An energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommended that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. The resolution defined a “fossil fuel company” to be any of the top 100 coal companies or top 100 gas and oil extraction companies. The top three coal companies on the list are: Severstal JSC; Anglo American PLC; and BHP Billiton. The top three gas and oil companies on the list are: Lukoil Holdings; Exxon Mobil Corp.; and BP PLC. The basic consideration of the resolution is the importance of the role that greenhouse gas emissions play in global warming.

The resolution cited the city of Ann Arbor’s Climate Action Plan, which has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2025 and 90% by 2050. The resolution warned that fossil fuel companies have enough fossil fuel reserves that, if burned, would release about 2,795 gigatons of CO2. That’s five times the amount that can be released without causing more than 2°C global warming, according to the resolution.

Voting against the resolution were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). So the resolution fell short of the six-vote majority it needed on the 11-member council. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) were absent.

The second energy-related resolution also stemmed from an energy commission recommendation – that the council direct city staff to work with DTE to develop a “community solar” pilot program. A “community solar” program would allow people to invest in a solar energy system, even if the energy that’s generated would be located off-site from their own electric meter.

The goal is to create a program that would assist the work of the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association (GLREA), which has a grant to work statewide, investigating the feasibility of and constraints facing this collective approach to alternative energy generation. As an example of this approach, the council resolution cited the Cherryland Electric Cooperative in Traverse City. The resolution asks that details of a pilot program be ready for consideration by the Michigan Public Service Commission by March 31, 2014.

The goal of community solar is to allow people who don’t own the property where they live, or whose own property is shaded or poorly oriented for solar energy production, to support the production of solar energy.

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

From a recent application to Ann Arbor’s historic district commission to allow the addition of photovoltaic panels, possibly in conjunction with existing thermal panels. A resolution on the council’s agenda would direct city staff to work with DTE to develop a pilot program that would benefit people who, unlike this homeowner, don’t have solar access.

One of those items calls on the city’s employee retirement system to divest from the top 200 publicly traded fossil fuel companies.

The second resolution would direct the Ann Arbor city staff to work with DTE to develop a pilot program for a “community solar” project – an initiative that would allow a group of people or businesses to purchase shares in a solar energy system, not located at the site of their electric meter.

The items appear on the council’s tentative agenda for Sept. 3, 2013, which is shifted to Tuesday from its regular Monday slot due to the Labor Day holiday.

Both resolutions were sponsored by the city’s energy commission, a 13-member group with the responsibility of overseeing city policies and regulations on energy and to make recommendations to the city council.

Divestment from Fossil Fuel Companies

An energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommended that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. The resolution defines a “fossil fuel company” to be any of the top 100 coal companies or top 100 gas and oil extraction companies. The top three coal companies on the list are: Severstal JSC; Anglo American PLC; and BHP Billiton. The top three gas and oil companies on the list are: Lukoil Holdings; Exxon Mobil Corp.; and BP PLC.

The basic consideration of the resolution is the importance of the role that greenhouse gas emissions play in global warming. The resolution cites the city of Ann Arbor’s Climate Action Plan, which has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2025 and 90% by 2050. The resolution warns that fossil fuel companies have enough fossil fuel reserves that, if burned, would release about 2,795 gigatons of CO2. That’s five times the amount that can be released without causing more than 2°C global warming, according to the resolution.

Responding to a query from The Ann Arbor Chronicle, chief financial officer Tom Crawford – who sits on the board of the employee retirement system in an ex officio capacity – indicated that it would be a challenge to identify the specific companies related to the retirement system’s investments. That’s because the retirement system’s trust fund has investments in indexes, funds, and funds of funds.

From the most recently available retirement system’s annual report, for the year ending June 30, 2012, the total net assets available for benefits stood at $399.7 million. The two largest categories of investment shown in that annual report are domestic equity ($156.5 million or 39%) and investment grade fixed income ($125 million or 31%).

The investment policy committee of the employee retirement system is scheduled to meet on Sept. 3, 2013 before the council votes on its resolution.

As of the spring of 2013, the city of Ann Arbor’s retirement system has about 650 active members and about 960 retirees or beneficiaries.

Community Solar Pilot

A second July 9, 2013 resolution approved by the energy commission recommended that the council direct city staff to work with DTE to develop a “community solar” pilot program, which would allow people to invest in a solar energy system, even if the energy that’s generated would be located off-site from their own electric meter.

The goal is to create a program that would assist the work of the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association (GLREA), which has a grant to work statewide, investigating the feasibility of and constraints facing this collective approach to alternative energy generation. As an example of this approach, the resolution the council will be asked to consider cites the Cherryland Electric Cooperative in Traverse City.

The council’s resolution asks that details of a pilot program be ready for consideration by the Michigan Public Service Commission by March 31, 2014.

The goal of community solar is to allow people who don’t own the property where they live, or whose own property is shaded or poorly oriented for solar energy production, to support the production of solar energy.

Ann Arbor city energy coordinator programs associate Nate Geisler told The Chronicle that no specific locations for the installation of a solar facility have been pinpointed, but that will be part of the development of a community solar pilot program. Geisler will be the city staff member who would work with DTE on development of the pilot program, if the council approves the Sept. 3 resolution.

Interest in solar energy production in the Ann Arbor area could be measured by participation of 64 Ann Arbor homes and businesses in DTE’s SolarCurrents, which was a two-year program (ending in May 2011) that offered incentives for installing solar photovoltaic panels. The program provided rebates of $2.40 per watt of installed solar photovoltaic power and payments for every kilowatt hour produced.

Among the participants in the SolarCurrents program was Matt Grocoff, whose net-zero home on Seventh Street has received a fair amount of publicity. Grocoff told The Chronicle that the price of installing solar energy has dropped from the time he renovated his historic house – from about $7 per installed watt to about $3.30.

Interest in pursuing photovoltaic solar energy generation on residential rooftops continues to be an option, even in Ann Arbor’s historic districts – as Ann Arbor resident Bob Kuehne submitted an application last week (on Aug. 23, 2013) for such an installation. Kuehne’s application indicates that one option he’s considering is to remove two existing thermal panels in favor of installing photovoltaic panels over the entire roof. The house stands in the Old West Side historic district.

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!

Architect Brad Moore (left) talks with resident Ray Detter. Moore is architect for two projects that were on the council’s March 4 agenda – Blue Heron Pond and 624 Church St. The council’s approval of both projects indicates the governing body is not contemplating a Moore-atorium on site plans. (Photos by the writer.)

On one of those items, the council voted to postpone its initial consideration of changes to Chapter 7 of the city code, which governs the way the tax increment finance (TIF) capture is calculated for Ann Arbor’s downtown development authority. The revisions to Chapter 7 would also affect the composition of the DDA board, excluding elected officials from service.

The council also postponed until its next meeting, on March 18, a possible moratorium on site plan review for projects in the downtown. The possible moratorium previously had been postponed from the council’s Feb. 19 meeting. After hearing extensive public commentary on the topic on March 4 – from residents and representatives of the developer of a proposed 14-story residential project at 413 E. Huron – the council went into closed session.

On emerging from the closed session, the council voted, without deliberation, to postpone the item. The wording in the resolution provides an exemption from the moratorium for site plans that already have a recommendation for approval from the city planning commission. If enacted, the moratorium as worded would still apply to the 413 E. Huron project, because the planning commission’s 5-3 vote for approval fell short of the six it needed for a positive recommendation. The 413 E. Huron site plan is now expected to be on the same March 18 meeting agenda when the moratorium will be re-visited.

Eluding the impact of the proposed moratorium’s wording was another downtown project, which appeared on the March 4 meeting agenda. The site plan for a 14-story apartment building at 624 Church St. was approved at the council’s meeting – but that project would not have been impacted by the moratorium as it’s currently proposed. That’s because it had received a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission.

The council also voted to reconstitute a task force to re-evaluate the downtown design guidelines, which supplement the city’s zoning regulations.

In the final downtown-related item, the council voted to direct the city administrator to issue a request for proposals for brokerage services to possibly sell the city-owned parcel at Fifth and William streets – the location of the former Y building. It’s currently used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system.

While the city is contemplating the sale of that site, which it purchased for $3.5 million, the council voted to buy a much less expensive parcel outside the downtown, near the Bluffs Nature Area. The council approved a purchase price of $115,000 for the parcel, which is located off Orkney Street.

The council also approved two other site plans for projects not in the downtown – although the four-unit project at 515 N. Fifth is near the downtown. The council also approved the Blue Heron Pond development, a 64-unit project on the western side of town, located at Liberty and Maple.

In other business, the council approved receipt of a federal grant to demolish two of the buildings on the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. The buildings are in the floodway. A third building, in the flood fringe, is being studied by the city for possible reuse.

The property at 721 N. Main is a former maintenance yard. So none of the 44 vehicles authorized for purchase by the council at the March 4 meeting will be maintained there. Total cost of the vehicles was $928,499.

None of the vehicles authorized for purchase was a plug-in electric vehicle. However, the council passed a resolution in support of preparing city infrastructure for plug-in vehicles. Two-other energy-related agenda items included one supporting the city’s participation in Earth Hour, and another one supporting use of the city’s energy fund for energy improvements in connection with community projects.

An item that drew considerable discussion before approval related to street closings associated with the June 9, 2013 Ann Arbor marathon.

D1 Site Plan Moratorium

The council was asked to consider a resolution it had postponed from its Feb. 19 meeting, which would enact a six-month moratorium on the acceptance of new site plans for downtown Ann Arbor developments.

Ann Arbor zoning. Darker red areas are zoned D1. Lighter brownish areas are zoned D2.

The resolution gives specific direction to the planning commission during the moratorium to review the D1 zoning code and to make recommendations to the city council on possible revisions to the code.

Impacted by the moratorium would be a project at 413 E. Huron, located on the northeast corner of Huron and Division streets. It’s a proposed 14-story apartment building that would include 216 units totaling 533 bedrooms, with underground parking for 132 vehicles.

Not impacted by the moratorium is a proposed project at 624 Church Street – a 14-story building with 75 apartments and a total of about 175 bedrooms. The council gave the site plan for 624 Church Street unanimous approval at its March 4 meeting.

Even if the council had delayed a vote on the 624 Church Street project, the wording of the resolution provides for exemptions for site plans that have already received the planning commission’s recommendation of approval. So the 624 Church Street project would not have been encompassed by the proposed moratorium, because it received a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission on Jan. 15, 2013.

The moratorium was initially postponed from the council’s Feb. 19, 2013 meeting. That was the first council meeting after the 413 E. Huron project failed to achieve a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission. Under the proposed moratorium, the 413 E. Huron project would not be allowed to move forward, because its site plan did not receive that recommendation of approval.

The outcome of the planning commission’s vote on Feb. 4, 2013 was not a recommendation for approval of 413 E. Huron, because the 5-3 tally in favor did not give the project the required six-vote majority. But even without a planning commission recommendation, a developer has the option of bringing a site plan proposal for consideration by the city council, which the 413 E. Huron developer intends to do. It’s the 413 E. Huron developer’s intent to bring the site plan to the council on March 18, the same date when the council will again consider the moratorium.

In a related item at the March 4 meeting, the council was asked to consider a resolution that called for reconvening the downtown design guidelines task force. The task force will review and make recommendations to city council regarding improvements to the design review process. Currently, developers must follow a mandatory process of review for downtown projects, but are not required to comply with the board’s recommendations.

The resolution on the design guidelines task force had also been postponed from the council’s Feb. 19 meeting. Members of the task force mentioned in the resolution are: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4 city council), Tamara Burns (architect), Dick Mitchell (architect), Bill Kinley (construction contractor), Norm Tyler (architect), Kirk Westphal (planning commission chair), and Doug Kelbaugh (University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning).

As they had at the council’s Feb. 19 meeting, supporters and opponents of the moratorium addressed the city council during the public commentary period at the March 4 meeting. Attorneys for the developer of 413 E. Huron also addressed the council again, intimating possible legal action if the council were to enact the moratorium. [.pdf of Feb. 28, 2013 letter from Pat Lennon] [.pdf of March 4, 2013 letter from Susan Friedlaender]

D1 Site Plan Moratorium: Public Commentary

All 10 reserved public commentary slots were taken by people who wanted to address the moratorium issue.

Hugh Sonk ventured that councilmembers have been inundated with information about the topic. He told the council he wouldn’t be rehashing all of it that evening. But he reminded the city council that a review of the zoning and the design guidelines had been promised when they were enacted – back in 2009. As the economy continues to improve, he continued, it will get increasingly difficult to find a window of time when a moratorium could be imposed to conduct the promised review. So the time to undertake the study is now, he concluded.

Sonk told the council that local independent legal experts had chimed in with the view that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the authority of a municipality to impose a moratorium to allow time to study zoning. He also told the council that the principle of fairness is important in imposing a moratorium – and exempting a particular project would work against that principle of fairness. That could expose the city to a lawsuit by those who were not exempted, he cautioned. He concluded that the safest path was to impose a moratorium on all projects in the pipeline.

Responding to the idea that the city council could be accused of acting in bad faith by imposing a moratorium, Sonk ventured that the council has heard from nearly every neighborhood in the city in support of a moratorium and a study of the zoning and design review process. He concluded that it’s not a sentiment that’s coming from one neighborhood or that is aimed at a single project. He told the council that they’d be hearing from the owner of a project in the South University area, who is concerned about the application of the moratorium to his project – so the moratorium clearly was not aimed at one particular project, he contended.

“We live in a very special community,” Sonk said. “There’s an energy and a buzz in this town that you don’t find in other Michigan cities,” he added. Ann Arbor consistently makes every list of best places to live, and cities like Flint, Lansing, Battle Creek, and Jackson don’t receive these kinds of accolades. The special nature of Ann Arbor must be protected, he said. No one opposes growth, he contended, but that growth must be compatible with the existing neighborhoods, and have a positive impact on the community. A few bad projects, he contended, would destroy the very fabric of the community that we enjoy. So we can’t afford to have any more projects go forward without review and a possible revision of the process and the regulations. He urged the council to “have the courage” to do what is right, and take on the promised review of the zoning and design guidelines, before any other projects go forward in the community.

Susan Morrison of the law firm Rentrop & Morrison addressed the council on behalf of her clients Norm and Ilene Tyler, who could not attend the meeting. She noted that the Tylers’ property abuts the 413 E. Huron project. She mentioned she previously had sent a letter to the city council, dated Feb. 19, 2013, and she hoped councilmembers had had a chance to review it. That letter had provided citations to law and a copy of a Michigan case related to moratorium, she said.

The cases showed that the use of a moratorium is a widely-accepted tool used in planning, she said. Based on the facts of the current case, and on 30 years of representing clients in matters of municipal law, Morrison continued, she firmly believed that a court would uphold the proposed moratorium resolution that was before the council. It would be upheld for several reasons: it’s for a reasonable period of time; it has a waiver provision; it applies to more than one property; it doesn’t affect any vested rights; and it has a specific and undeniably long-overdue purpose. That purpose was to bring the zoning ordinance into conformity with the adopted master plan, she said, and to fulfill a promise made to the public more than three years ago, to revisit the D1/D2 zoning regulations.

She said it was difficult for her to imagine any court invalidating the resolution, or finding anything other than good faith on the part of the city. She told the council it was also important to remember that there is no harm to the city that could come from voting for the moratorium. The council was only voting that night on whether to temporarily “push the pause button” to give time for the serious study that issue deserves. The council was not making a final decision about what the result of a study would be, she said.

If the city is later sued by owners who are affected by the moratorium, the council could always decide then the policy question of whether the cost of litigation should outweigh the strong public interest in reviewing the zoning regulations, Morrison said. She hoped that the council would not be intimidated by threats of litigation costs – to give up prematurely on what she called a “worthy moratorium.” She concluded by urging the council to adopt the moratorium resolution as it was currently written.

Peter Nagourney addressed the topic of faith. He began by saying that faith has a legal definition, a commonsense understanding, and a religious connotation. The legal issue is easy, he said. In Michigan law, he contended, bad faith can only exist when a government obstructs a developer’s vested rights. He contended that no rights had been vested by the developer of the proposed project – so bad faith on the part of the city was not a question.

Peter Nagourney.

Nagourney then moved to the common understanding of bad faith. If a developer meets with neighbors and says that he’s gathering ideas for the building design, and the very next day presents completed drawings for the project, was that conversation with future neighbors in good or bad faith? he asked. If the developer says he wants to enhance the city’s future, but doesn’t talk with the city’s planning department and then misidentifies the character district in which he thinks the project will be built, is that good or bad faith? And if the design guidelines review board input is ignored in the final building design, does that indicate good or bad faith?

The city has to show good faith with respect to its actions on any project, Nagourney continued. But the city also has obligations to maintain good faith to its own processes and promises to its citizens. Starting in 2009, when the north side of Huron Street was designated as D1 zoning, the need to examine the effect of rezoning the property was clearly established, he said. The D1 designation was controversial, and the potential negative impact on the adjacent historic district was clearly anticipated. So a moratorium seeking to re-examine the zoning is only following through on what was specified in 2009 and in subsequent documents, he said. If the city did not examine the D1 zoning designation, that would be a clear act of bad faith and would be unfair to the citizens, who expect the city to follow its own directives, he contended.

Nagourney then turned to the religious connotation of faith. That concerns a belief that acting in good faith guarantees someone a more pleasant hereafter. Enacting the moratorium also involves the hereafter, he said. He indicated that allowing the city of Ann Arbor to maintain its neighborhoods and to contain oversized buildings to where they belong in the designated downtown is one vision of the hereafter. He indicated another possible hereafter – the possibility that 150- and 180-foot buildings “sprout” in the only area of the city that lacks step-down protection from massive structures. He allowed that what’s at stake is not eternity, but said that we are talking about tens of decades – a legacy that current and future residents of Ann Arbor will have to live with. That’s a significant enough hereafter that it justifies good-faith decisions about the moratorium, he concluded.

