In addition, city of Ann Arbor canoe livery trips between Argo and Gallup were halted on Thursday through Friday. Water samples will be taken to determine water quality, and a decision about whether to re-open canoe livery operations will be made by 8 a.m. on Saturday, Aug. 31, according to the city.

The city also has contacted the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality about this situation, in compliance with regulatory requirements.

There is no indication of how much volume was discharged into the river.

The city had reported a previous incident this summer that occurred on June 27, 2013, when heavy rains briefly overwhelmed the city’s sanitary sewage system and resulted in 10,000 gallons of untreated sewage flowing into the Huron River. The city has separate sanitary and stormwater sewer systems, but the sanitary system receives stormwater flow from cracks in the system as well as footing drains that were connected to the sanitary system as part of standard construction techniques in the 1970s. Incidents like the one on June 27 led to the creating of the city’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program in the early 2000s. Parts of that FDD program are currently suspended as the city is conducting a study of wet weather flows in the sanitary system.

Updated: The liveries were re-opened, as of 8 a.m , Saturday Aug. 31, 2013 according to city of Ann Arbor staff.

Of the Ann Arbor city council’s roughly 3-hour meeting, about a quarter of the time was taken up by deliberations on changes to the council’s rules (dark blue wedge), some of which would have affected public speaking time. Total public speaking time at the meeting (red wedge) was about 21 minutes, or 11% of the meeting. (Chart by The Chronicle based on time stamps of live updates filed from the meeting.)

About a quarter of that time was spent in deliberations on changes to the council’s own rules. That included a proposal to reduce the length of public speaking turns from three minutes to two minutes. After voting 10-1 – over the lone dissent of Margie Teall (Ward 4) – to eliminate the shortening of public speaking turns, the council discussed a number of the other proposed changes that had been recommended by the council’s rules committee.

Those changes include a shortening of councilmember speaking turns, adding public commentary to the council’s work sessions, moving nominations and appointments to a spot earlier on the agenda, and prohibiting the use of mobile devices for texting or phoning at the council table.

As councilmembers recognized that they would not be able to find their way to a clear consensus on the rules changes until they had longer deliberations, the council decided to postpone the item until its first meeting in September – which this year falls on Sept. 3.

So the council delayed launching itself off the lip of the legislative half-pipe to change its own internal rules. However, councilmembers took the advice of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) when they voted on the construction contract for a new skatepark: “Just go for it!” The unanimous vote on a $1,031,592 contract with Krull Construction came after some scrutiny led by Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Her questioning was based on the project’s additional cost, compared to its original budget.

The originally approved budget for the project was $800,000 – though the expectation was that it would cost about $1 million. The total budget now – including the construction contract, 10% contingency and $89,560 design contract – is $1,224,311, or $424,311 higher than the originally budgeted $800,000. Funds to pay for the skatepark include a $400,000 grant from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, $300,000 from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund, and $100,00 raised by the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, which paid for the skatepark’s design. This particular effort by the Friends dates back to 2005.

An item added to the agenda the same day as the meeting led to considerable discussion about the relationship between the city and the University of Michigan. The council had failed on May 13 to approve a right-of-way occupancy for the university to install conduits under Tappan Street. An early departure from that meeting by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) contributed in part to the council’s inability to achieve an eight-vote majority.

Whether an eight-vote majority is needed is the source of friction between the city and UM. Under the city charter, an eight-vote majority is required for the council to approve transactions involving an interest in land. The purpose of the conduits under Tappan Street is to connect a new emergency generator to the Lawyers Club buildings at 551 S. State St. The Lawyers Club and the generator are located on opposite sides of the street. The university’s view is that the agreement needs to convey an interest in land, something the city attorney’s office disagrees with. The council’s resolution approved on July 15 directs the city staff to renegotiate with UM.

The other item on the agenda receiving at least 15 minutes of discussion was one that granted a fee waiver for events held in Liberty Plaza. That action was prompted by public protests at previous council meetings about the possibility of charging a fee to the church that hosts Pizza in the Park – a homelessness outreach program that distributes food and other humanitarian aid.

The council handled a raft of other items, including three different contracts related to protecting the local environment. Two of the contracts include an educational component – one related to the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF), and the other to stormwater management. The third concerned monitoring the city’s now-closed landfill at Platt and Ellsworth.

The council also handled several other items related to stormwater management. Three of the items involved street reconstruction – on Stone School Road, Forest Avenue, and multiple streets in the Springwater subdivision. A fourth item approved by the council was a contract for tree planting, which will be paid for from the city’s stormwater fund.

Among other items, the council also approved the distribution of $1.2 million in human services funding to various nonprofits that do work under contract with the city.

In non-voting business, the council received an update from chief of police John Seto. He reported that through the first six months of the year, Part 1 crimes – the most serious types of offenses – are down 10% compared to last year in the city, while overall crime is down 7.5%. Seto also reported that the police department is analyzing the initial data collection from the electronic activity logs for officers.

During public commentary, the council heard from advocates for racial equity, who called for the council to take action in response to the not-guilty verdict in Florida’s Trayvon Martin shooting case.

Council Rules

The council considered adopting amendments to its own internal rules. The items had been postponed twice previously.

Highlights of the proposed rules changes include adding public commentary to council work sessions. The proposal before the council on July 15 also included a shortening of public speaking turns – from three minutes to two minutes across all types of public speaking. Those types include general commentary, public hearings, and reserved time.

The length of councilmember speaking turns was also proposed to be shortened. The proposal was to reduce total time from eight minutes to five minutes. In more detail, the two turns they get per item would be reduced from five to three minutes and from three to two minutes.

A “frequent flyer” rule would prevent people from signing up for reserved time at the start of a meeting two meetings in a row.

Other changes included one that would put nominations and appointments to boards and commissions at the start of the agenda, before the council’s voting business, instead of after all the items. The new rules would also explicitly prohibit the use of mobile devices for texting or phoning at the council table.

For previous Chronicle coverage on these proposed changes, see “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.”

The council had postponed a vote from its previous meeting, on July 1, 2013, due to the absence of Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – who were described by council rules committee chair Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) as wanting to take part in the conversation. The council had also postponed the item at its June 17, 2013 meeting.

Council Rules: Public Comment

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Jack Eaton encouraged the council to enact the rule change on its agenda that adds public commentary to work sessions, which would cause work sessions to come into compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. He called the change “long overdue.” The proposed reduction in speaking times, however, was something he didn’t support. He contended that the council too often acts against the interests of its constituents. He asked the council to vote in favor of public participation. He told the council that the proposed reduction in allowed speaking time was a reaction to a few speakers who abuse the opportunity for public commentary. He said that democracy requires that councilmembers listen to all the voices who want to speak. He called on the council to take an affirmative approach to listen to residents of Ann Arbor.

Council Rules: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – who chairs the council’s rules committee that put together the proposal for rules changes – remarked that the item seemed like it’s been on the agenda forever. She summarized the discussion of the council rules committee and characterized it as a “lively debate” by the committee. She invited discussion from councilmembers on the proposed changes. The changes could be approved as a whole or individually, she ventured. [Besides Higgins, other rules committee members are Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje.]

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and mayor John Hieftje. (Photos by the writer.)

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed an amendment. She understood the need to streamline meetings, but contended that the recent long public hearings were not typical. She didn’t support a reduction of public speaking time. Sometimes two minutes might be sufficient, but other times it might not be enough, she contended. She’d prefer to err on the side of allowing additional speaking time – saying that streamlining should be done some other way. So she proposed that the shortening of public speaking turns from three minutes to two minutes be eliminated. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) seconded Lumm’s proposal – which would keep public speaking turns limited to three minutes.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) supported Lumm’s proposal. He wanted to continue with the three-minute limit. Everyone has their own story, he said. If the council is really looking at how to shorten council meetings, there are other ways to do that, he said.

Briere described how in a “prior life” she had addressed the council as a member of the public – and allowed that three minutes goes by very fast. The proposal was not about limiting access or limiting the duration of a meeting, she said. Briere referred to a city council work session that had been held on April 29 on the topic of meeting management – which she’d watched a recording of, because she hadn’t been able to attend. Representatives of the Michigan Municipal League had been on hand to offer their advice on issues like the allotted time for public speaking. The message Briere had taken away from that Michigan Municipal League work session was that between minute 2 and minute 3, people tend to repeat themselves. But the MML’s recommendation of a two-minute time limit could be disregarded, Briere said.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she didn’t think that the time limit change was meant to be a “cure-all” for making meetings more efficient. It was one step that might contribute to that, she felt. Her first concern was that the amount of time being allocated to councilmembers and to members of the public was different. The point is to improve the quality of the speaking time, she said, and to make the time as efficient as possible. She supported Lumm’s amendment.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated that she could support a three-minute time limit for the reserved speaking time, because those speakers have made the effort to sign up ahead of time. Further, the reserved speaking time is already limited to just 10 slots. So she supported changing Lumm’s proposal so that it would restore the three-minute time limit just to the reserved time but not to other types of public speaking – general commentary and public hearings.

Higgins ventured that the council should not try to amend amendments, as Teall was suggesting. Higgins wanted each proposed amendment to be considered in turn. She asked Lumm to take her amendment off the table so that the council could consider each of the kinds of public commentary separately – reserved time, general time, and public hearings. Lumm didn’t want to do that.

