Downtown Home & Garden. She recalls her longtime service on the public art commission. The set-aside from sanitary sewer and stormwater funds was originally meant to convey the city’s pride in those systems. She refers to “negative city councilmembers” who say no to everything. To some councilmembers that say they’re for public art, she asks, “Who can believe you?” She tells the councilmembers that as an “act of good faith” the funds should be left in place. She ventures that transferring the money out would allow Ann Arbor to grab the headlines as a “reactionary art-phobic city” that destroyed its public art program.

7:19 p.m. Bob Miller introduces himself as the current chair of the public art commission. “We represent your goals and direction,” he says. Two projects are jeopardized by the process, he says: Canoe Imagine Art and the Coleman Jewett memorial chair. Both projects now have matching funds that are at risk, Miller says. Those projects are important to AAPAC, he says. He says that he’s proud of the work done at the wastewater treatment plant. Those who work at those various facilities are proud of their work and public art can celebrate their work, he says.

7:23 p.m. Dave Olson tells the council he lives in Water Hill near Fountain Street. He’s reading aloud from a statement that has been circulated in the arts community. It describes people as “alarmed” at council’s recent actions. Failing to fund a transition is one significant criticism in the statement. He and others are advocating for a real sustainable art program. The statement is signed by roughly 25 people, all of whom support the statement, he says. He tells the council their actions have alienated the arts community. He doesn’t want to miss the opportunity to work together.

7:26 p.m. Rita Loch-Caruso is addressing the council as a member of the water committee of the environmental commission. She’s supporting the green streets policy that’s on the agenda. The policy will improve water quality as well as help control runoff, she says. Why focus on streets? She tells the council that streets make up 26% of total impervious surface area in the city, but contribute 54% of stormwater runoff. The requirements in the policy are consistent with the city’s stormwater permit as well as with new county rules that are pending. She calls it a forward-thinking policy. She thanks the other members of the committee and various city staff.

7:29 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for various public offices. He calls on the council to create a more racially and politically just society in Michigan. He calls for expanding affordable housing in the city. Partridge says the public art issue should be postponed to give time for cooler heads to come forward to solve this problem.

7:33 p.m. Mary Underwood says that she’s a member of the arts community, but asks that some of the money be returned to the funds of origin. She points to the reduction in city staff levels and the resulting reduction in services. She recalls in a earlier era getting excellent service regarding a dying maple tree. She laments the loss of other employees over the years in the context of the part-time public art administrator’s position.

7:35 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:36 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is talking about an article published in The Ann Arbor Observer. He’s reading aloud a paragraph from the original article about the filing of TIF (tax increment financing) reports by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Kunselman then reads the correction to the December 2013 article. But Kunselman is contending that the correction is also mistaken. So Kunselman wrote an email to city administrator Steve Powers about the issue. [Kunselman is pointing out the history that the DDA did not submit some TIF annual reports before 2011. He is referring at least in part to the DDA annual reports for 2003, 2008, 2009 recorded in Legistar as filed in 2011. Kunselman asks that Powers correct the public record. Powers says that he'd be happy to share his statement with anyone who'd like it.

7:39 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is announcing a neighborhood meeting for the Barton Drive sidewalk and Northside traffic calming project. It's on Feb. 25 at 6:30 p.m. at Northside Elementary School, 912 Barton Drive. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says she has good news to share: a $250,000 contribution from the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor to fund a universal access playground at Gallup Park.

7:41 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is raising the issue of special assessments for construction of sidewalks, to help low-income residents. It's something we should think about as a community, he says.

7:43 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is talking about the number of broken water mains. She relates how Kunselman was out walking his dog and had seen a water main break; Kunselman had called 911, she says. She asks what people are supposed to do.

7:46 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers calls public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium: 994-2840 is the number to call for a water main issues, he says. It's hard to tell sometimes the difference between puddling and an actual leak, he says. But if there's water spurting up, then that's probably a break.

7:46 p.m. Eaton says that on Feb. 14, the city attorney had circulated a confidential memo on property assessments, which Eaton would be asking the council to waive privilege on at its next meeting. Following up on Hupy's information, Eaton mentions that ArborWiki has a handy page with all the emergency numbers.

7:46 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje calls for the city to come together to clear the walks as the weather thaws.

7:47 p.m. Nominations. Being nominated by mayor John Hieftje tonight to serve on the local officers compensation commission (LOCC) is Jason Morgan. For background on this group, see: "What Do We Pay Ann Arbor's Mayor?" The council will vote on the confirmation at its next meeting. Morgan is director of government relations at Washtenaw Community College.

7:49 p.m. Kunselman raised his hand on this, but wasn't called on. Now he's called on. He's asking about the start of the term on the LOCC appointment, which is October 2014. Hieftje allows that it's odd. But it's a matter of getting all the appointments back to their proper timing, he says.

7:49 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Two public hearings are on the agenda: (1) the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street; and (2) the amendment of the public art ordinance.

The zoning item would give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. [For additional background, see Land: Hofmann Rezoning above.] The public art ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

7:49 p.m. PH-1 Hofmann zoning. Thomas Partridge is calling for rezoning to be approved only if access is provided to all members of the community to the property.

