The city lost both phases of the litigation, which began when the city sought to enforce city charter eligibility requirements against Dascola to prevent him from being a candidate in the Ward 3 city council Democratic primary race. The election was won by Julie Grand in a three-person field that included Samuel McMullen.

The $35,431.75 amount is the total agreed to for the initial phase of the lawsuit on city charter eligibility requirements ($30,731.75), plus half the amount that was agreed to in the second phase, which involved the counting of misprinted ballots ($9,400). The other half of the $9,400 will be paid by the state of Michigan, which intervened in the second phase of the lawsuit. So the total paid to Dascola’s attorney, Tom Wieder, will be $40,132, which includes court costs.

Fees for the initial phase of the lawsuit were settled on June 19, 2014 – at $30,731.75. That total includes attorney fees in the amount of $30,306.25 – which was the result of 93.25 hours billed at an hourly rate of $325. The remainder of that total was $425.50 – costs for filings and document retrieval.

The motion for fees in the second phase of the lawsuit was filed by Wieder on Aug. 19, 2014 and asked for a total of $12,320 based on 30.80 hours of work at $400 per hour. Wieder’s filing parcels out each item of work to either the city or the state or to both jointly. The amount was reduced to $9,400 through back-and-forth among Wieder, the state and the city, with the final settlement splitting the amount evenly between the city and the state. [.pdf of Aug. 19, 2014 motion for fees]

The initial phase of the lawsuit was decided in favor of Dascola on May 20, 2014. At issue were city charter durational requirements on voter registration and residency – that require city councilmembers to be registered to vote in the city and to be a resident of the ward they want to represent for at least a year prior to taking office. Dascola contended he met the residency requirement, but conceded that he fell short of the voter registration requirement. He did not register to vote in the city until Jan. 15, 2014. The court ruled that the requirements were not enforceable, because they’d been ruled unconstitutional in the early 1970s, and never re-enacted by the city. Dascola submitted sufficient signatures to qualify, so the impact of the ruling was that Dascola was supposed to appear on the Ward 3 ballot.

However through a series of errors, his name did not appear on the printed ballots and nearly 400 of the misprinted ballots were sent to Ward 3 absentee voters. A dispute arose over how ballots would be counted if someone did not return one of the replacement ballots. The state of Michigan intervened on behalf of the Bureau of Elections, which told the city to go ahead and count the ballots. But on July 22, 2014 the federal court ruled that such ballots should not be counted.

The kind of city charter eligibility requirements that triggered the lawsuit in the first place should not become an issue in the future, if Ann Arbor voters approve charter amendments that the city council has voted to place on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot.

Action came at the council’s July 21, 2014 meeting. The council had one additional meeting on its calendar at which it could have voted to place the resolution on the ballot – on Aug. 7. That’s the last council meeting before the Aug. 12 deadline for certifying ballot language to the Washtenaw County clerk’s office.

The existing charter language imposes a one-year durational requirement of voter registration on elected and appointed officials in the city. But the federal court ruled that the city’s requirements were not enforceable, because they had been struck down as unconstitutional in two different court cases dating from the early 1970s. Similar durational requirements have – in the intervening years – been found constitutional in various jurisdictions. However, the court ruled on May 20 this year that the city could not enforce its requirements against Ward 3 Democratic primary candidate Bob Dascola – because the city had not re-enacted its requirement using a standard legislative process.

The placement of a ballot proposal in front of voters on Nov. 4 will use the legislative process of a popular referendum on the charter to establish eligibility requirements that are enforceable. The language approved by the council at its July 21 meeting imposes a requirement that in order to be mayor, someone would need to be a registered voter in the city, and to serve on the city council someone would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent – at the time they submit their paperwork to appear on the ballot.

For example, a potential candidate for the city council would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. And a potential candidate for mayor would need to be a registered voter in the city at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk.

With paperwork for partisan primaries due in April – for November elections – the new requirements would translate practically speaking to something similar to a six-and-a-half-month durational requirement. For independent candidates, that timeframe would be closer to three and a half months. In the case of a vacancy that needs to be filled by appointment, the new charter requirement would require the person to be a registered voter in the geographic area they are being appointed to represent – at the time of appointment. 

A draft of the new charter language and the ballot proposal was made public two weeks ago in advance of the council’s July 7 meeting. But that draft did not appear on the council’s agenda for that meeting. A different draft appeared on the council’s July 21 agenda. A key difference between the two versions was that the July 21 version took an approach that split the question into two different ballot proposals – one dealing with elected officials and the other dealing with appointed officials. The splitting of the proposal into two questions came at the suggestion of the state attorney general’s office.

On the afternoon of Friday, July 18, the city attorney’s office was working with the state attorney general’s office on the wording of the charter amendment and the ballot proposal. The wording of the draft to be considered by the council at its July 21 meeting was initially not accurately reflected in the online agenda, because words that were supposed to have been struck through were not struck through. By late Saturday night, the wording had been corrected.

The final version approved by the council, which reflected some additional minor changes, was circulated to councilmembers about a half hour before the meeting started: [.pdf of 6:30 p.m. July 21, 2014 version]

Details of the council’s deliberations on July 21 are included in The Chronicle’s live updates, filed from council chambers during the meeting.

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

Outcomes from the meeting are also reported in the Civic News Ticker.

A common theme among several items on the Ann Arbor city council’s July 21, 2014 agenda is infrastructure. That includes physical infrastructure – like roads, sidewalks, bridges and buildings. But it also includes legal infrastructure. The council will be considering a resolution that would put a charter amendment in front of voters for the Nov. 4 election. The amendment would establish eligibility requirements for elected officials, after a federal court ruled earlier this year that the existing charter requirements are not legally enforceable.

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

Another significant item that was initially placed on the July 21 agenda – but is expected to be withdrawn by its sponsor, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) – is a resolution that would direct the city administrator to list the 415 W. Washington property for sale.

Two other land acquisition items on the agenda would put the city on the purchasing end. A resolution sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether it is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

And a resolution sponsored by Margie Teall (Ward 4) would authorize the purchase of the property at 3401 Platt Road on behalf of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC). Cost of the purchase would be $195,000, to be reimbursed to the city by AAHC. The AAHC is undertaking reconstruction of its properties adjoining this parcel, and this acquisition would facilitate that.

The July 21 meeting is the council’s last one before the Tuesday, Aug. 5 primary elections. The meeting that week is shifted from Monday to Thursday, and will fall on Aug. 7.

Physical infrastructure on the agenda includes a $1,537,608 construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. That work will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue.

Another road reconstruction project on the agenda is a $3,445,200 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the Stone School Road improvements project – between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter.

A second agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding, will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners.

Final approval of a special assessment for an additional sidewalk construction project also appears on the agenda. The sidewalk construction will be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14.

On July 21 the council will also be asked to approve a $104,107 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the regular bridge inspection program. That includes the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue.

Six new pumps for the wastewater treatment plant to be purchased from Premier Pump Inc. for $425,682 is another agenda item.

With respect to legal infrastructure, a federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. On the council’s July 21 agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election. The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot.

Several items related to development also appear on the council’s July 21 agenda. The council will consider a site plan for 2625 Jackson, on the southeast corner of Jackson and I-94, and just north of the Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a 1,820-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,220-square-foot retail center.

The council will also consider a site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett. The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage.

For State Street Village – a proposed 78-unit apartment project that will eventually appear on the council’s agenda – the council will consider giving initial approval at its July 21 meeting to the rezoning of the land. The 4.5-acre parcel would be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district).

Not tied to any particular project on the July 21 agenda is final consideration by the council of a change to downtown zoning. The item is confined to a 1.1-acre parcel at 425 S. Main St. at the southeast corner of William and Main. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) – at its June 16 meeting that followed a complex series of votes. At the same meeting, the council also gave initial approval to a change to the overlay character district for the parcel, after amending the height limit – from 100 feet to 60 feet. Zoning changes require two votes by the council, taken at separate meetings, because they are changes to the city’s ordinances.

Another ordinance change on the July 21 agenda – which is getting final consideration by the council – is one that clarifies the composition and appointment process for the city’s environmental commission. Related thematically to that item is a resolution that clarifies the composition of the city’s commission on disability issues.

The consent agenda for July 21 includes an item that indicates the approach of fall – approval of the change to traffic patterns for the Aug. 27-29 University of Michigan student move-in.

This article includes more details for many of these agenda items. Information on other agenda items is 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.

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s July 21 agenda includes several items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Springwater Street Reconstruction

The council will consider a $1,537,608 construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. That work will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue.

Funding for the project will be drawn from the street millage fund ($883,316), stormwater fund ($903,065), and drinking water funds ($489,574) for a total project cost of $2,275,955.

Funding from the drinking water and stormwater funds is based on the fact that the project includes replacing the existing water main and performing stormwater system improvements – including construction of sand filters within the Butternut Street and Nordman Avenue right-of-way. Construction is expected to start in August 2014 with completion expected this fall.

Physical Infrastructure: Stone School Road

The council will consider a $3,445,200 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the Stone School Road improvements project – between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter

A new 5-foot wide, concrete sidewalk will be constructed on the west side of the roadway from Pheasant Run Circle to Ellsworth Road. Included in the project is the replacement of the existing 16-inch water main in Stone School Road. The water main has broken several times. A short segment of 8-inch sanitary sewer is included in the project. Bioswales and “in-line” stormwater detention will be included. An existing jack-arch culvert under Old Stone School Road along Malletts Creek will be removed, in order to improve creek hydraulics, habitat and stormwater quality. New street lights along Stone School Road will also be installed.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church, Barton

The council will consider an agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding. It will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners.

Here’s how the funding breaks down:

Project Funding
               Scio Church    Barton       TOTAL
Federal Share     $164,000   $36,000    $200,000
Local Share        199,474    42,626     242,100
Spcl Assess          1,626     1,980       3,606            

TOTAL             $365,100   $80,606    $445,706

-

Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

The council will consider giving final approval of the assessment roll for the construction of a new sidewalk on Pontiac Trail, after a public hearing. The council voted to set the public hearing for the July 21 meeting on June 6, 2014. The cost that will be assessed to adjoining property owners is $72,218.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14. The project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s part of the city’s Complete Streets program.

In addition to the sidewalk, approximately 1,960 feet of curb and gutter is being added north of Skydale along Pontiac Trail to protect existing wetland areas. [.pdf of Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment area]

Infrastructure: Bridge Inspections

The council will consider approval of a $104,107 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the regular bridge inspection program.

The city is required by federal law to inspect its bridges every two years. The city’s approach is to inspect about half of its bridges each year in order to even out the cost.

Bridges to be inspected include the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue, which is considered a bridge.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the following bridges will be inspected in 2014: Island Drive over the Traver Creek; Maiden Lane over the Huron River; Fuller Road (eastbound and westbound) over the Huron River; Huron Parkway over the Huron River, Norfolk Southern Railroad and Geddes Avenue; and Wastewater Treatment Plant Drive over the Huron River.

And in 2015, the following bridges will be inspected: Broadway over the Huron River; Broadway over Depot Street and the Norfolk Southern Railroad; E. Stadium Boulevard bridge over S. State Street; E. Stadium Boulevard bridge over the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks; Fuller Road over the Norfolk Southern Railroad; East Medical Center Drive over the Norfolk Southern Railroad; Eisenhower Parkway over the Ann Arbor Railroad; the portion of the Fifth Avenue parking structure under South Fifth Avenue; and the University of Michigan tunnel under Huron Parkway.

Funding will come from the major street fund ($133,500) and the sewage disposal fund ($2,500). The University of Michigan and the DDA will reimburse the city for about $6,600 for inspections related to facilities they maintain.

Infrastructure: Wastewater Pumps

An item to purchase six new pumps for the wastewater treatment plant is on the July 21 agenda. The pumps would be bought from Premier Pump Inc. for $425,682.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, the city’s wastewater treatment plant has six 150-horsepower secondary effluent pumps that are about 35 years old. When the plant is operating in typical mode, two of the six pumps are in continuous operation. Occasionally, when the Huron River is at high levels, additional pumps are used to pump secondary effluent simultaneously to the sand filters and the river.

Over the past three years, three of the pumps have failed. One of the pumps was irreparable, and the other two pumps were repaired but are not reliable for long-term use. The remaining three pumps are fully functional, but in a worn condition.

Failure of the secondary effluent pumps was unforeseen, according to the staff memo, so the cost of their replacement was not included in the design of the Facilities Renovations Project (FRP) currently under construction at the wastewater treatment plant. The city’s attempt to include replacement of the pumps in the FRP and to receive funding through the state’s revolving fund loan program was rejected by the Michigan Depart. of Environmental Quality, according to the staff memo.

Legal Infrastructure

A federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. That ruling was based on early 1970s decisions that struck down Ann Arbor’s city charter eligibility requirements as unconstitutional. On the council’s July 21 agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election.

The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot.

For example, a potential candidate for the city council would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. And a potential candidate for mayor would need to be a registered voter in the city at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. With paperwork for partisan primaries due in April – for November elections – the new requirements would translate practically speaking to something similar to a six-and-a-half-month durational requirement. For independent candidates, that timeframe would be closer to three and a half months. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) provided a text of the correct draft to media outlets: [.pdf of July 18, 2014 charter amendment resolution text]

On the afternoon of Friday, July 18, the city attorney’s office was working with the state attorney general’s office on the wording of the charter amendment and the ballot proposal. The proposal has been divided into two questions – one focused on elective officers, and the other dealing with appointive officers.

According to information provided on the Michigan Secretary of State’s website, confirmed by the Washtenaw County clerk’s office, the council would have until Aug. 12, 2014 to meet the deadline for placing a question on the ballot. Before the deadline, the council has one additional meeting after July 21 – on Aug. 7.

So it would be an option for the council to postpone consideration of this amendment at their July 21 meeting.

Land Sale

Appearing initially on the July 21 agenda was an item sponsored by Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje with the title “Resolution to List for Sale 415 W. Washington and Appropriate Funds for Allen Creek Greenway Master Plan.” As of mid-day Friday, July 18, no text or memo was included in the resolution.

Warpehoski responded to an emailed query from The Chronicle by saying that the resolution might be pulled, depending on the outcome of a meeting of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy on July 18. [The item was then updated with text. The amount to be allocated for the master planning effort was $250,000.]

On July 19, however, Warpehoski announced that he’d be withdrawing the resolution. An excerpt from the comment he left on The Chronicle’s meeting preview article reads as follows:

At the request of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy Board, I am withdrawing the resolution from the Council agenda.

The resolution to fund the creation of a greenway master plan and development of the greenway through the sale of the non-floodway portion of 415 W. Washington was developed in partnership with Bob Galardi, chair of the Greenway Conservancy, and Jonathan Bulkley, chair of the Greenway Roundtable.

Bob and Jonathan had discussed the potential resolution with the Conservancy board. They found some initial support from the board. At their meeting on July 18, the Conservancy Board reviewed the final resolution, but were not able to come to agreement to support the resolution at this time. As the conservancy does not have clarity in supporting the resolution, I am withdrawing it. From the beginning, the my approach to this was that if the Conservancy was supportive then we could bring it forward. If the conservancy was not in support then we would not move forward in this way.

The city-owned 415 W. Washington parcel is highlighted in yellow.

Warpehoski indicated to The Chronicle that one reason a master plan for the greenway is important is that the lack of such a plan hurt the city’s application for funding from the state of Michigan to support renovations to the 721 N. Main property. The city did not receive the state grant after applying for it in early 2013.

In addition, Warpehoski wrote, there’s an opportunity to partner with the University of Michigan and a class taught by Larissa Larsen, a professor of urban and regional planning and natural resources. Such a partnership would reduce costs of the planning effort.

The idea of funding work on a master plan for the Allen Creek greenway was discussed most recently at the June 16, 2014 council meeting, in the context of a resolution that Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had brought forward that would have jump-started an effort to redesign Liberty Plaza at the corner of Division and Liberty streets. Taylor’s resolution would have appropriated $23,577 for the work, which was to have included input from a variety of stakeholders, including adjacent property owners.

That resolution was ultimately referred by the council to the park advisory commission (PAC). At PAC’s July 15 meeting, two people spoke during public commentary to advocate for an integrated approach to the “library block,” which includes Liberty Plaza. But PAC postponed discussion related to Liberty Plaza and the council resolution, as only five of nine voting members were present. Taylor is an ex officio non-voting member of PAC, but had not discussed the resolution at previous PAC meetings. He attended PAC’s July 15 meeting.