Hieftje, who presides over council meetings, forged ahead with Teall’s amendment to Lumm’s proposed amendment, but it died for lack of a second. Discussion continued on Lumm’s proposal that all public speaking time should be limited to three minutes as it currently is – not two minutes as proposed by the rules committee. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) ventured that the council could spend another hour on the topic. He supported the current three-minute time period. Democracy is about giving people a chance to speak, he said, and it’s important to continue Ann Arbor’s tradition of that.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that the purpose of reducing the meeting time had been disclaimed, so he wanted to address that. He rejected the idea that reducing time for public speaking turns would limit access and participation. Instead, he argued that it could encourage broader participation. He also pointed out that there are many points of contact between the public and the council besides the public commentary portions of meetings. He described how he’s heard from people who have despaired of ever trying to address the council, because they have to wait through other speakers.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The vote was 10-1, with dissent from Teall.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) then raised some objections to the “frequent flyer” portion of the rules changes. At that point, Briere suggested that the council just go through each rule change and vote each one up or down. Briere described how people who are very savvy are on the phone early in the morning to sign up for the reserved time at the start of meetings. And that can have the result that others who want to address the council on an agenda item don’t have a chance, she said. But the council also needs to hear from people who want to speak on non-agenda items, she said. Briere called the proposed rule change – the “frequent flyer” provision – a compromise.

At that point, from the audience, Thomas Partridge said that only six people signed up for reserved time that evening. Hieftje ruled him out of order. Hieftje continued by saying that he wanted some mechanism to ensure that if someone wanted to address the council, they would not be prevented from speaking by those who speak frequently.

Warpehoski proposed to amend the frequent flyer rule so that reserved time is assigned on a preferential basis to those who did not address the council at the previous meeting – instead of making it a strict prohibition against someone reserving time two meetings in a row. Kunselman wondered how that would work logistically: How would the clerk’s office staff handle that?

Higgins then asked that specific changes just be rejected, instead of trying to amend them. Hieftje ventured that there’s no rush to enact the rules changes. He suggested postponing a vote after the council had a chance to discuss all the rules changes.

Warpehoski encouraged the rules committee to consider changing the admonishment in the rules that council debate not include “personality.” Instead, he suggested a statement that council debate shouldn’t include “personal attacks.” He suggested that emails sent to all councilmembers during a meeting (draft language for amendments, for example) be made available to the public. He also noted that sometimes when councilmembers question staff – which isn’t counted as speaking time – often it includes editorial comments. How is that handled?

Responding to Warpehoski, Higgins reported how the rules committee had discussed the issue of councilmember speaking time. Higgins talked about the possibility of rotating the job of timekeeper among councilmembers. She invited councilmembers to send suggestions to the rules committee, which could then be incorporated into a revised proposal. Lumm felt that some kind of time limit for councilmembers is appropriate. Five minutes seems too long for the first speaking turn, so the reduction from five minutes to three minutes seems reasonable, she said. But the second speaking turn should stay at three minutes, she felt.

Hieftje ventured that the length of the meetings changes as the issues change. Hieftje invited someone to move for a postponement.

Anglin felt that the meeting agendas need to be shortened. He also wanted the public to be notified if it’s known that an item will be postponed by the council. Briere countered that the council can’t act on the assumption that an item will be postponed. One should not presuppose an action by the council, she said.

The discussion then wandered to the idea of managing the number of proclamations included on a meeting agenda. Kailasapathy noted that many people, like her, have children and full-time jobs, so meetings that go to 1 a.m. are a hardship. It’s more humane to have two four-hour sessions, she ventured, than a single eight-hour session. Meeting length shouldn’t be a barrier to service on the council for people with young children and full-time jobs, she said.

Petersen thought that the agenda itself should be examined – noting that the July 15 agenda included 16 items introduced by staff members.

Higgins mentioned the new proposed rule about communications via mobile devices at the table. She said that if councilmembers need to communicate on their mobile device, then they can just step away from the table to do that.

Teall asked about the new rule limiting the clerk’s report on the agenda to only certain items. Briere explained there have been times when councilmembers have received correspondence and councilmembers have asked that the correspondence be added to the electronic agenda.

Higgins suggested that the item be postponed until the first meeting in September, which is Sept. 3. Hieftje suggested postponing the issue instead until the second meeting in September. But Briere wanted to have the rules in place for the work session in September – which falls between the two regular meetings. The new rules, if adopted, would allow for a public comment period for that work session. Having a public comment period for the work session would ensure that councilmembers could engage in deliberations without violating Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the amendments to the council rules until Sept. 3, 2013.

Skatepark Construction Contract

The council was asked to give the final approval necessary for creating a skatepark in the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park, on the west side of the city. That approval took the form of a $1,031,592 contract with Krull Construction.

This conceptual design by Wally Hollyday for the Ann Arbor skatepark at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park was approved by the city council on Jan. 7, 2013.

Construction could start in early August, with completion of the concrete portion of the skatepark by this November – weather permitting.

The park advisory commission had voted earlier, on June 8, 2013, to recommend award of the contract.

The originally approved budget for the project was $800,000 – though the expectation was that the project would cost about $1 million. The total budget now – including the construction contract, 10% contingency and $89,560 design contract – is $1,224,311, or $424,311 higher than the originally budgeted $800,000. Funds to pay for the skatepark include a $400,000 grant from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, $300,000 from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund, and $100,00 raised by the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, which paid for the skatepark’s design.

The city identified funds from a variety of sources to make up the gap.

• $110,463 from uncommitted funds available in the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage fund balance. The amount reflects a $45,000 decrease in the amount the city will contribute, because the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark recently learned that they will receive a $50,000 grant from the Knight Foundation. Of that, $5,000 will go into the maintenance endowment.
• $80,000 from the city’s stormwater capital budget for rain gardens, to be repaid as a loan to the state revolving fund (SRF). The city expects a 50% loan forgiveness on this amount.
• $32,356 from the FY 2014 parks memorial and contributions fund (the Feldman Trust) for landscaping plantings.
• $30,356 from the FY 2014 parks maintenance and capital improvements millage.
• $22,977 from the FY 2014 parks and recreation services general fund operating budget – from the “parks fairness” funds resulting from other budget amendments made by the council.

In addition, up to $103,159 in uncommitted funds are available in the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage fund balance to cover a 10% construction contingency. Any unspent portion of this amount will be returned to the fund balance.

Skatepark Construction Contract: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by saying it’s been a long time coming. He recalled helping the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark back in 2007-08, giving them a voice at the council table. Everyone had come together to make it possible, he said. He compared the vote to standing at the rim of a pool looking down getting ready to skate: “Just go for it.”

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

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) praised the effort, but expressed concern about the amount of an additional appropriation being made from city funds. She allowed that the Friends of Ann Arbor Skatepark are going to continue to do fundraising. So she wondered if it’s possible to delay the vote for a couple of months while additional private funding is pursued.

City administrator Steve Powers asked community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl to comment on the issue. The project needed to be completed by August 2014 under terms of the MDNR trust fund grant, Bahl explained. Under the current schedule, a June 30 estimated completion date is foreseen. There’s some “float,” Bahl said, but essentially the project needs to go ahead on the current schedule.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) explained that staff had worked closely with the construction company, with the park advisory commission, and with the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark. Staff were mindful that additional money was being requested. Nevertheless, they were excited about moving forward, even with that additional cost, Taylor said. The effort had been long and earnest, and had the support of many governmental partners, he noted. The bid came in higher than was anticipated, Taylor said, but it was determined that this was simply how much it would cost. He allowed that it was more money than had been anticipated. The skatepark would be a good thing for kids and adults who skate, Taylor concluded.

Bahl noted that Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark had recently received a $50,000 grant from the Knight Foundation.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) allowed that the amount by which the budget was off “could have been worse.” She noted that the specs had been reduced and that Krull had agreed to reduce the price by $10,000. She observed that the fund balance for the parks maintenance and capital improvements is healthy. The parks system is one of the reasons the quality of life in Ann Arbor is so strong, she said. Adding the new facility, even at the city’s cost, is worth doing, and she’d support it, Lumm concluded.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) recalled how the entire council chambers had been filled with supporters when the project had come forward in its earlier stages. He called Trevor Staples to the podium. Staples is chair of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark board. Mayor John Hieftje established that no one on the council objected to Staples coming forward to speak. [This was a reference to a council rule that allows for members of the public to address the council outside of public commentary times, if no more than three councilmembers object.] Staples quipped that he himself might object.

Staples noted that about $900,000 is being brought to the city’s park system by the project. So he encouraged councilmembers to think about what could be lost if it doesn’t pass.

Petersen asked about the operating agreement: How will security be provided at the skatepark? Hieftje ventured that no additional security is provided for basketball courts. Petersen said she didn’t see any “eyes on the park” – that has been a concern cited in regard to downtown parks that have been proposed. Hieftje contrasted urban area parks with the future location of the skatepark, which is on the west side of town.

Hieftje hoped the construction contract would be approved that night. He recalled the kind of fundraising efforts that the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark had made. The enthusiasm they’ve generated has been inspirational, Hieftje said. The city’s contribution was not coming from human services money, Hieftje added.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to award the construction contract for the skatepark. Stephen Kunselman briefly left the table to give Trevor Staples a hug.