7:52 p.m. That’s all for this public hearing.

7:55 p.m. PH-2 Amend public art ordinance. Thomas Partridge notes that the public art issue has been coming before the council repeatedly and has been a divisive topic. Why? he asks. Public art is a treasure. Why can’t the mayor and council initiate a “cease fire,” a “detente” by postponing the question tonight. That would allow cooler heads to prevail, he says. Why does there have to be an art commission just for Ann Arbor? Why isn’t there a Washtenaw County or region-wide public art commission?

7:56 p.m. And that’s it for this public hearing.

7:56 p.m. Minutes. Outcome: The council has approved the minutes from its previous meeting.

7:56 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Transfer responsibility for billing of water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater service from the public services area to the city treasurer. The city code explicitly allows for this: “Billing for water service, sanitary sewer service, and stormwater service shall be the responsibility of the Public Services Area of the City, but the Council may, by resolution, transfer such responsibility to the City Treasurer.”
• CA-2 Approve a purchase order for AutoDesk engineering design and drafting software licensing status upgrade ($24,431). This is an update. From the staff memo: “Environmental and infrastructure management planning issues and the upkeep of critical City infrastructure is improved through use of engineering design and drafting software.”
• CA-3 Revise and approve board of review guidelines for poverty exemptions. From the staff memo, maximum income levels range from $19,500 for one person to $54,500 for eight people.
• CA-4 Approve street closings for Ann Arbor Marathon. The marathon takes place March 30, 2014. The map of street closings is here: [.pdf of map of street closings]
• CA-5 Approve street closings for 2014 Ann Arbor art fairs. The fairs take place from July 15 through July 20. The map of street closures is here: [.pdf of map of art fairs street closings]
• CA-6 Approve purchase of one 6-yard rear loading garbage truck ($93,800). The 6-yard capacity truck would be purchased from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution. [For additional background, see Equipment: Garbage Truck above.]
• CA-7 Approve purchase of a wood chipper ($83,208). The chipper is a Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. [For additional background, see Equipment: Wood Chipper above.]
• CA-8 Approve purchase of two 15-passenger vans ($50,320). The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. [For additional background, see Equipment: Vans above.]
• CA-9 Approve agreement with the MDOT for installation of rectangular rapid flashing beacons ($47,971). This is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179. Part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” [For additional background, see Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons above.]

7:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the consent agenda, without pulling out any of them for separate consideration.

7:57 p.m. DC-3 Recommend Ann Arbor Housing Commission request. Background to this resolution includes a city council decision made on Dec. 16, 2003 to allocate the full net proceeds of the pending sale of the former Y lot to the affordable housing trust fund. That amount is almost $1.4 million. Background also includes an Ann Arbor housing conversion initiative to convert its properties to ownership through a private-public partnership – with a goal of putting those properties on a financially stable foundation for the longer term.

For the shorter term, that AAHC initiative requires investment in capital repairs. The AAHC has asked the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to contribute $600,000 each to the shorter-term effort. At a meeting of the DDA partnerships committee on Feb. 12, the request was reportedly met with a somewhat lukewarm reception, as DDA board members were interested in possibly making a contribution in installments. The DDA is also keen to see its contribution matched by the city. The resolution on the council agenda directs the city administrator to prepare a budget amendment for the allocation of $600,000 from the affordable housing trust fund for the first phase of the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan and to place that resolution on the agenda when the city receives the proceeds of the old Y lot sale.

7:59 p.m. Briere is reviewing the content of the resolution, which comes as a result of an Ann Arbor housing & human services advisory board resolution approved last week. It does not change the budget, but directs the city administrator to prepare a budget amendment when the old Y lot is sold. Briere says that AAHAC does not need the money in their hands but needs to know that the money can be in their hands by the end of March.

8:01 p.m. Briere notes that it’s a notional approval.

8:01 p.m. Eaton moves for postponement. Lumm offers her take on the result of the HHSAB meeting. She’s concerned about the process. She and Briere both attended the HHSAB meeting. She felt the HHSAB board’s consensus was that it wasn’t essential that the item be on the council’s agenda tonight.

8:03 p.m. Lumm also objects to the fact that the item was placed on the agenda after close of business on Friday. Margie Teall (Ward 4) says she sees no reason why the item has to be postponed. If the council moves ahead on this, that will ensure that the DDA also moves ahead, she says.

8:06 p.m. Hieftje asks Teall as liaison to the AAHAC about the RAD conversion. It’s an urgent project, he says. Hieftje says that the agenda item was actually in on time. Lumm disputes that. Hieftje notes that it’s actually possible to add an item at any time. He says it doesn’t actually do anything but is still important. Lumm says that everything that Hieftje wants to happen can happen at the next meeting, on March 3. Lumm appeals to the notion of good behavior by councilmembers towards each other.

8:07 p.m. Briere says that she and Lumm had a different understanding of the outcome of the HHSAB meeting. She says that Lumm had missed the fact that Briere had indicated she was going to bring the resolution forward. Briere reviews the exact timing of her submission of the item. She allows that Lumm is correct that it isn’t an emergency. She notes that the council had a long three-day weekend to review it.