Norman Hyman began by saying that after a considerable amount of discussion and a considerable amount of uncertainty, the council had several years ago enacted the D1/D2 regulations. The council had done that with trepidation, he said, and the council had not been sure about the regulations and how they would work. The council anticipated that experience – that is, subsequent events – would influence how the ordinance was working. That was no secret, he contended. The public knew it, and the owners of 413 E. Huron knew it. They knew that they were going to be subjected to a review of the ordinance after subsequent events gave the council the experience with which to make a fair judgment.

It took a little while to get that experience, Hyman said – but we now have it. And he contended that we now know that the regulations have not been working as hoped. It was obvious that the council was going to be influenced by “precipitating” events. There’s been at least two recent precipitating events, he contended: The Varsity building on E. Washington, and the 413 E. Huron project. But he drew a distinction between a “precipitating event” and a “motivating event.” The fact that the council understood and foresaw the possibility of coming back and reviewing the zoning ordinance does not mean that any one property is going to be singled out, he said.

Hyman noted that the council had received several letters from attorneys, and he ventured that they had read all of them. One of the developer’s attorneys, Susan Friedlaender, had referred to a U.S. Supreme Court case in her letter – apparently in support of her position. He said he was sure that the case she was referring to was the Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. V. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency case. He ventured that the city attorney’s office had made the council aware of that case as well. In fact, what the court had stated in that case, he said, was that the courts will not “mess with” a reasonable moratorium for a reasonable period.

Pat Lennon introduced himself as an attorney with the Honigman law firm. He reminded the council that he’d appeared before the body a few weeks ago – so he hoped he did not sound like too much of a broken record. He was there to oppose the proposed moratorium and to urge all the councilmembers to vote against it. As he’d mentioned at the previous city council meeting, the moratorium was being proposed under circumstances that would be unfair and improper and subject to legal challenge.

From left: Susan Friedlaender and Pat Lennon, attorneys for the 413 E. Huron developer.

First, he contended, the moratorium is clearly targeted at one project and one applicant – the owner of the 413 E. Huron project. The moratorium language goes to great lengths to exclude other “apparently more favored projects” while continuing to include 413 E. Huron, he contended. He did not disagree that it would be appropriate at some point to review the ordinance – but the moratorium should not apply to pending applications, particularly “by right” applications. If the moratorium were to be enacted, then it should exclude “by right” applications like the one for 413 E. Huron. His client had had no notice of this before the project began, and before his client had made substantial investments.

If the moratorium were imposed, the rezoning that could ensue would discard the lengthy A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) process that produced the D1 zoning of the East Huron property. There’s no reason, need, or basis, he contended, for such extreme action in response to one project, which is opposed by “essentially a handful of influential citizens and leaders.” That kind of political and legislative activism, he ventured, would undermine the city’s credibility, and chill development in Ann Arbor – even development that might be popular.

The suggestion that the owner of 413 E. Huron lacks a vested property right is without merit, he continued. That point is thoroughly discussed in Susan Friedlaender’s letter, he noted, which was sent to the city council. He hoped that they would not have to make those legal arguments, but indicated he and his client were prepared to do that if they had to. The suggestion that his client would be damaged by the moratorium ignores the reality of how development works, he said. His client had made investments in acquisition costs, months of development costs, construction timelines and due diligence and drawings. Lennon said that those investments cannot just be discarded at the “whim” of some who don’t like the way a project looks.

At the end of the day, Lennon said, the moratorium should be denied. The developer relied on the D1 zoning category and invested in the site with a reasonable expectation that if he followed the rules in the ordinance, he would be able to build his “by right” project. Lennon compared a moratorium to changing the rules in a football game – late in the fourth quarter when the offense is about to score, by saying that a touchdown is no longer worth six points. “We don’t think that would be fair to a football game, and we don’t think it would be fair to our client in this case.” So he urged the council to vote against the moratorium.

Carl Hueter introduced himself as a lifelong resident of Ann Arbor and a practicing architect in Ann Arbor for the last 37 years. He’s processed about 100 site plan submissions with the city of Ann Arbor. Over the last 10 or 15 years, he’s found the site plan review process to be more and more contentious and “toxic.”

The city council’s Jan. 14, 2013 work session – on Connecting William Street – had included remarks from a consultant [land-use economist Todd Poole], Hueter reminded councilmembers. Poole had told the council that the city faces a challenge when marketing to well-financed development talent – because Ann Arbor is gaining a reputation for being “radioactive” to new development. [At the work session, Poole's remark about radioactivity had drawn cheers from some in the audience.] Large properties require significant investment, he said. Those investors require certainty in their efforts. The recent toxic site plan review processes, Hueter contended, have shown that a small vocal minority of intelligent, influential citizens can rise up to influence the legal approval process and subvert the law – overriding the will of the majority that created it.

As elected city councilmembers, Hueter continued, they owed their constituents their ear, but they should not allow constituents to own their minds. Rational, fair-minded review and actions for the majority should be the rule of the day in city council chambers, he said. The A2D2 process had been created, and subsequent D1/D2 zoning had been crafted, to provide a clear path for where the community wanted density to occur, he said, and to establish the certainty that development groups need in order to achieve that density.

Hueter allowed that it is fair to expect a review of an ordinance once it has “acquired its legs” – but to date, he contended, there’s not been a significant enough sample on which to base rational reactions. To impose a moratorium on the 413 E. Huron project would send a “frightening message” to the property owners and potential developers of downtown sites. The 413 E. Huron project, he pointed out, is already nine months into the site plan review process, through the planning commission with a majority vote [though not with a recommendation for approval], and it’s now just two weeks before it’s supposed to come before the city council

“We define ourselves by our laws,” Hueter said. Zoning ordinances are laws that tell a property owner how a community would like its property to be developed. By this direction and invitation, he continued, people move forward with developing their sites and with the expectation that these laws will be honored. To use a moratorium to halt this development at this time subverts the community’s legal obligations to these property owners. “The Ann Arbor I know is one where diversity is accepted,” he said. Looking different is not an affront, and coming from out of town is embraced, as a positive addition to a tolerant community. That diversity makes us a richer and more vibrant community, he said. We all know why this moratorium is on the agenda tonight, he said. And we all know which specific property it’s supposed to affect, he said. To allow a minority to direct and influence the vote is simply wrong, he concluded.

Tom Stulberg told the council that he lives in and owns property in historic districts. So he wanted to focus on that aspect of things. He thanked the council and the people in the audience who had worked very hard on the process to come up with the A2D2 zoning ordinance. A lot of effort had been put in by a lot of people on that. He allowed that it’s not always working – but said that’s not a criticism as much as it is a recognition of the iterative process of planning and zoning.

Ann Arbor has historic districts that immediately abut high-density zoning, he noted. That doesn’t necessarily work, he contended, giving as an example The Varsity building, which “looms over” nearby historic structures. It’s important to recognize that we owe it to all citizens living in our city and historic districts and who own property in historic districts, to honor Chapter 103 of the city code [on historic districts] as highly as we honor the other sections of the city code, he said.

Susan Friedlaender told the council that she represents the owner of the 413 E. Huron project. She responded to some things that she’d heard that night. With respect to the historic district question that Stulberg had just discussed, she noted that almost every parcel within that district is either designated historic or adjacent to a historic district. If development were limited on properties adjacent to historic districts, that would not leave much left over, she said. There are lots of properties that are protected and should be protected, she allowed. But when that protection starts “spilling over,” then it becomes over-broad, she said.

On the legal questions, she told the council that they’d heard a lot of general propositions, but reminded them that they are not a court. She didn’t want to make legal arguments to a court. She allowed that generally a moratorium might be reasonable, but she reminded the council that you have to look at the specific facts of the case. She contended that if you look at the specific facts of a particular case, then under the specific facts of that case, a court could find that there’d been bad faith. Courts can also find that protected property rights have been invaded, she said. And courts can find that a moratorium is invalid.

Friedlaender referred to the U.S. Supreme Court case that Hyman had brought up – mentioning that she and Norm had been old colleagues and practiced law together for many years. In the Tahoe-Sierra case, the court said that it was not making general propositions, she said. The court was not saying that a moratorium could never constitute an improper taking or that it is always an improper taking. Rather, the court had said that it depends on the facts.

Friedlaender told the council that she really did not want to debate the moratorium that evening and whether it was valid or not, but she felt that the line that was drawn – with respect to which projects are included and which are not included – is arbitrary. It’s arbitrary, because it is not a legitimate distinction to make between a site plan that’s been recommended for approval by the planning commission and one that’s been “technically” denied. The 413 E. Huron project had been technically denied, she said, but a majority of the planning commissioners had said that the 413 E. Huron project meets the terms of the ordinance. The professional city planning staff also said that the project meets the terms of the ordinance, she noted. And those planning commissioners who voted against the project had honestly said that they understood that it technically met the requirements of the ordinance, she contended, but nevertheless had voted against it.

Ray Detter spoke on behalf of the downtown area citizens advisory council, saying that the CAC strongly supported the moratorium resolution. It would deliver a long-promised review of the D1/D2 zoning ordinance. The CAC also supported the resolution to reconvene the design guidelines task force, he said. The zoning moratorium, he said, was crafted so well that he hesitated to elaborate on it. In 2009, he said, the city council had adopted the D1/D2 zoning after considerable discussion and uncertainty. The council had expressly stated at different times that it would revisit the zoning and the design guidelines process after a year or more. He contended that it was apparent now that the zoning was not working well, characterizing it as “flawed.” Out-of-town developers come and say that their projects are by right, Detter said. They produce buildings that ignore the suggestions of the design guidelines review board and the policy directions in the city’s adopted master plan.

Detter invited the city council to consider The Varsity – which he characterized as a student high-rise – and its negative impact on the neighboring First Baptist Church, which is a historic property to the east. That project had alerted the community to the dangers of the existing zoning, Detter contended. Another example of the failure of the zoning and design guidelines, Detter said, is the “massive student high-rise” proposed at 413 E. Huron. Both projects are massive, unfriendly structures, he said, that conflict with the city’s adopted master plan. In support of that contention he cited elements of the downtown plan related to sensitivity to context.

Detter noted that the city’s historic district commission had passed a resolution stating that the 413 E. Huron project “threatens the preservation of significant historic resources in the adjacent Division Street historic district.” He contended that the project stretched the floor area to the maximum – using what he called inappropriate residential premiums. It created a pedestrian-unfriendly experience, and ignored the advice of the design review board. But the developer insisted that the project was “by right,” he said. Detter also called for re-examining the appropriate zoning for the parcel now used by the University of Michigan Credit Union, formally a parking lot for the Ann Arbor News.

Bruce Thomson noted that the three parcels at North Division and Huron – site of the proposed 413 E. Huron project – have been the subject of much attention lately. In all the public discussion one key point has been sadly missing, he said: All three parcels have always been zoned for dense, high-rise construction. Prior to the new master plan and downtown zoning ordinance that was enacted in 2009, the land was all zoned C2AR. That zoning allowed for 660% floor area ratio (FAR), a 30-foot rear setback, no side setbacks and no height restrictions. “Let me repeat that: there were no height restrictions on this land,” Thomson said.

People who contend that some new zoning gift was granted to the land are misinformed, he contended. Under the new D1 zoning designation enacted in 2009, the land allows 700% floor area ratio, no side setbacks, and a height restriction of 180 feet. The character overlay district imposes a further limitation of a 150-foot height, and through setback requirements pulls any building on the parcels toward Huron Street – away from the historic district. The net effect of the new zoning, he said, was to allow an additional 6% of density.

His family had owned the land for almost 80 years, Thomson said. The zoning had always been for dense commercial development. When his grandfather bought the property, it was home to the Haunted Tavern – a commercial enterprise. His grandfather then built the A&P building – a commercial enterprise. The same is true for the Zahn family, which owned the corner parcel for 80 years. For all these decades, the owners had been subject to the rules and requirements of commercial land. The owners had paid the taxes that are commensurate with dense, high-rise commercial land.

The key point is that every homeowner who bought property adjacent to these properties did so with the fully available knowledge that they were zoned for dense commercial high-rise construction, Thomson said. If there was any doubt about the zoning and its possible effect, you only have to look at what’s already built farther up the block. On the same block is Sloan Plaza. Its eight extra-tall floors reach closer to 10 stories in height, he said. Next to that is Campus Inn, which is 14 stories tall, he said. It was obvious, he continued, that the zoning allowed for large, tall buildings. In 2009 the city council had rejected the concept of downzoning the corner of Huron and Division streets, because that would create a “special little pocket” surrounded by different zoning on three sides, which would not have been equitable. It would’ve looked strange, he said, to pick a small slice of the street to limit it to 40% of the height and floor area ratio [as in D2 zoning] allowed on the rest of the street. That would have been bad planning in 2009 and it would be bad planning today, he said.

A lot of time and energy had been spent crafting a compromise solution for the site, which he characterized as unique and challenging. The site borders residential homes on one side and the busiest road in the downtown on the other. The result of that compromise was that the site was treated with special limitations on height and setback – which still allow for the dense, tall construction that the land was entitled to, he concluded.

Outcome: The council voted to hold a closed session on the issue. After emerging from their closed session, the council voted without deliberation to postpone consideration of the moratorium for two weeks, until March 18.

On the reconvening of the design guidelines task force, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the design review board had requested the review process. A brief discussion resulted in a decision to specify Sept. 17, 2013 as the date by which a recommendation on any revised process should be given to the council.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to reconstitute the design guidelines task force.

DDA Ordinance Revisions

The council was asked to consider several revisions to a city ordinance governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA). Some of the proposed revisions would have an impact of several million dollars over the next two decades, affecting several jurisdictions besides Ann Arbor.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA) tax increment finance district is shown in blue.

Among the revisions to Chapter 7 that are being considered by the council are: a new prohibition against elected officials serving on the DDA board; term limits on DDA board members; a new requirement that the DDA submit its annual report to the city in early January; and a requirement that all taxes captured by the DDA be spent on projects that directly benefit property in the DDA tax increment finance (TIF) district.

But most significant of the revisions would be those that clarify how the DDA’s TIF tax capture is calculated. The “increment” in a tax increment finance (TIF) district refers to the difference between the initial value of a property and the value of a property after development. The Ann Arbor DDA captures the taxes – just on that initial increment – of some other taxing authorities in the district. Those are the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor District Library. For FY 2013, the DDA will capture roughly $3.9 million in taxes.

The proposed ordinance revision would clarify existing ordinance language, which includes a paragraph that appears to limit the amount of TIF that can be captured. The limit is defined relative to the projections for the valuation of the increment in the TIF plan, which is a foundational document for the DDA.

If the actual rate of growth outpaces what was anticipated in the TIF plan, then at least half the excess amount is supposed to be redistributed to the other taxing authorities in the DDA district.

What the proposed ordinance revisions clarify is which estimates in the TIF plan are the standard of comparison – the “realistic” projections, not the “optimistic” or “pessimistic” estimates. However, the ordinance revisions as currently formulated do not clarify whether a “cumulative” method of performing the calculations should be used or if a year-to-year method should be used. It’s anticipated that a further revision will be introduced specifying the “cumulative” method.

Use of the cumulative method has an impact on whether the redistribution of excess TIF is made on a one-time or recurring basis. Under the cumulative method, other taxing authorities in the Ann Arbor DDA TIF district would see a total on the order of $1 million in additional tax revenue, compared to the way the DDA currently calculates the TIF capture. The city of Ann Arbor’s annual share would be more than half of that amount, around $600,000.

Method: Year-to-Year                   
Refunds                                                         
       City       County      WCC       AADL      Total Ref    DDA TIF
FY14   $429,409   $149,392    $94,257   $40,163   $713,221     $3,964,457
FY15    $11,958     $4,160     $2,625    $1,118    $19,862     $4,774,758

===============================

Method: Cumulative                     
Refunds                                                      
       City       County     WCC        AADL      Total Ref    DDA TIF
FY14   $613,919   $213,583   $134,757   $57,421   $1,019,680   $3,657,998
FY15   $635,108   $211,673   $139,195   $58,539   $1,044,515   $3,773,043

-

The clarification of the ordinance crucially strikes two paragraphs related to bond and debt payments. One of the two paragraphs was key to the DDA’s current legal position – which is that no redistribution of TIF is required under the ordinance, given the DDA’s financial position. The DDA interprets the stricken paragraphs to mean that no redistribution to other taxing authorities needs to be made, until the total amount of the DDA’s debt payments falls below the amount of its TIF capture. In the FY 2014 budget, adopted by the DDA board at its Feb. 6, 2013 meeting, about $6.5 million is slated for bond payments and interest.

City of Ann Arbor financial staff chart showing Ann Arbor DDA TIF revenue under various methods of calculation.

That clearly exceeds the amount of anticipated TIF capture in the FY 2014 budget – about $3.9 million. The DDA is able to make those debt payments because about half of that $6.5 million is covered by revenues from the public parking system. The DDA administers the public parking system under contract with the city of Ann Arbor.

This issue first arose back in the spring of 2011. The context was the year-long hard negotiations between the DDA and the city over terms of a new contract under which the DDA would manage the city’s parking system. The Chapter 7 issue emerged just as the DDA board was set to vote on the parking system contract at its May 2, 2011 meeting.

When the issue was identified by the city’s financial staff, the DDA board postponed voting on the new contract. The period of the postponement was used to analyze whether the DDA’s Chapter 7 obligations could be met – at the same time the DDA was ratifying a new parking system contract, which required the DDA to pay the city of Ann Arbor 17.5% of gross parking revenues.

Initially, the DDA agreed that money was owed to other taxing authorities, not just for that year, but for previous years as well. And the DDA paid a combined roughly $473,000 to the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College and Washtenaw County in 2011. The city of Ann Arbor chose to waive its $712,000 share of the calculated excess.

Subsequently, the DDA reversed its legal position, and contended that no money should have been returned at all. That decision came at a July 27, 2011 DDA board meeting.