City-UM Relations

City-university relations arose twice during the July 15 meeting. A voting item involved a public right-of-way occupancy. An item of communication highlighted the partial closures of Main Street that are planned this fall for UM football games.

City-UM Relations: Tappan Conduits

The council was asked to approve a resolution giving direction to staff to renegotiate a template for agreements related to the University of Michigan’s need to install infrastructure in the city’s right-of-way. The resolution stemmed from an item that appeared on the council’s May 13, 2013 meeting agenda.

That item involved a right-of-way occupancy for UM to install conduits under Tappan Street. The purpose of the conduits is to connect a new emergency generator to the Lawyers Club buildings at 551 S. State St. The Lawyers Club and the generator are located on opposite sides of the street. The university considers the transaction to be a conveyance of an interest in land. The city doesn’t see it that way.

But UM insisted that the council approve the resolution as if it were a conveyance of an interest in land, which requires an eight-vote majority. On May 13, 2013, the council only had seven votes in favor. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had left that meeting early.

On July 15, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) introduced the resolution. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she wanted the process used by the city to approve this kind of thing to be one that in the future could be handled at the staff level – with a standard licensing agreement, as other entities do. Another possibility is to use easements, she said. She wanted UM to use the tools that are already in place.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked what has happened since May 13, when the council’s vote did not achieve the eight-vote majority. Higgins reiterated that there’s a standard licensing tool for this purpose. Taylor stated that the smooth operation between the city and the university is important, and it’s important for the university to be able to operate smoothly itself. He encouraged staff to move swiftly and surely, without prejudicing the city.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked those who brought the resolution forward – and was glad that the city is not granting the transfer of any property. Mayor John Hieftje noted the university has work pending, and wondered if the council’s action or non-action would have an impact on that. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias said that the resolution that night would not preclude the Tappan Street agreement from coming back to the council.

Petersen wanted to know how long the renegotiation would take – because she’d heard the original negotiation had taken three years. Elias expressed optimism, but allowed that it takes two parties to reach an agreement. Higgins said that as long as the agreement doesn’t include a conveyance of land, it doesn’t need to ever come to the council. Lumm agreed with Higgins – that it’s about streamlining the process.

City attorney Stephen Postema weighed in by saying that if the university comes back with an agreement that required eight votes, then it could be a longer negotiation than Elias had described. Taylor clarified that things that need to be done for the Tappan Street project can be done currently. Elias replied, saying there would need to be a license agreement, and it’s up to UM to ask for what it needs to move forward.

Petersen asked what UM’s objection is to a licensing agreement. Elias explained that UM felt it needed an interest in the land, but the city felt that the conduit serves a structure, not the land. She characterized the proposal the council had rejected as an agreement to disagree. Anglin asked why this issue has even arisen. He called the previous resolution that the council was asked to approve on May 13 “gibberish” that no one could understand.

By way of background, the language Anglin was describing as gibberish was this:

As drafted, it grants to the University an interest in land only to the extent it grants to the University, by its terms, an interest in land.

Nevertheless, in accordance with the University’s request, but without agreeing that the agreement grants an interest in land, the document was submitted to City Council for approval with a requirement of 8 votes as if it granted an interest in land.

Outcome: The council voted to direct renegotiation of the right-of-way agreement with UM.

City-UM Relations: Football Games

During council communications, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) reported that chief of police John Seto and public services area administrator Craig Hupy had been meeting with the University of Michigan about the possibility of closing Main Street, between Stadium Boulevard and Pauline Boulevard, for football games.

Different scenarios for closure would depend on the start time for the game – noon, 3:30 p.m. or 8 p.m. Higgins reported that there will be a public meeting on July 24 at 6 p.m. at the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library – to explain how the logistics will work. The meeting would give the public a chance to weigh in, she said, before a contract with the University of Michigan is finalized.

Liberty Plaza Fees

The council was asked to approve a waiver of fees for the use of Liberty Plaza – a park located at the southwest corner of Liberty and Divisions streets in downtown Ann Arbor. The proposed fee waiver is on a trial basis, through July 1, 2014.

The park advisory commission had voted at its June 18, 2013 meeting to recommend a trial waiver of fees at Liberty Plaza. The fee waiver comes in response to a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when city staff applied fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park in Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church.

Members of Camp Take Notice, a self-governed homelessness community, have addressed the council at several of its recent meetings on this topic. They’re keen to see a written commitment that the city would allow humanitarian efforts to take place on public land generally. They’ve objected to the focus by the council and the park advisory commission on general activities – as opposed to the protection of humanitarian aid efforts.

For example, the staff memo accompanying the resolution approved by PAC stated: “The waived rental fee will be promoted with a goal of attracting additional musicians, performers, and other events at Liberty Plaza.” And a key “whereas” clause of the resolution reads: “… it is the goal of PAC to further activate Liberty Plaza by increasing social, cultural, and recreational activities that take place there; …”

Liberty Plaza Fees: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reviewed the history of the issue with the Pizza in the Park program in Liberty Plaza. The program was under a perceived cloud, he said. PAC felt that a waiver would be useful for the particular purpose of protecting Pizza in the Park, but also would address the general purpose of activating the park. [Taylor and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) are ex-officio members of PAC.]

If the one-year trial is successful, it could become permanent. Taylor noted that advocates for Pizza in the Park have solidified how they think humanitarian efforts should be treated – beyond Liberty Plaza. Margie Teall (Ward 4) described how she’s met with several people and they’re exploring the possibility of extending waivers to other parks as well.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl to explain how permit fees are normally waived. Bahl said it’s not the usual practice to waive fees – and indicated he couldn’t recall that being done in the past. He allowed that the council could direct the staff to waive fees. Briere ventured that during the art fairs, the council could pass a resolution to direct the waiver of the permit fee at other parks. Higgins noted that the art fairs are held this week, so she wondered where Pizza in the Park is happening this week. Bahl indicated that it’s being held at West Park, and that no fee is being applied.

Anglin asked how this proposal came about. Taylor noted that staff had heard the tenor of the council’s reaction to the Pizza in the Park advocates who’d addressed the council at previous meetings. He ventured that the proposal – which protects Pizza in the Park, while also helping to activate the park in general – “feeds two birds with one stone.”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if there’s an events committee through which this request could be handled. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) agreed with a suggestion Kunselman made that nonprofits could be included in the fee structure as exempt, instead of waiving the fees by resolution. Briere cautioned that “nonprofit” and “humanitarian aid” are not precise terms and would need to be refined.

Lumm reported that she’d met with advocates of Pizza in the Park, and appreciated that they were trying to get direction from the council. She also worried about opening the door to all nonprofits and encouraged a narrowly-defined solution.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the fee waiver in Liberty Plaza on a trial basis through July 1, 2014.

Liberty Plaza Fee Waiver: Public Commentary

During the public commentary period at the end of the meeting, Seth Best – who’s addressed the council at previous meetings advocating for Pizza in the Park – thanked the council for the time and for the resolution the council had passed on a fee waiver at Liberty Plaza. On behalf of the homeless population, he invited councilmembers to Pizza in the Park this Friday, which will be held in West Park.

Environmental Protection Contracts

The council was asked to approve three different contracts related to protecting the local environment.

Two of the contracts include an educational component – one related to the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF), and the other to stormwater management. The third concerned monitoring of the city’s now-closed landfill at Platt and Ellsworth.

Environmental Protection Contracts: MRF Tours

On the council’s consent agenda was a $43,788 annual contract with the Ecology Center to give tours of the materials recovery facility (MRF). The facility sees 4,000 visitors a year. The cost of the contract is split 60%-40% between the solid waste fund and the drinking water fund. The drinking water funding is related to a Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources requirement that the city engage in source water protection educational efforts. The requested authorization is for the contract to be extended annually for five years with a 3% increase each year.

Outcome: The council approved the contract with the Ecology Center as part of the consent agenda.

Environmental Protection Contracts: HRWC Stormwater

Also related to environmental educational efforts, the council was asked to authorize a contract with the Huron River Watershed Council to comply with the requirements of an MS4 stormwater discharge permit that it has through the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. An MS4 system (short for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) is “a system of drainage (including roads, storm drains, pipes, and ditches, etc.) that is not a combined sewer or part of a sewage treatment plant.”

Ann Arbor city water quality manager Jennifer Lawson was in attendance at the July 15 meeting but was not asked by the council to answer any questions.

The goal of the MS4 program is to reduce pollution of Michigan’s surface waters. HRWC’s activities are described in the staff memo accompanying the agenda item as: “public education efforts; water quality monitoring; reporting assistance; watershed group facilitation; and, technical assistance.” The HRWC contract is to be funded out of the stormwater operating and maintenance budget.

The contract with HRWC comes in the context of an incident on June 27, when heavy rains briefly overwhelmed the city’s sanitary sewage system and resulted in 10,000 gallons of untreated sewage flowing into the Huron River.

The city has separate sanitary and stormwater sewer systems, but the sanitary system receives stormwater flow from cracks in the system as well as footing drains that were connected to the sanitary system as part of standard construction techniques in the 1970s.

Incidents like the one on June 27 led to the creation of the city’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program in the early 2000s. Parts of that FDD program are currently suspended as the city is conducting a study of wet weather flows in the sanitary system.