8:08 p.m. Eaton calls it a simple request for courtesy. It would establish the respect that councilmembers talked about earlier in the year.

8:11 p.m. Teall calls the mission of the AAHAC is much more important than the fact that someone got their toes stepped on. Kunselman recalls that he had thought he submitted an item by 5 p.m. on the Fuller Road MOU (memorandum of understanding) but hadn’t and so he had agreed to postpone out of courtesy. Kunselman raises the question of whether the council is posturing for the DDA. He’s concerned that the DDA will only be able to contribute to Miller Manor and Baker Commons. So that might be a reason for the DDA to vote first on the issue. Is the DDA going to wait for the council? asks Kunselman.

8:13 p.m. Powers tells Kunselman that the DDA as a whole board does not yet have a position. Kunselman ventures that Powers could get clarification about what the DDA’s position is – because Powers sits on the DDA board. He asks Powers to convey to the other DDA board members that he doesn’t think it’s suitable for the DDA to hold the AAHC hostage.

8:14 p.m. Briere reviews how the whole DDA board doesn’t meet until March 5. The council meets on March 3. Briere reviews how she’d asked Lumm to co-sponsor this resolution.

8:16 p.m. Warpehoski asks Jennifer Hall, executive director of the AAHC, to the podium. She tells Warpehoski that he’s put her in the middle of a ping pong match. She stresses that she’s focused on getting the rehabilitation project done. She reviews Phase 1. About $1 million from the federal Home Loan Bank that AAHC had hoped to get did not materialize, she says. They were placed on an alternate list. About the DDA and the city, she says, “I don’t really care who goes first.”

8:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted postpone the item. Voting for postponement were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Lumm, Kunselman, Eaton, and Anglin.

8:18 p.m. B-1 Hofmann zoning. This change would zone two parcels totaling 0.6 acres from an unzoned status to C1 (local business district). The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting. The C1 zoning does not include any restriction that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site. And that’s something the owners of Biercamp had tried to achieve with a previous zoning request that had ultimately been denied by the council.

8:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the zoning of the Hofmann property as C1.

8:18 p.m. B-2 Amend public art ordinance. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

8:19 p.m. Lumm reviews the content of the ordinance. She stresses that the ordinance change does not actually return any funds. A separate action will be required, she notes.

8:22 p.m. Kunselman says, “Boy this is a tough one.” Back on June 3, 2013, he had voted against changing the ordinance. At this point he’s willing to amend the ordinance. But he cautions that he’ll probably be voting against both of the other resolutions about returning funds. He feels that the discussion should probably happen in the context of the annual budget resolution in May. He won’t vote for either resolution, he says.

8:24 p.m. Eaton says that at an earlier meeting he’d proposed a compromise involving the art administrator: If public art money is returned, and the mayor assures he won’t veto the ordinance, then he’d bring back the art administrator’s contract for reconsideration. Otherwise not. He doesn’t want to surprise anyone, he says.

8:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to give final approval to the public art ordinance amendment, allowing the return of Percent for Art money to its funds of origin.

8:25 p.m. DC-2 Return $957,140 from public art fund to funds of origin and establish timeline. This resolution would cancel the art project at Argo Cascades, resulting in a return of a total of $957,140 from the public art fund to the funds of origin. This resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

As a part of the council’s elimination of the Percent for Art funding mechanism last year, it established a new approach to funding public art, based on integrating public art into some selected city capital projects and pursuing a mix of private-public funding for other projects. Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to the new program – to be implemented by staff and the public art commission and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015.

Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the Percent for Art program. A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

8:26 p.m. Note that the council flipped the two resolutions on the agenda. Briere is now describing the rationale for her resolution.

8:28 p.m. Returning funds without committing to funding administration of the new public art program amounted to a “pocket veto,” Briere says, which she did not want to pursue. She felt that the Argo Cascades would not be able to be finished in the timeframe of the transition – given that it has stalled. That’s why her resolution does not leave funds for that project. If the council is going to move forward with a new art program, then the council needs a plan to move forward.

8:29 p.m. Petersen says that not returning the funds is a barrier to creating the kind of public art program that the community wants. She now proposes two amendments.

8:31 p.m. Petersen suggests that the report on the plan be due on Oct. 6, 2014 instead of March 2, 2015. Six months is a reasonable amount of time, she says. Briere and Kailasapathy are OK with that. Petersen’s amendment is accepted as friendly.

8:32 p.m. Petersen also wants to fund the Canoe Imagine Art project, which means that the total amount to be returned is $936,140. That’s also accepted as friendly.

8:34 p.m. Hupy is explaining the cost of the Canoe Imagine Art project – at the request of Warpehoski. There’s a $21,000 match requirement, Hupy says. The original plan was to raise $11,000 of that through fundraising. But the full amount could be provided by the city, Hupy says, if that’s what the council wants. Briere wants the city contribution to be just $10,000.

8:35 p.m. Hieftje calls it a worthy project. He doesn’t want to risk the match and wants to leave it as $21,000. Petersen also wants to leave it at $21,000.