The June 16 council meeting discussion featured the following exchange between Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Hieftje, recorded in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting:

10:15 p.m. Kunselman asks if this means that Liberty Plaza would jump ahead of developing a master plan for the Allen Creek Greenway. Hieftje says that if Kunselman can be a bit patient, there will be a master plan proposed soon.

10:18 p.m. Hieftje says that an Allen Creek Greenway master plan might be prepared before the end of the budget year. Kunselman asks if there’d been any council direction to start any of the activity that Hieftje has described. Yes, Hieftje says, there was a resolution involving 415 W. Washington. Kunselman reiterates the fact that staff has not been directed specifically to develop a greenway master plan. He’s reiterating the lack of resources for park planning. There are 157 parks in the city and he wonders why Liberty Plaza has become the most important one. Kunselman will support the referral to PAC.

If the council had directed the 415 W. Washington property to be listed for sale, it would have been the third downtown city-owned property to be listed for sale in the last year and a half. The council directed the city administrator to move toward hiring a broker for the old Y lot at Fifth and William at its March 4, 2013 meeting. And on Nov. 18, 2013, the council authorized the sale of the lot to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million.

And the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting to confirm its earlier decision to direct the city administrator to list the development rights for the top of the Library Lane parking structure for sale. On July 1, city administrator Steve Powers notified the council that he’d selected CBRE to market and broker the sale of the development rights.

The 415 W. Washington parcel is currently used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system, which has averaged about $18,000 in revenue per month, or about $216,000 a year over the last two years. The parcel also includes several buildings that previously served as the road commission facility and the city maintenance yard. A study commissioned by the city of the property concluded that the cost of stabilizing and renovating all of the buildings could be as high as $6 million. [.pdf of Aug. 29, 2013 report] That study came after the 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios had stepped forward with an interest in the possible renovation and reuse of the building as artist studio space. For additional background on that, see “City Council Parcels Out Tasks: Open Space.”

Ultimately the city moved toward demolishing the buildings. The city administrator’s proposed FY 2015 budget included $300,000 for the demolition of the buildings, but the council amended out that allocation during its deliberations on May 19, 2014:

1:40 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition. This proposal will simply eliminate general fund support for demolition of the city-owned buildings at 415 W. Washington. [Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin]

1:54 a.m. Outcome: The council approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman, Taylor and Warpehoski.

Two pieces of land immediately adjacent to 415 W. Washington have been in the news recently. At their July 1, 2014 meeting, city planning commissioners approved The Mark condo project for the parcel on Liberty Street where a car wash is currently located. The proposal from developer Alex de Parry is to demolish an existing car wash at 318 W. Liberty and build an 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units.

And at the July 2, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, it was announced that the final site recommendation for a downtown stop for the WALLY rail line is for the east side of the railroad tracks between Liberty and Washington streets – opposite of where the former city maintenance yard was located at 415 W. Washington. It was reported at that meeting that it would not be a full station. Rather, it would be a platform with canopies and a ramp to Washington Street to the north and a sidewalk connection to the south onto Liberty. The stop would be built entirely within the railroad right-of-way – and there would be no taking of public or private property. The site would be contingent on the WALLY project moving forward.

Land Purchase: Burton Commons

Appearing on the July 21 agenda is a resolution for the city to inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether the land is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

Animated .gif of the Burton Commons property showing the demolition of single-family homes on the parcels – from aerial images in the Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system.

The land is immediately adjacent to US-23 to the east and Sylvan Park to the north. A residential neighborhood lies to the west of the land.

The resolution is sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who had told his council colleagues at their June 2, 2014 meeting that he’d be bringing forward such a resolution. The idea would be to use open space millage money to purchase the land. The resolution states that the estimated fair market value, according to the city assessor, is $628,800.

One-third of the open space millage proceeds are supposed to be allocated to acquisition of land within the city limits. At the June 2 meeting, Kunselman argued for the purchase based on the positive impact on climate change and the adjacency of Sylvan Park to the north.

The purchase of the land would also be consistent with a sentiment Kunselman expressed at a recent mayoral candidate forum – that there was resistance in Ward 3, which he represents, to “dumping and piling on” affordable housing in that ward.

Kunselman is a candidate for mayor in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, along with three other councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The July 21 council meeting is the last one before the Aug. 5 election. That week the meeting is shifted to Thursday from Monday, due to the Tuesday election.

Land Purchase: 3401 Platt Road

On the July 21 agenda is an item that would authorize the city to purchase the parcel at 3401 Platt Road.

Purchase of the blue-highlighted parcel could be authorized by the city council at its July 21 meeting.

The parcel is adjacent to Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) properties that AAHC is planning to reconstruct.

Four units currently stand at the location, but AAHC has previously announced plans to demolish those structures and replace them with 32 units of housing – a net gain of 28 units.

Now, however, the AAHC is interested in expanding that project, using the additional adjacent property. At the planning commission’s July 15, 2014 meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that because the AAHC has decided to expand its development on Platt Road, they’ll be holding another citizen participation meeting about that on Monday, July 28 at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Malletts Creek branch, 3090 E. Eisenhower. This is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is also being considered for affordable housing.

Earlier this year, at its April 21, 2014 meeting, council gave several approvals  in connection with the AAHC renovations. The acquisition of the additional parcel will help the AAHC with its plans for the property.

Three of the existing four houses are in the floodway, and the water table is higher than the basements. When it rains, the properties flood. So the plan is to tear down the existing buildings, and construct new housing further north on the same site, on land that’s currently vacant.

The AAHC will be reimbursing the city for the $195,00 cost of the 1.17-acre property.

But it is the city that must execute the transaction, under Ann Arbor City Code, Chapter 8, Section 1:209(3):

All deeds, mortgages, contracts, leases, purchases, or other agreements regarding real property which is or may be put under the control of the housing commission, including agreements to acquire or dispose of real property, shall be approved and executed in the name of the City of Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor City Council may, by resolution, decide to convey or assign to the housing commission any rights of the city to a particular property owned by the City of Ann Arbor which is under the control of the housing commission and such resolution shall authorize the City Administrator, Mayor and Clerk to take all action necessary to effect such conveyance or assignment.

Development

On the council’s July 21 agenda are several items related to development.

Development: Jackson Drive-Thru

The council will consider approval of a site plan for a new drive-thru restaurant on Jackson Avenue – near the I-94 interchange. The planning commission recommended approval at its June 17, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of 2625 Jackson Ave.

The site is located at 2625 Jackson, on the southeast corner of Jackson and I-94, and just north of the Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a 1,820-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,220-square-foot retail center. The gas pump islands and canopy will be removed. The total project would cost an estimated $400,000. [.pdf of staff memo]

The restaurant’s single lane drive-thru would primarily be accessed from a proposed curbcut on Jackson Ave., with an exit through the Westgate Shopping Center Jackson Ave. entrance. An existing curbcut off Jackson to the east would be closed. The new curbcut has been approved by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and would prevent left turns onto Jackson. The drive-thru lane provides stacking for up to four vehicles and would be screened to the north by the proposed building.

In a separate vote at their June 17 meeting, commissioners granted a special exception use for this project, which does not require additional city council approval. This was the first drive-thru proposal that has come through the city’s approval process since the city council approved changes to the Chapter 55 zoning ordinance that regulates drive-thrus. That approval came at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting.

Development: Dusty’s Collision

The council will consider a site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett.

Aerial view of Dusty Collision site.

The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. A previous building at that location was torn down in 2013. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage. The project is estimated to cost $2 million.

The site will include 106 spaces of exterior parking, including 24 spaces that will be deferred until needed, according to the staff memo. One bicycle hoop – for 2 bike parking spaces – will be located near the front of the building.

The planning commission’s recommendation for approval, made at its June 3, 2014 meeting, was contingent on the owner – Whitney’s Collision West of Ann Arbor – providing one footing drain disconnect before the city issues a certificate of occupancy. [.pdf of staff memo]

Development: State Street Village

For State Street Village – a proposed 78-unit apartment project that will eventually appear on the council’s agenda – the council will consider giving initial approval at its July 21 meeting to the rezoning of the land. The 4.5-acre parcel would be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district).

A recommendation for the rezoning was given at the June 17, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Aerial view of State Street Village site.

At that meeting, commissioners recommended approval of a site plan, development agreement and rezoning for the project. It’s a $10 million project put forward by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. at 2221-2223 S. State St. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

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

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

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

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

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

Only the initial consideration of the rezoning issue will be before the council on July 21. The site plan approval will be considered at a future meeting, likely at the same meeting when the council gives final consideration to the rezoning.

Development: Downtown Zoning

The council will consider giving final approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Initial approval was given to rezoning from D1 to D2, with an amended height limit – of 60 feet. The original height limit in the ordinance revision considered by the council was 100 feet.

Initial approval by the council came at its June 16, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

The council’s initial approval came only after two votes on each of the parts of the zoning, as councilmembers had first decided to refer the height limit issue back to the planning commission, but ultimately decided to amend the height limit to 60 feet. A summary of the deliberations is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting.

By way of background, currently a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

Considered separately by the council on July 21 will be final votes that would: (1) change the zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) change the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to specify the height limit at 60 feet, not the 100 feet that the planning commission had recommended. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

Upper-story setbacks, specified in the character district overlay along with the height limits, were specified based on the 100-foot limit. So the planning staff will likely present the council with some revised language on the setbacks, in order to be consistent with the amended 60-foot limit.

The planning commission recommended both the zoning changes at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The planning commission’s vote on the basic zoning change was unanimous – 9-0. But the vote on the 100-foot height limit was only 6-3, with dissent coming from Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere also serves on city council, representing Ward 1. Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

The planning commission’s recommendations came in response to a city council directive given at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, which had been based on previous work the planning commission had done. The commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

Those initial Dec. 3, 2013 recommendations from the planning commission had come in response to a previous direction from the city council, given at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. The council’s action in early 2013 came in response to the controversial 413 E. Huron development.

The item affecting 425 S. Main is just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission.

The current D1 zoning for 425 S. Main allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height. At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Board and Commissions

Two commissions are the topic of separate council agenda items: the environmental commission; and the commission on disability issues.

Boards and Commission: Environmental

The council will give final consideration to an amendment to the city ordinance establishing the environmental commission (EC). Initial approval was given at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting.

The ordinance change relates in part to the way that nominations to the EC are made. The EC is one of the few boards or commissions in the city for which the mayor does not make nominations. The more familiar procedure – for most boards and commissions – includes a mayoral nomination at one council meeting, followed by the confirmation vote of the council at a subsequent meeting.

In the past, the council has mimicked this procedure for the EC by having some councilmember put a resolution on the agenda appointing a member to the EC, and then postponing the resolution until the next meeting. The ordinance revisions include clarification that the nominations put forward by the council as a body to the EC are to be made by the two councilmembers who serve as the council’s representatives to the EC.

Besides two slots for council representatives, the EC includes positions for members of the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission. The ordinance revision to be given final consideration on July 21 makes clear that those groups make their appointments to the EC without further city council approval. This specific revision comes after the planning commission had selected Kirk Westphal from its membership to serve on the EC earlier this year. Some councilmembers voted against his confirmation, when the council was asked to confirm his selection two months ago. For background on that vote, see “Hutton, Westphal Reappointed to EC.”

The staff memo summarizes the changes to the ordinance regulating appointments to boards and commissions as follows:

• clarifies that the councilmembers currently serving on the environmental commission nominate persons for “at-large” appointments, which are then approved by council resolution;
• clarifies that the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission each designate a representative to the environmental commission without council approval and for a one-year term;
• clarifies that the 3-year terms should be equally staggered;
• removes references to the Leslie Science Center Advisory Board, which no longer exists;
• requires the city administrator or the designated support staff of the environmental commission to notify council of vacancies – previously this was delegated to the clerk’s office, which does not always have immediate knowledge of vacancies;
• contains a few minor, non-substantive corrections and clarifications.

Mark Clevey’s name had been scheduled to be put before the council on July 7 to be confirmed as a member of the EC, but was withdrawn – because he is the selection by the energy commission to represent the energy commission on the EC. Once enacted, the energy commission appointment to EC (like that of other boards and commissions to the EC) will be for one year and will not need city council approval.

Boards and Commission: Disabilities

The council will consider a resolution that clarifies the membership on the city’s commission on disabilities. The clarification concerns the city council representative, who will be appointed for a one-year term annually. Currently the council’s representative to the commission on disability issues is Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

3:38 p.m. Names of speakers who have signed up for public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting are now available. A total of eight people are signed up for public commentary reserved time. Three people will be speaking in support of boycotting Israel and stopping the current assault on Gaza: Blaine Coleman, Mohammad Aggour, Mozhgan Savabieasfahani. Three people will be speaking about the recent eviction of a homeless encampment in Broadway Park. Thomas Partridge will be speaking in support of electing Democrat Mark Schauer as governor, affordable housing and accommodations for those with disabilities. And Kermit Schlansker will be addressing the council on the topic of “crime of city government.”

4:27 p.m. Responses from staff to councilmember questions are now available: [.pdf of July 21, 2014 staff responses]

4:44 p.m. There’s a large .pdf with a map in the agenda responses. Here’s just the map: [.pdf of parks map for underserved areas]. Here’s the rest of the agenda responses: [.pdf of just text from July 21, 2014 staff agenda responses]

6:19 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. Right now the council chambers are empty except for The Chronicle.

6:25 p.m. Most recent version of the charter amendment ballot proposal has now been sent around to councilmembers: [.pdf of latest version]

6:49 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) have arrived. About a dozen folks in the audience. Eaton quizzes a student here for a class assignment who wants her agenda signed: “Do you know what ward you live in?” “Yes, Two.” “I’m impressed!”

6:52 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers and city attorney Stephen Postema have arrived.

6:55 p.m. Still only two councilmembers in chambers. Now Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has arrived.

6:57 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje has arrived.

7:05 p.m. Still not here are Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

7:10 p.m. Now the only missing councilmember is Kailasapathy.

7:11 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance.

7:12 p.m. Roll call of council. Petersen and Kailasapathy are not here.

7:12 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:12 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved its agenda for tonight.

7:13 p.m. Communications from the city administrator.

7:14 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers notes that there’s a letter to HUD attached to the agenda, which indicates that Ann Arbor will continue to participate in the Urban County, as opposed to receiving CDBG funds on its own. Powers had told the council at its last meeting that this was the decision he’d be making, unless he received different direction. [.pdf of letter to HUD]. He also notes the Aug. 2, soccer game that will be taking place. Game start will be 4:06 p.m. Usual football game day regulations will apply. Powers will be a member of the county board’s road funding subcommittee. He’ll keep the council updated on the committee’s work, he says.

7:14 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

A total of eight people are signed up for public commentary reserved time. Three people will be speaking in support of boycotting Israel and stopping the current assault on Gaza: Blaine Coleman, Mohammad Aggour, Mozhgan Savabieasfahani. Three people will be speaking about the recent eviction of a homeless encampment in Broadway Park. Thomas Partridge will be speaking in support of electing Democrat Mark Schauer as governor, affordable housing and accommodations for those with disabilities. And Kermit Schlansker will be addressing the council on the topic of “crime of city government.” Hieftje has reviewed the rules on signs – that they must be held at the sides of the room.

7:18 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a former candidate for the state legislature. He calls on the public to support Mark Schauer for governor of Michigan. Local municipalities need to be fully funded, he says. Funding for additional affordable housing must be planned, he says. The Ann Arbor city council should be taking a statewide leadership role in providing access to people with disabilities. He calls on people to “put down their placards” and their calls for what to do about the Middle East.

7:22 p.m. Blaine Coleman begins to speak. Hieftje tells Mozhgan Savabieasfahani to move to the side with her sign. Coleman ticks through some grim statistics from the violence in Gaza. He calls for a public hearing on a boycott of Israel. Chants of “Boycott Israel, Stop Bombing Gaza!” Hieftje admonishes those who are joining the chant that only one person can speak at a time. Coleman is calling councilmembers by name, asking them to be the conscience of Ann Arbor. He tells them that the deaths of those in Gaza is partially on their hands. Background on recent Middle East events: [link to July 20, 2014 NYT article]

7:24 p.m. Sheri Wander tells the council she’s just returned from the Middle East. What the hell is wrong with humanity, she asks. She returned home to see people in Detroit hauled off to jail for protesting the shut-off of water. Then she got a call from friends of hers who were living in tents (Broadway Park in Ann Arbor) and were having their belongings bulldozed. Briere had said: “I can’t tell you what to do because you have no legal options.” That makes her sick, Wander says. Wander says she had heard candidates at the homelessness forum say that the law is the most important thing. It’s their job to change the law, she says.