From the city’s press release on the incident three weeks ago:

On Thursday, June 27, 2013, the Ann Arbor area was deluged with intense rainfall that caused flooding conditions and significantly increased the flow of wastewater to the City of Ann Arbor Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) over a short period of time. Plant flows more than tripled within a half hour. As a result of this unprecedented increase in plant flow, approximately 10,000 gallons of untreated wastewater was discharged to the Huron River from 5:20 to 5:30 p.m. By comparison, the WWTP fully treated approximately 350,000 gallons of wastewater during the 10minute period over which this incident occurred.

Fortunately, due to a number of factors, the impact of this incident on human health and the environment is minimal. The flow within the Huron River for the 10 minutes over which the discharge occurred was approximately 11,000,000 gallons, consequently the estimated 10,000 gallons of untreated wastewater was diluted by a factor of 1,000.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract with the Huron River Watershed Council.

Environmental Protection Contracts: Landfill

The third environmental item the council was asked to approve was an amendment to the city’s contract with Tetra Tech Inc. (TTI) to provide additional monitoring services of the city’s now-closed landfill. The $178,596 amendment brings the total amount of the contract to $543,386. Many of the additional services the city is asking Tetra Tech to provide are associated with a plume of 1,4 dioxane and vinyl chloride contamination in Southeast Area Park, which is located northeast of the landfill at Platt and Ellsworth.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the landfill monitoring contract with Tetra Tech.

Stormwater Infrastructure

Several projects related to stormwater management were on the council’s agenda.

Three of the items involved street reconstruction – on Stone School Road, Forest Avenue, and multiple streets in the Springwater subdivision. A fourth stormwater-related agenda item was a contract for tree planting, which will be paid for from the city’s stormwater fund.

Stormwater Infrastructure: Stone School Road

The Stone School Road stormwater project is part of a larger $4 million road improvement project. The council’s action was to approve a petition to the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner‘s office to apply for a state revolving fund loan of $1.2 million. The stormwater improvements will include work “to clean out, relocate, widen, deepen, straighten, extend, tile, interconnect, or otherwise improve a portion of the county drain located north of Ellsworth Road between Varsity Drive and Stone School Road, known as the Malletts Creek Drain.” The loan will be repaid in annual installments of up to $76,307 from the city’s stormwater fund. Up to 50% of the loan could be forgiven as a “green” project.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the petition to the water resources commissioner’s office for the Stone School Road Mallets Creek project.

Stormwater Infrastructure: Forest Avenue

The Forest Avenue reconstruction project extends from South University Avenue to Hill Street. The project includes installation of a stone reservoir under the street to allow for infiltration of stormwater. In addition to reconstructing the street, the existing 6-inch water main between Willard Street and Hill Street will be replaced with a 12-inch pipe. The total estimated $1,257,000 cost is to be paid for as follows: water fund capital budget ($185,000), street millage fund ($543,937), developer contributions (Zaragon Place and 601 Forest Ave.) to the parks memorials and contribution fund ($78,063), and the stormwater fund ($450,000). The city has obtained a loan through the state revolving fund for the stormwater portion of the project. The council’s requested action on July 15 was to approve a construction contract with MacKenzie Co. for $965,990.

During the brief deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that there’d been some concern about the timing of the project, from August to October. However the project will accommodate student move-in, she reported. She ventured that the city is eventually going to “turn the corner on stormwater.” Jane Lumm (Ward 2) stated that it’s good that the work is being done, characterizing the stretch of road as a “moonscape.”

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract with E. T. MacKenzie Co. for the Forest Avenue work.

Stormwater Infrastructure: Springwater Design

The council was also asked to approve the engineering consultant work for street improvements in the Springwater subdivision – located southeast of Buhr Park, south of Packard Road. The eventual project, to be completed in 2014-16, would include “a reconstructed roadway section, storm sewer upgrades, storm water quality improvements, water main replacement, replacement of curb and gutter, and the construction of new sidewalk and/or the filling in of sidewalk gaps within the project limits.”

The work is planned over the course of three years, and would include the north-south streets of Nordman Road and Springbrook Avenue and the east-west streets of Butternut and Redwood. The action requested of the council was to approve a $212,784 contract with CDM Smith Michigan Inc.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the contract with CDM Smith Michigan Inc. for the Springwater subdivision street improvements.

Stormwater Infrastructure: Tree Planting

Finally, the council was asked approved a two-year $509,125 contract with Margolis Companies Inc. to plant 750 trees in FY 2014 and 1,000 trees in FY 2015. The work would be paid for from the city’s stormwater fund and reimbursed with a state revolving fund (SRF) loan that has been obtained through the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office.

Deliberations were scant. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) reviewed the environmental benefits to tree planting.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the tree-planting contract with Margolis Companies Inc.

Human Services Distribution

The council was asked to authorize the distribution of over $1.2 million to specific nonprofits that provide human services under contract with the city.

The budget allocation for $1,244,629 had already been made at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. A total of 20 programs operated by 16 different organizations are receiving funding from the city of Ann Arbor this year. It’s the same amount that was allocated last year.

Half of those organization are receiving more than $90,000: Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County ($91,645); Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County ($94,490); Food Gatherers ($95,171); Community Action Network ($104,944); Perry Nursery School of Ann Arbor ($109,851); Avalon Housing Inc. ($142,851); Legal Services of South Central Michigan ($177,052); and the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County ($245,529).

In the coordinated funding approach to human services taken by the city, a total of $4,369,102 is being allocated by the city and other entities. In addition to the city’s share, other contributions include: United Way of Washtenaw County ($1,797,000); Washtenaw County general fund ($1,015,000); Washtenaw Urban County ($288,326); and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation ($24,147).

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) led off deliberations by asking the council to vote to excuse him from voting on the item, because one of his clients is Planned Parenthood, which is among the groups being funded. The council voted to excuse Taylor from voting and he took a seat in the audience.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that this is a three-year agreement and the amount this year is the same as it was the previous two years. Mayor John Hieftje recited how much each of the other entities was contributing. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Mary Jo Callan and Andrea Plevek, the staff who are responsible for administering the coordinated funding. She recited the history of the program. The need for human services continues to exceed the available funding, she said.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the human services funding distributions for FY 2014.

Appointments and Nominations

Nominations and confirmations to boards and commissions are a standard slot on council agendas. Currently it comes after all the other voting business. If the council adopts a new set of rules, the nominations and appointments would come before other voting business.

Appointments and Nominations: DDA

Among other nominations to city boards and commissions that the council was asked to consider was the confirmation of Russ Collins for a third four-year term on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Collins, who is executive director of the Michigan Theater, began his service on the DDA board in 2005.

Appointments and Nominations: Dean Fund

The council was also asked to confirm Jane Immonen, John Bassett, and Patrick Ion to the Elizabeth Dean Trust Fund committee. Sue Perry was nominated by mayor John Hieftje at the July 15 meeting to serve on that committee, too. The vote on her confirmation will come at the council’s next meeting.

The responsibility of the Dean Fund committee is to make recommendations on the use of the Dean Trust Fund money for special projects involving trees. The committee was established in 1975 to oversee the use of the investment earnings from a nearly $2 million bequest made to the city by Elizabeth Dean. According to a Nov. 10, 1974 Ann Arbor News article, the bequest was made in the early 1960s to “repair, maintain and replace trees on city property.” The principal amount remains intact.

Appointments and Nominations: Housing, Zoning Appeals Boards

The council was also asked to confirm at its July 15 meeting Geoffrey Mayers and Kevin Busch to the housing board of appeals, and Heather Lewis to the zoning board of appeals.

Appointments and Nominations: Greenbelt

The council was asked to confirm the appointment of Jean Cares to the city’s greenbelt advisory commission (GAC). That group is responsible for making recommendations for land acquisition using proceeds of the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. Seats on the commission have specific qualifications attached to them, including one for someone “who is an agricultural landowner or operates an agricultural business.” That’s the seat Cares will fill, as owner of the Dexter Mill. Tom Bloomer, a Webster Township farmer, previously held that position but was term-limited.

Also at the council’s July 15 meeting, John Ramsburgh’s name was brought forward to serve on the greenbelt advisory commission. The fact that he’d be nominated was announced by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the last meeting of GAC on July 11, 2013. Taylor serves as the city council representative to GAC. Unlike most appointments, the nominations for GAC are made by the council, not the mayor. The nomination is typically handled by placing the appointment on the agenda for one meeting, postponing the vote (which serves to give notice of the nomination), and then voting on the appointment at the next meeting of the council. That’s how Ramsburgh’s nomination was handled on July 15.

Ramsburgh is a development officer with the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts. He also is the son of Ellen Ramsburgh, a long-time member of the Ann Arbor historic district commission, and its former chair. He is filling a position previously held by Dan Ezekiel, who was also term limited.

Appointments and Nominations: LDFA

Also at the council’s July 15 meeting, Richard Beedon was nominated for re-appointment to the board of the local development finance authority (LDFA). Terms on the LDFA are four years, so Beedon’s term extends to within one year of the end of the LDFA’s planned 15-year life in FY 2018.

Outcome: On unanimous votes, the council confirmed all the nominations it was asked to approve at its July 15 meeting.