8:36 p.m. Lumm allows that it’s unusual to have two competing resolutions. She supports the elements that overlap between the two resolutions. But she has a problem with establishing a budget for FY 2015 and 2016. It’s too vague. Where would the money come from? she asks.

8:38 p.m. Lumm says it’s clear that the council has different views on which projects should continue. “Keeping it simple is a good principle,” she says. Briere’s resolution is trying to do too much at once, Lumm says, offering a little something for everyone.

8:39 p.m. Kailasapathy identifies her problem with the resolution: establishing a budget for public art administration for FY 2015 and 2016. She has not come to terms with the nature of the priority for public art, she says. There are other competing needs for public services. She calls the resolution “open ended.” She says there’s a “public art fatigue” in the community.

8:41 p.m. Anglin alludes to private collaboration. He won’t support this resolution.

8:42 p.m. Warpehoski reviews the two points of Eaton’s bargain: return of the money and the funding of the part-time public art administrator. A third item on Warpehoski’s agenda is a good transition to the new public art program. He wants all three parts as part of a compromise.

8:44 p.m. During the public hearing on the ordinance, Warpehoski says that Partridge observed that public art has divided the community. Warpehoski notes that the regular annual budget process requires only six votes for amendment.

8:45 p.m. Petersen says that the ordinance revision approved in 2013 calls out a 2-3 year transition. Yes, the transition will take money, she says. Approval of the funds isn’t being requested, only a plan, Petersen adds.

8:47 p.m. Lumm says she doesn’t support the concept of a full-time public art administrator. She says she really doesn’t know what it means to establish a budget for FY 2015 and 2016. How much? Where will it come from? she asks. It’s way too vague, she says, with way too many unknowns. Drip by drip by drip, money is being spent, Lumm says. So she doesn’t want to wait until the regular budget process.

8:50 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t vote for either resolution. The issue can be left to the city administrator to put in the budget proposal for FY 2015, he indicates. The resolution directs Powers to do something that he needs to do anyway. As far as the money in the public art fund, FY 2014 is already appropriated, Kunselman notes. If there’s an emergency, then the council now has the ability to transfer money. He says it’s difficult to maintain the commitment to the transition when he’s being badgered by the members of the public art community. They say they don’t trust the council, Kunselman adds, but he doesn’t trust some of them. Still, it’s important to stay committed to the transition, he says. He points out that it will be difficult without a staff person between now and July when the new fiscal year begins.

8:52 p.m. Briere says she felt it was a logical step to discuss how to create a plan and a funding strategy for that plan at the same time that funds are being returned. She wants the city administrator to tell the council how much the transition is going to cost. Responding to Kunselman’s characterization of her resolution as micromanaging, Briere says she saw it as “reaffirming.”

8:53 p.m. Briere appreciates Kunselman’s view that it’s really a budget process discussion. But her concern is that the council is once again leaving AAPAC with uncertainly about what the city council is doing. Giving clear guidance is what the council is supposed to, she says.

8:54 p.m. Hieftje floats the idea of postponement. That motion is on the floor now.

8:55 p.m. Lumm doesn’t want to postpone. Hieftje reiterates that he wants to review the work of the council’s committee on public art from last year. It doesn’t do any harm to postpone, he says.

8:57 p.m. Eaton says the harm is that it puts the compromise in jeopardy, regarding the contract extension for the public art administrator. Eaton says he doesn’t think this resolution has the votes to pass. Hieftje says that the other one doesn’t have the votes to pass, either. Hieftje says that he can’t imagine public art in Ann Arbor without a public art administrator.

9:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone this resolution. Teall hesitated for several seconds before casting the final and deciding vote in the roll call. Voting for it besides Teall were Briere, Petersen, Kunselman, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

9:01 p.m. DC-1 Return $819,005 from public art fund to funds of origin. This resolution would return $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. This resolution is sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). It requires eight votes on the 11-member council t pass. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

9:02 p.m. Lumm is now reviewing the details of her resolution. The rationale for returning the funds is compelling, she says. She wants a “clean break.” It’s especially true when significant dollars are at stake, she says.

9:04 p.m. Eaton says that in addition to Lumm’s points, this approach sends an important message to the public art commission. It recognizes that the three projects have been approved. He doesn’t want AAPAC to get the message (as they would with Briere’s resolution) that if they don’t spend the money, then they lose it. He wants AAPAC to be “selective.”

9:07 p.m. Briere says that over a year ago, she and Lumm had come with different proposals about what to do if the public art millage failed. Lumm’s had been defeated, and Briere had withdrawn hers, she says. Instead, a council committee had been established. So she wants to postpone this. She ventures that it doesn’t have eight votes to pass. In an ideal world, she and Eaton and Kailasapathy and Lumm would iron out some differences. She hopes that some agreement could be reached before the next meeting.

9:08 p.m. Lumm says, “My breath is taken away.” She refers to Briere’s comments as a “lecture about an ideal world.” Lumm tells Briere a lot can be accomplished if people work together and that she wishes Briere had taken the opportunity to do that.

9:11 p.m. Kunselman is reviewing the specific ordinance language. He wants to make sure the city administrator could set up the FY 2105 budget with the money moved back to the funds of origin. City attorney Stephen Postema isn’t sure of the answer to Kunselman’s question. Kunselman says he supports postponement.