7:27 p.m. Tracy Williams says he’s a resident of Mercy House and a member of Camp Misfit. He thanks those who have spoken out against what has been happening in Gaza. Here in Ann Arbor, campers were led to believe that if they stayed 50 feet away from the tracks they would be allowed to stay – and they’d abided by that. In response to the idea that the law is the most important thing, he ventures that the most important thing is to keep human beings live. He asks the council to meet a challenge: If they provide the councilmembers with a sleeping bag and a tarp, will they live outside for a week?

7:29 p.m. Timothy Green introduces himself as a MISSION board member. He thanks Briere for coming out in person to the eviction in process at Broadway Park. Homelessness has become illegal in Ann Arbor, he says. “You’re making them criminals,” he says. “You go to jail, that’s you guys’ answer! … It’s not right how the homeless are treated in this place,” he says.

7:32 p.m. Mohammad Aggour says that 13 days ago the Israeli government began its assault on Gaza. He’s 18 years old and attends Washtenaw Technical Middle College, he says. The casualties in Gaza are 70% women and children, he says. He says that he doesn’t want his tax dollars going to support this. He describes four children who were killed as they were playing soccer on the beach. “Forget about me being Arab,” he says. We have to focus on the fact that we are human. He calls for a boycott of Israel. He asks for a public hearing on a boycott of Israel.

7:37 p.m. Mozhgan Savabieasfahani takes the podium to rhythmic clapping. She says they are all ready to come to many more meetings in the future. Israel has been murdering the people of Palestine since the beginning, she says. She’s come to the council for the last 12 years, she says, asking them to do something. She says they will come back again and again to ask for a public hearing on a boycott of Israel. Without U.S. support, Israel could not undertake this military action, she says. It’s clear to the entire world that Israel is an “outlaw state,” she says. She holds the council responsible. “We are planning to come over and over and over again,” she says. The anger that they hear in her voice is nothing compared to the anger of a mother who has lost her child. Chants ensue: “Boycott Israel, Stop Bombing Gaza!” Hieftje says that he understands they’ll be coming back, but if they intend to disrupt city government, they should give some thought to whether that’s the image they want to present.

7:39 p.m. Kermit Schlansker is addressing climate change. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, he says. The city has concentrated on removing factories from inside the city, he says, but we need to manufacture things, or else go broke. He says that the Platt Road property where the juvenile court stood previously should become a factory.

7:40 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has arrived in the interim.

7:40 p.m. Communications from council.

7:40 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) reports that Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is ill and can’t make it. She sends her regrets.

7:42 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is explaining that the greenway master plan funding resolution will be withdrawn. The lack of a master plan hinders the ability to secure outside funding, he says. This resolution wasn’t the right approach at the right time, but he’s ok with that. There might be a different resolution next meeting, he says.

7:43 p.m. Warpehoski says that the issue that he’d talked about at the last meeting – a change to the way elections are conducted – is not ripe for this election cycle. But he’ll continue to work on it.

7:44 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is talking about the proposed Glendale condo development. He says that the city should think about acquiring land using the open space and parkland acquisition millage. He thanks those for coming to speak on Gaza. Coleman asks from the audience, “So where’s the public hearing.”

7:46 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is talking about the public participation meeting last week on the proposed Toll Brothers development north of Nixon Road. The 900 units proposed in that general area will be a conflict point for the community, she says. She’s committed to holding another meeting about planning for the intersection of Dhu Varren and Nixon roads.

7:46 p.m. MC-1 Confirmations The council is being asked to confirm nominations to city boards and commissions that were made at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting: Theresa Whiting, replacing John Sullivan on the airport advisory commission; and Shoshannah Lenski as a re-appointment to the energy commission.

7:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted confirm the appointments.

7:47 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. Tonight there are six public hearings. The first two involve the rezoning of the parcel on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Also receiving a hearing is the special assessment for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk project. Two site plans are the subject of public hearings – for Dusty’s Collision and for a drive-thru retail establishment on Jackson Road. Finally, a public hearing is being held on a change to the city’s ordinance on boards and commissions – which will clarify appointments to the environmental commission.

• PH-1 Downtown Character Overlay Zoning Districts. [For additional background, see Development: Downtown Zoning above.]
• PH-2 Rezoning of 1.1 Acres from D1 (Downtown Core Base District) to D2 (Downtown Interface Base District), 425 South Main Street.
• PH-3 Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment roll. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]
• PH-4 Dusty’s Collision site plan. [For additional background, see Development: Dusty's Collision above.]
• PH-5 2625 Jackson retail & drive-thru site plan. [For additional background, see Development: Jackson Drive-Thru above.]
• PH-6 Amend ordinance on boards and commissions. [For additional background, see Boards and Commission: Environmental above.]

7:47 p.m. PH-1 Downtown Character Overlay Zoning Districts.

7:48 p.m. Edward Vielmetti says that he’s commenting about the way that the public has been informed about this proposed change. The packet does not include a map, he points out.

7:49 p.m. Blaine Coleman asks Mike Anglin when there will be a public hearing on the boycott of Israel. That draws a sharp rebuke from mayor John Hieftje to the effect that remarks during the public hearing must be confined to the topic of the public hearing.

7:51 p.m. Eppie Potts is addressing the council. She’s supporting the 60-foot height limit.

7:52 p.m. Ted Annis rises to speak on PH-2. Hieftje tells him that will be in a few minutes.

7:52 p.m. Thomas Partridge is now addressing the council. He says that new zoning should be integrated with requirements on accessibility.

7:55 p.m. A woman is now addressing the council telling them that she’s glad the property is being rezoned from D-1 to D-2. She wonders if the effect will be to allow sunlight to fall on adjoining properties. There’s also a problem with building right on the alleyway, she says.

7:56 p.m. PH-2 Rezoning of 1.1 Acres from D1 (Downtown Core Base District) to D2 (Downtown Interface Base District), 425 South Main Street.

7:56 p.m. Ted Annis says he supports the item. He expresses thanks for all the work that has been done to get things straightened out.

7:58 p.m. Edward Vielmetti points out an error in the map that is in the planning staff report: Baker Commons has not been updated to show that it is no longer zoned PL (public land). He encourages the council to delay their vote, until accurate maps can be provided.

8:00 p.m. Andy Klein, an owner of the property, is speaking against this zoning change. This is against the recommendation of the city’s hired consultant as well as the city planning commission, he says. He reviews the history of the parcel. The report from the consultant calls the parcel a key gateway site, he notes. The planning commission had recommended D-2 with a height of 100 feet – which would give flexibility to avoid less appealing massive structures.

8:02 p.m. Joel Smith is addressing the council, saying that it’s a gateway parcel. He’s been the architectural team for the new Y site as well as the Zaragon building, he says. Good design can always be debated, he allows. D-2 with 60 feet would result in a 60-foot wall against someone’s backyard, he says.

8:04 p.m. Thomas Partridge says the council should allow for a building that is large enough to have accessibility for lower-income residents of the city. There should be office space that is affordable for lower-income residents and businesses in the city, he says. The council should give priority to the human elements of the zoning requirements, he says.

8:05 p.m. PH-3 Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment roll.

8:07 p.m. This hearing will be kept open through the next meeting at Margie Teall’s request, Hieftje says. Edward Vielmetti again addresses the council on the issue of maps. Several parcels are marked for future recovery instead of current recovery. He’s concerned that someone who might purchase a parcel that will be annexed won’t realize that they could be assessed these costs. He again encourages the council to delay consideration until an accurate map can be provided.

8:08 p.m. A resident who will be assessed is protesting the special assessment. She says they’re being forced and bullied into paying for a development. Her husband is a senior, she says. They already are in the city of Ann Arbor. She calls the assessment unfair.

8:09 p.m. Hieftje says that this public hearing will remain open in the event that the item, which comes later on the agenda, is postponed.

8:09 p.m. PH-4 Dusty’s Collision site plan.

8:10 p.m. Thomas Partridge says that the property should be accessible to seniors and the handicapped. There should be a universal requirement that all businesses be accessible, Partridge says.

8:11 p.m. Edward Vielmetti is complaining that the map does not have a scale bar.

8:11 p.m. PH-5 2625 Jackson retail & drive-thru site plan.

8:12 p.m. No one speaks on this public hearing.

8:12 p.m. PH-6 Amend ordinance on boards and commissions.

8:13 p.m. Edward Vielmetti says he was at city hall on Friday to pick up the agenda. At that time there was not a clean copy of the resolution. Hieftje points out to Vielmetti that this is not the item on the city charter amendment. “You should still do what I said!” he quips.

8:14 p.m. A-1 Approval of minutes.

8:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve its minutes from the last meeting.

8:14 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 Emergency PO with Barrett Paving Materials ($12,815).
• CA-2 Emergency PO with E.T. MacKenzie for storm culvert repair on Dhu Varren ($76,882).
• CA-3 Approve contract with Industrial Organizational Solutions, Inc. (I/O) to Conduct AAPD Promotional Assessment in FY15 ($32,755).
• CA-4 Approve changes to traffic patterns and parking for the 2014 University of Michigan student move-in program from Aug. 27-29, 2014.
• CA-5 Recognize the Skyline Friends of the Arts as a civic nonprofit organization operating in Ann Arbor for the purpose of obtaining a charitable gaming license.

8:14 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. No one does.

8:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve its consent agenda.

8:14 p.m. B-1 Main Street overlay text amendments. These next two items relate to the 1.1-acre parcel at 425 S. Main St. at the southeast corner of William and Main. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) – at its June 16 meeting, following a complex series of votes. At the same meeting, the council also gave initial approval to a change to the overlay character district for the parcel, after amending the height limit – from 100 feet to 60 feet. [For additional background, see Development: Downtown Zoning above.] This first item includes the height limit.

8:17 p.m. Briere notes it’s the second reading of an ordinance change. The language is slightly changed, she says. One of the issues is solar impact, she says. The original version called for a 100-foot building and a stepback after the fourth story. Establishing the 60-foot limit would put a 60-foot wall against someone’s property, she said.

8:19 p.m. Teall asks what the impact would be of amending the height to 100 feet. “I am not … the true god of planning,” Briere says, but attempts to explain. Building a four-story wall at the edge of the alleyway would be a possibility, whether the height limit is 100 feet or 60 feet. Planning manager Wendy Rampson comes to the podium at Anglin’s request.

8:22 p.m. Rampson reviews how the council amended the height from 100 feet down to 60 feet at its last meeting. Anglin says that he and other councilmembers are trying to protect delicate areas of transitions. When a proposal can change a neighborhood radically, that’s a concern, he says. He questions whether there should be a solid wall right on the alley.

8:25 p.m. Anglin wants to know how tall Baker Commons is. Rampson says she doesn’t know but can look it up. Anglin says he won’t approve anything until the council knows what could be built there. He doesn’t want a Stalinist building to be possible that can be used as a threat.

8:26 p.m. Anglin wants to send this back to the planning commission so that the planning commission can provide some examples of what could be built – before the battles start.

8:28 p.m. Lumm says she supports the 60-foot limit. She knows that the planning commission recommended 100 feet. She’s concerned about building up to the property line. Rampson clarifies that the east edge of the property is 16 feet away from the adjoining residential properties – because of the alleyway.

8:30 p.m. Rampson is reviewing the planning commission’s rationale for the stepbacks in the upper floors in conjunction with the 100-foot height limit. She notes that there is not currently a proposal to develop the property.

8:34 p.m. Hieftje says that he thinks there are some issues that might not be resolved tonight, and hints that a postponement might be in order. Petersen invites the property owner to the podium. The property owner and the architect are explaining how a 60-foot height would constrain design. Petersen asks about development fees. [She asked a question about fees in advance of the meeting that drew a staff written response that include the following: "The Varsity building, at 425 East Washington Street, paid approximately $20,000 in site plan fees, $23,000 in civil plan review fees, $319,000 in building permit fees; and $311,000 in utility connection charges. Inspection fees are not included in these figures. The Varsity is a 13-story, 177,000-square foot apartment building having a 695% FAR."]

8:35 p.m. Kunselman says he’d like to see an idea of what the property owner would propose and then the council could define the zoning around that.

8:37 p.m. Kunselman asks what the minimum height they could live with. Klein says that the bifurcated zoning – half the parcel D-1 and half of it D-2 – was something they could live with. The original conversation was not 60 feet versus 100 feet, but rather 60 feet versus 180 feet. It was well thought out and well debated by the planning commission, Klein says.

8:39 p.m. Kunselman says the council is struggling, but the council has to get it right. He’s open to what the owner can offer, being more flexible on the corner. There’s more back-and-forth between Kunselman and the owners.

8:41 p.m. Teall asks when the owners can develop some drawings. Hieftje invites the owners to sit back down. Rampson is asked for advice on how long it would take for planning staff to work with the owners. Rampson indicates that it would likely go back only to the ordinance revisions committee of the planning commission – so about a month. Hieftje stresses that the feedback from the council is about a four-story wall facing the residential side and a four-story blocky building.

8:43 p.m. Eaton says that four-story blocky buildings are typical of Main Street. Petersen asks that a more robust analysis of the upfront fees for development be provided during the period of postponement. Hieftje quips that the matter should be postponed until the second meeting in November. The second meeting in September is now the date certain to which a postponement is proposed.

8:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone consideration of the character district overlay for 425 S. Main with a specified height limit of 60 feet – until the second meeting in September.

8:46 p.m. B-2 425 South Main St. city-initiated rezoning. This is the zoning part of the question related to 425 S. Main.

8:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone consideration of the downzoning of 425 Main from D-1 to D-2 – until the council’s second meeting in September.

8:46 p.m. B-3 Environmental Commission ordinance amendment. This ordinance change clarifies the composition and appointment process for the city’s environmental commission. [For additional background, see Boards and Commission: Environmental above.]

8:47 p.m. Briere is reviewing what the ordinance amendment will do. She asks for the support of other councilmembers.

8:48 p.m. Anglin asks if PAC could appoint someone for a year to the EC and then appoint that same person the following year. That would depend on PAC, Briere says.

8:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the change to the city’s ordinance on boards and commissions to clarify how appointments to the EC work.

8:49 p.m. We’re in recess.

9:05 p.m. We’re back.

9:05 p.m. C-1 State Street Village Rezoning. For State Street Village – a proposed 78-unit apartment project that will eventually appear on the council’s agenda – the council is considering tonight giving initial approval to the rezoning of the land. The 4.5-acre parcel would be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). [For additional background, see Development: State Street Village above.]

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give initial approval to the State Street Village rezoning. Final approval will come at a future meeting.

9:06 p.m. DC-1 Membership composition of the commission on disability issues. This resolution would clarify the way that a council appointment was made to the commission on disability issues last year. [For additional background, see Boards and Commission: Disabilities above.]

9:07 p.m. Petersen is reviewing the appointment a year ago and what this resolution does.

9:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to amend the resolution appointing a councilmember to the commission on disability issues.

9:07 p.m. DC-2 Gun Safety Week participation. From a staff memo accompanying the resolution: “During the week of July 20, 2014 through July 26, 2014 the Ann Arbor Police Department will be providing free gun locks and gun safety information to members of the public and collaborating with other Washtenaw County law enforcement agencies to enhance public knowledge and promote gun safety.” Stats cited in the resolution include the fact that Michigan’s overall firearm deaths from 2001-2010 were 10,825 (10.83 per 100,000 residents), Michigan’s firearm suicides in 2010 were 601 (6.08 per 100,000 residents), and Michigan’s firearm deaths for children ages 0-17 from 2001-2010 were 555 (2.23 per 100,000 residents). The information is from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Fatal Injury Data.”

9:10 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is explaining the background. The issue of preventing gun violence and unintentional gun deaths tends to get emotional, he says. One thing that could have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook would have been a gun safe – if the guns that the shooter had used had been locked away by his mother, that wouldn’t have been possible. One of the things the Ann Arbor police department is doing is passing out gun locks. If your child is going on a play date, then you can ask: Will there be an unlocked firearm in the house?

9:11 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) is thanking Warpehoski. This is an issue that got her involved in politics, she says. We can do something, she says, and this resolution will help.

9:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the resolution on gun safety week participation.

9:11 p.m. DC-3 Charter amendment: Eligibility for elective office. A federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. That ruling was based on early 1970s decisions that struck down Ann Arbor’s city charter eligibility requirements as unconstitutional. On tonight’s agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election.