The following spring, during the May 21, 2012 budget deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) proposed an amendment to the city’s FY 2013 budget that stipulated specific interpretations of Chapter 7, with a recurring positive impact to the city of Ann Arbor’s general fund of about $200,000 a year. Kunselman wanted to use that general fund money to pay for additional firefighters. That year the budget amendment got support from just two other councilmembers: Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

The proposed changes to the ordinance on the March 4, 2013 agenda were put forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

For a Chronicle op-ed on this topic, see: “Column: Let’s Get DDA TIF Capture Right.”

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) introduced the ordinance amendments by saying that he’d be looking to postpone the question. He was inclined to postpone in light of additional information that the city council had received on the topic. The city council, he said, controls the budget, and the DDA’s TIF capture is regulated by the city ordinance on the DDA. Kunselman observed that the DDA is the only city agency that has been increasing its budget since 2002 – while the rest of the city’s units have been decreasing. If no action is taken, he said, in fiscal year 2014 the DDA’s budget stands to go up to $4.9 million – which is a significant jump. That jump is due to the new downtown buildings that have been constructed, he noted.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), who cosponsored amendments to the DDA ordinance.

In addition to the ordinance amendments on the TIF calculation, Kunselman noted that there were also some amendments concerning DDA board membership – on term limits and the prohibition of elected officials serving on the board. He indicated he was open to changes to the language. His purpose was not to vilify the DDA, he said, but rather to improve the institution.

It’s easy to vilify the DDA when you have people on both sides of the negotiating table, Kunselman said. [This was an allusion to the fact that in the past as the city and the DDA negotiated a contract under which the DDA operates the city's public parking system, mayor John Hieftje and then-city councilmember Sandi Smith simultaneously served on the city council and the DDA board.] The purpose of the amendments was not to target any official, he contended. Kunselman observed that one member of the DDA board [Leah Gunn] had been serving for over 20 years. He indicated that the DDA board members are getting “set in their ways. He called for “new blood” on the DDA board.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) – whose wife Nancy Shore serves as executive director of the getDowntown program, which receives funding from the DDA – described his wife’s employment circumstances. He said his wife’s salary is funded by a federal CMAQ [Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement] grant and that her direct employment is not tied to DDA funding. He also said that your spouse’s financial interests are not inherently your own. Some back-and-forth by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and city attorney Stephen Postema established that no vote on Warpehoski’s participation in deliberations on this matter was required. However, if someone objected to his participation, a vote could be taken. No one objected.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that during a recess to the meeting that night and before the meeting started, she’d tried to go through the detailed answers provided by the financial services staff to written questions the council had submitted before the meeting. The response “TBD” to one of the questions made it clear to her that the council doesn’t have the information that might satisfy its curiosity. She also wanted to run these questions past the DDA’s own financial manager [deputy DDA director Joe Morehouse]. She supported a postponement.

A brief back-and-forth established a belief that the city’s financial staff and the DDA could answer any questions by the council’s March 18 meeting.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the item until March 18.

624 Church St. Site Plan

The council was asked to approve the site plan of a 14-story apartment building at 624 Church St. The planning commission had given the project a unanimous recommendation of approval at its Jan. 15, 2013 meeting.

Image from the planning commission’s meeting packet shows the front facade of the 624 Church proposal, in relation to an adjacent house.

The requested action by the council came in the context of objections from representatives of the adjacent Zaragon Place apartments, who had previously raised concerns about how Zaragon – located at 619 E. University – will be impacted by construction at 624 Church. Zaragon opened a few years ago and is marketed to University of Michigan students. The developers of 624 Church intend to market their apartments to the same demographic. [.pdf of Feb. 28, 2013 letter from Zaragon attorney] [.pdf of Jan. 7, 2013 letter from Zaragon attorney] [.pdf of Jan. 10, 2013 response from 624 Church developers]

At the planning commission’s public hearing, residents had raised concerns about parking and the building’s size. There were also residents who supported the project.

The 83,807-square-foot, $17 million project is located next to Pizza House restaurant, on the west side of Church between South University and Willard. The building would include 75 apartments with a total of about 175 bedrooms, ranging in size from 490 to 1,100 square feet. About 70% of the units are to be 1-2 bedroom units. Other features include an enclosed room to store up to 60 bikes and a rooftop plaza with benches and a grilling area. It is located in the D1 zoning district, which allows for the highest level of density of any zoning district in the city.

For buildings with floor area ratios (FARs) up to 400% in D1 areas, the zoning code does not impose any parking requirements. But under the system of by-right premiums available in the zoning code, a building can have an FAR up to 700%. That’s a premium based on residential use: For each square foot of floor area that is used for multiple-family dwellings, an additional 0.75 square foot of floor area is allowed. For buildings that are larger due to this residential use, the zoning code does impose a parking requirement.

However, there will be no vehicle parking spaces on site at 624 Church St. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, at its Oct. 3, 2012 meeting, authorized the project to purchase up to 42 monthly parking permits as part of the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The CIL provides an option to purchase monthly permits to fulfill the city’s parking requirement for a project, but the cost is at a rate 20% higher than standard pricing.

The developer hoped that those permits would be for spaces located at the nearby Forest Avenue parking structure. The DDA board has struggled with that decision on location, as an operations committee meeting on Dec. 19, 2012 was inconclusive. However, at a March 1, 2013 meeting of that committee, a clear indication of support came from the committee for all 40 requested permits to be provided in the Forest Avenue structure. Local attorney Scott Munzel, who represents the developer Opus, attended that committee meeting.

624 Church St. Site Plan: Public Hearing

Architect Brad Moore reviewed some of the history of the project, including the fact that a previous expansion of Pizza House had included foundations that would allow construction on top of the existing structure that could go up to 17 stories. He observed that the D1 height limit meant that it wasn’t possible to build 17 stories. Moore reported that the conclusion of the city’s design review board had been that the project is harmonious with the context. Panels used in the construction would be prefabricated off site, and would minimize the amount of construction noise and debris. Changes to the project had been made as a result of the design review board’s recommendations and input from the citizens participation meeting, he said. Those changes included changing the unit mix so that the building would have predominantly 1-2 bedroom units – 74% of the units. Texture had been added to the cladding, Moore said. And the height of the project had been reduced by one story. Moore also noted that the project had received a unanimous recommendation of approval from the city’s planning commission

Dennis Tice told the council he was representing the Tice family, the owners of Pizza House, and was available to answer any questions.

Mark Bell spoke on behalf of The Opus Group, which is working with the Tices as the developer. He described Opus as a vertically-integrated design-build firm that developed projects in all asset classes: commercial, residential, multi-family, office, industrial, retail, government, and higher education. Since 1953, Opus has developed about 2,600 projects. Three main principles guide Opus, he said: integrity, safety and professional expertise. He thanked the Tice family for working closely with Opus to design a project that the city of Ann Arbor will be proud of. Like Moore, he noted that the project had been modified to include predominantly 1-2 bedroom units – 74% of them. That was meant to attract a broader demographic, he said. He also pointed out that the building would be certified by LEED.

Ethel Potts spoke against the project, saying it had several remaining issues. As an example she noted that the building goes up to the rear lot line, and the owner of the adjoining property had raised a legal objection – the issue was trespassing. Without trespassing on its neighbor’s property, she didn’t know how the project could be built.

Alluding to satisfaction of the parking requirement for the project through the contribution in lieu (CIL) program, she hoped some of the parking in the Forest Avenue structure would still be available to the public.

Eleanor Linn told the council that she supported the letter from the attorney for Zaragon Place, which called for additional study of light and safety issues.

From left: Eleanor Linn talks with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Marc Gerstein.

Thomas Partridge wanted assurance that the apartments to be constructed are affordable and have sufficient parking. He noted that there are very few college students – the anticipated target market for these apartments – who don’t want to have their own vehicle.

Sandra Sorini Elser introduced herself as legal counsel for the owner of Zaragon Place, which backs up to the proposed 624 Church St. project. The owner is not opposed in concept to the project. But a couple of elements of the site plan give the Zaragon Place owners great concern, she said – including concerns about the health, safety and welfare of Zaragon Place student residents. The western wall of the 624 Church St. project will be right at the lot line, she said. During construction, Zaragon residents using the backyard of Zaragon could be endangered by the installation of heavy concrete panels and other construction activities. She told councilmembers they’d been sent letters raising those concerns. She added that – despite statements by the developer of 624 Church St. – there is no easement available for 624 Church St. to use. So the developer of 624 Church St. could not use the Zaragon ground or airspace to construct its building. She reminded the council that the city’s site plan review standard requires a finding that there be no danger to health, safety and welfare – and she hoped the council would consider the construction safety concerns in that context.

Jim Caesar introduced himself as senior vice president for Opus. He pointed to the safety track record of the company, citing an experience modification ratio (EMR) that has been in the top 5% for the last 12 years. He indicated that Opus would not be using the Zaragon Place backyard as a construction staging area or a swinging area. Opus had eliminated any need to swing anything over the Zaragon property, or to have any air rights. He said that’s not the way Opus wanted to do the construction, but they would do it that way. He’d met with crane experts as well as with the city’s top building official, Ralph Welton, to review the safety plan.

Caesar said he kept hearing about things Opus didn’t plan to do – like trespassing on the Zaragon Place property. They’d met with experts to develop the crane system for the zero-lot-line construction at 624 Church St. Opus had two projects – one recently completed and another being built – that were being built with zero lot lines. He said it was not new technology.

Local attorney Scott Munzel spoke as the representative of Opus. The first and most important point, he said, is that the 624 Church St. site plan meets the zoning rules and related goals of the city’s downtown plan, which encourages dense land uses. He wanted also to touch briefly on the parking issue. This is the first time the CIL program would be used, he said. Opus had worked with Ann Arbor’s downtown development authority, which manages the city’s public parking system, to determine that there’s adequate space in the Forest Avenue structure for the 40 permits the project needs. He noted that the monthly permits in the CIL program are priced at a 20% premium over the normal rate. Opus is comfortable with the safety of the proposed construction technique, Munzel said.

Alan Haber began by saying he was not fully familiar with this project. He had trouble understanding why the council would be considering approval of a building at the same time it was considering a moratorium.

624 Church St. Site Plan: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked for confirmation of the roughly 70% figure for 1-2 bedroom units – because there was an apparent discrepancy with the information the council had been provided in their packets. City planner Alexis DiLeo indicated that the 70% figure was confirmed, but it depended to some extent on whether a variance, for which the developer had applied, was granted. If it’s not granted, some units might need to combine bedrooms internally.

Taylor said he thought it was important that the developer had been willing to work with the feedback they’d heard from citizens participation meeting – by weighting the unit mix more heavily toward 1-2 bedroom units.

Responding to a question from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), DiLeo explained that the DDA had approved the 40 monthly parking permits through the CIL program at a March 1, 2013 meeting [of the operations committee].

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) signs an agenda for a student attending the council meeting on a class assignment.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for a description of the mechanics of building the west wall – without trespassing on the Zaragon Place property. The basic answer from Jim Caesar was that they wouldn’t be using a tower crane that spins in a circle. Instead, they’d be using a crawler crane with articulating jib. The jib lowers or raises without crossing the property line, he explained. It has a modified jib tip, with a GPS locator, which provides feedback to the operator. The crane slows down when it approaches the property line. Opus doesn’t plan on trespassing: “If we do, we’ll have an angry neighbor.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she’d heard concerns about small debris falling down. The explanation she was given was that a tarping system would be used, so any debris would hit the tarp system.

Briere also asked about maintenance on the west side. The answer was that precast tiles will be used as shingles and the construction wouldn’t rely on caulk. Briere said she appreciated that the design had been altered to identify the entrance to the building more clearly.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) thanked the development team for being interested “in what our community had to say.”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said his impression was that the project would cater to students, because it’s located in a student district. But given the precast construction, he wanted to know what the flexibility was for accommodating a new market. He based his question on a document he’d received from his employer, the University of Michigan, and read aloud from a portion of it:

In 2008-09, Michigan stood at the cusp of a sharp, long-term contraction in its production of high school graduates. Only California is projected to lose more graduates than Michigan, and only Vermont will shrink faster. After peaking in 2007-08 at 123,576 graduates, the state will see substantial contraction beginning in 2009-10. By 2019-20, high school graduates will fall 20% to below 99,000 and the decline is projected to continue indefinitely beyond that. Michigan’s nonpublic schools are projected to produce about 30% fewer graduates in 2019-20 compared to 2008-09. But unlike many other states, nonpublic graduates will retain close to a 7% share in Michigan because of the commensurate contraction in public graduates.

Kunselman ventured that the student housing market would be under stress.

Caesar told Kunselman that the building construction is based on four quadrants that are rigid. But within those four quadrants, he said, there was almost total flexibility to relocate kitchens, bathrooms, walls – or anything.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the 624 Church St. site plan.

Prepping to Sell Former Y Lot

The council was asked to take a step toward putting the former YMCA parcel up for sale. The roughly 0.8 acre parcel in downtown Ann Arbor on the north side of William, between Fourth and Fifth, is currently used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system. The city purchased the property nearly 10 years ago, in 2003. The council was asked at its March 4, 2013 meeting to direct the city administrator to prepare an RFP (request for proposals) for brokerage services to sell the lot.

Highlighted in yellow is the location of the former YMCA lot, which the city of Ann Arbor is considering selling. A $3.5 million balloon payment on the property is due at the end of 2013.

A similar proposal to start the process for selling the lot was considered at the council’s Aug. 20, 2012 meeting, but received the support of only three representatives on the 11-member council: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Some councilmembers were generally in favor of selling the lot, but called the effort premature, given a planning effort that was then underway. This time around the resolution from Kunselman was co-sponsored by mayor John Hieftje.

What’s changed since August 2012 relates to a project that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has been working on for about two years – Connecting William Street, a planning effort that includes the former Y lot. The Connecting William Street project was undertaken by the DDA based on a directive from the city council, on a unanimous vote, given at its April 4, 2011 meeting. And at a Jan. 7, 2013 working session, the DDA gave a presentation to the council on its recommendations for future use of five city-owned parcels in the downtown area – the former Y lot, the Kline’s lot, the Palio lot, the Fourth and William parking structure, and the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage.

The city had used a loan to purchase the property from the YMCA for $3.5 million in 2003. The council voted in 2008 to extend a five-year loan with the Bank of Ann Arbor for another five years, through the end of 2013. The interest rate is 3.89%. The interest-only payments work out to roughly $140,000 a year. By the end of 2013, the total interest paid will be around $1.4 million.

A building on the site was condemned, and the cost of demolishing it and abating asbestos was around $1.5 million. The Ann Arbor DDA covered the demolition costs and has covered half of the interest payments. So the total amount of Ann Arbor governmental investment in the property is at least $6.4 million.

Revenue from the surface parking lot on the site – which charges a $1.40 hourly rate – amounts to $105-$140 per space per month for roughly 140 spaces. Over the last year, the lot has generated a rough average of around $20,000 per month. But usage has decreased since the opening of the new 711-space Library Lane underground garage, located across the street.

That parking revenue from the former Y site is collected by the Ann Arbor DDA, which operates the city’s public parking system under contract with the city. Under terms of that contract, the city receives 17% of the gross parking system revenues. Also under terms of the contract, the DDA has the option to object to eliminating a facility from the parking system, within 30 days of notification by the city.

Prepping to Sell Former Y Lot: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by observing that a significant balloon payment was due in December. He thought the resolution was a good first step.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) felt that selling the property “as is” is an option. The resolution doesn’t commit the city to sell the property, only to issue an RFP to engage a broker. If no actual deal results, then the risk to the city would be measured in terms of possible brokerage fees, and the amount of those fees isn’t known. She felt it was worth the small potential risk.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he had been hesitant to consider engaging a broker before the Connecting William Street (CWS) project recommendations came back. He ventured that some people argue against proceeding with this step, because the interest rate on the city’s loan is low and the surface parking lot currently generates revenue. He also noted that the DDA is “a good partner” by covering half the cost of the interest payment. He felt it was a good idea to explore the sale now and possibly have money left over from the sale to deposit into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. He asked for the council to support the resolution.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he’d support the resolution. He observed that the council had delayed a decision on the moratorium, which might affect the potential sale price. Whatever people thought about the CWS project, part of the reason to take the approach of issuing an RFP for parcels was to set higher standards for design. He stated that the city should have high standards for the design of what gets built there – something that is “worthy of the city.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated agreement with Warpehoski’s comments. She picked up on Hieftje’s allusion to the affordable housing trust fund. By way of background, the council voted on Oct. 15, 2012, to deposit the “net proceeds” of the sale of the former Y lot into the affordable housing trust fund. Briere indicated that she wanted to be generous about how the net proceeds are calculated – because they could be defined in a way that diminished the amount that would go to the affordable housing trust fund.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that he was still up in the air on how to vote, saying he recognized there’s a force in what people were saying. But the council had asked the DDA to take a long look at the five parcels. And the DDA had returned to the council with the idea of linking the former Y lot and the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage. That linkage, he allowed, reduced the possibility of movement anytime soon. But he felt there’s more value in the parcels if they were combined.

Taylor did not feel it was a threat that the balloon payment is due – because the loan could be refinanced. He indicated he was inclined to continue with the recommendation of the CWS process. In large part, Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed Taylor’s sentiments. The work the DDA put into CWS deserves more thought and recognition, she felt. One concern she had was the city might lose control over design and use, if the lot were just sold off. That concern was mitigated by the fact that the resolution was only about engaging a broker, not committing to a sale.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) responded to the concern about losing control over the future of the lot, by suggesting it might be appropriate to try loosening control. When she heard the climate for development described as “radioactive,” she felt it might be a good challenge “to see how flexible we can be.”