9:13 p.m. Hieftje is asking Hupy about the matching grant that the Canoe Imagine Art needs. The state seems to need a commitment from the city on that sooner rather than later.

9:16 p.m. Hieftje seems to be floating the idea of funding the Canoe Imagine Art from the money earmarked for the Argo Cascades project. He asks for a friendly amendment that would fund the Canoe Imagine Art project. Briere also wants $5,000 for the Coleman Jewett memorial chair.

9:16 p.m. Eaton says there’s no time pressure on the Jewett project.

9:19 p.m. Kunselman says: “I’m getting really confused.” If the council does nothing, then the money is there available to AAPAC. They might not have a public administrator to assist them, yet they’d have some assistance. Some back and forth between Hieftje and Kunselman ensues. Hieftje says he’s trying to save the part-time administrator’s contract as a part of the compromise.

9:19 p.m. Lumm says that she’ll support the $5,000 for the Jewett memorial.

9:20 p.m. Briere says she’s not sure there’s enough affirmative votes to pass it. Her own bias it to “postpone the thing” and work out the details. She won’t withdraw the motion to postpone.

9:21 p.m. Kunselman says if it’s postponed and a single resolution comes back, then he’d reconsider his position and possibly vote to support it.

9:23 p.m. Eaton tells Hieftje that if this is postponed, then he’ll move for reconsideration, as long as no one yells “Shame on you!” at him. This was an allusion to Warpehoski’s outburst at the Feb. 3 meeting, following the council’s rejection of a contract extension for the public art administrator.

9:23 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone this resolution as well.

9:24 p.m. Recess. We are now in recess.

9:39 p.m. Here’s the email to Kunselman from Powers, backing Kunselman’s position that the DDA didn’t file its TIF annual reports in a timely way: [.pdf of Feb. 17, 2014 Powers email] We’re still in recess. Several conversational pods. WEMU is interviewing everyone in sight.

9:41 p.m. We’re back.

9:41 p.m. DB-1 Adopt Green Streets stormwater guidelines. This resolution sets infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

9:43 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) says he’s glad to see this on the agenda. He’s complimentary of the work the environmental commission and its water committee did. The council had provided general policy guidance, he says, but the commission and its committee had done the work that lets the council takes this step.

9:46 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asks Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She asks for construction cost premiums. Hupy indicates the policy is to look at each site and to look at the toolbox of options that are available. It may or may not be expensive, he says.

9:48 p.m. Hupy clarifies that the city is moving away from using porous pavement. Given 400 miles of standard pavement, he ventured that it was unlikely that a few blocks of porous pavement would be treated with its particular maintenance needs. The strategy is now to put a rock bed under the roadway. The expectation is for the water to drain through it. Briere asks how deep. They’re about 10-12 feet comes the answer from Jen Lawson in the audience. Lawson is the city’s water resources manager.

9:50 p.m. Kunselman ventures that this policy reflects what the city has already been doing. Hupy confirms that. Kunselman asks if the policy will allow the city to qualify for grants. Hupy says the city has received grants before having a policy. The grant availability, however, is diminishing, just as the city is adopting a formal policy.

9:51 p.m. Anglin says thank you to the staff. People have worked on this for at least 10 years, he says. He cites the Carusos specifically. It’s about flood control, he says. Anglin says he’s supportive of buying land to detain water.

9:52 p.m. Hupy invites Jen Lawson to stand up to be acknowledged. She gets a quick round of applause.

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt Green Streets guidelines.

[Ed. note: In the original live update file, the descriptions of DB-2 and DB-3 below were erroneously flipped.] 

9:52 p.m. DB-2 Development rights on the White property. This resolution would approve expenditure of money from the city’s greenbelt program to help acquire development rights on a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, in Scio Township. For this deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335, with the township contributing the remainder. [For additional background, see Land: Greenbelt above.]

9:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve expenditure of greenbelt funds to acquire development rights on the Moore White property.

9:53 p.m. DB-3 Development rights on Moore property. This resolution would approve expenditure of money from the city’s greenbelt program to help acquire development rights on a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. [For additional background, see Land: Greenbelt above.]

9:54 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support this. Scio Township is paying 70% of the price. She says that this is consistent with the greenbelt guidelines, so she’ll support it.

9:55 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t support this. It’s isolated from other greenbelt properties, he says. It’s just providing open space for people who live in Loch Alpine.

9:56 p.m. Outcome: Outcome: The council has voted 8-2 to approve expenditure of greenbelt funds to acquire development rights on the White Moore property. Dissenting were Kunselman and Kailasapathy.

9:56 p.m. DS-1 Approve Blue Cross Blue Shield renewal contracts. This resolution renews the city’s contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for the current calendar year, from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 to provide health care coverage to city employees, their eligible dependents, retirees, and their eligible dependents. The amount indicated in the resolution is $1,437,042.

9:56 p.m. Lumm says the city has a good strategy on stop-loss.

9:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract extension with Blue Cross Blue Shield.

9:56 p.m. DS-2 Apply for firefighter training facility grant. This resolution would approve a $334,140 grant application to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit] [For additional background, see Equipment: Firefighting Simulator above.]

9:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the grant application to purchase a mobile firefighter training facility.

9:57 p.m. DS-3 Purchase road salt. The resolution would authorize the purchase of an additional $47,200 worth of road salt.

9:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the road salt purchase.

9:58 p.m. DS-4 Purchase sewer truck. The council is being asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. [For additional background, see Equipment: Water Main Breaks above.]

10:01 p.m. “This is really exciting because this is a big piece of equipment!” says Kunselman. Hupy says that his wife describes the truck as looking “like an elephant going down the road.” Kunselman says this is the kind of truck that was used to repair a water main break in his neighborhood. The equipment provides for worker safety, Kunselman says. “Vactors make the best pumps out there,” Hupy says.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of a sewer truck.

10:01 p.m. DS-5 Approve purchase of hydraulic excavator. The council is being asked to approve the purchase a hydraulic excavator for $176,472. The equipment is used for repairing water main breaks. [For additional background, see Equipment: Water Main Breaks above.]

10:03 p.m. Lumm wants to know if it’s worth $68,000 more. Hupy says it speeds up being able to do the repair when the water main is deep. If you’re one of the folks doing the work, it might have a different value, he says.

10:04 p.m. Briere asks if the city is retaining an excavator that digs shallower. Yes, explains Hupy.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of a hydraulic excavator.

10:05 p.m. DS-6 Right of first refusal on Edwards Brothers property. This resolution was postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting. It would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land. [For additional background, see Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property above.]

10:06 p.m. Lumm makes a motion to go into closed session under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The council votes to do so, over dissent from Kunselman.

10:06 p.m. Closed session. We’re in closed session under the OMA exception for land acquisition.

10:21 p.m. Only seven in the audience here in chambers. Planning manager Wendy Rampson is chatting with community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl.

10:29 p.m. We’re back.

10:31 p.m. The council is now in open session again.

10:31 p.m. Lumm moves to postpone the Edwards Brothers item until a special session on Feb. 24 at 7 p.m.

10:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the vote on the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property until a special session on Feb. 24

10:34 p.m. Communications from council. Kunselman is talking about Mary Beth Doyle Park. He’s happy that the asphalt paths will have snow cleared. He appreciates city staff’s work with the Washtenaw County water resources office to ensure that the paths can be treated.

10:36 p.m. Kunselman also announces his intent to bring forward a repeal to the contribution in lieu (CIL) ordinance for parking requirements. [That allows developers to satisfy on-site parking requirements by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system.] And he says he’ll bring forward an amendment to the city’s crosswalk ordinance to make it consistent with the wording of mayor John Hieftje’s veto. [That involves insertion of a requirement for motorists to stop, if they "can do so safely."] He calls the Edwards Brothers question “speculative development.” He ventures that it would be prudent for the council to engage in a conversation about that regarding the Library Lane site. He’s trying to do his part by learning more about the Build America Bonds used to construct the Library Lane underground parking garage. He wants to review the “as built” documents for the structure. He says that he wants to handle the property above the Library Lane structure in a way that’s similar to the way the council handled the old Y lot – by hiring a broker and putting the air rights up for sale.

10:40 p.m. Reconsideration of public art administrator’s contract. Eaton moves to re-open the agenda. The council approves the agenda amendment to include the resolution on the public art administrator’s contract that was defeated on Feb. 3. Eaton moves the resolution’s reconsideration. The council then agrees to postpone.

10:41 p.m. Outcome: The council postpones this until March 3, 2014.

10:42 p.m. Communications from the city attorney. City attorney Stephen Postema gets clarification about whether the council wants a closed session to be part of the Feb. 24 special meeting agenda. That is what the council wants.

10:43 p.m. Clerk’s report. Kailasapathy asks about a note from the state tax commission about tribunals. CFO Tom Crawford says there will be follow-up from the city administrator.

10:43 p.m. Public commentary general time. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:45 p.m. Thomas Partridge says he was up almost all night last night due to a landscaping company’s snow removal activity. Snow removal is important, he says, but it’s not being done responsibly. Giant piles of salt-laden snow and ice are at the shopping centers, he says. Partridge wants the council to establish an ordinance regulating snow removal.

10:46 p.m. Kai Petainen is now at the podium, and he says “I’m not here to complain.” He’s from Sault Ste. Marie he says, and the city has done a great job with snow removal.

10:48 p.m. Ed Vielmetti tells the council he attended the last building board of appeals meeting and says it’s good to see progress, even if it’s slow. He also raises issues about late filing of meeting minutes from various boards and commissions. He says he doesn’t know what reasonable expectations might be for meeting minutes, but thinks it’d be useful for the city administrator to set appropriate expectations.

10:50 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) is responding to Partridge’s complaint about noise during snow removal. She allows it’s a problem. She mentions the noise ordinance and suggests that a call to the police desk would result in action.

10:50 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

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

The possible acquisition of land is also on the agenda, in the form of a resolution postponed from an earlier meeting. The resolution would exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street.

The meeting is shifted to Tuesday because of the Presidents Day holiday on Monday.