The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot. The question has been divided into two separate proposals – one focused on elective officers, and the other dealing with appointive officers – reportedly on the advice of the state attorney general’s office.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has provided a text of the correct draft to media outlets, after the Legistar version was not formatted correctly with strikethrough text: [.pdf of July 18, 2014 charter amendment resolution text]

9:12 p.m. The most recent version, as far as The Chronicle understands, is actually this one: [.pdf of most recent version]

9:13 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the three types of city officers: elected officials, paid appointed officials (city administrator, police chief, etc.) and volunteer appointed officials.

9:14 p.m. Lumm says that the city is in “no man’s land” because there are no legally enforceable requirements. Lumm says she’s not committed to a vote tonight, but wants the conversation to start tonight.

9:16 p.m. Briere thanks Lumm for bringing the proposal forward. She’s questioning Lumm’s contention, which Lumm made during her remarks, that the council has not adhered to the 7-vote majority requirement for non-city residents. Hieftje confirms the council has applied that requirement. Briere wonders if that is necessary to address in this proposal, but says it just restates what is already there, so she doesn’t have a problem with it.

9:19 p.m. Taylor says he thinks the conversation should start tonight, but thinks it should likely be postponed until the next meeting. Taylor then either misreads the proposal, or else doesn’t have the correct copy in front of him. Warpehoski says he is glad to see this coming forward. He thanks Lumm. He’s comfortable with voting on it tonight or also postponing.

9:21 p.m. City attorney Stephen Postema says that assistant city attorney Mary Fales has been working with the state attorney general on this. Fales is now reviewing the fact that the deadline is Aug. 12 for certification to the county clerk. Fales says that she anticipates that the language in the packet tonight would be approved by the AG’s office, based on the informal conversations she’s had with that office.

9:23 p.m. Petersen asks Fales to comment on the pros and cons of eliminating the one-year durational requirement. Postema corrects Petersen: There is no requirement there – even though you see it there in the charter. That’s what the federal court ruled, he says. Postema says that a one-year residency program is now considered constitutional. So the council could put the same language that is currently in the charter in front of voters for reenactment.

9:25 p.m. Warpehoski asks what the next chance would be to reenact eligibility requirements, if it failed? The same question can’t be asked for another two years, Fales explains. Kunselman asks that the new proposed language be read aloud – just the ballot questions. Fales is now reading aloud the ballot questions.

9:27 p.m. Fales is explaining Act 212 of 1999 – which says that city employees can’t be subject to residency requirements.

9:28 p.m. Briere says that the situation is at best confusing. She wants to know what the communications plan is so that citizens are in a position to make an educated decision. City administrator Steve Powers says that the city could use existing tools and devices in a way that educates but does not advocate.

9:30 p.m. Teall is asking about the appointive officers question. She says that it’s confusing to her. She wants two separate sentences.

9:32 p.m. Fales says that a single ballot question has to have a single statement. She ventures that it could be separated into three questions total. Teall doesn’t seem enthusiastic about that. Eaton says that it’s imperative to pass requirements for the elected officers. He wants just the one topic addressed. That’s what confused voters back in 2003, he says. We’re already complying with state law. He didn’t think it was worth the risk to confuse the voters. The first ballot question is necessary while the second one is not, Eaton says. Kunselman responds to Eaton: “I concur.”

9:34 p.m. Fales says that the phrase “a city officer” in the original charter language has the effect that it covers both kinds of officers – elected and appointed officers. So the AG’s office is requiring two ballot questions. Kunselman quips: “Then I don’t concur.”

9:35 p.m. Fales is reading aloud the ballot language to incorporate the final minor changes.

9:38 p.m. Briere is asking about the elimination of a reference to “or a party caucus.”

9:41 p.m. Fales says that the language was recommended to be struck by the AG’s office because Ann Arbor’s city charter doesn’t provide a mechanism for that nominating process, though it could do so under state law. Briere is describing a hypothetical scenario where a minority party determined a candidate by “bowling or knitting” – and wants to know how that candidate would be placed on the ballot. She wants to be confident that such a candidate would be eligible to run as representatives of that party.

9:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to place the two ballot questions on city charter eligibility requirements in front of voters in the Nov. 4, 2014 election.

9:41 p.m. DC-4 414 N. Main sidewalk easement. This is an easement in standard form, and is conveyed at no cost to the city.

9:42 p.m. Briere is explaining that this and the next item have councilmembers’ sponsorship, because the documentation was prepared too late to be placed on the agenda by staff.

9:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the 414 N. Main sidewalk easement.

9:42 p.m. DC-5 401 N. Fourth sidewalk easement. This is an easement in standard form conveyed at no cost to the city.

9:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the 401 N. Fourth sidewalk easement.

9:42 p.m. DC-6 List 415 W. Washington and appropriate funds for Allen Creek greenway master plan. This item has been withdrawn by its sponsor, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). [For additional background, see Land Sale above.]

9:43 p.m. Outcome: The council did not vote on this item, because it has been withdrawn.

9:43 p.m. DC-7 Purchase 3401 Platt Road. This parcel is located to the north of an existing AAHC property. Four units currently stand at the location, but AAHC has previously announced plans to demolish those structures and replace them with 32 units of housing – a net gain of 28 units. Now, however, the AAHC is interested in expanding that project, using the additional adjacent property.

At the planning commission’s July 15, 2014 meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that because the AAHC has decided to expand its development on Platt Road, they’ll be holding another citizen participation meeting about that on Monday, July 28 at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Malletts Creek branch, 3090 E. Eisenhower. This is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is also being considered for affordable housing. [For additional background, see Land Purchase: 3401 Platt Road above.]

9:44 p.m. Lumm asks Jennifer Hall to come to the podium. She notes that the owner doesn’t want to accept the contingency that the AAHC gets financing. Lumm wants to know what happens if the AAHC doesn’t get financing for its project. Hall explains that the AAHC will re-apply until it gets the funding.

9:44 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the purchase of 3401 Platt Road on behalf of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

9:45 p.m. DC-8 Issuance of a downtown development district liquor license to RWB Group LLC dba Taste. This was recommended by the liquor license review committee.

9:45 p.m. Lumm, as chair of the liquor license review committee, is reading aloud a statement explaining the background.

9:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend issuance of a downtown development district liquor license to RWB Group LLC dba Taste.

9:45 p.m. DC-9 Authorize city to inquire about Burton Road property for parkland acquisition. This is a resolution that would direct city to inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether the land is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction, called Burton Commons. The parcel is located in Ward 3. The item was sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). [For additional background, see Land Purchase: Burton Commons above.]

9:48 p.m. Kunselman says he’s just emailed everyone on the council some information. He’s explaining the background of the affordable housing development, which dates back to 2006. The road is unimproved, he notes. It’s not even fair to call it a road, he says. It’s a two-track. The adjacent neighbors are on a roller coaster ride wondering about the future of the property, he says. If this resolution doesn’t pass, or if the owner has no interest in selling, he’d propose rezoning the property to be consistent with the other land in the area.

9:49 p.m. When the greenbelt advisory commission had recommended the acquisition of development rights north of Loch Alpine, outside the city, it was clear to Kunselman that we were forgetting about the importance of parkland here in the city. It wasn’t fair for him to whine about that without putting a proposal in front of the council, he says.

9:52 p.m. Kunselman says he met with the park advisory commission’s land acquisition committee in closed session, so he couldn’t talk about that. He characterizes the map that LAC provided – showing areas “underserved” with parks – as flexible. His own property is classified as “underserved,” he says. He’s pointing out various barriers to developing the parcel on Burton Road – construction of a sound wall and paving of the road. He portrays this move as eliminating a competitor of the AAHC.

9:53 p.m. Kunselman is asking for the council’s blessing for the simple inquiry. It’s adjacent to an existing park, he says. He asks for the council’s indulgence in supporting this.

9:55 p.m. Warpehoski is proposing four additional “whereas” clauses and a “resolved” clause. He’s adding 312 Glendale into the mix, which has an assessed value $345,200. An inquiry would be made with the 312 Glendale owner, according to Warpehoski’s amendment. A controversial condo development is proposed for that site. The project had been postponed by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its July 1, 2014 meeting, following lengthy public commentary by neighbors who oppose the development.

9:59 p.m. Warpehoski says he’s grateful to Kunselman’s inspiration.

9:59 p.m. Anglin says that public lands can be used to mitigate flooding. That increases land values, he says.

10:01 p.m. Petersen says that the city is the largest property owner in the city and it would take land off the tax rolls. A vote to inquire shouldn’t mean that the city will purchase the land, she says. The city always complains when the University of Michigan does that, she notes.

10:02 p.m. Hieftje is expressing caution that this is buying out developers. He wants these proposals to come from the park advisory commission.

10:03 p.m. Here’s Warpehoski’s amendment: [.pdf of Warpehoski's amendment to include Glendale]

10:05 p.m. Briere is talking about meetings she’s had with residents who’ve had a development proposed near them, who want the city to purchase the land so it can become a park. There’s a difference between making a proactive effort to add parks, as opposed to acquiring land to block a development, she notes.

10:06 p.m. Glendale has been before the planning commission twice, Briere points out, and the Burton Road property has been in front of the council in the past. She wonders why they’re not talking about those other parcels where no one is proposing to develop something there. It’s never a mistake to ask a question, but she’s fearful this will open a door and give us a real problem with acquisition of more undeveloped land that the city has no way to deal with.

10:08 p.m. Kunselman cites Bluffs Park and Dicken Woods as examples of properties in some phase of development, which the city decided to purchase. He also points out that the city also purchased two vacant properties to provide access to Bluffs Park. Back-and-forth between Kunselman and Hieftje ensues.

10:10 p.m. The resolution is just asking to talk, Kunselman says.

10:11 p.m. Lumm cites staff member responses to Warpehoski’s questions, pointing out that staff doesn’t recommend using the Glendale property for stormwater management.

10:12 p.m. Warpehoski is now making a pitch for his amendment. He mentions the location as a possible dog park. He asks that councilmembers not vote yes on this if they know now that they won’t vote yes on the actual land acquisition.

10:15 p.m. Anglin says: “There’s a tremendous amount of water out there.” The topography in Ward 5 is different, he says. It was good that Dicken Woods was acquired, Anglin says, through Eaton’s efforts. Anglin is reviewing the work of county water resources commissioner. The Glendale development has been downsized considerably, Anglin allows. If you have land, it can absorb water, he says.

10:16 p.m. Outcome: Outcome on amendment: The council has voted to approve Warpehoski’s Glendale amendment. Dissenting were Hieftje, Petersen, Lumm and Teall.

10:18 p.m. Taylor says that PAC has expertise not only on the quality of land but also the ability of the city to incorporate these properties into the park system. So he wants to amend the resolution so that it sends the issue to PAC, instead of the city administrator for recommendation.

10:19 p.m. PAC would review the properties to determine if they are suitable for acquisition – by Oct. 1. If PAC so determines, then the city administrator would inquire with the owners about the availability of the property.

10:20 p.m. Hieftje wants to change the word “suitable” to “desirable.” That’s accepted as friendly. Lumm wants staff input as well as input from PAC. That’s fine with Taylor.

10:22 p.m. Kunselman says he had wanted to avoid wasting time – if the owner was not even interested in selling. There’s no sense in investing time in PAC’s review, if the property owner is not even interested in selling, he says.

10:24 p.m. AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall is asked to the podium. She describes how the Burton Commons development is a “friendly competitor.” She says that the obstacles that Kunselman has identified are significant to the redevelopment of the Burton Road property – the sound barrier, and the road. She says the owner would be interested in selling, but points out that they’ve invested $2 million in it.

10:25 p.m. Briere says she would be much happier if the council were considering other parcels that are not currently under consideration for development. Hieftje asks Briere to focus on Taylor’s amendment.

10:27 p.m. Briere says she has no problem sending it to PAC and the land acquisition committee of PAC.

10:28 p.m. Eaton is echoing Kunselman’s sentiments that we should put this in the right order – first find out if the owners might be interested in selling. He’ll vote against Taylor’s amendment.

10:28 p.m. Warpehoski ventures that council could go into closed session to hear the LAC report. Hieftje says that the discussion is still on Taylor’s amendment.

10:32 p.m. Outcome: Taylor’s amendment has been accepted as friendly.

10:34 p.m. Petersen agrees with Warpehoski’s point that councilmembers should not vote yes on this if they would not support the actual purchase of the property. Lumm is expressing some caution. Teall says she’d like to see both parcels become parks. But she’s concerned that because the proposals are not coming from PAC, she wonders about maintenance and programming. So she doesn’t think she can support the purchase in the end.

10:38 p.m. Eaton says that the greenbelt and open space millage included a commitment to voters to spend 1/3 of the proceeds on acquisitions within the city. He says he doesn’t think the Burton Road property will be developed anyway. The Glendale neighbors would probably adopt a park there and the maintenance costs would not be that great. Hieftje picks up on Eaton’s point that the Burton Road property won’t be developed, saying that this would be helping out a developer. LAC was “keeping their powder dry” in case properties like AAPS Eberwhite Woods or Pioneer Woods needed to be purchased, Hieftje says.

10:40 p.m. Briere focuses on the statement that 1/3 of the open space and parkland acquisition millage is supposed to be spent inside the city. She wants a historical breakdown. Sumedh Bahl, community services area administrator, approaches the podium. Bahl doesn’t know off the top of his head. Briere says that information needs to be sent out to all councilmembers. Warpehoski calls the question.

10:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize inquiry about the availability of the property on Burton Road and on Glendale for sale – but only after and only if the land is available to seek input from PAC. Dissenting were Hieftje and Petersen.

Final wording on the key resolved clause was as follows:

RESOLVED, That Council authorizes City staff to inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road and 312 Glendale Road about the availability of the property for City purchase, in whole or in part, and if available, requests the Parks Advisory Commission and staff to review 2805 Burton Road and 312 Glendale Road and advise City Council prior to October 1, 2014 whether they are desirable for City purchase using parkland acquisition funds and private contributions

10:42 p.m. DB-1 Dusty’s Collision site plan. The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. A previous building at that location was torn down in 2013. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage. The project is estimated to cost $2 million. [For additional background, see Development: Dusty's Collision above.]

10:43 p.m. Taylor asks for permission to refrain from voting as it’s a client of his. Permission is granted by the council.

10:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for Dusty’s Collision.

10:43 p.m. DB-2 2625 Jackson retail & drive-thru site plan. This is a site plan for 2625 Jackson, on the southeast corner of Jackson and I-94, and just north of the Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a 1,820-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,220-square-foot retail center. [For additional background, see Development: Jackson Drive-Thru above.]

10:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for the 2625 Jackson retail & drive-thru.

10:43 p.m. DS-1 Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment. The cost that will be assessed to adjoining property owners for this project is $72,218. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14. The project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s part of the city’s Complete Streets program. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]

10:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone approval of the assessment roll for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk construction project.

10:45 p.m. DS-2 Contract with DLZ Michigan, Inc. ($104,107) for 2014-2015 bridge inspection project. The city is required by federal law to inspect its bridges every two years. The city’s approach is to inspect about half of its bridges each year in order to even out the cost. Bridges to be inspected include the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue, which is considered a bridge.[For additional background, see Infrastructure: Bridge Inspections above.]

10:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the 2014-2015 bridge inspection project

10:45 p.m. DS-3 Construction contract with Bailey Excavating, Inc. ($1,537,608) for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. This contract will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue. [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Springwater Street Reconstruction above.]

10:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project.

10:45 p.m. DS-4 MDOT agreement for the Scio Church and Barton Drive sidewalks project. This agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding, will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners. [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church, Barton above.]

10:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the MDOT agreement for the Scio Church and Barton Drive sidewalks project.

10:46 p.m. DS-5 MDOT agreement for the Stone School Road improvements project ($3,445,200). The affected portion of Stone School road is between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter. [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Stone School Road above.]

10:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to MDOT agreement for the Stone School Road improvements project.

10:46 p.m. DS-6 Purchase of six pumps for the wastewater treatment plant from Premier Pump Inc. ($425,682). The six secondary effluent pumps for the wastewater treatment plant are all in poor condition. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Wastewater Pumps above.]

10:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of six pumps for the wastewater treatment plant from Premier Pump Inc.

10:47 p.m. DS-7 Public utilities easement for 500 Huron Parkway. This is standard easement conveyed without cost to the city.

10:47 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the public utilities easement for 500 Huron Parkway.

10:47 p.m. Clerk’s report.

10:47 p.m.Outcome: The clerk’s report has been accepted.

10:48 p.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:49 p.m. Edward Vielmetti says that with the Glendale and the Burton Road issue, he appreciates the work that was done. But he says that the council should have availed itself of the option that Warpehoski had mentioned – to go into closed session to discussed the issue. That might have made for a shorter discussion, he says.