Outcome: The council voted to direct the city administrator to issue an RFP for brokerage services to sell the former Y lot. The lone dissent was from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Orkney Parcel Near Bluffs Nature Area

The council was asked to approve the purchase of a parcel located on the west side of the Bluffs Nature Area. The cost of the roughly 0.357-acre piece of vacant land located at 1240 Orkney – with a current SEV (state equalized value) of $49,200 – was $115,000. [SEV is based on 50% of market value.]

The parcel is located immediately adjacent to the Bluffs Nature Area – in the north part of the city, near the confluence of North Main, M-14 and Huron River Drive. The parcel is intended to provide an additional access point to the nature area, from the west.

The total proposed appropriation of $128,000 in open space millage funds for purchasing the Orkney parcel included $3,000 in closing costs and $10,000 in due diligence. An environmental assessment would be done before the closing.

The vote on the Orkney parcel had been postponed from the council’s Feb. 19, 2013 meeting. Postponement came in the context of objections from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) on the cost of the land, and questions from other councilmembers about the need for access from the west side of the nature area.

Orkney Parcel Near Bluffs: Council Deliberations

As he had at the council’s previous meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) questioned the purchase price. The information he’d requested on the required utility connection charges had been provided: $34,500. That would add to the cost of the land acquisition, if it were being sold as developable land. The $115,000 price the city was offering would translate to a total cost of $149,500, he said. If the land didn’t sell on the open market at that $115,000 price, why was the city paying that price? Kunselman blamed an inability of landowners to sell vacant property on the utility connection charges. He understood there was sentiment in the neighborhood in support of the city’s purchase of the land, but he had a really hard time paying full market value. He felt the market value of the land was probably more like $80,000.

Kunselman allowed he’d probably wind up voting for the purchase, but he felt the council should be looking at repealing those utility connection charges, because they were really hamstringing new infill development. Related to that, he said that he’d received his own property assessment recently – and it was down by $15,000. That put him “under water,” he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that her biggest concern is how the land will be used, so she had questions about parking and bicycle access. She noted that residents have been using it informally as an entrance to the Bluffs Nature Area. Residents were concerned that people would park their cars on the street or the land. Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, told Briere that when the parcel is acquired, staff would look at it, and ensure that it doesn’t become a parking lot – but the staff haven’t yet considered all the details. The parcel is meant for walking and trail access, Bahl said. He indicated it’d be possible to place some signs directing people where to park.

From left: Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), planning commission chair Kirk Westphal and mayor John Hieftje.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported that she’d driven past the property. From her perspective, it’s not the right spot for parking, characterizing it as a beautiful lot. She wanted to know if an easement had been considered instead of a purchase. Bahl indicated an easement had not been considered.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) gave his perspective as a runner using the parks system – saying that when he ran, the trails made access better, and multiple points of access would increase the utility of the nature area. He agreed with Kunselman’s points that the council should consider how connection charges impact infill development. He didn’t think it means the city is paying too much for the Orkney parcel, just that the council should review the connection fees.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) reported the view of a neighbor that increased traffic through the nature area would help prevent encampments from being established there.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) described the nature area as a very rough natural area, with one of the best views of the Huron River from anywhere in city. But in the last few years complaints had been heard about people living in the woods. The more people use it, the less of a wilderness area it is, so the extra entrance is a positive thing, she concluded.

Outcome: The council voted to authorize purchase of the Orkney parcel over the lone dissent of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Townhomes on South Maple

The council was asked to approve the site plan of a large townhome development at the northwest corner of West Liberty and South Maple. The project had received a unanimous recommendation of approval from the city planning commission at the Dec. 18, 2012 meeting of that body.

Site of the Blue Heron Pond development at the intersection of West Liberty and South Maple streets.

Blue Heron Pond is a planned project of 64 units on a 7.8-acre site that’s zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling). It’s the site of a development formerly called West Towne Condominiums that was started in 2005 but never completed. A building with 11 units has been constructed on the site, although the original developer – the Concannon Company – had planned to build 87 units.

The new owner, Norfolk Development, bought the property in the spring of 2012. The new $4.2 million project calls for constructing nine buildings in two phases. The first phase will include construction of four buildings along West Liberty, with the five other buildings in the site’s interior to be constructed at a later date. The complex will have a mix of two- and three-bedroom rental units ranging in size from 980 to 2,577 square feet, each with an attached one-car garage. Rents are expected to be in the $900 to $1,800 range.

The proposal is a planned project – rather than a by-right development – because a modification is being requested to the zoning requirements. Rather than the 20 feet between buildings that’s required in R4B zoning, the developer wants to reduce that amount to 15.7 feet between two of the buildings along West Liberty.

A large wetland in the center of the site will not be disturbed. A contribution of $26,000 to the city’s parks system has already been made, with the funds used for improvements at South Maple Park.

Townhomes on South Maple: Public Hearing

Brad Moore – having spoken at the public hearing on 624 Church St. as that project’s architect – drew a laugh by telling the council he was “still Brad Moore.” Moore noted that the project had been started by a previous owner and developer, but it had been a casualty of the economic collapse of 2008. The project is being reconstituted with improvements, using the existing infrastructure. The development will preserve the existing pond and nature area. The buildings will be downsized, reducing the number of dwelling units. Guest parking would be increased. The building form was changed to townhomes from stacked flats.

Thomas Partridge told the council he was there as an advocate of all residents of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and the state of Michigan who can’t afford housing. He was concerned that the planning commission has not attached a requirement to the project that would result in the apartments being marketed or leased to residents who can afford them.

Townhomes on South Maple: Council Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked about the affordability of the apartments. Brad Moore indicated that they’re not affordable in the sense of “affordable” that might qualify them as a public benefit for a planned unit development. But he indicated that he would not consider the apartments to be high-end or luxury. Responding to a question from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Moore said rents would range from $900-$1,600 a month.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) thanked the developer for taking up the project, with its improvements in design.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Blue Heron Pond site plan.

515 N. Fifth Ave. Site Plan

The council was asked to approve the site plan of a residential building at 515 N. Fifth Ave., between Kingsley and Beakes on the west side of North Fifth. The project is a three-story, 8,404-square-foot building with four two-bedroom units: two condominiums and two apartments. The project had received a unanimous recommendation for approval from the city planning commission at that body’s Jan. 3, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view showing the location of 515 N. Fifth, outlined in black.

The apartments would be on the second and third floors, while the condos would be on the first floor, with entrances from the north and south sides. Parking would be provided in an attached four-car garage in the front of the structure, though the garage openings are located on the side, near the front of the building. [.pdf of site plan] The site is zoned R4C (multi-family residential district) and the existing house on the site, with three apartments, would be demolished. It was built in 1901. Construction is estimated to cost $925,500.

The project had been postponed at the planning commission’s Dec. 4, 2012 meeting, as planning staff recommended giving the owners more time to address a range of issues related to utility, landscaping and natural features analysis. At that meeting, Christine Crockett, who’s president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, and Ray Detter of the downtown citizens advisory council spoke in opposition to the project. They had cited a range of objections, including their view that the design did not fit with the neighborhood.

515 N. Fifth Ave. Site Plan: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for those who need and deserve affordable housing. He asked how the council could approve such a limited number condos for this property, when there’s such a great need for housing. He called it a matter of civil and human rights.

Scott Bowers, the project’s architect, addressed the council, asking for approval. He described the physical parameters of the project and the prospective tenants.

515 N. Fifth Ave. Site Plan: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the project is right down the street from where he drops off his daughter for preschool. He got some reassurance that access to the neighborhood wouldn’t be negatively impacted during construction.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) lamented the fact that the porch is on the driveway side of the building instead of the street. Porches not facing the street were starting to be seen in other projects as well. That’s beginning to become a concern of the planning commission, she reported. [Briere is the city council's appointee to the planning commission.] She’s heard it mentioned at two separate planning commission meetings. She simply wanted to note the issue as a concern.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the 515 N. Fifth site plan.

FEMA Grant on 721 N. Main Demolition

The council was asked to approve the receipt of $87,704 in funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The grant money is to go toward demolishing two buildings on the city-owned 721 N. Main property near downtown Ann Arbor.

721 N. Main site showing the two buildings to be demolished, which are located in the floodway.

The 721 N. Main site is a former city maintenance yard, and is part of a broader area being studied by a task force. That area includes the North Main corridor and extends to the Huron River, covering the MichCon site near Broadway.

The cost of the demolition will be $116,939, with the remaining $29,235 to be paid by the city. The city’s portion will be drawn from a combination of funds – fleet services, major streets, local streets, and stormwater utility.

The two buildings are being demolished because they’re in the FEMA floodway. A third building – not in the floodway, but still in the flood fringe – is being studied for possible re-use. On a recommendation from the task force, the council approved $30,000 for the physical testing of that building at its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting.

The task force recommendation for the use of the 721 N. Main site has already been delivered to the city council, and is consistent with a previous council resolution that the floodway portion of the site would be incorporated into an Allen Creek greenway. The site-specific recommendation for 721 N. Main was delivered to meet deadlines for grant applications. The recommendation for a broader area on the 721 N. Main site is due at the end of July 2013. The city is applying for $300,000 in funding from the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission’s Connecting Communities program, which had a December 2012 deadline. The city also plans to apply for a Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grant, which has an April 1, 2013 deadline.

FEMA Grant on 721 N. Main: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the issue has been previously discussed. Because they’re in the floodway, the buildings have to be removed, she said. The demolition of the buildings moves things closer to turning the property into a public amenity. She mentioned the work of the North Main task force, and expressed her hope that a link could be made between North Main Street and the Huron River.

Mayor John Hieftje said he was excited about taking another step toward establishing a greenway park.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to receive the FEMA grant funds for demolition of the two 721 N. Main buildings.

Vehicle Purchases

The council was asked to consider six separate resolutions, authorizing the purchase of 44 new vehicles, with a total cost of $928,499. The vehicles include police patrol cars (7), 15-passenger vans (3), 4×4 pickup trucks (6) and compact cars (6), as well as several other vehicle types, used in different city service units.

The city’s vehicles are managed through the fleet services fund, not by each individual service unit. Replacement of a vehicle is determined through a scoring system that includes age, miles/hours of service, type of service, reliability (measured by number of repair work orders), maintenance cost, and supervisor review.

The supervisor’s rating is weighted so that vehicles that have been in service for a long time or that have had one exceedingly high repair charge – but are otherwise in very good condition – are not replaced.

Vehicle Purchases: Council Deliberations

The resolutions on the vehicle purchases were moved and voted on “all in one go.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciated that the review process for vehicle replacement is robust and thorough. Police vehicles were being replaced in a way that’s consistent with the union contract. It should be reassuring to the public that there’s a robust process, she said.

Outcome: The council voted to approve all the vehicle purchases.

Energy Agenda Items

The council was asked to act on three energy-related items. First, the council was asked to authorize the expanded use of its energy fund to support community energy efficiency programs – not just programs to improve municipal energy efficiency. The resolution effecting the change to the fund’s use limits its use for community programs to 20% of the existing fund balance. That balance, according to environmental coordinator Matt Naud, stands at around $400,000. The kind of support the energy fund is intended to provide includes establishing future loan loss reserve funds, providing low-interest loans, and buying down interest rates.

A second energy-related item was a resolution to prepare the city’s infrastructure systematically to support plug-in electric vehicles. That included direction to the city staff to review permit processing and zoning codes to ensure that barriers don’t exist to creating plug-in infrastructure. It also included direction to the fleet services unit to weigh the possibility of making plug-in vehicles a part of the city’s fleet. The resolution also directed that the city collaborate with other organizations like the University of Michigan. The resolution included a six-month deadline for reporting back to the council on any actions the council needs to take to remove barriers to plug-in readiness.

A third energy-related item on the council’s agenda was a resolution of support for Earth Hour, which takes place this year on March 23. The resolution included encouragement of city employees to turn off or dim all non-essential lighting in city buildings between 8:30-9:30 p.m. on March 23. The resolution encourages residents to do the same.

Energy Agenda Items: Council Deliberations

On the energy fund item, some questions were raised about the impact of sequestration on the city’s federal energy grant. The city’s environmental coordinator, Matt Naud, indicated that the strategy had been to draw down every dollar from the grant the city could and not to give any of it back.

From left: Wayne Appleyard, chair of Ann Arbor’s energy commission talks with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

On the plug-in item, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) was impressed by the availability of online information about electric charging stations in the city’s public parking system. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) added that drivers have figured out that they can share a charging station, by communicating with each other through the course of a day – so a single charging station can be used by two or three vehicles during the day.

On the Earth Hour item, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said that he’d co-sponsored the resolution in response to feedback from constituents. He described the dimming of lights for one hour as a symbolic action, but the goal of that one hour is for it to be a catalyst for changing our energy culture. He said he hoped it didn’t have the negative press that surrounded it the last time around, quipping that you didn’t need to be a “dim bulb” to support it. [This was an allusion to a city council scandal a few years ago, when it came to light that some councilmembers were exchanging emails during meetings that included disparaging remarks about each other and others. One of the emails included an apparent reference to Ward 5 residents as "dim."]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) observed that between 8:30-9:30 p.m. on March 23 is twilight – just after the equinox. It will still be relatively light. She’d seen a lot of neighbors outside last year.

Outcome: The council took separate unanimous votes approving all the energy-related items.

Ann Arbor Marathon Street Closing

Before the council for its consideration was approval of the necessary street closings for the 26.2 looping course through Ann Arbor for the second edition of the Ann Arbor Marathon.

Course map of the 2013 Ann Arbor Marathon. Image links to marathon website.

Last year’s race, held on June 17, 2012, drew harsh criticism – as some residents were surprised to have their morning routes to church cut off and their Father’s Day plans disrupted.

As part of his city administrator’s report at the city council meeting the day after the marathon, Steve Powers noted a number of complaints had been received about disruption caused by the race. Powers asked councilmembers to forward complaints from constituents to him, saying the city staff would review the event and would appreciate hearing from councilmembers’ constituents.

The staff memo accompanying the council’s March 4, 2013 agenda item included a description of several changes to this year’s event, meant to address some of the complaints.

The date of the event in 2013 is Sunday, June 9 – not Father’s Day. Washtenaw Avenue was eliminated from the course, which is meant to diminish the impact to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s bus service.

Improved efforts are also supposed to be made by Champions for Charity, the event sponsor, to notify neighborhood associations, churches, apartment complexes and other relevant organizations about the event. Course marshals will also get better training about alternative routes to recommend to the public, when people are confronted with an unexpected street closure.

Ann Arbor Marathon Street Closing: Council Deliberations

The item came late on the council’s original agenda, but the agenda was changed at the meeting so that the item could be considered earlier. Mike Highfield – president and CEO of Champions for Charity, the race sponsor – was asked to the podium to answer questions from councilmembers, which covered much of the same ground in the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

Responding to a question from Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Highfield said that even if nothing were changed from last year, he expected that this year’s race would be smoother than last year, which was the first year of the race. In a city with no daily newspaper, he said, a significant portion of the community didn’t know about the race. But several changes had been made, he said. The most significant of the changes involved removing Washtenaw Avenue from the course – because most of the complaints last year were off Washtenaw Avenue. So six churches are no longer affected, he said. Another major change is to make the southern leg – down to the Briarwood Mall area – an out-and-back loop. That’s despite the fact that many runners don’t like out-and-back style courses, Highfield said. But that avoids going past five apartment complexes. The course this year doesn’t venture off into new parts of town.

Warpehoski followed up with specific questions about how notification would take place. Warpehoski also complained that registration had been taking place for the race since December last year – before council action on street closings. He said that process “leaves a little bit to be desired.” Highfield noted that if there were any risk, then it was his, and he explained a range of factors that had led to the item not being on the city council’s agenda earlier.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) complained about the blaring music early in the morning. He wondered what the purpose of the loud music was during the run.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) responded to Anglin’s question about the music by inviting him to put on his running shoes on June 9, saying the music helps get you out the door. Petersen applauded Highfield for getting the inaugural marathon off the ground last year. She characterized it as no small feat. She’d run the half marathon last year. She’d heard some concerns about street closings but hadn’t heard the noise complaints that Anglin had mentioned.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) suggested that Highfield make sure all the churches are contacted. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to make sure that residents of Hidden Valley Apartments on South State were given adequate notice.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the street closings for the June 9, 2013 Ann Arbor marathon.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: About Public Speaking

During the time allowed for public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Thomas Partridge told the council he was an advocate for all those who need and deserve government services the most, including homeless people and people who can’t buy or rent a place to live. He complained that he’d called in at 8 a.m. that day, to reserve one of the 10 slots to speak at the start of the meeting. [All of the slots were taken by people who were speaking to the item on the agenda about the moratorium.] Partridge believed he should have been one of the 10 people.

Also during the time allowed for public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Michael Benson reflected on the council meeting two weeks ago, saying he’d been dismayed by the lack of courtesy expressed during public commentary – and he thanked councilmembers for sitting through it. He ventured that the public commentary rules might be amended to encourage people to be civil.

Comm/Comm: Ice Skating Rink

During the time allowed for public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Alan Haber updated the council on efforts to create a recreational skating rink on top of the Library Lane underground parking garage. He hoped that his group would be able to make a presentation to the next meeting of the DDA’s partnerships committee.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, March 18, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

The energy office is a division of the Michigan Suburbs Alliance. County commissioner and board chair Conan Smith is CEO of the alliance. The board voted initially to join the energy office at its March 17, 2010 meeting. Smith abstained from that vote.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Ann Arbor chief of police Barnett Jones chat during a break in the July 19 council meeting just after passage of a new pedestrian ordinance. During deliberations on that ordinance, Jones had cited the Canadian cultural practice of pedestrians standing on the curb and simply pointing to the crosswalk, which prompts motorists to stop for them. The remark had earned a thumbs-up from Rapundalo, who is a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen.

Intended as an extra measure of support for Zingerman’s was a third resolution communicating to the city’s historic district commission (HDC) the council’s view that the project represents a substantial benefit to the community. The proposal includes demolition of one house and the integration of another house into the architecture of the proposed new construction. Because the site is located in the Old Fourth Ward, the HDC will need to give its approval, in order for the project to be built. The message sent by the council to the HDC was clear: We want this project approved.