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3 meeting, the council will consider the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment is a resolution that would return $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. That kind of  resolution is typically analyzed as needing an eight-vote majority to pass, but it’s not yet indicated as an “eight-voter” on the online agenda. [Updated 1 p.m. Friday: It's now recorded as needing eight votes.] Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money.

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 agenda is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. It would need eight votes to pass.  The result of that council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid. The contract is supposed be back  on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled.

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda also features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is the repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost. The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. So the council will be asked to approve the purchase of one for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800. The purchase of two vans for a total of $50,320 is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 wood chipper.

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations.

In real estate matters, the council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the greenbelt millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335.

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

A bit south of Biercamp on State Street is the topic of the most significant land acquisition matter on the Feb. 18 agenda. A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land.

On the consent agenda is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

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

Public Art

Three items related to public art are expected to be handled at the Feb. 18, 2014 council meeting: (1) a final vote on an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance; (2) a resolution enabled by that change, which would transfer money out of the city’s public art fund back to the funds from which the money was drawn; and (3) a resolution extending by six months the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator and appropriating funds to cover the $18,500 contract extension.

Public Art: Ordinance Amendment

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3, 2014 meeting, the council will consider the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years.

The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

This ordinance revision reprises a previous effort to amend the public art ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin. That unsuccessful effort came eight months ago at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. At that meeting, the council did eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism from the public art ordinance, and also allowed the most recent year’s accumulation of money to be returned to the funds of origin. The council also returned that most recent year’s worth of funding – $326,464.

The demised Percent for Art program required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. As a part of the June 3  ordinance change, the council replaced the Percent for Art funding program with a new approach that would allow city staff, working with the public art commission, to identify capital projects suitable for “baking in” art. In addition to city funding of art designed to be an integral part of a specific capital improvement project, the approach envisioned  general donations to a public art fund, and public art projects paid for with a combination of public and private funds.

The current balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund as of Jan. 14, 2014 is $839,507. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Any actual transfer of money would require separate council action.

Public Art: Resolution on Return to Funds of Origin

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment is an item that’s on the Feb. 18 agenda – a resolution that would return about $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which it was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. That kind of resolution is typically analyzed as meeting a charter requirement for an eight-vote majority to pass. However, as of mid-morning on Feb. 14, the item was not flagged in the online agenda as an “eight-voter.” Responding to an inquiry from The Chronicle, the city clerk’s office was checking into the question of how many votes are required. [Updated 1 p.m. Friday: The online agenda has been updated to reflect the eight-vote requirement.]

Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. Returning $819,005 in funding would leave $20,500 – which is the total amount needed to fund an extension of the public art administrator’s contract and some additional administrative costs.

A breakdown of the amounts that could be returned – and the funds to which that money would be returned – is covered here: [Art budget summary]

If the issue of the amount to be returned isn’t settled on Feb. 18 and the resolution does not pass in any form, another option would be to take up the question in the context of the annual budget resolution, which is considered at the council’s second meeting in May every year. Under the city charter, the budget resolution as a whole requires seven votes to be approved. But amendments to the budget resolution are subject only to the six-vote majority requirement.

On Feb. 10, the city released a list  of budget requests made by department heads for the next fiscal year. And  $80,000 from the general fund has been requested to fund a transition  from the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new public art program. The $80,000 would include compensation for a full-time art administrator for a year. In the meantime the council will likely again consider a six-month extension of the part-time administrator’s contract at its Feb. 18 meeting.

Updated 9 p.m. Friday: The wrangling over the amount of public art money to be returned has already begun. A second resolution transferring money from the public art fund to its funds of origin has now been added to the agenda. The second resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and escalates the one sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Briere’s resolution eliminates funding for the Argo Cascades art project – because the committee making the final selection between two artists has not been able to come to a consensus to move forward with one of them. So Briere’s resolution would return $957,140, compared to the $819,005 called for in the proposal originally put on the agenda by Lumm.

Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to be implemented by staff and the public art commission and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015. Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the Percent for Art program.

A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

The need for continued funding for arts administration is based on the new approach to the public art program established by the city council in June 2013. That new approach can include city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, as well as projects funded through a combination of private and public money.

Public Art: Resolution to Extend Public Art Administrator’s Contract

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. The result of that council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid.

The contract will likely be taken up on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled. The art administrator’s contract was first considered at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, but was postponed in the context of a political horse trade – support for the administrator’s contract being contingent on beginning a process to transfer money accumulated under Percent for Art in previous years, back to the money’s funds of origin.

The conversation between mayor John Hieftje and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table toward the end of the Feb. 3 meeting indicated that Eaton would be bringing the item back for reconsideration on Feb. 18, provided that public art money was returned to its funds of origin.

Equipment

The Feb. 18 agenda is relatively heavy on items related to acquiring basic equipment: a combination sewer truck, a hydraulic excavator, a garbage truck, two vans, a wood chipper, and a firefighter training unit.

Equipment: Water Main Breaks

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost.