10:50 p.m. Hieftje offers the clarification that the action to remove the homeless encampment had been by MDOT, not the city. But there’s a longstanding city law against camping in the public parks, he notes. That would continue to be illegal, he says.

10:53 p.m. Briere says she hears routinely that some piece of vacant land has no owner, so that it’s somehow communal property. For those who decided that they wanted to live at Broadway Park, they knew they could not live in the park. But they believed that there was a piece of property near there that was not owned by anyone. “The days of pioneering are past in Ann Arbor,” Briere says. There’s no place that somebody doesn’t own, she says.

10:55 p.m. Kunselman says he appreciates Hieftje affirming that there are laws on the books against camping in public parks. He also addresses the possibility of rezoning Stone School Road to make tiny houses possible. He says it’s not as simple a matter as rezoning to PUD (planned unit development), and there’s a state law that has to be followed. Everyone took an oath to uphold the law, he says. To suggest that people can live in tents in PUD zoning is not accurate and that talk should stop, he says.

10:56 p.m. Lumm is thanking Paul Fulton, the IT staff member who assists councilmembers – as he is leaving the city to pursue a masters degree in Canada. He gets a round of applause.

10:56 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 July 21, 2014 meeting agenda.

Another significant item appearing on the July 21 agenda is a resolution that would direct the city administrator to list the 415 W. Washington property for sale. That would follow the listing of two other city-owned properties in the last year and a half – the former Y lot and the development rights to the top of the Library Lane parking garage.

Two other land acquisition item on the agenda would put the city on the purchasing end. A resolution sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether it is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

And a resolution sponsored by Margie Teall (Ward 4) would authorize the purchase of the property at 3401 Platt Road on behalf of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC). Cost of the purchase would be $195,000, to be reimbursed to the city by AAHC. The AAHC is undertaking reconstruction of its properties adjoining this parcel, and this acquisition would facilitate that.

The July 21 meeting is the council’s last one before the Tuesday, Aug. 5 primary elections. The meeting that week is shifted from Monday to Thursday, and will fall on Aug. 7.

Physical infrastructure on the agenda includes a $1,537,608 construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. That work will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue.

Another road reconstruction project on the agenda is a $3,445,200 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the Stone School Road improvements project – between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter.

A second agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding, will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners.

Final approval of a special assessment for an additional sidewalk construction project also appears on the agenda. The sidewalk construction will be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14.

On July 21 the council will also be asked to approve a $104,107 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the regular bridge inspection program. That includes the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue.

Six new pumps for the wastewater treatment plant to be purchased from Premier Pump Inc. for $425,682 is another agenda item.

With respect to legal infrastructure, a federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. On the council’s July 21 agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election. The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements, would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot.

Several items related to development also appear on the council’s July 21 agenda. The council will consider a site plan for 2625 Jackson, on the southeast corner of Jackson and I-94, and just north of the Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a 1,820-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,220-square-foot retail center.

The council will also consider a site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett. The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage.

For State Street Village – a proposed 78-unit apartment project that will eventually appear on the council’s agenda – the council will consider giving initial approval at its July 21 meeting to the rezoning of the land. The 4.5-acre parcel would be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district).

Not tied to any particular project on the July 21 agenda is final consideration by the council of a change to downtown zoning. The item is confined to a 1.1-acre parcel at 425 S. Main St. at the southeast corner of William and Main. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) at its June 16 meeting that followed a complex series of votes. At the same meeting, the council also gave initial approval to a change to the overlay character district for the parcel, after amending the height limit – from 100 feet to 60 feet. Zoning changes require two votes by the council, taken at separate meetings, because they are changes to the city’s ordinances.

Another ordinance change on the July 21 agenda – which is getting final consideration by the council – is one that clarifies the composition and appointment process for the city’s environmental commission. Related thematically to that item is a resolution that clarifies the composition of the city’s commission on disability issues.

The consent agenda for July 21 includes an item that indicates the approach of fall – approval of the change to traffic patterns for the Aug. 27-29 University of Michigan student move-in.

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.

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s July 21 agenda includes several items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Springwater Street Reconstruction

The council will consider a $1,537,608 construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. That work will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue.

Funding for the project will be drawn from the street millage fund ($883,316), stormwater fund ($903,065), and drinking water funds ($489,574) for a total project cost of $2,275,955.

Funding from the drinking water and stormwater funds is based on the fact that the project includes replacing the existing water main and performing stormwater system improvements – including construction of sand filters within the Butternut Street and Nordman Avenue right-of-way. Construction is expected to start in August 2014 with completion expected this fall.

Physical Infrastructure: Stone School Road

The council will consider a $3,445,200 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the Stone School Road improvements project – between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter

A new 5-foot wide, concrete sidewalk will be constructed on the west side of the roadway from Pheasant Run Circle to Ellsworth Road. Included in the project is the replacement of the existing 16-inch water main in Stone School Road. The water main has broken several times. A short segment of 8-inch sanitary sewer is included in the project. Bioswales and “in-line” stormwater detention will be included. An existing jack-arch culvert under Old Stone School Road along Malletts Creek will be removed, in order to improve creek hydraulics, habitat and stormwater quality. New street lights along Stone School Road will also be installed.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church, Barton

The council will consider an agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding, that will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners.

Here’s how the funding breaks down:

Project Funding
               Scio Church    Barton       TOTAL
Federal Share     $164,000   $36,000    $200,000
Local Share        199,474    42,626     242,100
Spcl Assess          1,626     1,980       3,606            

TOTAL             $365,100   $80,606    $445,706

-

Infrastucture: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

The council will consider giving final approval of the assessment roll for the construction of a new sidewalk on Pontiac Trail, after a public hearing. The council voted to set the public hearing for the July 21 meeting on June 6, 2014. The cost that will be assessed to adjoining property owners is $72,218.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14. The project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s part of the city’s Complete Streets program.

In addition to the sidewalk, approximately 1,960 feet of curb and gutter is being added north of Skydale along Pontiac Trail to protect existing wetland areas. [.pdf of Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment area]

Infrastructure: Bridge Inspections

The council will consider approval of a $104,107 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the regular bridge inspection program.

The city is required by federal law to inspect its bridges every two years. The city’s approach is to inspect about half of its bridges each year in order to even out the cost.

Bridges to be inspected include the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue, which is considered a bridge.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the following bridges will be inspected in 2014: Island Drive over the Traver Creek; Maiden Lane over the Huron River; Fuller Road (eastbound and westbound) over the Huron River; Huron Parkway over the Huron River, Norfolk Southern Railroad and Geddes Avenue; and Wastewater Treatment Plant Drive over the Huron River.

And in 2015, the following bridges will be inspected: Broadway over the Huron River; Broadway over Depot Street and the Norfolk Southern Railroad; E. Stadium Boulevard bridge over S. State Street; E. Stadium Boulevard bridge over the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks; Fuller Road over the Norfolk Southern Railroad; East Medical Center Drive over the Norfolk Southern Railroad; Eisenhower Parkway over the Ann Arbor Railroad; the portion of the Fifth Avenue parking structure under South Fifth Avenue; and the University of Michigan tunnel under Huron Parkway.

Funding will come from the major street fund ($133,500) and the sewage disposal fund ($2,500). The University of Michigan and the DDA will reimburse the city for about $6,600 for inspections related to facilities they maintain.

Infrastructure: Wastewater Pumps

Six new pumps for the wastewater treatment plant to be purchased from Premier Pump Inc. for $425,682 also appear on the council’s July 21 agenda.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, the city’s wastewater treatment plant has six 150-horsepower secondary effluent pumps that are about 35 years old. When the plant is operating in typical mode, two of the six pumps are in continuous operation. Occasionally, when the Huron River is at high levels, additional pumps are used to pump secondary effluent simultaneously to the sand filters and the river.

Over the past three years, three of the pumps have failed. One of the pumps was irreparable, and the other two pumps were repaired but are not reliable for long-term use. The remaining three pumps are fully functional, but in a worn condition.

Failure of the secondary effluent pumps was unforeseen, according to the staff memo, so the cost of their replacement was not included in the design of the Facilities Renovations Project (FRP) currently under construction at the wastewater treatment plant. The city’s attempt to include replacement of the pumps in the FRP and to receive funding through the state’s revolving fund loan program was rejected by the Michigan Depart. of Environmental Quality, according to the staff memo.

Legal Infrastructure

A federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. That ruling was based on early 1970s decisions that struck down Ann Arbor’s city charter eligibility requirements as unconstitutional. On the council’s July 21 agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election.

The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot.

For example, a potential candidate for the city council would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. And a potential candidate for mayor would need to be a registered voter in the city at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. With paperwork for partisan primaries due in April – for November elections – the new requirements would translate practically speaking to something similar to a six-and-a-half-month durational requirement. For independent candidates, that timeframe would be closer to three and a half months. Updated July 18: The Legistar version of the resolution does not reflect the struck-through text and is confusing to read. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has provided a text of the correct draft to media outlets: [.pdf of July 18, 2014 charter amendment resolution text]

Updated July 19 at 11:09 p.m.: City clerk Jackie Beaudry edited the Legistar entry to reflect the intended text accurately: [link]

On  the afternoon of Friday, July 18, the city attorney’s office was working with the state attorney general’s office on the wording of the charter amendment and the ballot proposal. The proposal has been divided into two questions – one focused on elective officers, and the other dealing with appointive officers.

According to information provided on the Michigan Secretary of State’s website, confirmed by the Washtenaw County clerk’s office, the council would have until Aug. 12, 2014 to meet the deadline for placing a question on the ballot. Before the deadline, the council has one additional meeting after July 21 – on Aug. 7.

So it would be an option for the council to postpone consideration of this amendment at their July 21 meeting.

Land Sale

Appearing on the July 21 agenda is an item sponsored by Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje with the title “Resolution to List for Sale 415 W. Washington and Appropriate Funds for Allen Creek Greenway Master Plan.” As of mid-day Friday, July 18, no text or memo was included in the resolution. But Warpehoski responded to an emailed query from The Chronicle by saying that the resolution might be pulled, depending on the outcome of a meeting of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy on July 18. [The item has since been updated with text. The amount to be allocated for the master planning effort is $250,000]

Updated July 19: Warpehoski has announced he will be withdrawing the resolution. For a detailed explanation, see the comment below. 

The city-owned 415 W. Washington parcel is highlighted in yellow.

To complete a greenway master plan, the informal ballpark estimate from city staff for cost and timeframe, according to Warpehoski, is $150,000 to $200,000 and from 18 to 24 months. The resolution would likely stipulate that the cost of the master plan work would be reimbursed to the general fund from the net proceeds of the land sale.

Warpehoski indicated that one reason a master plan for the greenway is important is that the lack of such a plan hurt the city’s application for funding from the state of Michigan to support renovations to the 721 N. Main property. The city did not receive the state grant after applying for it in early 2013.

In addition, Warpehoski wrote, there’s an opportunity to partner with the University of Michigan and a class taught by Larissa Larsen, a professor of urban and regional planning and natural resources. Such a partnership would reduce costs of the planning effort.

The idea of funding work on a master plan for the Allen Creek greenway was discussed most recently at the June 16, 2014 council meeting, in the context of a resolution that Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had brought forward that would have jump-started an effort to redesign Liberty Plaza at the corner of Division and Liberty streets. Taylor’s resolution would have appropriated $23,577 for the work, which was to have included input from a variety of stakeholders, including adjacent property owners.

That resolution was ultimately referred by the council to the park advisory commission (PAC). At PAC’s July 15 meeting, two people spoke during public commentary to advocate for an integrated approach to the “library block,” which includes Liberty Plaza. But PAC postponed discussion related to Liberty Plaza and the council resolution, as only five of nine voting members were present. Taylor is an ex officio non-voting member of PAC, but had not discussed the resolution at previous PAC meetings. He attended PAC’s July 15 meeting.

The June 16 council meeting discussion featured the following exchange between Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Hieftje, recorded in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting:

10:15 p.m. Kunselman asks if this means that Liberty Plaza would jump ahead of developing a master plan for the Allen Creek Greenway. Hieftje says that if Kunselman can be a bit patient, there will be a master plan proposed soon.

10:18 p.m. Hieftje says that an Allen Creek Greenway master plan might be prepared before the end of the budget year. Kunselman asks if there’d been any council direction to start any of the activity that Hieftje has described. Yes, Hieftje says, there was a resolution involving 415 W. Washington. Kunselman reiterates the fact that staff has not been directed specifically to develop a greenway master plan. He’s reiterating the lack of resources for park planning. There are 157 parks in the city and he wonders why Liberty Plaza has become the most important one. Kunselman will support the referral to PAC.

If the council directs the 415 W. Washington property to be listed for sale, it would be the third downtown city-owned property to be listed for sale in the last year and a half. The council directed the city administrator to move toward hiring a broker for the old Y lot at Fifth and William at its March 4, 2013 meeting. And on Nov. 18, 2013, the council authorized the sale of the lot to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million.

And the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting to confirm its earlier decision to direct the city administrator to list the development rights for the top of the Library Lane parking structure for sale. On July 1, city administrator Steve Powers notified the council that he’d selected CBRE to market and broker the sale of the development rights.

The 415 W. Washington parcel is currently used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system, which has averaged about $18,000 in revenue per month, or about $216,000 a year over the last two years. The parcel also includes several buildings that previously served as the road commission facility and the city maintenance yard. A study commissioned by the city of the property concluded that the cost of stabilizing and renovating all of the buildings could be as high as $6 million. [.pdf of Aug. 29, 2013 report] That study came after the 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios had stepped forward with an interest in the possible renovation and reuse of the building as artist studio space. For additional background on that, see “City Council Parcels Out Tasks: Open Space.”

Ultimately the city moved toward demolishing the buildings. The city administrator’s proposed FY 2015 budget included $300,000 for the demolition of the buildings, but the council amended out that allocation during its deliberations on May 19, 2014:

1:40 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition. This proposal will simply eliminate general fund support for demolition of the city-owned buildings at 415 W. Washington. [Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin]

1:54 a.m. Outcome: The council approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman, Taylor and Warpehoski.

Two pieces of land immediately adjacent to 415 W. Washington have been in the news recently. At their July 1, 2014 meeting, city planning commissioners approved The Mark condo project for the parcel on Liberty Street where a car wash is currently located. The proposal from developer Alex de Parry is to demolish an existing car wash at 318 W. Liberty and build an 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units.

And at the July 2, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, it was announced that the final site recommendation for a downtown stop for the WALLY rail line is for the east side of the railroad tracks between Liberty and Washington streets – opposite of where the former city maintenance yard was located at 415 W. Washington. It was reported at that meeting that it would not be a full station. Rather, it would be a platform with canopies and a ramp to Washington Street to the north and a sidewalk connection to the south onto Liberty. The stop would be built entirely within the railroad right-of-way – and there would be no taking of public or private property. The site would be contingent on the WALLY project moving forward.

Land Purchase: Burton Commons

Appearing on the July 21 agenda is a resolution for the city to inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether the land is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

Animated .gif of the Burton Commons property showing the demolition of single-family homes on the parcels – from aerial images in the Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system.

The land is immediately adjacent to US-23 to the east and Sylvan Park to the north. A residential neighborhood lies to the west of the land.

The resolution is sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who had told his council colleagues at their June 2, 2014 meeting that he’d be bringing forward such a resolution. The idea would be to use open space millage money to purchase the land. The resolution states that the estimated fair market value, according to the city assessor, is $628,800.

One-third of the open space millage proceeds are supposed to be allocated to acquisition of land within the city limits. At the June 2 meeting, Kunselman argued for the purchase based on the positive impact on climate change and the adjacency of Sylvan Park to the north.

The purchase of the land would also be consistent with a sentiment Kunselman expressed at a recent mayoral candidate forum – that there was resistance in Ward 3, which he represents, to “dumping and piling on” affordable housing in that ward.

Kunselman is a candidate for mayor in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, along with three other councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The July 21 council meeting is the last one before the Aug. 5 election. That week the meeting is shifted to Thursday from Monday, due to the Tuesday election.

Land Purchase: 3401 Platt Road

On the July 21 agenda is an item that would authorize the city to purchase the parcel at 3401 Platt Road.

Purchase of the blue-highlighted parcel could be authorized by the city council at its July 21 meeting.

The parcel is adjacent to Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) properties that AAHC is planning to reconstruct.

Four units currently stand at the location, but AAHC has previously announced plans to demolish those structures and replace them with 32 units of housing – a net gain of 28 units.