Platt & Washtenaw Easements

On the agenda were three separate land-related items in connection with the Arbor Hills Crossing project at Platt & Washtenaw.

Platt & Washtenaw intersection looking east down Washtenaw on July 14, 2013.

Two of the items were easements – for a sidewalk and for bus shelters and bus pullouts.

The other item was the dedication of additional public right-of-way, so that Platt Road can be widened at that intersection. New traffic signals have been installed at the intersection, but they are not yet operational.

Responding to an inquiry from The Chronicle, city traffic engineer Les Sipowski indicated that the signals would likely not be turned on for another two weeks, and when they are first turned on they’d operate in flashing mode for a week.

The council had approved the site plan for Arbor Hills Crossing at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting.

The project includes four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site will include 310 parking spaces.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without discussion to approve all the items associated with Arbor Hills Crossing.

During the time allotted for communications from the city attorney, Stephen Postema indicated that the three easements on the agenda that night associated with Arbor Hills Crossing took a lot of work.

South State Corridor Plan

The council considered adoption of the South State Street corridor plan as part of the city’s master plan.

The city planning commission had voted unanimously to adopt the plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting. More commonly when the planning commission votes on a matter, it’s to recommend action by the city council. For the city’s master plan, however, the planning commission is on equal footing with the council: both groups must adopt the same plan. The council’s action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

Planning commissioners and staff have been working on this project for more than two years. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "State Street Corridor Study Planned," “Sustainability Goals Shape Corridor Study,” “Ideas Floated for South State Corridor.” and “South State Corridor Gets Closer Look.”]

Recommendations in the South State Street corridor plan are organized into categories of the city’s recently adopted sustainability framework: Land use and access, community, climate and energy, and resource management. Among the recommendations are: (1) Evaluate use of vacant parcels for alternative energy generation; (2) Evaluate integrating public art along the corridor; (3) Evaluate use of open land for community gardens; (4) Assess and improve high crash areas along the corridor; (5) create boulevard on State Street between Eisenhower and I‐94 to enable safer automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; (6) Consider utilizing vacant parcels for athletic fields and recreation facilities; (7) Develop a pedestrian and bicycle path along the Ann Arbor railroad that will connect the planned Allen Creek bikeway to Pittsfield Township through the corridor; and (8) Resurface roads in the corridor.

Each recommendation includes several related action items. The report also provides a section that organizes the recommendations into each of three distinct sections of the corridor: (1) from Stimson on the north to Eisenhower Parkway; (2) from Eisenhower south to the I-94 interchange; and (3) from I-94 to Ellsworth. In addition, there are nine site-specific recommendations for areas including Briarwood Mall, the complex of hotels near Victors Way and Broadway, and the research park development near the corridor’s south end.

The council had postponed its vote on the corridor plan at its July 1 meeting, deferring to a request from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who said she had concerns about adding it to the master plan.

Deliberations on July 15 were scant. Higgins thanked her colleagues on the council for the postponement at the last meeting so that she could look at the item a bit more closely.

Outcome: The council voted to adopt the South State Street corridor plan into the city’s master plan.

Barton Sidewalk Design

The council was asked to approve a design budget of $15,000 for a 400-foot new concrete sidewalk on the south side of Barton Road, from a spot west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

The money will be spent from the city’s general fund.

The council had approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.

The interest in having sidewalks was supported by petitions submitted by adjoining property owners.

Construction of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks, which is funded through the city’s sidewalk repair millage – is typically funded at least partly through special assessment of adjoining properties.

The cost of the design work can be recovered by the city in the same proportion as the construction cost. So, if 30% of the construction cost for the sidewalk is paid through special assessment, then 30% of the design cost can be recovered through special assessment.

Part of the context for sidewalk gap elimination is a decision made by the council on May 20, 2013, when it adopted the city’s FY 2014 budget. The budget included a $75,000 allocation for a study of sidewalk gaps, so that they can be prioritized.

Ward 1 councilmembers Sumi Kailasapathy and Sabra Briere.

During the brief council deliberations, council representatives for Ward 1, where the possible sidewalk is to be located, weighed in.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that people who are attempting to push strollers to Bandemer Park have complained for years about the lack of a sidewalk. The design budget doesn’t guarantee construction will take place, she allowed, but it’s a good step. There had been a meeting between staff and neighbors and the response was overwhelmingly positive, she reported.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) confirmed the nature of the neighborhood meeting, which she’d also attended. She was impressed by the attendance at the meeting. She highlighted the importance of non-motorized transportation.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the design budget for the proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

Social Justice Issues

Issues of social justice were raised during public commentary in connection with the Trayvon Marin verdict and with same-sex domestic partnership benefits.

Social Justice Issues: Trayvon Martin Verdict – Public Comment

Several people attended the council’s meeting to address the not-guilty verdict that had been delivered by a Florida jury in the Trayvon Martin shooting case over the weekend.

Blaine Coleman told the council they should make as much noise about the Trayvon Martin verdict as they did about the killing of white children in Newton, Mass. He told councilmembers he expected strong statements from them about what happened to Martin, which he characterized as “legalized lynching.” He spoke against the “slavemaster mindset,” which says that black life is worth nothing. Councilmembers need to rid themselves of that mindset, Coleman said – it’s a mindset that says it’s okay to hunt and kill black people. He expected the council to say that black life is worth something, and to express its revulsion at the Trayvon Martin verdict.

Lefiest Galimore was joined by seven others at the podium. He weighed in against the so-called “stand your ground” law in Florida. He drew attention to Michigan’s version of the law, which was enacted in 2006. [.pdf of Self Defense Act 309 of 2006]

Such laws are subject to interpretation, he cautioned. He said that outside of the council chambers he might be seen as a threat, simply because he is an African American male. He asked the council to pass a resolution calling for the repeal of Michigan’s law. He recited the history of the Pioneer High School football brawl in October 2012, in which three African American youths were charged criminally. He asked why three young African American men were charged out of two football teams that had players from different races. He called for the revocation of Michigan’s version of the “stand your ground” law.

Rev. Jeff Harrold introduced himself as pastor at the New Beginnings Community Church and a member of the steering committee of the Interfaith Council on Peace and Justice. [Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is director of ICPJ.] Race was the “800-pound gorilla in the room” in the Trayvon Martin case, he said. Harrold told the council it’s all too easy to see a young black man as threatening. He encouraged the council to go on record against the “stand your ground” law.

Harrold allowed that the Trayvon Martin case had taken place in Florida, but cautioned that something like that could happen in Michigan. He called on the council to support bringing federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman – who shot Martin. People don’t like to talk about race anymore, he said, but he pointed out that the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Reads selection this year is “The New Jim Crow.” And that had led to a facilitated dialogue. Race played a large role in the Trayvon Martin killing, and he wanted the U.S. Attorney General to do what the Florida jury had not done – deal with the issue of race in connection with the Trayvon Martin killing.

Social Justice Issues: Same-Sex Partnerships – Public Comment

Lisa Dusseau introduced herself as a born-and-raised Ann Arborite, and current resident of Ward 1. Ann Arbor has always been a place of diversity, inclusion and equality, she said. She described Ann Arbor as a progressive city where she felt free to live her life free of harassment or discrimination. Ann Arbor was one of the first cities to recognize domestic partnerships and to include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination policy. Her life partner is Kathleen Summersgill, who’s worked for the Ann Arbor fire department for 21 years, Dusseau said. They’ve been together as a couple for 19 years. They share everything a married couple would – except for health insurance. Dusseau reported that her current employer doesn’t offer health care that meets her needs. So she had to find her own insurance and pay her premiums out of pocket. Her asthma medication isn’t covered under her own policy – and a 90-day supply costs over $1,000.

There was a 9-month period in 2009 when she was covered under Summersgill’s insurance – and she is grateful for that, she said. But that was before 2011 when the Michigan state legislature prevented public employers from offering benefits to employees’ domestic partners. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as discriminatory, and soon after that the Michigan Court of Appeals rescinded Michigan’s ban on domestic partner benefits. Employees of the state, the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Public Schools can now obtain health benefits for their same-sex domestic partners – but nothing has changed for Ann Arbor city employees. She didn’t think it was fair that this discriminatory situation continues. So she urged the Ann Arbor city council to follow suit with other Ann Arbor institutions, in the light of recent court decisions, to restore domestic partner benefits.

Social Justice Issues: Council Response

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) addressed the issue of racial discrimination that public speakers had raised. In Ann Arbor it’s easy to forget what things are like in other states, she said. She didn’t know what to tell her kids to explain to them why the Trayvon Martin verdict came out the way it did. They were born in Ann Arbor and attended Ann Arbor schools so they’d lived protected lives. She said she was willing to work with other councilmembers on the issue of Michigan’s “stand your ground” law. Given that Ann Arbor is a progressive city and plays the role of a “shining light” to others, she felt that the council needs to pass a resolution and work with other cities to ensure that a situation like Trayvon Martin’s doesn’t occur in Michigan.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) also addressed the issues of marriage equality, racial equality and preventing gun violence – calling them issues dear to his heart. It was bad news when the state legislature had taken away the city’s ability to provide benefits to same-sex partners and it was good news when the courts gave that ability back. He indicated that the city was currently working to restore the same-sex benefits.