The council also sent a clear message to its firefighter and police unions, which the city hopes will soon ratify contracts that will save the city money. At the meeting, the council approved labor agreements with two other groups – the Teamsters civilian supervisors and the Teamsters police professional assistants. That added to bargained changes with the police deputy chiefs union that were approved at the council’s previous meeting on July 6. All three agreements reflected cost savings to the city through greater contributions by union members to health and retirement benefits and no increase in wages.

The implicit message to the firefighter and police unions was given explicit form through a position statement from the council’s labor committee and read aloud by Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), the chair of that committee. The statement calls on those unions to follow the example of the three who have already ratified contracts.

The council also gave final approval to a new pedestrian safety ordinance, which requires motorists to stop for pedestrians who are in, or even approaching, crosswalks that lack any traffic control device. During deliberations, the council swapped in “stop” to make the ordinance stronger than the originally proposed “yield.”

In other business, the council authorized the specific allocation of over $1 million in already-budgeted funds to nonprofits providing human services, approved liquor licenses for two downtown businesses, authorized the hire of a community energy coordinator using federal funds, got an update on the future of the Library Lot, and heard public commentary on a range of issues.

Zingerman’s Deli Expansion

Before the council were three resolutions involving the proposal by Zingerman’s Deli to expand their facility, located at Kingsley and Detroit streets in the Kerrytown district of downtown Ann Arbor.

Zingerman’s first brought forward a proposal in June 2008 that was submitted to the city’s historic district commission (HDC) – it called for the demolition of two houses. One of the houses, at 322 E. Kingsley, was fire-damaged. The other house is the Zingerman’s Annex, also known as the “orange house.” The city’s HDC turned down that proposal.

This time around, Zingerman’s met twice with the HDC during working sessions, but started the approval process with the city’s planning commission, followed by the city council. The planning commission has already given the project its unanimous recommendation for approval by the city council.

The site plan still calls for tearing down a house at 322 E. Kingsley, but would integrate the Annex into the design of the new construction. The new building is planned as a two-story, 10,340-square-foot addition that would be connected to the 5,107-square-foot deli building via a glass atrium. They’ll add underground tanks for stormwater detention and several environmentally-friendly design elements, including a green roof on the deli’s existing one-story wing. Phoenix Contractors of Ypsilanti is the project’s construction manager and general contractor.

All along, Zingerman’s executives have cited concerns over the project’s expense, particularly the cost of renovating the Annex. The overall project is expected to cost about $6.7 million. Roughly $500,000 is associated with renovating the house, which is relatively small – less than 900 square feet. Renovation will entail moving the Annex off its existing foundation, replacing the foundation, renovating the house, then moving it onto the new foundation and incorporating the structure into the new deli addition.

Previous Chronicle coverage:

“Zingerman’s: Making it Right for the HDC”

“Zingerman’s Deli Expansion Moves Ahead”

“Zingerman’s Project Seeks Brownfield Status”

“DDA Approves Grant for Zingerman’s”

The three Zingerman’s resolutions covered: (i) approval of the the site plan, (ii) approval of a brownfield application, and (iii) encouraging the HDC to grant a “notice to proceed.”

Zingerman’s Public Comment: Site Plan and Brownfield Plan

Around a dozen letters of support accompanied the city council’s electronic agenda. One representative sample is from Jeremy Peters, director of creative and business affairs for Ghostly Songs:

We have come to know many members of the staff, management, and ownership over the course of the past few years, and can speak volumes to what we have learned from them as a “good” business who invests in their staff and community. Zingerman’s has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to this community and its citizens through continued investment in our area and generous philanthropic support of efforts aimed at community betterment. Zingerman’s is, in every sense, a community partner and one of Ann Arbor’s most valuable assets.

We hope to follow in their model of success as much as possible.

Allowing Zingerman’s to grow its business at its present location will be of substantial benefit to the community. It will inject capital into our local economy by creating both temporary construction and permanent retail jobs.

Grace Singleton, a managing partner with the deli, led off the public hearing by reiterating much of the same material she’s previously presented to the planning commission and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The deli has grown quite a bit since it started in 1982. In the first year, they’d sold 2,000 sandwiches, she said, but last year they estimate they made over 300,000. They’d begun with three employees and have now grown to employ 180. But they still have the same kitchen, she said.

Singleton stressed how they’d made improvements in one-off, “hodge podge” fashion, adding some seating capacity in a tent behind the Annex, and adding some outside storage units. What they are now proposing, she said, is a large upgrade that would last a long time into the future. There are inherent challenges in the project, she said, which include the removal of one house, the construction of a two-story building, plus the restoration of another house, all while keeping the deli open for business, she said.

Next up for the Zingerman’s project team was Christy Summers of Beckett & Raeder Inc. She described Zingerman’s as an “iconic” business of Ann Arbor. She described the project as providing Zingerman’s with more flexibility. She also stressed the greater accessibility the project would afford Zingerman’s patrons, citing the ramps, slopes and handrails that would be a part of the project. She noted the stormwater management system that would re-use some of the water and allow some to infiltrate into the ground naturally.

Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects.

Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects continued the presentation for the project team, and talked about how the project was designed to fit into the historical context of the neighborhood, partly through the choice of appropriate materials. He also discussed various acoustical controls that would help damp down possible noise from mechanical systems. He said the project was planned to achieve LEED certification on either the silver or gold level. Among the environmental features he mentioned were green roofs, a highly-insulated building envelope and heat recapture. Clein noted that city council approval was the “last hurdle” before historic district commission approval.

Jim Mogensen began by noting that the Star Wars episodes were not released in chronological order. He was alluding partly to the fact that the proposal was getting approval from the planning commission and city council, before seeking approval from the city’s historic district commission.

By way of background, the sequencing was explained in a recent memo prepared by Jill Thacher, a city planner specializing in historic preservation issues:

All [other] approvals are required so that the HDC has as many assurances as possible that the applicant seriously intends to build the project and is in a position to do so. This is necessary since the Notice to Proceed will result in the permanent removal of historic resources. In order to apply to the HDC for a notice to proceed, the project must have an approved site plan from City Council, have proof of financing, and have any other zoning or environmental approvals that may be necessary to build the project. In order for the HDC to grant the project a Notice to Proceed, Zingerman’s must prove that their project will be of substantial benefit to the community. How that benefit is defined and whether it is substantial enough to warrant the removal of contributing resources is determined by the HDC.

From the city code on issuance of a notice to proceed:

8:416. Notice to proceed.
(1) Work within a historic district shall be permitted through the issuance of a notice to proceed by the commission if any of the following conditions prevail and if the proposed work can be demonstrated by a finding of the commission to be necessary to substantially improve or correct any of the following conditions:
(a) The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or to the structure’s occupants.
(b) The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances.
(c) Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.
(d) Retaining the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community.

Mogensen, however, was also using the topic of chronological sequence as an opportunity to riff on some of the zoning history of Ann Arbor. First, he said, it was thought to be beneficial for students to be able to live off campus – so the R4C zoning district was created, which he suggested stood for “residential for cash.” When matter-of-right apartment buildings started to get built, he said, historic districts were established to preserve the character of the neighborhood. The zoning, together with the historic districts, combined to allow students to live off campus in multi-unit houses in a way that preserved the neighborhoods.

Mogensen urged the council to approve Zingerman’s proposal, but asked councilmembers to reflect on what might happen several years down the road. What if the Ann Arbor Public Schools decided that Community High School – on the property adjoining Zingerman’s – was no longer needed? What if that parcel, too, became a part of a huge Zingerman’s project?

Thomas Partridge drew a connection to the project and the need for increased affordable housing and a transportation system that so that Zingerman’s workers would have a place to live and a way to get to work.

Jared Belka, part of Zingerman’s legal team, spoke to the issue of the brownfield redevelopment plan. He described Zingerman’s total investment in the project as amounting to $6.7 million. He reviewed with the council how the brownfield application was being made under the provision that allowed for redevelopment of functionally obsolete buildings. The plan would cover up to $817,000 in eligible activities, Belka said, including site preparation [$534,800], demolition [$100,000], infrastructure improvements [$41,300] and lead and asbestos abatement [$25,000].

Also a part of Zingerman’s legal team, Gary Bruder indicated that the reason Zingerman’s was applying for brownfield financing was that the project is very expensive because it’s being undertaken in a historic district. But Zingerman’s is committed to Ann Arbor, he said, and to that site in particular. They’ll be using a surgical, even “micro-surgical” process in the construction, Bruder added. A specific example is that they’ll use pile and timber lagging in the course of construction, he said.

Singleton returned to the podium for the second public hearing, on the brownfield plan, to reiterate her earlier point about past growth at Zingerman’s and to suggest that in the next five years, they expected to add as many as 65 more jobs, having added 35 over the previous five years. She also mentioned the philanthropic work done by Zingerman’s, having founded Food Gatherers and the Delonis Community Kitchen, and donating 10% of profits to local nonprofit organizations. Singleton said she realized that the tax capture mechanism of brownfield development was not popular with some in the community, but she pointed to the return to the city’s nonprofit community as something that helped to counterbalance that.

Zingerman’s: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) led off deliberations on the brownfield plan, which had been reordered at the start of the meeting to appear first on the agenda. She urged support of the plan, saying Zingerman’s is an excellent corporate citizen, noting that they gave back to the community. They are good neighbors with the North Central Property Owners Association and the Old Fourth Ward, she said. Zingerman’s is the second most-requested location when visitors are seeking directions, she said – first is the University of Michigan hospital. The brownfield plan would allow Zingerman’s to stay in the city, she said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) described the Zingerman’s project as exactly the kind of project meant for non-environmental brownfield plans. He noted how there were a lot of things going on in a tight space.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed the sentiments of Smith and Hohnke.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that as a member of the brownfield committee, he supported the plan because the buildings in question were functionally obsolete. He also noted that the implementation of stormwater detention is an important use of the tax credits.

Kunselman also reflected on the fact that Zingerman’s had existed for 28 years – he remembered a time when it was not there. He’d attended Community High School, before Zingerman’s was located there, and noted that it was not as “likeable” an area as it is now. He recalled how the entire area had been planned for urban renewal – everything had been planned for demolition. Alluding to Jim Mogensen’s speculation that Community High might be eliminated by the school system, Kunselman said that there was active speculation when he was in school there that the school would be eliminated, and fortunately, that had not taken place.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Zingerman’s brownfield plan.

Deliberations on the site plan were brief. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) acknowledged that Zingerman’s was a valued community member. She noted that it was a sensitive site plan for a difficult site.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Zingerman’s site plan.

While the site plan and the brownfield plan for Zingerman’s were before the city council for consideration as a standard part of the approval process, a third resolution fell outside that process. The measure called upon the city’s historic district commission to take note of the city council’s support of the Zingerman’s project:

RESOLVED, That City Council respectfully requests that the Historic District Commission consider this resolution during its deliberations as some evidence that the Zingerman’s Deli site expansion will be of substantial benefit to the Ann Arbor community; and

RESOLVED, That City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit this resolution to the Historic District Commission.

In deliberations on the resolution, Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) noted that in order for the project to move forward and grant a notice to proceed, the city’s historic district commission must reach the conclusion that the project will be a substantial benefit to the community. Taylor acknowledged that the HDC would come to its own conclusions on the matter, but contended that the city council, as elected representatives of the citizens of Ann Arbor, is competent to speak to the issue of what constitutes a benefit to the community.

So the resolution, Taylor contended, seeks to “affirm for all the world, not that it requires our affirmation, but nonetheless” that it’s the HDC that will make the determination on the community benefit. But the resolution also seeks to affirm, he continued, that it’s the city council’s judgment that the proposal constitutes a substantial benefit to the community.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) echoed the sentiments of Taylor and noted the “iconic” status of the business as expressed during the public hearing. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) indicated that when asked what would happen if the project did not go through, Zingerman’s had indicated that they would have to move from that location. Smith said that would be devastating to the area, but that Zingerman’s would be fine – their fans would follow them, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to pass the resolution communicating to the historic district commission the council’s support of Zingerman’s.

Union Bargaining

The city council also communicated a clear message to its firefighter and police unions, with whom the city is currently bargaining.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2)

Before the council were labor agreements with two other groups – the Teamsters civilian supervisors and the Teamsters police professional assistants. That added to bargained changes with the police deputy chiefs union that were approved at the council’s previous meeting on July 6. All three agreements reflected cost savings to the city through greater contributions by union members to health and retirement benefits and no increase in wages.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who chairs the city council’s labor committee, indicated that the previous council meeting had run so late [concluding just past 1 a.m.] that he did not think many people noticed the approval of the agreement with the police deputy chiefs union.

From The Chronicle’s report of the July 6 meeting:

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said that as chair of the council’s labor committee, he was pleased to see the agreement and the resolution come forward. The terms provide savings to the city, he said, specifically in the area of increasing their own contributions to health care benefits. The health care plan they were voting on, Rapundalo said, is the same one enjoyed by the city’s non-union workers, with the same contribution level. Rapundalo also highlighted the fact that there’ll be an increase in the pension contribution made by employees and no across-the-board increase in wages.

Rapundalo thanked members of the union for stepping up and making sacrifices to help the city work within its budgetary constraints.

Ann Arbor is not unique in the need to achieve savings, Rapundalo reminded his council colleagues. He ticked through several other Michigan cities where safety services personnel had accepted significant percentage decreases in total benefits.

With the council’s approval of the two additional bargained agreements, with similar terms to the previous one, Rapundalo made the implicit message to the police and firefighter unions explicit. From the position statement by the council’s labor committee:

Currently, the firefighters, the police officers and the police command officers pay only a deductible of $250 per person or $500 per family. They do not pay a monthly premium or co-insurance. The new plans ratified tonight include an increased deductible, a 20% co-insurance and the option of a monthly premium for lower deductibles and out of pocket maximums.

We are hopeful that negotiations with the remaining groups will be successful and lead to the type of savings that other bargaining units have already achieved and ratified. However, if negotiations are unsuccessful, we are supportive of staff pursuing Act 312 binding arbitration to resolve these contracts.

The collective bargaining units which have not yet ratified contracts should be aware of the current economic conditions facing the City and we hope they will act accordingly. We encourage all members of the remaining bargaining units to become more engaged in their respective negotiations and especially in learning the specific details of what is being bargained on their behalf.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the agreements with the Teamsters civilian supervisors and the Teamsters police professional assistants.

Crosswalks: Pedestrian Ordinance

Before the council for its second reading was a proposed change to the pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

Before the change, it read:

[Old Language] 10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets.
(a) No pedestrian shall cross a street at a location other than at a crosswalk into which vehicle traffic is then restricted by a traffic control device unless such crossing may be done safely and without interfering with motor vehicle and bicycle traffic on that street.
(b) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger, but a pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

The ordinance revision provides greater protection for pedestrians approaching crosswalks. The revision requires motorists to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians not just in crosswalks, but also approaching them. Previous language was stricken, which limited the requirement on motorists to yield only to pedestrians in the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling.

In the course of deliberations, the “yield” language was strengthened to include “stop.” Additional language amended at the council table is in italics.

[New Language] 10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets.
(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian approaching or within a crosswalk.
(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.
(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

The ordinance change came at least in part due to advocacy from Ann Arbor resident Matt Grocoff, who contacted Ward 5 councilmembers Mike Anglin and Carsten Hohnke as early as Jan. 9, 2009 alerting them to the relatively weak protections that Ann Arbor’s ordinance provided to pedestrians, compared with other communities. From an email he sent to them and posted on the Washtenaw Biking and Walking Coalition‘s GoogleGroup:

The recent conversation about Roundabouts and neighborhood Mini-Roundabouts raised questions about pedestrian crosswalk and cyclist safety at both types of roundabouts. Roundabouts have been proven to be among the safest traffic tools available.

However, I strongly urge that these conversations MUST include revising the current Ann Arbor pedestrian right-of-way ordinance. Without absolute pedestrian right-of-way and strict enforcement of the rule, NO crosswalk, roundabout, or any other traffic device will make our roads as safe as those in other states. [...]

The fact is, Ann Arbor’s ordinance does not give true right-of-way to pedestrians. It is overly broad, complex, and ambiguous. When read carefully, drivers need to yield to pedestrians only if they are about to hit them.

In communities with clearly stated rules (Essex, NJ; Sarasota, FL; Boulder, CO, the entire State of California, Seattle, Portland, etc), cars come to a FULL STOP when a pedestrian APPROACHES a crosswalk in a roundabout or mid-roadway.

Crosswalks: Public Comment

Kathy Griswold spoke specifically about the mid-block crosswalk at King Elementary School, which she has for more than a year advocated be moved to a four-way stop intersection. She reviewed the history and work of the Transportation Safety Committee, which had evaluated the King School crossing. She indicated that the project had been engineered, funded, and staked out, with part of the expense for an asphalt path to be provided by a $500 contribution from an anonymous donor. She characterized the halt to the project as due to “good-old boy cronyism.”

On the more general issue of the proposed crosswalk ordinance, Griswold said during the public hearing that she fully supported it, but noted that she’d been unable to read the text of the proposed ordinance online as of 10 a.m. that morning. [According to the city clerk's office, the issue related to how that agenda item was submitted to the online Legistar system by the community services department – it had been marked as "not viewable via the web." By 2 p.m. the status of the item had been changed by the clerk's office to be visible.]

But Griswold likened the ordinance to giving a kid a bicycle and telling them we’d buy them a helmet later. She called for greater attention to sight-line issues at intersections and at other points along the roadway. Sight-lines, she said, can be obstructed by vegetation as well as utility boxes. A specific example she gave of utility boxes causing sight-line problems is eastbound Glazier Way at Huron Parkway.