Now, however, the AAHC is interested in expanding that project, using the additional adjacent property. At the planning commission’s July 15, 2014 meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that because the AAHC has decided to expand its development on Platt Road, they’ll be holding another citizen participation meeting about that on Monday, July 28 at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Malletts Creek branch, 3090 E. Eisenhower. This is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is also being considered for affordable housing.

Earlier this year, at its April 21, 2014 meeting, council gave several approvals  in connection with the AAHC renovations. The acquisition of the additional parcel will help the AAHC with its plans for the property.

Three of the existing four houses are in the floodway, and the water table is higher than the basements. When it rains, the properties flood. So the plan is to tear down the existing buildings, and construct new housing further north on the same site, on land that’s currently vacant.

The AAHC will be reimbursing the city for the $195,00 cost of the 1.17-acre property.

But it is the city that must execute the transaction, under Ann Arbor City Code, Chapter 8, Section 1:209(3):

All deeds, mortgages, contracts, leases, purchases, or other agreements regarding real property which is or may be put under the control of the housing commission, including agreements to acquire or dispose of real property, shall be approved and executed in the name of the City of Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor City Council may, by resolution, decide to convey or assign to the housing commission any rights of the city to a particular property owned by the City of Ann Arbor which is under the control of the housing commission and such resolution shall authorize the City Administrator, Mayor and Clerk to take all action necessary to effect such conveyance or assignment.

Development

On the council’s July 21 agenda are several items related to development.

Development: Jackson Drive-Thru

The council will consider approval of a site plan for a new drive-thru restaurant on Jackson Avenue – near the I-94 interchange. The planning commission recommended approval at its June 17, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of 2625 Jackson Ave.

The site is located at 2625 Jackson, on the southeast corner of Jackson and I-94, and just north of the Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a 1,820-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,220-square-foot retail center. The gas pump islands and canopy will be removed. The total project would cost an estimated $400,000. [.pdf of staff memo]

The restaurant’s single lane drive-thru would primarily be accessed from a proposed curbcut on Jackson Ave., with an exit through the Westgate Shopping Center Jackson Ave. entrance. An existing curbcut off Jackson to the east would be closed. The new curbcut has been approved by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and would prevent left turns onto Jackson. The drive-thru lane provides stacking for up to four vehicles and would be screened to the north by the proposed building.

In a separate vote at their June 17 meeting, commissioners granted a special exception use for this project, which does not require additional city council approval. This was the first drive-thru proposal that has come through the city’s approval process since the city council approved changes to the Chapter 55 zoning ordinance that regulates drive-thrus. That approval came at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting.

Development: Dusty’s Collision

The council will consider a site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett.

Aerial view of Dusty Collision site.

The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. A previous building at that location was torn down in 2013. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage. The project is estimated to cost $2 million.

The site will include 106 spaces of exterior parking, including 24 spaces that will be deferred until needed, according to the staff memo. One bicycle hoop – for 2 bike parking spaces – will be located near the front of the building.

The planning commission’s recommendation for approval, made at its June 3, 2014 meeting, was contingent on the owner – Whitney’s Collision West of Ann Arbor – providing one footing drain disconnect before the city issues a certificate of occupancy. [.pdf of staff memo]

Development: State Street Village

For State Street Village – a proposed 78-unit apartment project that will eventually appear on the council’s agenda – the council will consider giving initial approval at its July 21 meeting to the rezoning of the land. The 4.5-acre parcel would be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district).

A recommendation for the rezoning was given at the June 17, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Aerial view of State Street Village site.

At that meeting, commissioners recommended approval of a site plan, development agreement and rezoning for the project. It’s a $10 million project put forward by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. at 2221-2223 S. State St. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

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

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

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

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

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

Only the initial consideration of the rezoning issue will be before the council on July 21. The site plan approval will be considered at a future meeting, likely at the same meeting when the council gives final consideration to the rezoning.

Development: Downtown Zoning

The council will consider giving final approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Initial approval was given to rezoning from D1 to D2, with an amended height limit – of 60 feet. The original height limit in the ordinance revision considered by the council was 100 feet.

Initial approval by the council came at its June 16, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

The council’s initial approval came only after two votes on each of the parts of the zoning, as councilmembers had first decided to refer the height limit issue back to the planning commission, but ultimately decided to amend the height limit to 60 feet. A summary of the deliberations is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting.

By way of background, currently a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

Considered separately by the council on July 21 will be final votes that would: (1) change the zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) change the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to specify the height limit at 60 feet, not the 100 feet that the planning commission had recommended. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

Upper-story setbacks, specified in the character district overlay along with the height limits, were specified based on the 100-foot limit. So the planning staff will likely present the council with some revised language on the setbacks, in order to be consistent with the amended 60-foot limit.

The planning commission recommended both the zoning changes at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The planning commission’s vote on the basic zoning change was unanimous – 9-0. But the vote on the 100-foot height limit was only 6-3, with dissent coming from Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere also serves on city council, representing Ward 1. Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

The planning commission’s recommendations came in response to a city council directive given at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, which had been based on previous work the planning commission had done. The commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

Those initial Dec. 3, 2013 recommendations from the planning commission had come in response to a previous direction from the city council, given at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. The council’s action in early 2013 came in response to the controversial 413 E. Huron development.

The item affecting 425 S. Main is just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission.

The current D1 zoning for 425 S. Main allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height. At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Board and Commissions

Two commissions are the topic of separate council agenda items: the environmental commission; and the commission on disability issues.

Boards and Commission: Environmental

The council will give final consideration to an amendment to the city ordinance establishing the environmental commission (EC). Initial approval was given at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting.

The ordinance change relates in part to the way that nominations to the EC are made. The EC is one of the few boards or commissions in the city for which the mayor does not make nominations. The more familiar procedure – for most boards and commissions – includes a mayoral nomination at one council meeting, followed by the confirmation vote of the council at a subsequent meeting.

In the past, the council has mimicked this procedure for the EC by having some councilmember put a resolution on the agenda appointing a member to the EC, and then postponing the resolution until the next meeting. The ordinance revisions include clarification that the nominations put forward by the council as a body to the EC are to be made by the two councilmembers who serve as the council’s representatives to the EC.

Besides two slots for council representatives, the EC includes positions for members of the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission. The ordinance revision to be given final consideration on July 21 makes clear that those groups make their appointments to the EC without further city council approval. This specific revision comes after the planning commission had selected Kirk Westphal from its membership to serve on the EC earlier this year. Some councilmembers voted against his confirmation, when the council was asked to confirm his selection two months ago. For background on that vote, see “Hutton, Westphal Reappointed to EC.”

The staff memo summarizes the changes to the ordinance regulating appointments to boards and commissions as follows:

• clarifies that the councilmembers currently serving on the environmental commission nominate persons for “at-large” appointments, which are then approved by council resolution;
• clarifies that the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission each designate a representative to the environmental commission without council approval and for a one-year term;
• clarifies that the 3-year terms should be equally staggered;
• removes references to the Leslie Science Center Advisory Board, which no longer exists;
• requires the city administrator or the designated support staff of the environmental commission to notify council of vacancies – previously this was delegated to the clerk’s office, which does not always have immediate knowledge of vacancies;
• contains a few minor, non-substantive corrections and clarifications.

Mark Clevey’s name had been scheduled to be put before the council on July 7 to be confirmed as a member of the EC, but was withdrawn – because he is the selection by the energy commission to represent the energy commission on the EC. Once enacted, the energy commission appointment to EC (like that of other boards and commissions to the EC) will be for one year and will not need city council approval.

Boards and Commission: Disabilities

The council will consider a resolution that clarifies the membership on the city’s commission on disabilities. The clarification concerns the city council representative, who will be appointed for a one-year term annually. Currently the council’s representative is Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

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!

Not necessarily expected, however, was the court’s issuance of a show cause order that requires the city of Ann Arbor to demonstrate why the city is not in contempt of court.

Excerpt from judge Lawrence Zatkoff’s show cause order, requiring the city of Ann Arbor to demonstrate that it is not in contempt of the court order that disallowed the enforcement of eligibility requirements for city officials against Bob Dascola.

The court has essentially ordered the city to present an explanation for the fact that the city clerk sent out ballots to 392 absentee voters in the Aug. 5, 2014 primary that did not contain Bob Dascola’s name – after the court had earlier ruled that the city’s eligibility requirements could not be enforced against Dascola.

Both of the most recent decisions were issued by the court on July 16, 2014.

[July 16, 2014 Show Cause Order] [July 16, 2014 Order on Intervention] [.pdf of July 11, 2014 SoS motion to intervene]

The prior court ruling on May 20, 2014 had held that the city charter’s eligibility requirements are not enforceable. And the effect of that ruling was that the city was supposed to place Bob Dascola‘s name on the Ward 3 city council ballot for the Aug. 5, 2014 Democratic primary. Printed correctly on the ballots were the names of the other two candidates: Julie Grand and Samuel McMullen.

However, a series of events led to the omission of Dascola’s name from the printed ballots. Dascola’s name was initially not included in the information provided to the county’s third-party ballot programmer – Government Business Systems (GBS). But when the federal court ruling was made last month – that the city charter’s eligibility requirements were not enforceable – the new Ward 3 candidate slate, including Dascola, was provided to GBS. Proofs of the ballots were then sent to the county clerk and the city clerk as well as to the candidates. Those proofs included Dascola’s name – so the ballots survived those checks.

Then, a change to the ballots was requested by the city of Ypsilanti – to remove city council races from Ypsilanti ballots where there was not a contested race. This is a city charter provision – that when there’s not more than one candidate for a primary race, it’s not included on the ballot. As a part of that revisions, GBS removed the city of Ann Arbor council races. The proofing process identified that error. But in restoring the Ann Arbor city council races to the ballot, GBS reverted to the initial slate – which did not include Dascola’s name.

At that point the mistake was missed, by the county clerk’s office and by by the county election commission, which consists of the county clerk (Larry Kestenbaum), county treasurer (Catherine McClary) and the chief probate judge (Darlene O’Brien). The city clerk was not provided proofs of the incorrect ballots.

A total of 392 misprinted ballots were sent to absentee voters. The court has been informed of the circumstances surrounding the misprinting of the ballots, but seems unimpressed by those circumstances as excusing the city from responsibility [emphasis added]:

Further, the Court has reviewed Defendants’ explanation as to how this failure occurred and found it wanting. Defendants are ready to assign blame for this failure to computer programmers, vendors, and various municipal agencies, yet never acknowledge or take any responsibility. Defendants’ explanation completely ignores the responsibility levied upon them by this Court’s May 20, 2014, Opinion and Order. Further, Defendants admit that the office of Defendant City Clerk individually placed 392 inaccurate ballots into envelopes prior to delivery. Yet Defendants provide absolutely no explanation why Defendants failed to review any of the 392 absentee ballots prior to placing them in envelopes.

The city of Ann Arbor has until July 23, 2014 to respond to the court’s show cause order. The mood of the court is further reflected in the order by the requirements for the response: “Defendants’ response to the Order to Show Cause shall contain specific and accurate legal support, including pinpoint citations to authority relied upon, and shall be limited to ten pages and comply with E.D. Mich. L.R. 5.1.”

A resident who received the incorrectly printed ballot identified the ballot printing error. And since that time, the city clerk has focused on reducing the impact of the error. The city has sent replacement ballots to all voters who received a misprinted ballot, with a letter of instructions. The city is also actively attempting to contact voters who have sent in a misprinted ballot so that they can send in a correctly printed ballot.

The ballot-counting dispute concerns the question of  how votes on misprinted ballots should count for the Ward 3 race, if a voter does not submit a correctly-printed replacement ballot. And the city’s election commission is getting updates from the city clerk on how many potentially disputed ballots remain. As of the election commission’s July 15, 2014 meeting, the number of potentially disputed ballots stood at 10. In the Ward 3 primary, the estimated total number of votes to be cast is around 3,000.

Dascola’s position is that votes in the Ward 3 race that are cast on the misprinted ballots should not count. Dascola’s attorney, Tom Wieder, filed a motion expressing that position – as post-judgment relief in the lawsuit that was won to put Dascola on the ballot in the first place. Michigan’s Secretary of State takes the position that such ballots should be counted. [See ”Ann Arbor Ballot Dispute: Michigan Wants In”] Because the court granted the Secretary of State’s motion to intervene, the court will now consider the arguments made by the Secretary of State for its position that the misprinted ballots should be counted. And Dascola will have a chance to respond to those arguments.

Updated July 18, 2014: The reply to the Secretary of State’s response brief was filed by Dascola’s attorney, Tom Wieder, on July 17: [.pdf of reply to response brief]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of local elections. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already voting for The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements, which would need to be approved in a general voter referendum, would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot.

For example, a potential candidate for the city council  would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. And a potential candidate for mayor would need to be a registered voter in the city at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. With paperwork for partisan primaries due in April – for November elections – the new requirements would translate practically speaking to something similar to a six-and-a-half-month durational requirement. For independent candidates, that timeframe would be closer to three and a half months. [.pdf of draft charter amendment for Nov. 4, 2014 ballot]

The resolution to place a charter amendment in front of voters had originally been intended for initial presentation at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting, but was not ready by then. Instead, the council will take up the question at its July 14 21 meeting. According to information provided on the Michigan Secretary of State’s website, the council would have until Aug. 12, 2014 to meet the deadline for placing a question on the ballot. Before the deadline, the council has one additional meeting after July 21 – on Aug. 7.

On the council, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has worked with city attorney staff to move the question forward.

What, if any, durational requirements should there be on elected officials? It’s time for the city council to take a step towards establishing legally enforceable eligibility requirements for elected officials.

Even though the immediate issue appears to be resolved, a longer-term question is still open. That’s because the result of the federal court ruling is that the city of Ann Arbor has no legally enforceable eligibility requirements for service as mayor or city councilmember.

Anyone at all is now eligible to serve – even youngsters under 18 years old, who would not even be allowed to vote for themselves in the election – just as long as they submit the minimum number of signatures on nominating petitions.

So it’s time for the council to put a charter amendment on a future ballot that would establish some sort of eligibility requirements for elected officials. The council has a choice about what kind of requirements to put on that ballot for voters to decide.

In broad strokes, I think the eligibility requirements for elected officials should pose only a minimal barrier to the ballot. It would be perfectly adequate if the requirement were something like the following: To be an eligible elected official, a person must be a registered voter in the geographic area the person seeks to represent, from the time that person files their paperwork to qualify as a candidate.

Before making a case that this is a perfectly reasonable and adequate requirement, it’s worth considering how we arrived at a place where the city now has no legally enforceable eligibility requirements for elected officials.

After the city of Ann Arbor informed Dascola that he could not serve as an elected official, because he did not meet city charter requirements, he filed a lawsuit to assert his eligibility to serve. Those charter requirements say a person is only eligible to serve on the city council if the person has been a registered voter in the city and a resident of the ward the person seeks to represent – for at least a year prior to election. Dascola contended he met the residency requirement, but conceded that he fell short of the voter registration requirement. He did not register to vote in the city of Ann Arbor until Jan. 15, 2014.

But Dascola successfully argued in federal district court that both of Ann Arbor’s city charter requirements were unenforceable – because they had been ruled unconstitutional, null and void in federal court cases dating from the early 1970s. The city had essentially argued that the charter eligibility requirements would be found constitutional, if those 1970s cases were litigated today, based on subsequent case law. But the court ruled that the city needed to legislatively re-enact those city charter requirements, before they could be enforced.

In fact, the ruling this week permanently enjoins the city of Ann Arbor from enforcing those one-year durational requirements before re-enacting them. And that re-enactment would need to take place according to the orderly process called for in Michigan’s Home Rule City Act.

That process is for the city council to decide upon some charter language and then put a ballot question before voters to establish eligibility requirements. This was actually attempted in 2003, but the charter amendment was not approved by a majority of voters. [For more detailed background on that attempt, see: "Ann Arbor's Dumb Old Charter."]

By any objective standard, the 2003 attempt was flawed – for at least two reasons. First, the ballot language mischaracterized the existing wording of the charter. Second, the proposed amendment would have established a requirement for elected officials that a person be registered to vote in the geographic area they sought to represent only at the time they took office.

The proposed 2003 requirement seems so weak as not to be practical. Voters have a legitimate interest in knowing that a candidate who has been qualified for the ballot is also qualified to serve, if elected. If the eligibility requirement is applied only at the point when the person takes office, it’s possible that a candidate might win election and then decide not to register to vote in the appropriate geographic area. That would lead to an outcome where the winning candidate would not be eligible to serve. That kind of scenario is clearly not in the public interest.