Warpehoski indicated that past local efforts to regulate gun ownership had been superseded by the state legislature. He expressed a willingness to support efforts to address “stand your ground” laws in Michigan. He hoped for the ability to have local control over regulation of gun ownership. He indicated that the city’s human rights commission was working on the issue of race. Racism isn’t just a Southern thing, he said.

Later during council communications ,Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he wanted to add his voice of support for those who wanted Warpehoski to work on human rights issues. The phrasing of Anglin’s remarks – which could have been understood as drafting Warpehoski to do the work – prompted some chuckles around the table. Anglin indicated that he himself was willing to lend his own efforts to the work.

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: Policing, Public Safety

City administrator Steve Powers asked police chief John Seto to give an update. The first six months of the year show that Part 1 crimes are down 10% compared to last year, Seto reported. [Part 1 crimes are considered the most serious, and include murder, rape, robbery, arson, and motor vehicle theft, among others.] Overall crime is down 7.5%.

The department is analyzing the initial data collection from the electronic activity logs for officers. The department expects to be staffed up to the full authorized level of 119 officers with the anticipated hire of four officers, Seto reported.

Comm/Comm: Humane Society

During council communications, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported that chief of police John Seto would be meeting with the Humane Society of Huron Valley. She noted that she’s a board member of the HSHV. She explained that the HSHV has a contract with Washtenaw County to provide services with respect to stray animals. She noted that the city itself no longer provides animal control services. The city’s ordinance says that if there’s a request for service, then the individual is supposed to contact the Ann Arbor police department, which would then forward the request to HSHV. The HSHV had decided to follow that ordinance, which meant that there are a lot of calls going into the AAPD about animal control, Lumm said. So the city will meet with HSHV to coordinate how stray animals will be handled.

Comm/Comm: Karl Pohrt

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) offered a remembrance of Karl Pohrt, who died the previous week. He was best known to many as the owner of the Shaman Drum Bookshop, she said. That bookstore on South State Street served the philosophers, and poets and social scientists. Others knew him through his volunteer work, which included service on city boards. Other knew him as a man with a “beautiful soul” that shines on in the many people he touched. Briere related how he let her bounce ideas off him. When she saw him last, he was living his life as fully as anyone can, she said. “I wish we all had more time,” Briere concluded.

Comm/Comm: Flooding

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) offered some anecdotal information on flooding from the point of view of a real taxpayer. Since 2000, a woman has replaced all her basement walls, which had cost from $25,000-$50,000, he said. She had one instance of damage of $5,000 and another one of $3,000. The city’s cost in connection with the flooding has been $8,000, he reported. Anglin wanted to put a human face on the tragedy. He said the city needs to do its best to do a better job controlling floods and “disasters of that nature.”

Comm/Comm: General Reforms

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge called for a new attitude and a new mayor of the city. He called for a council that would work to place items on every agenda that would expand human rights and expand public participation at meetings. He called for increased affordable housing and transportation. For too long, the mayor and council have neglected and abused Michigan’s most vulnerable citizens, he said. Money is allocated that highlights historic discrimination, he contended, and it’s time to end that.

During the public commentary at the end of the meeting, Partridge rose to speak for responsibility and integrity as an advocate for those residents of the city and state who are most vulnerable.

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: Thursday, Aug. 8, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

Two of the contracts include an educational component – one related to the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF), and the other to stormwater management. The third concerned monitoring of the city’s now-closed landfill at Platt and Ellsworth. Action by the council came at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

On the council’s consent agenda was a $43,788 annual contract with the Ecology Center to give tours of the material recovery facility (MRF). The facility sees 4,000 visitors a year. The cost of the contract is split 60-40 between the solid waste fund and the drinking water fund. The drinking water funding is related to a Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources requirement that the city engage in source water protection educational efforts. The authorization is for the contract to be extended annually for five years with a 3% increase each year.

Also related to environmental educational efforts, the council authorized a contract with the Huron River Watershed Council to comply with the requirements of an MS4 stormwater discharge permit that it has through the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. An MS4 system (short for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) is “a system of drainage (including roads, storm drains, pipes, and ditches, etc.) that is not a combined sewer or part of a sewage treatment plant.” The goal of the MS4 program is to reduce pollution of Michigan’s surface waters. HRWC’s activities are described in the staff memo accompanying the agenda item as: “public education efforts; water quality monitoring; reporting assistance; watershed group facilitation; and, technical assistance.” The HRWC contract is to be funded out of the stormwater operating and maintenance budget.

The approval of the contract with HRWC comes in the context of an incident on June 27, when heavy rains briefly overwhelmed the city’s sanitary sewage system and resulted in 10,000 gallons of untreated sewage flowing into the Huron River. The city has separate sanitary and stormwater sewer systems, but the sanitary system receives stormwater flow from cracks in the system as well as footing drains that were connected to the sanitary system as part of standard construction techniques in the 1970s. Incidents like the one on June 27 led to the creating of the city’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program in the early 2000s. Parts of that FDD program are currently suspended as the city is conducting a study of wet weather flows in the sanitary system.

From the city’s press release on the incident three weeks ago:

On Thursday, June 27, 2013, the Ann Arbor area was deluged with intense rainfall that caused flooding conditions and significantly increased the flow of wastewater to the City of Ann Arbor Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) over a short period of time. Plant flows more than tripled within a half hour. As a result of this unprecedented increase in plant flow, approximately 10,000 gallons of untreated wastewater was discharged to the Huron River from 5:20 to 5:30 p.m. By comparison, the WWTP fully treated approximately 350,000 gallons of wastewater during the 10minute period over which this incident occurred.

Fortunately, due to a number of factors, the impact of this incident on human health and the environment is minimal. The flow within the Huron River for the 10 minutes over which the discharge occurred was approximately 11,000,000 gallons, consequently the estimated 10,000 gallons of untreated wastewater was diluted by a factor of 1,000.

The third item approved by the council in this category was an amendment to the city’s contract with Tetra Tech Inc. (TTI) to provide additional monitoring services of the city’s now-closed landfill. The $178,596 amendment brings the total amount of the contract to $543,386. Many of the additional services the city is asking Tetra Tech to provide are associated with a plume of 1,4 dioxane and vinyl chloride contamination in Southeast Area Park, which is located northeast of the landfill at Platt and Ellsworth.

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]

Also at the meeting, the council passed a separate resolution that urges the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the Clean Air Act. A 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case gave the EPA the authority to regulate emission of green house gases (GHGs) as pollutants – such as water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).

Ann Arbor’s climate action plan calls for a reduction in GHG emissions of 8% by 2015, 25% by 2025, and 90% by 2050. Baseline for the reductions are 2000 levels. The action steps identified in the climate action plan are divided into four main categories: energy and buildings; land use and access; resource management; community and health. Those categories align with the city’s sustainability framework. The plan is also coordinated with a similar effort by the University of Michigan.

Examples of the 84 separate individual actions include: weatherizing existing housing stock; creating a program that provides incentives to employees and residents who choose to live within two miles of their job; increasing residential and commercial greywater use; and implementing a community net-zero energy home building/renovation contest. [.jpg of graph showing projected impact of action plan on GHG] According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, adoption of the climate action plan does not commit the city to expenditures or obligations.

The climate action plan was recommended for adoption by the city planning commission at its Nov. 20, 2012 meeting.

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

The plan provides a range of strategies for achieving these goals, divided into four categories: (1) energy and buildings, (2) land use and access, (3) resource management, and (4) community and health. Examples of about 80 recommended actions include weatherizing existing housing stock, maximizing the purchase of renewable energy, providing incentives for the use of public transit, adopting a water conservation ordinance, and starting a community “net-zero” home-building/renovation contest. [.pdf list of actions]

Development of the plan was funded by a two-year $50,000 pollution prevention grant that the city received in 2010 from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. The effort has been spearheaded by the city’s energy commission, which formed a task force to work on the project. Members included planning commissioner Bonnie Bona, who has given periodic updates to the planning commission. Planning commissioners were informally briefed on the plan at a Nov. 13 working session by Nate Geisler of the city’s energy office.

Both the energy and environmental commissions recommended approval of the plan at their October 2012 meetings. These recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

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

Janis Bobrin, Washtenaw County’s water resources commissioner, attended the Oct. 3, 2012 county board meeting to present environmental excellence awards. She received a standing ovation from commissioners. She is not running for re-election, and will leave office later this year after more than two decades in that position. (Photos by the writer.)

The board is authorized to levy the tax under Act 88 of 1913 – and it does not require a voter referendum. Voting against the increase were commissioners Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Dan Smith and Rob Turner. They cited several objections, including the timing of a tax increase while many taxpayers are struggling because of the economy, and the unlikelihood that the tax will be lowered in the future, when economic conditions improve. Peterson also felt that the Act 88 funds aren’t being used for their original purpose – to leverage matching dollars for economic development – and instead are being diverted to support county operations.” It was never meant to be a piggy bank for county government,” he said.

The final vote to levy the increased tax passed 8-3, with Ronnie Peterson, Wes Prater and Dan Smith voting against it. Alicia Ping has in the past also voted against the Act 88 tax, but supported it this time – though she voted against the amendment to increase the rate. She hoped commissioners would consider reallocating some funding for the western side of the county, pointing out that there are economic development needs there too, including a lack of decent Internet access.