Calling the council’s attention to the crosswalks like the one at State and William was Jim Mogensen during the public hearing. He said that due to limitations on his mobility, he only crossed when the walk signal indicated it was okay for him to go. But at that intersection, he pointed out, the walk signal coincided with a conflicting left-turn arrow for motorists. [A related column on the timing of walk signals was published almost two years ago in The Chronicle: "Column: Waiting Too Long for the Go"]

Kris Talley of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition speaks in favor of the pedestrian ordinance.

Speaking during the public hearing on behalf of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, board member Kris Talley indicated the group had been working on the issue for more than a year. She pointed the council to a video that they’d created to illustrate what motorist behavior is like towards pedestrians who are trying to enter crosswalks. What had been particularly striking, Talley said, was a forum attended by city transportation staff, a city attorney, a police officer and advocates for non-motorized transportation where there’d been a lack of consensus about what was required by the city’s current pedestrian ordinance – for pedestrians and motorists alike. The proposed revision, she said, is language that makes crosswalks meaningful.

Crosswalks: Council Deliberations – Stop versus Yield

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who co-sponsored the ordinance change along with mayor John Hieftje, led off deliberations by saying that the change had come about through their work with a number of city staff and community members. He characterized the ordinance as one tool among many to help improve the environment for pedestrians in Ann Arbor – other tools include targeted enforcement, education, and engineering solutions [e.g., traffic islands].

Under the current ordinance, Hohnke said, a pedestrian has to actually “take ownership” of the crosswalk by entering it, before a motorist is required to yield. Hohnke described the video, to which Kris Talley had alluded during her remarks, as “scary to see.” He talked about how it depicts people trying to cross streets around Ann Arbor with motorists failing to yield and included images of young children dashing across the street after first hesitating but noticing other kids in their group crossing.

Hohnke identified the specific challenges that they had to work through as: (i) ambiguity – how do you know when someone is approaching a crosswalk? and (ii) change in culture – how are motorists supposed to know something different is expected? He said they’d concluded that the kind of ambiguity that might be present was no different from other kinds of ambiguity in traffic laws – like that associated with yellow lights, he said. And the changes in behavior that will be required, he concluded, would likely be similar to the adjustments that are necessary when a new stop sign is installed somewhere. He thanked the WBWC for their work on the issue.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she’d seen people trying to cross Plymouth Road – they know they have the right-of-way, but nobody stops. How will we get them to stop?

Chief of Ann Arbor police, Barnett Jones, told Briere that they’d need to “hit the community hard” with education. He said he would actually prefer language that was somewhat more blunt than “yield,” saying that the interpretation of “stop” is universal and clear.

Jones then cited the Canadian cultural practice of pedestrians standing on the curb and simply pointing to the cross walk, which prompted motorists to stop for them. The remark had earned a thumbs-up from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who is a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen. Jones said it was important that citizens are “not playing Frogger” trying to cross the roadways.

Hieftje noted that the educational effort was made difficult by the fact that half the motorists on Ann Arbor roadways at any given time do not live in Ann Arbor.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked from a motorist’s perspective whether the new law meant they would need to yield to pedestrians at the second crosswalk of a four-way stop if they’d already begun through the intersection – she noted that at an intersection like Forest and South University Avenue, the pedestrians just “stream across.” Jones indicated that yes, you need to yield in that situation. Hohnke also pointed out that the new ordinance applies to crosswalks were there is no traffic control device.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) picked up on the remark by the police chief to the effect that the chief would prefer the ordinance say “stop” and pointed out that the current ordinance had similar language, which the revision proposed to strike: “slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield.”

Kunselman proposed that the new ordinance be amended to include the “slowing down or stopping” language. Hieftje was not inclined to entertain the possibility of changing the language, saying that he and Hohnke, along with the WBWC and the city attorney’s office, had worked on it. Rapundalo weighed in for keeping things simple. He didn’t see the need for “stopping or slowing down” if that’s what “to yield” means. Teall contemplated removing “yield” and simple using “slowing down or stopping.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) responding to Hieftje’s remarks, said that just because the language was vetted didn’t mean it isn’t ambiguous. She focused away from “yield” to the question of “approaching,” asking how close someone needed to be to the crosswalk to be considered to be “approaching” it. Hieftje responded by saying that under the old ordinance, a pedestrian would have to “dance out into the intersection” in order for a motorist to be required to yield. He contended that “approaching” isn’t ambiguous.

Rapundalo inveighed against “overthinking” the question, saying that currently “the car rules” and the ordinance should simply state that the pedestrian gets the right-of-way, period. There should not be language available, he said, that would allow a motorist to “worm their way out of it.” He concluded that no further massaging of the language was necessary. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d been impressed by her visit to Calgary nine months ago, when she’d been a curb and a car had stopped for her as a pedestrian, even though the car had a green light. Briere echoed Rapundalo’s sentiments.

Higgins then brought forward an amendment that won the day, which she suggested reflected the council’s real intent: insert “stop and” before “yield.” The resulting line, which Hohnke accepted as a friendly amendment, reads: “the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian approaching or within a crosswalk.”

Outcome: The council unanimously adopted the pedestrian ordinance requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians approaching crosswalks.

Downtown Liquor Licenses

Before the city council were two recommendation to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission that downtown development district liquor licenses be approved for two downtown businesses: @Burger, which will open at 505 E. Liberty St.; and Revive, located on the ground floor of Zaragon Place at 619 E. University.

The liquor licenses were recommended under Public Act 501 MCL 436.1521A(1)b, which enabled the MLCC to grant additional licenses to businesses located in development districts.

The city council’s liquor license review committee consists of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

From Chronicle coverage of the city council’s May 17, 2010 meeting:

Before the council was a resolution to approve issuance of a downtown development district liquor license to the New York Pizza Depot. It came before the council on a 2-1 vote from the council’s liquor license review committee. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who chairs that council committee, indicated that he had been the dissenting vote and would not be supporting the issuance of the license. He noted that such licenses are meant to be an economic development tool and that he had tried to make his decisions on such licenses consistent across applications.

Specifically, such licenses are meant to provide a benefit to the community. In the case of the New York Pizza Depot, he contended, the petitioner could not show any anticipated growth in employment due to the issuance of the license. In addition, Rapundalo said, a consideration for issuance was the location – is it unique? The existing density of licenses in the area, he said, did not indicate to him a dire need for an establishment of that kind.

Liquor: Council Deliberations

At the request of Mike Anglin (Ward 5), representatives from @Burger gave a presentation to the council on how the business would work at the East Liberty location.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the recommendations that @Burger and Revive be granted downtown development district liquor licenses.

Human Services Funding

Before the council were the specific allocations to various nonprofits providing human services funding for FY 2011. The city funds for the allocations were approved as part of the city’s FY 2011 budget, which was adopted at the city council’s May 17, 2010 meeting.

The city allocates funding to these nonprofits based on a formal request for proposals (RFP). The RFP for this year’s funding cycle, as well as for last year’s funding, was issued in January 2009. The RFP indicated that the funding would be allocated for both FY 2010 and FY 2011. A total of 47 nonprofits applied, making 67 proposals for grant funding totaling $3,773,435.

Making the recommendations was the human services review committee – a nine-member body consisting of three members appointed by the Ann Arbor city council, three members from the Urban County and three community development staff members. In addition to making recommendations for the city’s allocation of human services funding, the review committee made recommendations on county funds as well as HUD’s community development block grants (CDBG).

          City of Ann Arbor

$  25,500 Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, Inc.
    5,850 Ann Arbor YMCA
   80,750 Avalon Housing, Inc.
   20,000 Barrier Busters Action Group
    9,000 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Washtenaw County
   12,100 Fr. Patrick Jackson House (CSS)
   10,000 The Oaks (CSS)
   22,000 Maximizing the Independence (CSS)
    6,300 Emergency Food Program (CSS)
   17,550 Employment Skills/Goal Setting Workshops (CSS)
   50,000 Neighborhood Senior Services (CSS)
  210,000 Child Care Network
   20,400 Preventing Evictions (CAN)
   23,800 School Comes First! Hikone and Green Baxter (CAN)
    8,500 Food & Health Care Hikone and Green Baxter (CAN)
    8,500 Community Housing Alternatives
   19,295 COPE
   38,250 Domestic Violence Project, Inc.
   26,076 Family Learning Institute
  123,200 Food Gatherers
   13,200 HIV/AIDS Housing Assistance Program (HIV/AIDS RC)
    5,000 Harm Reduction Program (HIV/AIDS RC)
   25,000 Home of New Vision
   38,500 Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw Co.
   10,000 Jewish Family Services of Washtenaw County
   73,000 Legal Services of South Central Michigan
   34,000 Housing Supports Team (MAP)
   18,121 Representative Payee (MAP)
   38,250 Packard Health Inc.
   15,000 Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan
   10,000 Meal Delivery to Under Age 60 (Meals on Wheels)
   16,000 Weekend Meal Delivery (Meals on Wheels)
   16,250 UM Nurse Managed Centers/Maple Meadows
   24,000 UM Housing Bureau for Seniors
   19,500 The Student Advocacy Center of Michigan
   30,000 The Women's Center of Southeastern Michigan
  117,700 Washtenaw County CSTS/Project Outreach (PORT)
   27,500 Washtenaw Literacy  

1,268,092 SUBTOTAL
    7,652 Human Service Contingency  

1,275,744 TOTAL

CDBG Public Service Funds

$  40,885 Northfield Human Services
   51,700 Ozone House, Inc.
   58,300 Shelter Association Service Center (SAWC)
  151,015 Night Shelter Program (SAWC)
   32,500 Delonis Center Health Clinic (SAWC)
    8,600 SOS Community Center

  343,000 TOTAL      

Washtenaw County General Funds

   46,400 Housing Crisis Services (SOS)
   13,200 Homeless School-Aged Children's Program (SOS)
   20,000 The Corner Health Center
   20,400 Ypsilanti Meals on Wheels

  100,000 TOTAL

-

Human Services: Public Comment and Deliberations

Jim Mogensen’s red ribbon presentation has become an annual event associated with the allocation of human services funding. It includes the unfurling of a red ribbon as a bar in a bar chart representing the rest of the city’s budget excluding human services allocations. As the ribbon is unwound and stretches across the council chambers, the point is illustrated that the amount spent on human services is relatively small.

Coverage of last year’s red ribbon presentation: “Ann Arbor Allocates Human Services Funding.”

Though Mogensen attended the council meeting, he did not make the red ribbon presentation this year. When The Chronicle conveyed its disappointment after the meeting, Mogensen accepted the message with typical good cheer.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved its human services allocations.

Library Lot

Background for some public comment and councilmember communication at the meeting is the issue of what, if anything, should be built on top of the city-owned Library Lot – currently the construction site for an underground parking structure. The city issued a request for proposals last year, with the idea that if one of the proposals were approved, the underground garage design could be tweaked to accommodate certain design features.

Alan Haber addresses the council on the topic of the Library Lot.

The responses were all presented in a public forum, and the committee tasked with reviewing them subsequently winnowed them down to two proposals. Along the way, a citizen-generated proposal for a community commons was eliminated from further consideration, then added back to the pool, then finally eliminated. The two finalist proposals selected by the review committee were for hotel/conference center projects.

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority authorized money to hire a consultant to evaluate the financial merits of the two proposals, but that consultant has not been hired. The committee has not met in several months. The window of opportunity to make any design tweaks in the underground parking garage passed back in the spring, and the sense of urgency that drove the committee’s initial work has ebbed. A starting point for Chronicle coverage: “Hotel/Conference Center Ideas Go Forward.”

Library Lot: Public Comment

Addressing the city council during public commentary reserved time was Alan Haber, who had helped put together the proposal for a community commons on the Library Lot. He ticked through a number of specific questions for the council:

1. Will you call on the advisory committee to deliver its report?
2. Will you allow the city council to consider the proposal for the community commons?
3. Will you call for public hearings on the best use of the Library Lot?
4. Do you think that paving the top of the garage for use as a surface parking lot is the best use of the land?
5. Will you consider directing the DDA to re-allocate the bond funds allocated for paving the lot for landscaping materials like earth and bulbs?
6. Will you consider the idea of a conservancy for a community commons, which would be the entity charged with the maintenance of the commons?

Library Lot: Update from Council

During his communications, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who chairs the RFP review committee, gave an update on progress. He reviewed a recent update he’d given about a month ago at the council’s June 7, 2010 meeting. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) responded to Haber’s comments on the Library Lot by describing the process as being in a “holding pattern.” The committee had been prepared to engage a consultant to assist in the review of the two finalist proposals, and the potential consultant had been reviewed by city administrator Roger Fraser and executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay, but they’d stopped short of signing a contract with the consultant. An unanticipated change in personnel within the consultant’s organization had led them to re-evaluate the pool. Rapundalo said it was unfortunate that Fraser himself was not there at the meeting to provide more details.

At Monday’s meeting, Rapundalo indicated that concerns centered on the “glitch” that had arisen on the consultant’s part – the staffing change – had now been eliminated. They were in discussions with the consultant to develop a work plan, he said, and they’d determined that the DDA would also use an intern to provide additional comparative analysis. In the coming week, Rapundalo said, they would sit down with the two Library Lot finalists, Valiant and Acquest, and “with a little bit of luck,” he concluded, by late August the committee would be able to pick things back up and continue their work.

At a recent candidate forum, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) expressed the view that the community conversation should begin anew with a completely clean slate.

Floods

A couple of items related to the impact of heavy rains in the area were brought up during the July 19 meeting.

Floods: Task Force for Bryant Neighborhood?

Speaking on behalf of the Community Action Network (CAN), during public commentary reserved time, Joan Doughty requested that the city council appoint a task force to address flooding in the the Bryant neighborhood. She asked that the charge of the task force specifically be to identify a remediation plan and a funding source. She allowed that nobody on the city council was responsible for causing the flooding, but noted that it was a long-standing and frequent problem. She cited the recollection of a civil engineer with the city 20 years ago who said it was already a problem back then.

Flooding is not a rare event in the neighborhood, Doughty said, but rather happens with every heavy rain, several times per month. She noted that Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) had some experience dealing with similar issues in the Orchard Hills neighborhood, while allowing that every neighborhood is unique. The Bryant neighborhood, she said, had lacked a political voice up to now.

Previous Chronicle coverage of the Bryant neighborhood flooding issue: “Bryant Neighbors Dig into Drainage” and “Water Main Project Set for Bryant Area.”

Floods: Insurance Board of Review

Also tangentially related to floods and heavy rains was confirmation of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) as a member of the city’s insurance board of review. At the city council’s previous meeting, there had been a call for a council volunteer to serve on the city’s board of insurance administration – a three-person body consisting of the city treasurer and two councilmembers. Rapundalo volunteered at the last meeting to accept the mayor’s nomination and to join his Ward 2 colleague, Tony Derezinski, on the board.

Before the council on Monday night was confirmation of Rapundalo’s nomination.

The function of the board is to supervise the city’s self-insurance fund, to review all employee worker’s disability compensation claims and to handle any claims by citizens filed against the city.

The board’s composition is governed by chapter 8 of the city code, which addresses the organization of boards and commissions:

1:193. Board of Insurance Administration.
The Board of Insurance Administration shall consist of 2 members of Council appointed by the City Council, and the City Treasurer, ex officio. Said board shall supervise the self-insurance fund of the city, also referred to as the risk fund of the city, shall make recommendations concerning the actuarial sufficiency of said fund and the investment of accumulated reserves.

The board meets on the fourth Thursday of every month, so its next meeting is July 22. At that meeting the board will hear claims from residents on Iroquois Place, who experienced backups of sewage in their basements as a result of the heavy rains in early June of this year.

State law lays out the specific conditions that must be met to overcome governmental immunity for sewage backups:

(3) If a claimant, including a claimant seeking noneconomic damages, believes that an event caused property damage or physical injury, the claimant may seek compensation for the property damage or physical injury from a governmental agency if the claimant shows that all of the following existed at the time of the event:
(a) The governmental agency was an appropriate governmental agency.
(b) The sewage disposal system had a defect.
(c) The governmental agency knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, about
the defect.
(d) The governmental agency, having the legal authority to do so, failed to take reasonable steps in a
reasonable amount of time to repair, correct, or remedy the defect.
(e) The defect was a substantial proximate cause of the event and the property damage or physical injury.

Previous Chronicle coverage of the drain disconnect program, which is intended to ameliorate the basement sewage backup problem: “Drain Disconnect Time for Homeowners.” Ann Arbor has separate sanitary and stormwater sewers systems. Under the disconnect program, houses that have storm drains connected to the sanitary sewer are connected to the stormwater sewer system instead.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved Rapundalo as a member of the insurance board, with the mayor thanking Rapundalo for stepping up to serve even while his other committee obligations were already heavy.

Energy Coordinator

Before the council was a $260,000 contract with Clean Energy Coalition (CEC), an Ypsilanti-based nonprofit, to hire a community energy program coordinator. The coordinator, to be hired by CEC with input from city staff, will be supervised by Andrew Brix, the city’s energy programs manager.

The contract also includes technical assistance from CEC to a community energy financing program such as a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. The funds for the contract come from a U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) worth $1,243,400.

Outcome: The council approved the contract without discussion.

Clean Communities

Before the council was an amendment to the city’s solid waste management code related to regulations on trash left outside. As the cover memo describes it, this is the ordinance used to compel clean up after parties:

Community Standards officers often use this ordinance to compel the clean-up of any type of solid waste strewn about on the exterior premises of a property. Solid waste includes, but is not limited to, party-related debris, paper, cardboard, building materials, appliances, and other solid waste.

The substantive change to the ordinance was laid out by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). It was motivated by situations where there is a rental property, and it is tenants who have strewn the waste. Many landlords require tenants to pay fines associated with tickets issued under the ordinance. The fines are tiered based on the number of offenses at a property. However, a current tenant may not be guilty of every prior offense resulting in an increased fine amount. That inherent unfairness, said Taylor, can result in a “judicial downcharging” with lessor fines being imposed than they would otherwise.