Here’s a sampling of recent water main breaks – from alerts the city of Ann Arbor has sent out:

• Jan. 15: West Madison between Fourth and Fifth
• Jan. 22: Devonshire between Washtenaw and Melrose
• Jan. 28: S. Industrial between Jewett and Eisenhower
• Jan. 28: Yost between Washtenaw and Parkwood
• Jan. 31: Pontiac Trail at Brookside
• Feb. 5: Washtenaw east of Brockman
• Feb. 11: Pauline between Seventh and Stadium

The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break.

City of Ann Arbor water main breaks by year. It’s not unusual to have several water main breaks in a given year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor financial records, chart by The Chronicle)

Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. The council will be asked to approve the purchase of this type of equipment for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

In more detail, according to the memo accompanying the resolution, the combination sewer truck is to be procured from Jack Doheny Supplies Inc. It will replace a 2005 truck with 6,685 hours of use. Over the last two years, the truck had broken down and needed repairs 63 times – taking it out of service anywhere from fours hours to more than two weeks each time.

When that truck is unavailable do to water main break repairs, a similar truck used for stormwater system maintenance is re-tasked for water main breaks. But that poses a challenge to keep up with the scheduled preventive maintenance of the stormwater system. And failure to meet the cleaning schedule puts the system at risk for clogging and backing up into structures.

On the hydraulic excavator, the staff memo explains that the John Deere model 135G hydraulic excavator to be purchased will replace a 2002 mini excavator. The primary use for that excavator is for water main repair.

The new hydraulic excavator will be able to dig down to 19 feet, which is 7 feet deeper than the 2002 mini excavator. So the larger water mains, which are typically deeper and older, will be reachable.

The mini excavator has been in service over 5,350 hours of use and half its total repair costs have accumulated in the last 3.5 years. The old excavator will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Garbage Truck

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800 from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It’s a smaller truck – with a 6-yard capacity. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The new truck will replace a 2002 model with over 14,500 hours of operation. According to the staff memo, in the last three years, 57% of all time spent maintaining the vehicle has been spent on breakdowns while only 14% has been for preventive maintenance. In that three-year period, the cost of breakdown repairs has been more than $78,000, which is more than half of the 13-year lifetime total of $141,480.

Equipment: Vans

The purchase of two vans – from Red Holman GMC in Oakland County, for a total of $50,320 – is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. The van purchase was recommended by the park advisory commission at its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting.

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. The van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

Equipment: Wood Chipper

Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. The unit is a whole-tree chipper – it will process up to 21-inch diameter logs.

The chipper to be replaced has been in service for 11 years. It has 4,100 hours of use and 35% of its total repair cost ($74,600) has accrued in the last 2.5 years. The old chipper will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Firefighting Simulator

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit]

Land

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several land and land use items: two greenbelt properties; a green streets policy; a zoning issue; and the possible exercise of the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Mallow property on South State Street.

Land: Greenbelt

The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor, through its greenbelt program, will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The deal was recommended by the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at its Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended moving ahead with this deal at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

Land: Green Streets

On the council’s agenda is a policy item related to land: infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

Land: Hofmann Rezoning

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting.

The two parcels in question – just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission and the city council. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

During deliberations on Jan. 21, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he hadn’t been sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. Warpehoski told other councilmembers that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property

A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land.

The council had on Feb. 3 postponed the item “to our next meeting” – which was scheduled for Feb. 18. But subsequently a special meeting was called for Feb. 10 to consider the question. That special meeting was then cancelled.

The resolution would approve the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriate necessary funds, and direct the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. The agenda item contained no other background information.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its following meeting, on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

The pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. The council will still be within the 60-day window when it votes at its Feb. 18 meeting.

The resolution the council will be taking up again on Feb. 18 requires an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council – because the resolution changes the city budget and involves a purchase of real estate.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

On the Feb. 18 consent agenda is  a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” Responding to an emailed request from The Chronicle, city engineer Patrick Cawley provided the following accident history for the locations:

• Fuller Road (2) on May 13, 2009 and Feb. 11, 2010.
• S. University (3) on Feb. 7, 2006, Nov. 24, 2007, and Sept. 8, 2008.
• Geddes (1 involving a bicyclist) on Feb. 9, 2008.

Road Salt

Also on the agenda is a resolution to approve purchase of additional ice-control salt. Based on the $47,200 amount to be appropriated, and the $36.23 price per ton, the council will be authorizing the purchase of roughly 1,300 tons of additional salt.

A city staff estimate provided to The Chronicle puts the amount of salt used so far this season – through early February – at about 6,600 tons. That’s roughly at least as much or more than has been used in each of the previous five winter seasons. If the city uses all of the additional salt to be purchased – bringing this season’s total to about 7,900 tons – that would approach the maximum amount of salt used by the city over the last seven seasons. In the 2007-2008 season, the city of Ann Arbor used 8,500 tons of salt on its roads.

Ice-control salt usage in the city of Ann Arbor by year. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle.)

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city’s snowplow equipment uses “electronically calibrated spreader controls” to keep the amount of salt used to the minimum amount that is still consistent with traffic safety. The price the city is paying for the salt to be authorized on Feb. 18 is established through a state of Michigan’s MIDEAL program. According to the staff memo, the cost for purchasing additional material on the open market would be about $140, or nearly four times as much as under the MIDEAL program.

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 The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!