Far less contentious was an initial vote to move control over administering the county’s 5% accommodation tax from the county treasurer’s office to the finance director. Two members of the Washtenaw County Hotel/Motel Association spoke in support of changing the accommodation ordinance in this way. The vote by commissioners was unanimous, though Dan Smith noted that this is the second time this year that the ordinance has been revised, and he hoped it would be the last. He also expressed some concern that all hoteliers aren’t being treated equitably. A final vote and public hearing on the change is set for Oct. 17.

Commissioners also approved a set of recommendations to guide county administrator Verna McDaniel in her negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for animal control services. The current contract with HSHV ends on Dec. 31. An accompanying report from a policy task force was discussed only briefly – in part because the final version had been sent to commissioners only that day and there had been little time to digest it, and in part because some commissioners wanted to adjourn so that they could watch the first presidential debate, which began at 9 p.m. The board plans to continue discussion of the issue at a future date.

During the meeting, board chair Conan Smith told commissioners that a caucus would be held immediately prior to the next board meeting – on Nov. 7, at 5:30 p.m. – to discuss appointments to various county boards, commissions and committees. Such appointment caucuses are open to the public. [A listing of all vacancies is found on this website. An online application to apply for an opening can be found here.] The news prompted Ronnie Peterson to criticize the process, which he felt was not sufficiently transparent.

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax

On the agenda was a resolution to authorize levying the Act 88 tax to support agriculture and economic development, as well as an amendment that would raise the rate to 0.06 mills, an increase from the current 0.05 mills. A public hearing was also held on this item.

The board was on track to approve the tax last month at the 0.05 mill rate. But after a public hearing, board chair Conan Smith proposed an amendment to raise the rate to 0.06 mills – an idea he’d informally floated at the board’s Sept. 5 meeting. Some commissioners objected to making a change after the public hearing, which led the board to postpone action until Oct. 3, when another public hearing was scheduled.

Smith’s proposal also gave the office of community and economic development (OCED) the authority to distribute the millage funds.

The millage is authorized under the state’s Act 88 of 1913, and has been levied by the board since 2009. That year, it was levied at 0.04 mills. It was raised to 0.043 in 2010 and 0.05 in 2011. Because the Michigan statute that authorizes this millage predates the state’s Headlee Amendment, the board can levy it without a voter referendum.

The rate of 0.06 mills would generate about $838,578 and cost $6 for each $100,000 of a home’s taxable value. It would generate about $145,483 more than the rate of 0.05 mills. The millage proceeds were proposed to be allocated to the following local entities in 2013, with generally the same amounts that the groups received this year: Ann Arbor SPARK ($200,000), SPARK East ($50,000), the county’s dept. of community & economic development ($140, 331), Eastern Leaders Group ($100,000), promotion of heritage tourism ($65,264), Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP – $15,000), Washtenaw 4-H ($82,500), Washtenaw County 4-H Youth Show ($15,000), and MSU Extension, to support economic development in the local food system ($15,000).

Smith proposed that the additional funds from the increase would be used for the Detroit Region Aerotropolis ($50,000), with any remaining balance – about $95,000 – be allocated to the office of community & economic development, for activities related to those authorized by Act 88. It’s likely that the amount would include additional staff for that office.

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax: Public Hearing/Commentary

Shawn Letwin of Webster Township spoke briefly during the first opportunity for public commentary. He noted that when the increase has been discussed, some people have talked about the fact that incomes in the county are increasing. He said that his income has increased about 300% – because he was downsized three times and made only $10,000 last year, compared to about $30,000 this year. There just isn’t the money now for a tax increase, he said. Letwin told commissioners that he has about $200,000 in debt and will have to finance about $68,000 for his child’s college education. He couldn’t afford the tax increase, and hoped the board would be prudent in their decision.

Two people spoke during the official public hearing on the Act 88 tax. Thomas Partridge said he endorsed the tax but didn’t think the board had leveled with the community. These kinds of taxes are relics of the 18th century, he said. Special interest millages like Act 88 should be replaced by progressive business and personal income taxes, he said. Partridge wanted the board to explain how this tax would contribute to the advancement of agriculture, economic development and tourism. The county needs a prominent site for an agricultural, industrial and scientific fair, he said, as well as a convention center and a large indoor/outdoor theater.

Matt Shane introduced himself as MSU extension director for the district that includes Washtenaw County. He described highlights of how Act 88 revenues benefit the MSU Extension and the 4-H programs that it operates, including some that focus on entrepreneurship and consumer horticulture. 4-H has impacted about 4,500 youth between the ages of 5-19, he said.

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax: Board Discussion – Amendment

The discussion began with a brief overview by Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, who reviewed what had happened at the Sept. 19 meeting. Now, he said, the board first would be considering Conan Smith’s amendment to raise the millage rate from 0.05 mills to 0.06 mills. After they deliberated and voted on that amendment, they would then vote on the resolution to levy the Act 88 millage.

Dan Smith noted that the proposal calls for a 20% increase from the current rate, and he wouldn’t support it.

Ronnie Peterson said there’s no question that the real estate market has taken a hit, especially on the county’s east side, where tax and mortgage foreclosures are high. He described his stance toward economic development as aggressive, saying that Act 88 revenues are appropriate to support the services they’ve funded in the past. But he wondered what the rationale is for raising the rate – when would the board see a plan? He felt the increase should be justified before the board acts on it.

Conan Smith, chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Conan Smith reviewed how he had introduced the proposed increase at the board’s Sept. 5 meeting, and had passed out a memo to commissioners the next night, at their working session. [.pdf of Smith's Act 88 memo] [Peterson had been absent from that working session.]

Smith said the intent is to maintain current funding levels in the face of declining property values, and to provide additional support to the Detroit Region Aerotropolis. The aerotropolis, which includes Willow Run airport, is currently funded through the county’s general fund. The change would free up general fund money for other uses. Finally, Smith said there’s currently inadequate staff – 1.5 full-time-equivalent positions – to manage the county’s economic development activities. Additional staffing would allow the county to use its economic development funds more efficiently, he said.

Peterson then spoke at length about his concerns, noting that he was one of the people who originally supported the Act 88 millage. He gave credit to Bob Guenzel, the county administrator at the time, as well as former board chair Jeff Irwin and former commissioner Ken Schwartz, who first identified Act 88 as a potential way to raise revenues without seeking voter approval.

It was the first time that the county had been aggressive in addressing economic development needs, Peterson said. The tax was intended to providing matching funds for grants and partners in the community that were doing this work. The need was especially great on the county’s east side. But the millage proceeds were not intended to subsidize county operations, Peterson said. If that’s what the board wants, they should go to the voters and ask. ”It was never meant to be a piggy bank for county government,” Peterson said. He wondered if the proposed tax increase was a way to protect key employees or managers – and if that’s the case, the board should know, he said.

Conan Smith replied that the board hasn’t empowered the county administration to add jobs yet. The current resolution would only authorize an increased levy to create additional funding. If that’s approved, then the board would eventually have to amend the budget and approve any additional jobs.

Peterson objected to not having more details before they vote. There wasn’t a plan for the use of proceeds, he said. He cited several other taxes that would be coming before county residents, including a possible transportation tax and renewal for parks and recreation. It’s ridiculous to ask his constituents to pay more, Peterson said.

Rob Turner also expressed concern about raising the amount. He understood that property values were declining and that meant fewer revenues would be collected if the rate stays the same. But he felt that when property values start increasing again, the rate won’t be decreased. “It’ll be a tax increase forever,” he said.

Saying he respected everyone’s opinions, Yousef Rabhi spoke in favor of the increase. It’s a troubled economy, but how should they help rebuild it? By investing, he said. Funding organizations like Ann Arbor SPARK, the Eastern Leaders Group and others is helping create a stronger economy, he said, and it shows.

Rabhi noted that although other commissioners refer to a 20% increase, that’s really just a $1 increase for a home with a taxable value of $100,000 – from $5 to $6 annually. What’s more, they’re well below the half-mill limit that the county is allowed to levy under Act 88, he said.

Rabhi also disputed Turner’s point about the difficulty of lowering taxes. In fact, everyone loves lowering taxes, Rabhi said – it’s more difficult to raise taxes, and requires the board to take leadership. It’s the right thing to do at the right time, and he hoped commissioners would support the increase.

Leah Gunn said she’d been involved with the Eastern Leaders Group, at Peterson’s invitation, and knew they did a wonderful job. She felt the Act 88 increase was very small and reasonable. She’d be willing to pay more, even though much of the funding is going to the east side of the county. [Gunn is one of four Ann Arbor commissioners.]

County commissioners Alicia Ping and Wes Prater.

Alicia Ping – who represents District 3, covering southern and southwest parts of the county – wondered when the board would talk about how the Act 88 funds are allocated for economic development in other parts of the county, not just the eastern side. There are needs in the west, too, she said – some people can only get dial-up Internet access, for example. That means they can’t work from home if they need to use the Internet, and have to go to somewhere else to get it. “You can’t do business without that sort of access,” she said. Ping indicated support for an approach that didn’t simply fund the same organizations year after year. It’s important to look at the whole county, she said, not just Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.

Felicia Brabec said she agreed with many of the comments made, especially by Gunn and Rabhi. To her, this feels like a solid plan for economic growth. She shared Ping’s view about the need for strategic planning countywide, and felt that additional staff would help with that effort. It would help in being more tactical to address the county’s needs.