The kind of requirement I’ve proposed above would apply a voter registration requirement – with its attendant requirements on age and citizenship – at the point when a candidate files paperwork. It would be an easy fact for the city clerk’s staff to check at that time.

Deadlines for submission of paperwork start in mid-April for the general election in November. So the kind of rule I’m proposing would impose a shorter durational requirement than a year. One year is the span mentioned in the words of the current city charter.

Now, some might argue it’s important that a person be registered to vote in the geographic area they seek to represent for at least one year. And people are free to make that argument – in the context of a democratic election campaign.

For example, if someone thinks that Bob Dascola should not serve as a Ward 3 city councilmember because he has not been registered to vote for at least a year in Ward 3 and should be counted as a carpetbagger, that person is free to make that argument – or any other argument against Dascola – and to urge others not to vote for him. That’s exactly what city planning commissioner Diane Giannola did in a post on her blog, middleoftheleft.com: “I say don’t…don’t vote for [Dascola] if he happens to find his way on to the ballot.”

If the city council is not persuaded I’m right, and believes that a one-year durational voter registration requirement – or some other requirement – is preferable to the one I’ve proposed, then the council should put that different requirement in front of voters.

It’s important for the council eventually to act in some manner, because right now the city of Ann Arbor has no legally enforceable eligibility requirements at all for elected officials. And I don’t think that just anyone should be eligible to step into the center ring of our local governance.

This issue should have been addressed back in 1972 when the federal courts first ruled. And when the attempt in 2003 to establish eligibility requirements was unsuccessful, the city council should have tried again. It’s not necessarily an emergency requiring immediate action, because the ultimate check on eligibility is the election itself.

But now, as long as a lot of people are thinking about this issue, it would be a good time for the council to try again to get this part of the city charter cleaned up.

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

On May 6, 2014, the final court-ordered supplemental briefs were submitted by both sides in the lawsuit, filed by Bob Dascola against the city of Ann Arbor. Dascola contends he’s an eligible candidate and wants the court to order that he be placed on the ballot in the Ward 3 city council Democratic primary. He would join Julie Grand and Samuel McMullen in that election, which will be held on Aug. 5, 2014.

But as the electorate awaits a ruling from federal judge Lawrence Zatkoff, the two sides have continued to lather up. Late last week, Tom Wieder – the attorney for Dascola – filed a motion asking permission from the court to file an amended complaint. The motion for leave to file the amendment describes the nature of the amendments as clarifying the precise source of rights that Dascola is seeking to enforce in his lawsuit [the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and his rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983], and to clarify the basis of the claim for attorney fees, if Dascola wins. The motion contends that the changes to the complaint are minimal and raise no new legal or factual issues. On its face, the motion appears intended to ensure that Wieder can be paid, if Dascola were to prevail.

However, in responding to the motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Ann Arbor city attorney Stephen Postema offers a cutting characterization. He calls it ”procedurally odd” and accuses Wieder of failing to exercise due diligence in filing the motion. In addition, Postema responds to arguments made in Wieder’s supplemental brief, on the substance of the lawsuit. The substantial issue raised by the lawsuit involves the status of laws – like the city’s charter durational residency and voter registration requirements – when those laws have been found to be unconstitutional, null and void by a federal court.

Wieder responded in kind to the city’s brief, writing that the city does the following:

1) Misrepresent the nature of the proposed Amendment; 2) Misrepresent authority on the issue of futility and its applicability to this case; 3) Continue its fabricated argument that Plaintiff claims Charter Section 12.2 was “repealed” by the Feld and HRP decisions; 4) Produce and present to the Court what is, essentially, a Response Brief to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief, although none was called for by the Court’s Order; and 5) Present a fanciful “parade of horribles” that will befall the Court, the candidates, “possible donors and supporters,” the public and the Defendants if the Amendment is allowed.

By way of background, Ann Arbor’s city charter includes two durational requirements for city councilmembers – that they be registered voters in the city for a year before election, and that they be residents of the ward they seek to represent for a year before election.

Dascola contends that he meets the residency requirement. He allows that he does not meet the voter registration requirement. But Dascola’s core legal claim is that the two charter provisions were struck down as unconstitutional, null and void in federal court cases dating from the 1970s. The city contends that it can enforce the two city charter requirements based on case law that evolved subsequent to the 1970s cases.

The court ordered an expedited schedule so that the issue might be resolved before early June, when ballots must be printed. Briefs, responses, and replies had already been filed in April on motions for summary judgment and dismissal.

Here’s the complete set of briefs in the Dascola case, including the filings from last week.

• 03.28.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Complaint]
• 03.29.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Motion for Summary Judgment]
• 04.14.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Motion to Dismiss]
  
• 04.14.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Response to Motion for SJ]
• 04.18.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Reply in Support of Motion for SJ]
• 04.18.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Response to Motion to Dismiss]
• 04.23.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss]
• 05.06.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief]
• 05.06.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Defendant's Supplemental Brief]
• 05.08.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint]
• 05.09.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Response to Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint]
• 05.11.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Reply to Response to Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint]

Ann Arbor’s city charter includes two durational requirements for city councilmembers – that they be registered voters in the city for a year before election, and that they be residents of the ward they seek to represent for a year before election.

Dascola contends that he meets the residency requirement. He allows that he does not meet the voter registration requirement. But Dascola’s core legal claim is that the two charter provisions were struck down as unconstitutional, null and void in federal court cases dating from the 1970s. The city contends that it can enforce the two city charter requirements based on case law that evolved subsequent to the 1970s cases.

The court ordered an expedited schedule so that the issue might be resolved before early June, when ballots must be printed. Briefs, responses, and replies had already been filed on motions for summary judgment and dismissal.

The additional briefs, both filed on the afternoon of May 6, are supposed to focus just on the question of whether a law that has once been found to be unconstitutional must be officially re-enacted before it can be enforced. From the order on additional briefing:

The briefs shall focus solely on answering the following question: If a law is found “unconstitutional and void” by a federal district court, must that law be officially re-enacted before it is enforced? The briefs shall not focus on issues regarding collateral estoppel, res judicata or the “revival doctrine,” as the Court finds these issues have been addressed. The briefs must contain accurate and binding legal support, and are limited to seven (7) pages. [.pdf of April 30, 2014 court order on additional briefs]

The brief from Dascola’s attorney, Tom Wieder, answers the court’s question in the affirmative, arguing that the only way a Michigan city charter provision can be enforced – after it has been found unconstitutional, null and void in federal court – is for the charter provision to be re-enacted by the procedures outlined in Michigan law for revising a city charter: “[Charter provisions found to be unconstitutional, null and void], essentially, cease to exist and had no legal existence since the day they were enacted. Given this view, there is then no law to be enforced, because it is gone, or never was. Re-enactment is the only way the voided provisions could return as enforceable law.”

In support of this position, Wieder cites cases spanning 208 years. Wieder’s argument also relies on the idea that there has been no overruling or reversal of the two decisions from the early 1970s that found both of Ann Arbor’s durational requirements for city council candidates to be unconstitutional.

The city’s supplemental brief relies crucially on the idea that the finding of the city’s charter provisions as unconstitutional, null and void by the federal courts in the early 1970s did not amount to a repeal of those provisions – because courts do not have the power to repeal laws enacted through a prescribed legislative process: “The Michigan Home Rules [sic] City Act provides that the method for amending (or repealing) provisions of a municipal Charter is through a vote of the residents.” Instead of removing the charter provisions from the books, the city argues, such a finding made them unenforceable at that time. A law that is found unconstitutional “becomes unenforceable, but it is not erased,” the city argues.

The city’s argument cites a case from 1972 in New Jersey (YMCA of Princeton v. Kugler) where a federal court found that a declaratory judgment of a state statute’s unconstitutionality was only binding between the plaintiffs in a specific case (seven physicians) and the state of New Jersey. In that ruling, the state was allowed to enforce the statute against other physicians.

Here’s the complete set of briefs in the Dascola case:

• 03.28.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Complaint]
• 03.29.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Motion for Summary Judgment]
• 04.14.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Motion to Dismiss]
  
• 04.14.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Response to Motion for SJ]
• 04.18.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Reply in Support of Motion for SJ]
• 04.18.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Response to Motion to Dismiss]
• 04.23.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss]
• 05.06.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief]
• 05.06.14 [.pdf Dascola v. City of A2: Defendant's Supplemental Brief]

Tom Wieder. (Photo provided by Wieder. The margins of The Chronicle inline layout required cropping out the person next to whom Wieder is standing.)

The Chronicle has previously covered the various lawsuit filings in a fair amount of detail. The central issue in the case is whether Ann Arbor city charter requirements that were struck down as unconstitutional and declared null and void in 1972 can still be applied today.

While we’re waiting for a decision to be handed down, we thought it would be useful to get a possibly more accessible, spoken-word treatment of the lawsuit’s subject matter. To that end, we talked with Dascola’s attorney, Tom Wieder.

Wieder litigated a case similar to Dascola’s back in 2001.

Some highlights from the conversation include the fact that Wieder thinks the city council potentially has a role to play in the city’s handling of the case – based on the fact that the city attorney is accountable to the city council. The city’s legal stance should be determined by the council, Wieder says, not by the city attorney.

And Wieder talks about the fact that a council controlled by Democrats should allow the Democratic Party principle of free and open access to the ballot to guide their thinking on this matter – given that there are at least two plausible points of view on the enforceability of the city charter’s eligibility requirements.

The council’s particular responsibility as a group of Democrats leads to some discussion of the idea that Ann Arbor Democrats, who dominate city politics today, might be a different stripe from the Democrats of the early 1970s and 1980s, who fought for fewer eligibility requirements on candidates for city office.

It’s fair to point out that that Wieder was involved in two key changes to Ann Arbor’s electoral process that could reasonably be analyzed as leading to Ann Arbor’s current political life being dominated by Democrats: (1) redrawing ward boundaries in 1991; and (2) shifting elections from April to November.

Wieder also ventures that the Democratic dominance of local city politics might have lessened an historically strong Democratic interest in the value of process, and not just doing the right things, but doing things the right way: “… I think the fact that the Democrats have now been in charge pretty much for a while, there may be less self-examination when it comes to process and basic political principles than when somebody else was controlling those levers.”

Asked what he thinks the eligibility requirements for city council and mayor should be, Wieder suggests these requirements: At the time of filing petitions for office, a mayoral candidate should be a registered voter in the city; and at the time of filing petitions for office, candidates for city council should be registered voters in the wards they seek to represent.

One unsuccessful attempt to clean up the city charter – so that there are clear and constitutional eligibility requirements – was made in 2003. No matter how Dascola’s lawsuit turns out, Wieder thinks the city council needs to make a better effort to clean up the city charter – by establishing clear and constitutional eligibility requirements for mayor and city council. The council could propose different charter language on eligibility requirements for elective office and place a charter amendment before voters.

During the conversation, Wieder describes how the Wojack case led the city to print up two different sets of ballots, one with Wojack’s name and another set without it. If the Dascola case is resolved by early June, that contingency would not be necessary this time around.

The conversation with Wieder is presented in Q & A format below, with some re-ordering and editing. 

Links to Subsections

The conversation was edited so that the material falls sequentially into the following categories, which link internally to the spot in the conversation where that section begins:

• Background of the Case
• Should the City Council Be Involved?
• An Issue for Ann Arbor Democrats?
• Ann Arbor Democrats: Different Now?
• After 1972: Attempts to Fix the Charter
• What Should Happen, Win or Lose?

Background of the Case

Chronicle: So, I don’t think we need to wallow around in the legal arguments too much, but can you by way of entry into this topic just summarize what the Bob Dascola case is about? How would you describe the situation to a very bright four-year-old?

Tom Wieder: A very bright four-year-old? Well, the case stems from the 1970s, actually, when the requirements in the city charter to be eligible for elective office – either mayor or council – were all struck down as unconstitutional and void, by two different federal court decisions in 1972. And Bob Dascola filed to run for office based on the assumption that those requirements were not enforceable and have not been for decades. The city is taking the position that they can enforce those provisions because of cases that have been decided since the original decisions were handed down.

Chronicle: So what is the legal fight about in this case?

Tom Wieder: The argument in the current lawsuit is about whether those decisions from 1972 still hold and determine what the city is allowed to do today. We argue that those decisions are just as enforceable and valid as the day they were handed down, and that is because of a legal principle that says: When you find something unconstitutional, it’s as if it were never written, it sort of goes away, it’s not really there anymore. And so it can’t be enforced. The city argues that these voided provisions of the charter can be enforced, because of decisions in other cases that happened since, and allowed the charter provisions to be revived and used today.

Chronicle: Right. And one of those other cases is the one that you also litigated back in 2001 – the Scott Wojack case.

Tom Wieder: Right. We had a similar situation there, in that Scott Wojack wanted to run for council and he was told by the city clerk that he couldn’t run, because he had not lived in the ward for a year that he wanted to run in. He’d lived in the city for that long, and he’d been registered to vote, but he changed his residence and was no longer in the same ward. That provision was one of the provisions that was struck down by one of the two federal court decisions in 1972.

And I represented Wojack in the case to force the clerk to put him on the ballot – because that barrier to him being on the ballot was not valid any more legally. We filed the case and there were some things going back and forth between us and the city. And then the city kind of did an about-face and said: OK, we will put him on the ballot and we’ll have the judge decide at some later time whether we can enforce this old provision in the charter. And it was a little strange because the only real practical thing involved in the case was whether he got on the ballot.

I say it’s strange because we already had a federal district court say it was not constitutional. And I’m not sure that there’s any basis for a Washtenaw County circuit judge to have any effect on, or overrule, or anything of the kind, a standing final judgment of a federal district court. He is certainly entitled to offer his opinion about something, but I’m not sure that it carried any legal weight, and in fact, I don’t think it does. [The opinion of judge Tim Connors in the Wojack case was that the city charter's durational residency requirement for councilmembers was constitutional.]

Chronicle: Yet, that is the court in which the case was filed. Your point is that you don’t believe the state court had the authority to overrule the federal court, so why would you file that case in the state court in the first place?

Tom Wieder: Well, the only relief we were seeking was to compel the city to put Scott Wojack on the ballot. It certainly could have been filed in federal court. In retrospect, we probably would have. But we were essentially seeking to compel a state officer to perform his duty – all city employees and officers draw all their power from the state, the Home Rule Cities Act – and therefore it’s perfectly appropriate, if you’re asking them to perform one of their duties, to ask a state court to order them to do so.

Chronicle: I assume it’s going to be decided one way or another in a couple weeks or so. …

Tom Wieder: Well, first of all to assume anything that a federal court might do is dangerous. Yes, it will come out in the next several weeks, I think. But the judge has been told by the city that the sort of drop-dead deadline in terms of knowing who’s going on the ballot doesn’t come until early June, when the ballots have to get printed.

And of course, even that is not etched in stone – because what happened in the Wojack case was: They printed two sets of ballots, because it was so close to the election. … They did double printing. One set with Wojack on and one set not. I’m not saying that the court would push it that far – I don’t think so. I just want to be careful that we not assume too much about that.

Should the City Council Be Involved?

Chronicle: So let me go back to something you said earlier. You said that during the Wojack case, the city at some point seemed to do, from your perspective, an about-face. In the most recent filing by the city in the Dascola case, there is a footnote … with words to the effect that the city attorney at the time recognized that Wojack had no likelihood of being elected, and so decided to allow him to be on the ballot, with the legal issue to be decided after the fact. Is that consistent with your recollection at the time as to why the city decided to allow Wojack on the ballot?

Tom Wieder: Let me start by answering that that footnote is one of the oddest things I have ever seen in a legal brief. And the language you’re talking about said “The then city attorney” – that’s Abigail Elias, who was later removed as city attorney and now is chief assistant city attorney – “recognized that Mr. Wojack had no likelihood of election, and that the validity of his candidacy could be decided if he were to win.” Basically the city is stating in its legal brief that “We ignored what we thought was a valid city charter provision for eligibility to run for office and let somebody we believed ineligible to get on the ballot anyway, because we were sure he was going to lose.” Which is just bizarre!

You asked about my understanding at the time. My understanding is mostly based on just rumor and grapevine, because the city obviously didn’t share with us their reasoning on doing things. What I heard at the time was that councilmembers weren’t too comfortable with the idea of keeping somebody off the ballot based on the legal position that the city had at the time – that these requirements that had been declared unconstitutional had somehow come back to life and could be enforced. And that this discomfort with denying somebody a place on the ballot under that reasoning led them to have the attorney go with this alternative, which was to have Wojack be on the ballot and have the judge decide afterwards whether the provisions could be enforced or not.