So the amendment prevents landlords from requiring tenants to pay any fine amounts due to offenses committed prior to their own tenancy at the property [emphasis added]:

(e) No property owner, landlord, or agent who incurs fines and costs for a violation of this section shall require tenant(s) or occupant(s) to pay fines and costs for or reimburse the owner, landlord, or agent for payment of fines and costs, except in keeping with the following requirements:
(1) For a first violation within the period of time that the tenant(s) or occupant(s) reside(s) on the property, the owner, landlord, or agent shall not require the tenant(s) or occupant(s) to pay more than $200.
(2) For a second violation within the period of time that the tenant(s) or occupant(s) reside(s) on the property, the owner, landlord, or agent shall not require the tenant(s) or occupant(s) to pay more than $400.
(3) For each additional or subsequent offense within the period of time that the tenant(s) or occupant(s) reside(s) on the property, the owner, landlord, or agent shall not require the tenant(s) or occupant(s) to pay more than $1,000.

Outcome: After brief discussion, the council unanimously approved the amendment to the city’s solid waste code.

Rail Transportation

Added to the council’s agenda the same day as the meeting was a resolution expressing support for development of high-speed and intercity passenger rail service in Michigan, as well as the city’s interest in participating in a municipal rail caucus. The resolution had been requested from Ann Arbor by the The Michigan Municipal League (MML). The league is trying to enlist the support of cities located on three Amtrak routes for railroad initiatives.

Outcome: The resolution expressing support of rail transportation was passed unanimously.

Rail Transportation: Public Comment

Jim Mogensen addressed the council at the conclusion of its meeting on the topic of transportation. Several years ago, he said, the Federal Transit Administration had issued a report on the civil rights implications of rail versus bus service, he said. There is no plan for what happens to people who live on MacArthur Boulevard or other areas of Ypsilanti, he said.

There’s an Aug. 3 ballot initiative in Ypsilanti to fund transportation, he said, but it “doesn’t count” – the state attorney general has ruled that the proposal must be voted on during a general election, not a primary election. Still, he said, if it fails, people might come to the conclusion that the voters have spoken.

In the June 23, 2010 AATA board meeting packet, he said, there was an indication that $75,000 of Ann Arbor millage money had been allocated for the commuter express service to Ann Arbor from Chelsea and Canton. What, he asked, are the demographic differences between Canton and Ypsilanti? This is something that will “vex this community, if we don’t get it right,” Mogensen cautioned.

He noted that the AATA had a large public engagement process going on, but feared that we would find ourselves in a situation where people don’t understand the impact that it will have if there is no bus service to Ypsilanti. He noted that everybody adjusts and everybody will try to figure out how to cope, and stressed that he is not against rail service. But there has to be both rail as well as bus service for those who use public transportation to get around, he suggested.

Other Comment and Communications

A variety of topics were brought up during the meeting.

Communication: Design Guidelines

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that the committee working on the design guidelines as part of the A2D2 downtown rezoning process was on schedule, had really gelled as a group and might even finish its work sooner than expected.

Communication: Streetlights

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reported on a field trip at night he’d made with neighbors of the Brockman area to assess the initial result of a city program to deenergize some streetlights in order to save money. The measure was approved as part of the city’s FY 2011 budget, adopted in May 2010, and is expected to save around $120,000. The reaction of neighbors, Taylor said, was uniform: “They did not care for it.”

Communication: Sidewalk Repair

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reads the city’s public service ad about the sidewalk repair program from the Ann Arbor Observer.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) read aloud a letter from a somewhat dissatisfied constituent who had repaired their sidewalks in accordance with the city’s sidewalk repair program, but whose neighbors had not all complied.

Kunselman asked what the status of the sidewalk repair program is, noting that the city’s advertising in The Ann Arbor Observer seemed to provide conflicting information about when it ends – 2009 or 2010. Kunselman noted that citizens who complied with the city’s requirements to replace defective slabs are wondering why “scofflaws aren’t being held accountable.”

In response to Kunselman’s query, city administrator Roger Fraser indicated that the follow-up is in process.

Communication: Misc. from the City Administrator

City administrator Roger Fraser told the council that the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) would be hearing a presentation on Argo Dam at its Tuesday, July 20 meeting. The consent agreement with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment, as well as the request for proposals on repair and reconstruction of the earthen berm, would be discussed, Fraser said.

Fraser also gave an update on the city hall construction site. The DDA Fifth and Division streetscape project had come through the section of Fifth where the building is located and improvement in appearance is significant, he said. Interior work on the new building is continuing, as well as work in the basement of the old Larcom building, he reported.

Comment: Resolution Against Arizona’s Immigration Law

During public commentary reserved time, Joseph Miriani criticized the council’s resolution, passed at its last meeting on July 6, which opposed the law recently passed by the state of Arizona. The Arizona law requires local law enforcement officials to investigate the immigration status of a person, when there is reasonable suspicion they are in the country unlawfully. Miriani noted that the law explicitly prohibits racial profiling, and noted that there’s a difference between people who legally immigrate – like Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – and those who enter the county illegally.

Comment: Partridge

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for 18th District state Senate seat. He called for a “Washtenaw Promise” that would assure middle- and lower-income residents that they would be protected. He called on the city council to address significant issues like job creation, affordable housing, transportation, health care and education.

During his communications time, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that Partridge’s comments had provoked a thought – there’s been a group studying the Washtenaw Avenue corridor with respect to transportation and development. The group includes Eric Mahler of the city’s planning commission, Derezinski said, as well as Washtenaw County planner Anya Dale, who was recently appointed to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

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

Next council meeting: Aug. 5, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Cecile Green blows air through a metal tube to fan a fire in an earth oven at the July 19 Re-Skilling Festival, organized by Transition Ann Arbor. Green taught a class in how to build these ovens, which are made of clay. She described this one as cupcake-sized. (Photo by the writer.)

“I want to demystify canning and make you feel powerful!” quipped Molly Notarianni, holding up a Mason jar full of jam. She was speaking to a group crammed into a room at the Rudolf Steiner High School, who’d come to learn about canning, oven building, medicinal plants and other skills of self-reliance.

This day-long event wasn’t just a dabbling into traditional domestic arts. Saturday’s Re-Skilling Festival – which drew about 150 people to Steiner’s bucolic campus on Pontiac Trail – fits into a broader effort, one that aims to strengthen the local economy and gird the community for a time of dramatically reduced resources.

Called Transition Ann Arbor, it’s led by a small group of residents who aren’t elected officials, aren’t business leaders, aren’t even all among the usual suspects of community activists. So who are they, and what exactly are they doing?

Transition Ann Arbor: The Beginnings

The Chronicle first heard of this effort late last year, as word spread that a Transition Towns training session would be held here in January. Though its focus is local, this is an international movement, started in Kinsale, Ireland by Rob Hopkins. He was teaching a permaculture course there several years ago and assigned a class project: Design a plan to move away from dependence on oil, and create a local culture of self-reliance. That project has now spawned initiatives in over two dozen communities worldwide, including Ann Arbor.

About 50 people turned out for the January session, which was facilitated by Michael Brownlee and Lynette Marie Hanthorn, who lead a similar effort in Boulder, Colo. Five people who attended that training – Jeannine Palms, Jeanne Mackey, Lisa Dugdale, Nate Ayers and Jeannine LaPrad  – formed a local “initiating group,” and since then have been chipping away at a Transition Towns plan that’s structured after popular 12-step programs, but focused on society’s “oil addiction.”

The assumption behind Transition Towns is that we’re reaching a convergence of three crises: 1) a moment when oil production can’t meet demand, forcing us to confront a future of dramatically lower energy use; 2) climate change, which requires a drastic reduction in carbon emissions; and 3) worldwide economic instability. The Transition Towns movement is all about preparing communities to retool for this future, and the 12-step program is an outline of how to do that.

Participants in a Transition Town meeting in May at the Ann Arbor Friends meeting house. (Photo by the writer.)

Understanding the 12 steps was the focus of a May 27 event The Chronicle attended, organized by the initiating group at the Ann Arbor Friends Meeting house on Hill Street. That’s where we first met Palms and Mackey, two of the group’s five members. When Palms, a preschool teacher who’s long been interested in sustainability issues, told us when she came across the Transition Towns concept “it seemed so right on.”

About a year ago, she joined a book discussion that Sustainable Ypsi was holding, focused on the Transition Handbook. Mackey, an instructional designer at the University of Michigan, eventually joined the discussion group, too. (Ypsilanti has its own Transition Town effort under way as well. Their initiating group meets at 10:30 a.m. on the fourth Friday of each month, at Beezy’s Cafe.)

The 12 Steps

So what are the 12 steps that Transition Ann Arbor is following, more or less? The steps are described in detail on the Transition Ann Arbor website, and the YouTube videos are posted there, featuring Hopkins talking about each step. In the simplest form, they are:

1. Set up a steering group (also called “initiating group”) and design its demise from the outset.
2. Raise awareness.
3. Lay the foundations.
4. Organize a “Great Unleashing.”
5. Form working groups.
6. Use open space technology.
7. Develop visible practical manifestations of the project.
8. Facilitate the “Great Reskilling.”
9. Build a bridge to local government.
10. Honor the elders.
11. Let it go where it wants to go.
12. Create an Energy Descent Plan.

There is certainly structure here, but there’s also a lot of latitude. That approach is actually part of the plan: Step #11 – “Let it go where it wants to go.” With the small group who gathered in May, Palms emphasized flexibility.

The program included a Q&A. One of the questions was how the Transition Towns model, which was first launched in a town of 6,000 people, could work in a city the size of Ann Arbor, with more than 100,000. Palms conceded that it might evolve into something different here, though she noted that there were Transition Towns in larger cities too, like Los Angeles. Maybe it will evolve into smaller neighborhood groups, she said.

A Transition Ann Arbor video viewing at Arbor Brewing Company in June. (Photo by the writer.)

The May meeting was one of four held that month to “raise awareness” (Step #2), with a repeat of that cycle of meetings in June, held at Arbor Brewing Company.

Also in June, three members of the initiating group – Palms, Mackey and Nate Ayers – addressed Step #4 (“Build a bridge to local government”) by meeting with city staff, Mayor John Hieftje, Anya Dale of the city’s environmental commission, and planning commissioner Kirk Westphal. In introducing the session, Matt Naud – the city’s environmental coordinator – said the environmental commission has a sustainability group that’s interested in these same issues. “I’ve always said, if residents are interested in working on something, we’re interested in supporting it,” Naud said.

Nate Ayers of Transition Ann Arbor gave a presentation about their efforts, emphasizing that “very much so, this is a social experiment.” A large part of the movement is focused on “relocalization”: 1) expanding local food, energy and goods production; 2) developing a local currency, like the Berkshire region in Massachusetts has done with its BerkShares system (or on a smaller scale, the local Dexter-Miller Community); 3) reducing energy consumption while improving environmental and social conditions; and 4) be a model community for these kinds of changes.

During a meeting last month at city hall, Nate Ayers of Transition Ann Arbor and Anya Dale of the Ann Arbor Environmental Commission listen to Kirk Westphal, a planning commissioner. (Photo by the writer.)

“I can’t really think of a better place than Ann Arbor to be a model,” said Ayers, an educator with the Ann Arbor Public Schools and founder of the Burns Park Green Energy Association.

In a discussion following the talk, Naud said the Transition Ann Arbor effort dovetails nicely with the 10 environmental goals that city council approved in 2007. Those goals include achieving local food sufficiency and 100% renewable energy. Naud offered to help by providing data and information – as an example, he said the city’s recently completed tree inventory included the locations of street trees with edible fruit, and those with medicinal uses, which might prove useful.

Hieftje offered to propose a resolution at city council supporting Transition Ann Arbor.

There was discussion about how people might react to the effort, with Naud pointing out that some residents might resist using a local currency or object to the assumption that oil production has reached its maximum supply – a concept known as “peak oil.” It’s important, he said, that people can get involved at different levels.

Jeannine Palms, a Transition Ann Arbor organizer who attended this city hall meeting, agreed that there could be different levels of buy-in. She said people could liken it to insurance – they’re preparing for self-sufficiency in case the crisis occurs.

Molly Notarianni, who manages the Ann Arbor Farmers Market, led a canning class at the July 19 Re-Skilling Festival, organized by Transition Ann Arbor. (Photo by the writer.)

What’s Next?

Sunday’s Re-Skilling Festival (Steps #8 and #10) was enough of a success that organizers hope to do a similar event in the fall. About 20 instructors covered topics that included keeping backyard chickens, darning socks, spinning and weaving, making medicine from plants, and heating water with solar power.

Transition Ann Arbor organizers are also forming work groups (Step #5) – the first two will likely be on food and energy, Ayers said. When the work groups take over, the initiating group will dissolve (Step #1).

Meanwhile, they’ll be working to get more people involved, and holding more events to raise awareness (Step #2). All of this is leading up to the “Great Unleashing” (Step #4), an event to mark a critical mass of involvement from the community. That will likely happen in six months or so, organizers say.

But nothing is set in stone, and the transition could occur in any number of ways. As Ayers told city staff in June, “Any sense of control is illusory.”

Looking north from the southwest corner of Main and William streets in downtown Ann Arbor at 8:30 p.m. on Saturday. Can you spot the evidence that Earth Hour is taking place? (Hint: Look closely at the street lights.)

This year, Earth Hour fell on Saturday between 8:30 to 9:30 p.m., so The Chronicle decided to head downtown and see how much impact this international event was having in Ann Arbor.

It was hard to see the dark.

Street lights were off along Main Street between William and Huron (three blocks), on Liberty between Main and Ashley (two blocks) and, somewhat oddly, only on the south side of Liberty between Fourth and Main. What this seemed to reveal more than anything is how bright the downtown area is without street lights.

We covered as much ground as possible during the 60 minutes of Earth Hour, an event designed to heighten awareness of global warming. In most places, it seemed like well-lit business as usual – certainly nothing as dramatic as what some cities around the world witnessed. Here’s a chronological sampling of what we saw.

8:40 p.m.: Lights on at the Ann Arbor District Library's downtown branch on Saturday night. The library closes at 6 p.m. on Saturdays.

8:45 p.m.: This Fox News van was generating its own light as it sat parked on South State in front of the University of Michigan Museum of Art. The news crew was on hand to cover UMMA's re-opening to the public, a 24-hour event which started at 6 p.m. Saturday.

8:50 p.m.: Looking into the new wing of the University of Michigan Museum of Art. The public opening of the museum's new expansion drew lots of people – and light.

9:11 p.m.: The entrance to UM's School of Natural Resources and Environment.

9:21 p.m.: Lights on at the Ann Arbor News building at Washington and Division, and at the 411 Lofts apartment building behind it.

9:25 p.m.: Looking west down Washington Street.

By this time it was cold and drizzling rain. We headed west toward Main, then north toward Huron. Just as we were wondering how many minutes remained in the hour, the street lights on Main flashed back on – 9:30 p.m., and Earth Hour was over for 2009.

Laura Russello, executive director at Michigan Peaceworks, presented background on the collaboration between the nonprofit she leads and Veterans for Peace on the Iraq Water Project.

Ann Arbor City Council meeting (March 2, 2009): Whatever chance for controversy that might have been present in the Ann Arbor’s City Council meeting agenda on Monday evening was eschewed in favor of values statements. These expressions of values were reflected in many of the agenda items themselves. We’ve organized our account of the meeting in terms of values related to the following topics: water, the arts, land, energy, history, and democracy.

Ann Arbor Value: Water

Iraq Water Project (Clean Water): As a part of the section of the agenda called “Introductions” that starts every council meeting, Laura Russello, executive director at Michigan Peaceworks, presented background on the collaboration between the nonprofit she leads and Veterans for Peace, who joined together to work on the Iraq Water Project. As a result of the destruction of much of Iraq’s infrastructure during the Iraq war, Russello said that only 1 in 3 Iraqis have access to clean water. The goal of the project is to restore access to clean water. So far the national organization has raised $200,000 to repair six water treatment facilities in Iraq, Russello said.

She explained that the goal of Michigan Peaceworks is to help involve the entire community in the project led by Veterans for Peace so that it becomes a “human-to-human” issue. To that end, a variety of events had been organized, continued Russello, including a showing of the movie “Flow” at Michigan Theater, a rally on the University of Michigan campus, op-ed pieces written for the Ann Arbor News, with door-to-door canvassing planned.

Members had a poster depicting a water filter of the sort that the Iraq Water Project is raising money to send to Iraq. It consists of a sediment filter, followed by a carbon filter, with sterilization achieved through an ultraviolet bulb. About 30 of the units have been sent so far.

After presentations made during the “Introductions,” councilmembers sometimes ask questions to elicit more detail from the presenters. Mayor John Hiefte stated that he knew something about water filters and queried Russello about the filter’s processing rate. Eight gallons a minute, she said.

Russello asked for council’s support of the resolution on their agenda, saying that an endorsement from city council would help lend the local effort credibility.

Later, during council deliberations on the resolution, Tony Derezinski  thanked Michigan Peaceworks and Veterans for Peace from his perspective as “a veteran of an earlier unpopular war” and said that he was pleased to support it. Hieftje said he really appreciated the fact that they came and talked to him about the project, saying that it can have an immediate impact on people’s lives.

Outcome: The resolution, which featured a “resolved” clause commending Michigan Peaceworks and Veterans for Peace for their work on the Iraq Water Project, was passed unanimously.

Dreiseitl Project for Municipal Center (Storm Water): During public commentary reserved time at the beginning of the meeting, Margaret Parker, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, spoke to the agenda item on  the professional services agreement with Herbert Dreiseitl to create a piece of public art for the new municipal building, which will integrate with the building’s storm water control system. The cost of the preliminary design is $77,000, which was on the agenda for authorization, with the project itself expected to cost around $700,000.