Chronicle: Well, if that’s what happened, then I guess it must have happened through back channel conditions between individual councilmembers and the city attorney.

Tom Wieder: Yes, of course. … It’s a question of how the council, and I’ll speak mostly of my fellow Democrats, deals with some issues like this. You know, there is the principle that the Democrats in 1971 filed suit over – it was, I think, an important principle. And it somewhat saddens me and disappoints me that the council does not recognize what the underlying issue is about all of this. And if they do recognize it, they don’t seem to be willing to act upon it – because whatever you might say about this case, this is not black-and-white that the only reasonable position the city could take is to say: Oh, yes, these voided provisions are alive again. They could just as well see it as we do and say: No, they are gone; they were declared unconstitutional and void and they essentially disappeared. There would be nothing inappropriate in the city saying: We give – we’re not going to keep fighting that.

Chronicle: So does it make any difference that it is now the city that is enforcing this and it’s up to Bob Dascola to file suit to get on the ballot? One could imagine a different scenario – a situation more like the one in the Barrow case [concerning the 2013 mayor's race in Detroit] – where some other Ward 3 candidate says: Hey, Bob Dascola shouldn’t be allowed on the ballot, and I’m going to file suit to keep him off the ballot.

Tom Wieder: Are you asking me if it makes a difference to me whether it is the city trying to do it or a third party trying to? Yes! I mean, third parties will do something in their own self-interest, which is probably to help themselves in an election or hurt somebody they don’t like. The responsibility of council – and therefore the city – is a bit different.

It is a council decision ultimately as to the legal stance that the city attorney takes, because the city attorney works for the council. And if there are two or more legally legitimate and plausible arguments and stances to take in a case, you sort of expect that the councilmembers, in deciding what course to take, might apply their political values and principles to making that decision.

And to me, what I would hope to see is Democrats who control the Ann Arbor council say: We’re not so sure that the argument – that these provisions are enforceable – is the right one, and the other argument sounds plausible too, and it fits with our approach to open government and letting more people participate. So we’re going to instruct our city attorney and our city clerk to go that way. Instead, it seems that this is being led by the city attorney’s preferences here, and not the political philosophy of the council.

Chronicle: Isn’t there some value, though, in getting a decision from someone who’s wearing a black robe? So that in the future, if indeed these two provisions are null and void, that nobody will get the idea, based on some different political philosophy, that we want to keep people off the ballot using those provisions? … I’m saying let’s consider what would have happened if it had become public that the city clerk notified Bob Dascola that he didn’t seem to meet the eligibility requirements, then you [Tom Wieder] basically come in and use the art of … “friendly persuasion” and the city said, “Oh, OK, we forgot,” or “You make a reasonable case,” and they let him on the ballot, and it doesn’t get into court. … The door would still be open to [someone else] to try to enforce the two charter provisions.

Tom Wieder: If the result of this case were a decision that those things are still null and void, that really ought to answer it permanently.

Chronicle: That’s why I’m saying: There’s some value in the city taking the position that they’re going to defend the enforcement of those two provisions.

Tom Wieder: … I don’t agree at all. I don’t agree. You say maybe we could get a court to repeat what it ordered 40 years ago, now we will listen to it the second time?! The idea that that has some value doesn’t really ring any bells for me. A decision was made.

An Issue for Ann Arbor Democrats?

Chronicle: Thinking about the current situation, do you think it would be helpful to the cause to have councilmembers convey their opinion one way or another to the city attorney with respect to just going ahead and allowing Dascola on the ballot? …

So for Bob Dascola’s specific cause of getting on the ballot, of course, it would be helpful. … [But] I take it that you do have some either personal or professional special interest in this topic area. I think the last time that your name was included in Ann Arbor Chronicle coverage was back when ward redistricting was being voted on in 2011, and the city attorney was planning to use different boundaries for the general election than were used in the primary. You and several others in the legal community weighed in, and what happened was the city held off its decision to implement the ward boundary changes. I’m sure you recall that episode. In my mind, ballot access issues and ward boundary issues, they seem to be in the same general category.

So maybe instead of asking “Does it help the cause?” maybe a better question is: Do you have a special interest in this topic area? Is this a “cause” for you?

Tom Wieder: Well, it’s certainly no secret that I’ve been active in local Democratic politics for nearly 40 years. So I have an interest as a Democrat. I’ve also been active in the American Civil Liberties Union for about that long or at least a member that long. And I take very seriously constitutional rights in general. But because of my interest in politics, I may take an even greater interest in those issues of civil liberties when they affect elections and the ability to run for office. … The original challenge to the charter was filed by Democrats in 1971 [the Feld case], challenging the requirement that a candidate for council had to have lived in the ward for a year before the election to be eligible to run.

And it was the feeling of Democrats back then that this was an unnecessary restriction on who could run for office – that this is a very transient city and people move a lot, and you shouldn’t be barred from running for city council because you happen to move a few blocks over and ended up in a different ward and couldn’t run for a year. If voters were concerned that you had not lived in the ward for a year, they certainly did not have to vote for you. But there was no reason to prohibit people from running on that basis.

They supported a much more open and accessible kind of election process that you might construct, and that’s what prompted filing that suit. I happen to agree to that approach to elections and people getting involved in them – we should put up as few barriers as possible. So when that case came down, I was pleased at that – I wasn’t directly involved in the case myself, but it certainly comports with my political viewpoint and my civil liberties viewpoint.

Chronicle: So you seem to be identifying the notion of having as few barriers to ballot access as possible as a Democratic value – Democratic with a capital D.

Tom Wieder: Certainly in this town I would say so. To be honest, we had a lot of disputes about that in Ann Arbor, but to the extent that it has arisen, I think you would find that … when we used to have a more visible group of Republicans, the Ann Arbor Democrats would have been more favorable to ballot access than Republicans.

Ann Arbor Democrats: Different Now?

Chronicle: Do you think that Ann Arbor Democrats of 40 years ago are somewhat of a different breed with respect to this type of issue than Ann Arbor Democrats of today? At the very first mayoral forum, the four candidates were assembled … and one of the candidates who has got, I think, unquestionable Democratic Party credentials – Stephen Kunselman – described the basic concept of what he thought a local government is as essentially a book of rules, and we have to follow the rules. Which is all well and good, but it’s not what I would necessarily think of as stereotypically Democratic Party principles.

Tom Wieder: I don’t know what Steve might have meant by that, but I would say that the tenor of the comment doesn’t strike me as what I would think of as the first principle that would come off the tongue of most of the liberal Democrats in Ann Arbor as the purpose of government. But maybe I’m not understanding what …

Chronicle: … well, I’m taking that somewhat out of context, and to be clear he was not trying to articulate in any explicit way what Democratic Party values are. But it is something that he said – in the context of explaining who he is and what he is about. So if indeed there has been a change in what it means to be an Ann Arbor Democrat over the last 40 years, would you be willing to accept some of the credit or perhaps blame for that? As I understand it, you were instrumental in redefining the ward boundaries back in [1991] … and with the shift of elections from April to November, and that pretty much gave us what we have today – which is, as you mentioned before, an invisible Republican Party.

Tom Wieder: That’s a complicated question and requires a somewhat complicated answer. Yes, I do think that Democrats of today in Ann Arbor are somewhat different from the Democrats of 30 or 40 years ago. I think that Democrats of 30 or 40 years ago in Ann Arbor were somewhat more process-oriented and civil-liberties-oriented. They didn’t just have substantive positions on delivery of city services and the like, but a lot of them came out of civil rights activity and anti-war activity and were very concerned about the government doing things in the right way – almost as much as what the city actually did. And when I say in the right way – in terms of individual rights and process. I think it has faded a bit with more recent Democrats, in general.

I think that part of that comes from the fact that Democrats had been in the minority for so long – you always tend to get a little more sensitive about process when someone else controls it! And for many decades, Republicans in Ann Arbor controlled the process. And that may have made Democrats more sensitive about it than they otherwise would be, but I think their instincts were also more in that direction, because of their political philosophy and experiences. Again … I think the fact that the Democrats have now been in charge pretty much for a while, there may be less self-examination when it comes to process and basic political principles than when somebody else was controlling those levers.

Chronicle: Do you think it could also be the simple fact that there are folks who are willing to accept the Democratic Party label on the ballot just as a practical step in order to gain election, and who are not in any way, shape or form actually Democrats? So take Stephen Rapundalo, who ran for mayor as a Republican. I don’t think that he had some deep political epiphany in the intervening years, but then he represented Ward 2 as a Democrat. From what I’ve read and from what I’ve heard, I don’t think that an early 1970s Ann Arbor Democrat would be inclined to prevent a guy like Tom Wieder from addressing a committee meeting for three minutes, and would have instead preferred to argue for three minutes about whether Wieder should be able to address a committee meeting – instead of actually letting him speak. I assume you remember the episode to which I’m referring?

Tom Wieder: Yeah, sure. I certainly think that I have seen things dealt with by the council controlled by Democrats in recent years that would not have been done that way by a council controlled by the Democrats I knew on council a number of years back. Now, I’m not sure that that’s a result of there being – as you would suggest – a number of Republicans in Democrats’ clothing. I think that the Democrats on council who I have no doubt are through-and-through Democrats, and not just wearing the label, are also different from the Democrats of old. So I don’t think it’s a question of there are too many not-real Democrats on there. And that’s why you see the change – because I think the real Democrats today are somewhat a different stripe than the Democrats of the ’70s and ’80s.

After 1972: Attempts to Fix the Charter

Tom Wieder: [After the 1972 federal court cases], the city sort of made up a rule, because there wasn’t any. They just sort of started a practice: People came in and were registered to vote in the city or the ward, and the city was taking their petitions. It’s just something that was made up – there’s nothing written about that anywhere. And they did it for 30 years. And that’s why we still have this question. Because what needed to be done was for new constitutional provisions to be put on the ballot and passed, and then it’s over because the city would have by its processes changed the charter. And then you don’t have to argue about whether the old charter provisions come back to life or anything, because you’ve replaced them with things that met the terms of the court decisions at the time. But nobody took the time or attention to do anything about that.

Chronicle: But you’d have to say that somebody tried to do something about that, in 2003 [when a ballot proposal was put before voters to put in new language for eligibility requirements] … Do you think that effort was in some way defective, and if so, what was the defect of that effort?

Tom Wieder: Well, the ballot language was horribly confusing. And in fact, it was wrong! … The way they described the change in charter language assumed existing charter provisions that never existed. … They threw in other things about volunteer and appointive officers, and I think a lot of people didn’t know what they were voting on. And it’s kind of an accepted principle of electoral politics that if people don’t understand a ballot question, they vote no. … Neither the city nor any independent group did anything to promote it, which is not really surprising on this kind of a change.

But there wasn’t anything that reached the average voter, except one Ann Arbor News article and an editorial – and they got almost everything wrong in that! They kind of missed the point that the two charter provisions had been struck down and made it sound like this was just something that came out of the blue to reduce the requirements to get on the ballot.

There was no hint of the fact that those charter requirements had been thrown out, and the idea was to establish some requirements. They editorialized against it, but the basic facts about what was being done were wrong.

If you thought that the Connors opinion [in the Wojack case] had no force or effect, when that ballot proposal was put on, the status was the same as it had been for 30 years, which was that we did not have any requirements. If you thought that Connors’ opinion did have force and effect, the only requirement would be that a candidate for council had to live in the ward for a year, and that’s it – there were no requirements for mayor, there were no requirements that require the candidate be a citizen or of voting age.

All the rest of that stuff went away with the other [HRP] case. The most you would’ve had is a requirement that council candidates live in the ward. That just didn’t come across [in the editorial] – what was portrayed is that we were going to get rid of these one-year requirements … and were going to make it so that you only had to be an elector at the time of election. But that just wasn’t true – that was not what was being done.

… [The ballot proposal] had this odd thing where it said it was going to make the requirement be that candidates for elective office had to be registered to vote by the date of the election. I don’t know how you could enforce that. Because someone could come in and file petitions and not be a registered elector, they get on the ballot, and then indicate, Well, yeah, I am going to register by Election Day.

Chronicle: I assure you I will absolutely register to vote by Election Day – yes, I promise!

Tom Wieder: So I suppose the result of such a thing if someone did not register by Election Day is that they would be declared ineligible and even if they won election, they could not take office. Normally we decide the eligibility for office at the time of filing. So in many ways, it was a screwed-up ballot proposal. It was not explained well and it was not written well.

Chronicle: … but you’d have to say that somebody tried to do something about this in 2003, even if it may not have been a super-great effort.

Tom Wieder: Well, that’s 30 years later, because we had one of those challenges to deal with. That’s a long time to wait and just go with some sort of jerryrigged method to determine who is eligible to run for office in the city. Well, okay, they tried it once – they could’ve tried it again.

I have to tell you that I did some lobbying, with some council people, to press the city attorney to give an opinion as to what the eligibility requirements were post-Wojack. What could the city do, what could the city not do? And those efforts were to no avail. So that the council could know what ticking time bomb was there about what requirements they still have, if any – it never happened. They made the one effort in 2003, it was unsuccessful, and then everybody ignored it again, and here we are back litigating what we litigated 40 years ago. And it should have been cleaned up by new charter provisions, so that nobody can argue whether they were valid or not. That’s why we are where we are today with another lawsuit about somebody getting on the ballot – because we never cleaned up the charter.

What Should Happen, Win or Lose?

Chronicle: If Bob Dascola wins the case, is there anything left to be done? Or do we say that’s now settled again, until somebody forgets?

Tom Wieder: The answer to that is a little complicated, because winning by Bob Dascola could take a couple of different forms. There are basically two different voided charter provisions that get involved in this. One is that the person running for council has to have been a resident of the ward for a year. The other is that a candidate for any elective office has to have been a registered voter of the city for a year before the election.

The city hasn’t quite conceded, but has come close to conceding, that Bob has lived in the ward for a year. There’s a few factual questions, but even in their pleadings they are indicating … there is a problem there. He could win by the court finding that both of those charter provisions are still null and void, in which case we don’t have to worry about how long he has lived in the ward or whether he is registered in the city or not. And that will give us exactly where we are now: The city doesn’t have any requirements.

Chronicle: Well, it would leave us exactly where we were right after the Feld and the HRP decisions – both were struck down in the 1970s, declared void … I can’t imagine that there would be anything left to do at that point, but that would be my question to you: What else, if anything, might the city council consider undertaking, even if that is the outcome?

Tom Wieder: If that is the outcome – that those two provisions remain voided – then the city needs to make another effort to put proper qualifications back in the charter.

Chronicle: So you’re saying a better effort than was made back in 2003?

Tom Wieder: Yes.

Chronicle: That covers at least some of the ground associated with what might need to happen if Bob Dascola gets on the ballot.

Tom Wieder: But not all of it. As I say, this gets a little complicated. One of the things that could happen is that the judge could decide that the one-year ward residency requirement has once again become enforceable – either because of the Wojack case, or other cases decided on the so-called durational residency requirement. But the court could decide that the other requirement about being a registered voter for a year has not been similarly reinstated, in which case Bob Dascola, if he can show that he has indeed been in the ward for a year, would get on the ballot.

But you would still have this hole in the requirements for mayor and other kinds of requirements for city council that would not have been fixed. You would just have the one-year ward residency requirement for councilmembers. So there would still be a gap in the charter, in terms of elective office that needs to be fixed, and that has needed to be fixed for 40 years.

Chronicle: On the other hand, if the judge in Dascola’s case upholds both of the requirements, is there anything to be done under that scenario? What do you think should happen if Bob Dascola does not get on the ballot?

Tom Wieder: If the judge finds that those charter requirements can now be used again, then nothing has to be done. But if you asked me what do I think should be done, I still believe that those requirements are too strict – as the Democrats did who filed the lawsuit in 1971. And I guess I would like to see a Democratic council take another shot at making the requirements less to get on the ballot.

Chronicle: What do you think the eligibility requirements should be?

Tom Wieder: I think the requirement should be what they were de facto for 30 years, when they didn’t have anything in the charter to go by: If someone came in by the filing deadline and filed a sufficient number of signatures, and was a registered voter in the city, then you got on the ballot. … The requirement I would have is that if you’re running for mayor, at the date of filing the nominating petitions … you have to be a registered elector of the city. And if you’re running for council, you have to be a registered elector of the ward.

Chronicle: So no durational residency requirement beyond that?

Tom Wieder: No, I think we can trust the voters. If they care that the person just moved into the city six months ago, then don’t vote for them. If they moved a half-mile across town and are now in a different ward and they think you have to actually live in the ward to know about the issues that might affect that ward, then you don’t have to vote for them. But why should we keep people off of the ballot?

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!