At a recent art commission meeting, some commissioners had expressed concern about some lack of support for the Dreiseitl project among the public. At its October 2008 meeting, there was some surprise expressed by commissioners about the large amount of money available to fund the project, as well as the rapid time line for the project’s selection. At a Sunday night council caucus in early February, Marcia Higgins had also expressed surprise at how much money had accumulated through the one-percent for art program, prompting her to wonder if a half-percent of all capital projects would be sufficient to meet the program’s goals.

Margaret Parker: Parker thanked the city council for its planning by putting the percent for art program in place and said that the Dreiseitl proposal was the first project to be funded through the program. She then gave some brief background on the mechanics of the funding, including the fact that funds from all capital projects that feed into the program can be pooled as long as they’re related to the same funding source. The funds need not be spent in the same year that they accumulate, she said, but they can’t be spend on anything other than public art.

She then began to walk council through the steps that led to the decision to commission Dreiseitl to create a storm water-based project for the new municipal center [which breaks ground in a few weeks, with preparations already underway around the Larcom Building.] First, she said, it was unanimously decided that the new municipal center was the place to focus time and funding. Second, the task force, consisting of many members of the community not on the art commission, had dtermined where in the municipal center the project would be sited. The site selected was the rain garden. With that, Parker’s time was up (three minutes is the time limit for public commentary), and she left the podium saying that she hoped council had read their “little packets and make the right decision.”

Councilmember Margie Teall said she was excited by the fact that Dreiseitl had agreed to do the project. Councilmember Carsten Hohnke said he’d seen a presentation when Dreiseitl was in Ann Arbor last year for the Huron River Watershed Council’s State of the Huron conference. He said it would bring storm water control out into the open and would thus be both educational as well as aesthetically pleasing art.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Ann Arbor Value: Art

State Funding: In voting to fund the design of Dreiseitl’s storm water-based art installation, council gave a thumbs up to both water and art. But it spent a fair chunk of time on the subject of just plain art. The topic was first mooted by Shary Brown during public commentary reserved time, who encouraged city council to pass the resolution on its agenda calling on Gov. Jennifer Granholm to maintain Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs funding at a level of $6.1 million in fiscal year 2010. The funding is in jeopardy as the state looks for ways to cover budget shortfalls.

Shary Brown: Brown introduced herself as director of the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair, which will be 50 years old this summer. The organization also  sponsors the Townie Party preceding the fairs. She pointed out that the art fairs draw .5 million visitors to Ann Arbor each year, who spend $5 million on hotels, $25.3 million on dining and $48.7 million on shopping. It would be short-sighted, she said, for the state to cut funding to the arts.

Kenneth Fischer: Fischer introduced himself as president of the University Musical Society and a proud member of Tony Derezinski’s ward (Ward 2). He said he was there to support the resolution supporting arts funding. He drew a connection between state funding and federal funding, saying that when the federal government looks at state funding levels and and sees no money, it has a negative impact on the likelihood of federal funding. [The idea is that the feds prefer to allocate monies where there is matching local support.]

Fischer recounted how the Michigan Economic Development Corp. had used the 2006 visit from the Royal Skakespeare Co. to leverage the arts to entertain out-of-state CEOs. He cited an assessment by Mary Kramer of Crain’s Detroit Business, who had written that the MEDC had “hit a homerun” with its investment.

Councilmember Teall said she was happy to see the resolution come before council and that she hoped it helped change some minds in Lansing. Councilmember Hohnke encouraged the public to visit www.a2artsalliance.org and to look at the economic impact study to familiarize themselves with the impact of arts on the economy. It’s not direct, he allowed, but it’s significant.

Mayor Hieftje highlighted the language in the resolution, ticking through points like 2,600 jobs that are tied to the nonprofit arts sector and the $57 million in household income that the arts generate.

Councilmember Sandi Smith said that she did not envy Gov. Granholm’s position. She said that Ann Arbor was having difficulty, and in Lansing there would be a similar diffiulty. They’re going to have to go line by line, she said, and the arts seems easy to cut. She said it was ironic, because the state was giving money specifically for the arts through the Cool Cities program a few years ago. Continuing to fund the arts, she said, was going to help Michigan go forward.

Councilmember Stephen Rapundalo urged everyone who cares to put in a call, letter or email. [The website mentioned by Hohnke above provides a form for contacting Governor Granholm.] Rapundalo suggested contacting state Senate majority leader Tom George, saying that there are those who see the benefit from continuing to fund the arts. He said we need to get behind those folks.

Councilmember Mike Anglin stated his support of the resolution. He mentioned that the University of Michigan was going to be re-opening its art museum and urged citizens to contact their legislators.

Councilmember Derezinski said he saw some wonderful people at Monday’s meeting in support of the arts, like Margaret Parker and  Ken Fischer, a “resident of my ward” – an allusion to Fischer’s earlier statment that he was a proud member of Derezinski’s ward, which drew a few chuckles. Derezinski stated that the arts were a wonderful component of Ann Arbor that makes it unique.

Councilmember Sabra Briere was fairly brief. When they send this resolution off to Lansing, she said, they should remember that bread feeds our body, and roses feed our soul. Art, she said, is the roses. Briere was kind enough to send along to the The Chronicle the full text of the poem to which her remark alluded, “Bread and Roses” by James Oppenheim, published December, 1911 in American Magazine:

As we come marching, marching in the beauty of the day,
A million darkened kitchens, a thousand mill lofts gray,
Are touched with all the radiance that a sudden sun discloses,
For the people hear us singing: “Bread and roses! Bread and roses!”

As we come marching, marching, we battle too for men,
For they are women’s children, and we mother them again.
Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes;
Hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses!

As we come marching, marching, unnumbered women dead
Go crying through our singing their ancient cry for bread.
Small art and love and beauty their drudging spirits knew.
Yes, it is bread we fight for – but we fight for roses, too!

As we come marching, marching, we bring the greater days.
The rising of the women means the rising of the race.
No more the drudge and idler – ten that toil where one reposes,
But a sharing of life’s glories: Bread and roses! Bread and roses!

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Ann Arbor Value: Energy

Burning Coal: Council had on its agenda a resolution stating the city of Ann Arbor’s opposition to the continued burning of coal to generate electricity. The resolution was recommended by the city’s energy commission, and public commentary included remarks from the chair of that committee, Robert Black, who asked for council’s support of it.

Robert Black: Black introduced himself as the chair of Ann Arbor’s energy commission and advocated for the elimination of the burning of coal to generate electricity. He stressed that there was a certain urgency to the issue, and said that the council’s stand was needed because of Ann Arbor’s role as leader. Ann Arbor  is being watched, said Black.  He pointed out that Dave Konkle, until recently the energy coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor, was in Washington D.C. working with international organizations on the issue. Black said that $20 billion goes out of the state to pay for energy.

Mayor Hieftje led off council deliberations by saying he believes that no more coal-fired plants should be built, and that there was no such thing as “clean coal.” The increased levels of mercury in Great Lakes fish, Hieftje said, were in large part due to the burning of coal. Given that Michigan has the 14th best wind resource in the country, Hieftje concluded that there was no need for the seven new coal-fired plants that were currently proposed.

Councilmember Briere noted briefly that the other side of burning coal is mining coal, which is itself a problem.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Earth Day, Earth Hour: Council considered a resolution endorsing Earth Hour, an initiative from the World Wildlife Fund that  asks all citizens, businesses, government agencies, and commercial and non-commercial establishments to turn off all non-essential lighting for one hour beginning at 8:30 p.m. on Sat., March 28, 2009.

Councilmember Smith noted that the time specified was local time, and that Earth Hour would move progressively around the world. She said that it would include streetlights on Main Street plus the lights in city hall.

Councilmember Briere noted that the more lights that go off, the better the chance to see the sky.

Councilmember Marcia Higgins was concerned about the practical side of turning street lights off.  “Are we turning them all off? Have merchants been made aware?” The answers seemed to be “No” and “Yes,” respectively.

Councilmember Hohnke talked about the Earth Hour effort reflecting a “global vote” for global climate treaty negotiations in Copenhagen in December 2009. [The Chronicle learned later that Hohnke is pursuing the possibility, via city staff, of getting data from DTE to measure the impact of Earth Hour locally.]

Mayor Hieftje said that when the lights did get turned off on Main Street for Earth Hour, it would represent an even further reduction from the already small amounts of  energy used  by the LED lighting system.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Ann Arbor Value: Land

Greenbelt: The city’s Greenbelt program stems from a millage passed by voters in 2003, which raised funds to purchase additional parkland and to preserve land within the greenbelt district. A central strategy in land preservation is through the purchase of development rights on working family farms. Before Monday’s council meeting, around 750 acres had been protected through the Greenbelt program. Tom Partridge is one of the program’s critics. During his turns at public commentary, he often calls for the money that is spent on greenbelt acquisitions to be spent on other areas instead. With a purchase of development rights for 146 acres through the Greenbelt program on council’s agenda, Partridge rose to comment, and revealed that he has not changed his mind on the question.

Tom Partridge: Partridge reaffirmed the need to stimulate the economy in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, and southeast Michigan by taking steps to access federal stimulus money and other public funds. He called for directing public money away from buying up farmland, instead putting it towards a transportation system. He also called for reform of the general practice that puts conditions on certain pools of funding, restricting their use on capital projects as opposed to operational expenses.

Councilmember Hohnke said that the acquisition on the agenda meant that more than 400 acres of operating farmland between Ann Arbor and Dexter had been preserved. He described the acquisition as “going to the sweetspot for the vision of the greenbelt, and emphasized that Ann Arbor taxpayers contribute less than 50% of the cost, with the remaining percentage coming from federal taxes and Webster Township.

Mayor Hieftje put the land acquisition in the context of local agriculture becoming increasingly important.

Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Plastic Bags: Council had on its agenda for the third time a proposed ordinance that would ban the use of plastic bags by retail establishments – the bags with handles used to bag groceries, for example. One of the reasons for such a ban that has been cited by the proposed ordinance’s sole sponsor, Councilmember Stephen Rapundalo, is the litter stemming from such bags. As partly a litter issue, we group it in the “Land” section of the meeting report.

Rapundalo moved for a postponement to June 1 to allow city staff to have a little more time to take in information and to have a discussion with retailers. Rapundalo asked Bryan Weinert, the solid-waste coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor, to give an update on staff efforts. Weinert said that on March 22-23 staff would be meeting with retailers to get feedback on the already-drafted ordinance. He said there would be information on city’s website and a public information survey, acknowledging that there was some controversy surrounding the issue.  Weinert said that based on feedback from the public and merchants, staff would bring forward a recommendation. Weinert did not state what the range of possibilities for such a recommendation would be.

Outcome: Postponed for a third time by unanimous vote.

Solid Waste: As it relates to space in landfills, we include two resolutions regarding the new commercial recycling program in the section on “Land” values. The first of these resolutions was for a waste collection contract with Waste Management of Michigan not to exceed $900,000 per year, and the publication of the ordinance laying out the new franchise system for commercial recycling.

Councilmember Teall, who had worked on the development of the new commercial recycling program, called Bryan Weinert, the city’s solid-waste coordinator, to the podium. Weinert explained that the Waste Management contract addressed the refuse collection side of recycling.

Queried by Councilmember Higgins, Weinert said that to combine the recycling into a single stream where paper and other material was mixed together (for commercial or residential) would require upgrades to the materials recovery center, but that such an approach could eventually be rolled out and was a part of the solid waste plan.

Higgins said she’d received some calls from constituents concerned that moving to a national contract would push smaller operators out of business. Weinert said that an inventory of dumpsters was done and that there were only a very few dumpsters that were handled by anybody but the top three or four haulers. Higgins was given the assurance that businesses like 1-800-GOT-JUNK would continue to do what they do.

During deliberations on the ordinance, Councilmember Leigh Greden said that he thought it was amazing that in a fiscally challenging environment, the city was able to move forward with the commercial recycling initiative. He reiterated a sentiment he’d expressed at an earlier council meeting, when he said that the commercial recycling program was “one of the hallmark things we’ll do this year.” He concluded by saying, “This is an amazing feat.”

Mayor Hieftje said that the issue of low tipping fees in Michigan would need to be addressed, because that was what allowed Canada to dump garbage in Michigan cheaply.

Outcome: Unanimously passed.

R4C Zoning in the Central Area: The ordinance before council called for a direction to city planning staff to begin looking at zoning nonconformities in the central area of Ann Arbor and to work with the public to provide council with recommendations for potential ordinance changes to the residential districts within the the central area. It was brought for consideration by Councilmember Derezinski, who is council’s representative on the planning commission.

Councilmember Higgins expressed some concern that this new direction – together with the A2D2 initiative and the re-evaluation of area height and placement outside the central area –  meant that every piece of zoning legislation in the city was now under review. She wondered about the impact on staff and how the timing of the various initiatives would come together.

Jayne Miller, community area services director, said that for A2D2, there would be a council working session on Monday, March 9, 2009. At council’s March 16 meeting there would be a resolution to begin public process on area, height and placement outside the downtown, Miller said. Based on staff committments, Miller said she thought a committee could be assembled in the summer with work to begin in the fall.

For the work on area, height and placement, Mayor Hieftje announced that each ward needed a resident as a representative on the committee, and that councilmembers needed to identify a representative from their wards to join a collection of representatives from planning comission, city council, and commercial property owners. Hieftje asked councilmembers to move with haste, because the committee would be established at the next council meeting.

Outcome: Unanimously passed.

Ann Arbor Value: History

Ann Arbor District Library: The evening began with a presentation from the AADL about a historical collection of minutes from city council meetings dating from the early part of the 20th century. The Chronicle has already published a more detailed account of the historical online minutes project.

Women: In her communications to her council colleagues, Sabra Briere noted that March is Women’s History Month and briefly called their attention to two women: (i) Virginia Watts, who in 1878 was the first African-American woman to enroll at the University of Michigan, graduating in 1885, and (ii) Ella Bareis Prochnow of Ann Arbor, who in 1930 was the first woman in Michigan to own and manage an automobile dealership.

Ann Arbor Value: Democracy

Citizen Participation: On council’s agenda was a revision to the recently passed citizen participation ordinance, which requires developers to meet with residents in the vicinity of a proposed project early in the planning phase. The ordinance as originally passed allowed for no exceptions, and the revision called for exceptions to be granted for  single-family residential annexation and zoning petitions of less than two acres. During public commentary, Tom Partridge criticized what he saw as an attempt to curtail public participation.

Thomas Partridge: Partridge declared that he opposed the enactment of the ordinance and that he was opposed to all similar ordinances that curtailed public access. He said that it had been a theme of Hieftje’s administration to limit public commentary and to take up matters in closed-door sessions on subjects that should be laid out in detail. He called on council to enact an ethics policy for city government that addresses access by the public to public hearings. He said that public commentary should be possible without requesting the name, address, phone number and topic of speakers.

In the minimal deliberations on the revisions to the ordinance, Mayor Hieftje called the ordinance itself “revolutionary in Michigan,” saying that it goes a long way towards the goal of including the public. He stressed that the revision to the ordinance that night was  just a tweak.

Miscellaneous

Stadium Bridges: The topic of the safety of the Stadium Boulevard bridge over State Street warrants separate coverage, as opposed to relegation to a “Miscellaneous” section. It’s worth noting, however, that at council’s meeting, Sue McCormick, the city’s public services director, gave council an update on the situation with the bridge, which she said was being monitored closely. We hope to be able to provide more details as the city reaches what McCormick described as a “decision point” in the next 30 days about proceeding with a repair or waiting for funding to materialize for a complete reconstruction. For some limited coverage of the topic, see this previous Chronicle article on the bridge.

Michigan Inn: City attorney Stephen Postema announced that the former Michigan Inn on Jackson Road could see demolition this month.

Present: Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Rapundalo, Leigh Greden, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, Mike Anglin, John Hieftje

Next Council Meeting: Monday, March 16, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. Note: Council will be holding a working session on March 9, 2009 at its usual time and location, to discuss the downtown plan and the A2D2 zoning, recently passed by planning commission. [confirm date]

Ann Arbor City Councilman Stephen Kunselman, right, works his day job as one of the organizers of this year's UM Energy Fest. He was talking with Rick Richter, who coincidentally is the second person in Ann Arbor awarded a permit to keep backyard chickens. That takes energy, too.

The sun was out for Tuesday’s 13th annual Energy Fest on the University of Michigan Diag, an event that drew students, faculty and other passers-by with the allure of giveaways (who doesn’t want another reusable grocery bag?) and information.

The centerpiece of the Energy Fest was the distinctive yellow Solar Car, parked prominently in the middle of the Diag.

Jeff Rogers, a senior majoring in computer science, has worked on the Solar Car Team four years, and was part of the crew that won this year’s North American Solar Challenge, a 3,862-km race from Texas to Calgary. His job was to ride in the lead support vehicle, monitoring data on a computer that was fed in from the solar car.

The data was important for both strategy and safety, he explained. With lithium-based batteries, “if you abuse them, they’ll explode.”

Jeff Rogers, left, part of the UM Solar Car Team, talks with Allan Afuah, a professor with the Ross School of Business.

The Sustainable and Renewable Energy Student Council also had a booth. The group was formed by UM students interested in creating sustainable energy solutions for developing countries, said Jojo Amonoo, a master’s degree student in mechanical engineering. They’re also pushing for more renewable energy use in the U.S., said Randy Schiffer, a sophomore in the nuclear division of the electrical engineering department.

This year’s Energy Fest – organized by UM’s Utilities & Plant Engineering department – is part of the university-wide Initiative on Energy Science, Technology and Policy, established by UM Vice President for Research Steve Forrest. That broader effort also includes a themed semester this fall for students in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, who’ll be studying “human and social behaviors associated with energy demand,” according to the university.

Homecoming week, from Sept. 29- Oct. 4, gets in on the sustainable energy theme, too, with this year’s motto being, “Go Blue Live Green.” (But not Sparty green.)