Peterson repeated his point that the Act 88 funds weren’t meant to support jobs within the county organization. Responding to the contention that the increase is small, he said that if your home is in foreclosure, “every dime counts.” He also noted that no elected officials in his district, or any constituents, had asked him to support the increase.

Barbara Bergman called the question. This parliamentary move – designed to end discussion and force a vote on the item – requires a two-thirds majority to pass. That equates to eight votes on the 11-member board.

Wes Prater objected, saying he hadn’t had the opportunity to speak yet. Hedger clarified that the board rule allowing each commissioner to speak before a vote is taken applies only to committee meetings, not the regular board meeting. The question had been called properly, and a vote on it could proceed.

Often calling the question is approved on a voice vote. However, because there seemed to be division on the board, the clerk took a roll-call vote.

Outcome on calling the question: The motion failed on a 5-6 vote. Voting against it were Felicia Brabec, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Dan Smith and Rob Turner.

The discussion resumed, and Prater took his speaking turn. He was bothered that they’re using an act that’s nearly 100 years old, and that had been dormant until recently. Somebody “found” it, he said, so the county started levying this tax. If commissioners want this money for economic development, they should put it on the ballot for voters to decide, he argued. “If it’s good stuff, they’ll approve it,” he said.

Saying he’s supportive of Act 88, Rob Turner did not think an increase was appropriate. In fact, taxes aren’t easy to roll back after they’ve been raised, he said. Some commissioners argue that it’s only a one-dollar increase, but things add up. He compared it to his own family’s phone bill, which started out modestly but over the years has grown because so many things have been added to it. “At some time, you have to stop,” he said. It’s not wise to go above 0.05 mills.

Yousef Rabhi clarified with the administration that the allocations for the Act 88 proceeds aren’t limited to the amounts and organizations that are currently designated to receive the funding. The board has the authority to change that, he said. But this amendment is simply raising the amount of the millage, he said. If someone isn’t happy with supporting Ann Arbor SPARK, then they can lobby against funding it. The point isn’t to steal people’s money, he said. By way of analogy, Rabhi said he can spend a dollar on soda at the corner store. But if everyone pools their dollars, then it’s possible to create jobs and build the community. “Together, we can do more than as individuals,” he said – that’s the point.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he planned to support the increase. Responding to Ping’s comments, he said that commissioners work hard on the east side of the county. [Sizemore, who represents District 5, lives in Ypsilanti Township.] He said one of his goals is to expand the Act 88-funded efforts countywide. But it’s the byproducts of the Act 88 funding that are really important, he added. For example, Kalitta Air has invested millions in expanding at the Willow Run airport, he said, and the Wolfpack – a conservancy group co-founded by attorney and former Clinton advisor Paul Dimond and retired Ford executive Ray Pittman – is interested in supporting the proposed recreation center in downtown Ypsilanti, near the Huron River.

County commissioner Ronnie Peterson.

Sizemore described Ypsilanti as a jewel that just needed more polishing. He noted that University of Michigan faculty who are helping design the rec center were surprised when they visited the city. Downtown Ypsilanti can be transformed like Dexter, he said, but people just need to get working on it. [The village of Dexter had been highlighted earlier in the meeting as a recipient of the county's overall environmental excellence award.]

Sizemore characterized the work of Ann Arbor SPARK as “trickle down” regarding job creation, but the community also needs a “trickle up” approach. He felt he’d be “beaten up for it,” but he was supporting the millage increase, though he wasn’t happy with the way in which it had been brought forward.

Prater pointed out that the Ann Arbor District Library has a $65 million bond proposal on the ballot that could mean new taxes, raising money for a new downtown library. And there could be another millage soon for countywide transportation, he noted. Commissioners need to take a hard look at what’s happening and stop this foolishness, he said. They need to start acting like they’re concerned for the taxpaying public. The increase isn’t a lot of money, but it’s the principle, Prater concluded.

Peterson reiterated that he was fine with the 0.05 mill rate, but didn’t want to raise it. His concern is that they’re steering away from its original purpose. He said he totally disagreed with Sizemore – saying this tax increase isn’t about Ypsilanti. The city of Ypsilanti had been doing just fine before Sizemore decided to visit, Petersen said.

Peterson contended that the tax increase is designed to fund an internal program within county government, and he objected to that. If commissioners want more revenue for county operations, they should ask the voters. This is why people don’t trust elected officials, he said. If the board wants to create an economic development department, commissioners should sit around the table and talk about that.

Barbara Bergman called the question. This time, support for that action was unanimous and the clerk called the role for a vote on the amendment.

Outcome on amendment: The amendment to increase the tax passed on a 6-5 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith, Ronnie Peterson, Rob Turner, Wes Prater and Alicia Ping.

Economic/Agricultural Development Tax: Board Discussion – Main Resolution

Dan Smith noted that he’s heard the term “economic development” used during the board’s deliberations, but in fact, Act 88 of 1913 doesn’t mention it. The act’s title is “Advertisement of Agricultural Advantages,” he said, with a subtitle that states: ”Advertisement of state or county agricultural, industrial, trade or tourist advantages; tax levy or appropriation by board of supervisors.” While economic development is being used as a catchall phrase in these discussions, it’s actually a distortion of the original act, he said.

Washtenaw County commissioner Dan Smith.

Wes Prater asked the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, to respond to Smith’s comment. Hedger noted that the act was passed nearly 100 years ago, and that while it doesn’t mention economic development directly, it does refer to trade and industry. He thought that it does cover economic development.

Indicating that she had been especially persuaded by Yousef Rabhi’s “passionate” speech, Alicia Ping told her fellow commissioners: “Don’t fall over, but I think I’m going to vote yes on this.” [Previously, Ping had voted against levying the Act 88 millage.] She doesn’t agree with everything it involves, but hoped that the funds could be reallocated in the future to benefit other parts of the county. The resolution would pass regardless of how she voted, Ping acknowledged, but she hoped that other commissioners would remember that she voted yes, the next time they decide how to spend the proceeds.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. agreed with Ping, saying they needed more people working on economic development, and more ideas. They needed to spread out the funding so that a larger part of the county benefits. ”The whole dang county needs help, to be honest with you,” he concluded.

Barbara Bergman again called the question, and received unanimous support to move ahead with the vote on the main resolution.

Outcome on main resolution: The resolution passed on an 8-3 vote, with dissent from Dan Smith, Ronnie Peterson and Wes Prater.

Accommodation Ordinance

The board was asked to consider initial approval of a change to Washtenaw County’s accommodation ordinance that would shift control for administering and enforcing the accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director.

The ordinance amendment also would shift a 0.7 full-time equivalent accounting job from the treasurer’s office to the county finance department, and amend the accommodation tax policy to clarify that the tax is only assessed against the actual price of a hotel, motel or other rental – not against other amenities that the business might charge its customers, such as Internet access or an extra cot in the room. [.pdf of ordinance amendment] [.pdf of amended accommodation ordinance] [.pdf of amended accommodation policy]

According to a staff memo, the changes are being recommended by the county’s accommodation ordinance commission (AOC), as well as the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti convention and visitors bureaus, which receive funding from the 5% tax. In 2011, revenues from the tax reached nearly $4 million, and are allocated on a 75%/25% split to the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti CVBs.

This is the second recent change to the accommodation tax ordinance. At its Aug. 1, 2012 meeting, the board amended the ordinance to exempt cottages and bed & breakfasts with fewer than 14 rooms, as well as individuals who occasionally lease out rooms. These types of establishments account for less than 1% of the total tax collected in Washtenaw County, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution. Several owners of bed & breakfasts spoke to the board in favor of that amendment at the Aug. 1 meeting, citing concerns over the increased frequency of audits and general attitude of the treasurer’s staff, which they felt was unnecessarily contentious.

Accommodation Tax Ordinance: Public Commentary

Two representatives of the Washtenaw County Hotel/Motel Association addressed the board about the ordinance changes. Joe Sefcovic, general manager of the Holiday Inn on Plymouth Road, is president of the association. He thanked commissioners for bringing forward the ordinance change, and urged them to support it.

John Staples began by telling the board that he’d worked at Weber’s Inn since 1943 – but then laughed and said he’d meant to say he’d worked there for 43 years. [Staples is general manager at Weber's.] He said he’s treasurer of the hotel/motel association, and has been involved in that organization since its inception. Ever since the accommodation tax was first instituted, it has never been collected on anything except room revenue, he said. Staples supported the proposed ordinance changes.

Accommodation Tax Ordinance: Board Discussion

Dan Smith noted that this is the second accommodation ordinance change in less than a year. It sounded like the AOC had taken its time and evaluated this proposal, but he hoped there wouldn’t be more changes anytime soon. Smith said his other concern is that the ordinance isn’t treating all hoteliers the same. There are full-service hotels/motels on the one hand, but also a la carte establishments that charge extra for things like Internet access, a rollaway bed and breakfast. He said he understood the intent of the ordinance, but wasn’t sure it resulted in equitable treatment.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the accommodation ordinance amendments. A final vote is expected on Oct. 17. The board also set a public hearing for that meeting, to seek input on the proposed changes.

Animal Control Services

At their Oct. 3 meeting, commissioners considered a resolution outlining a general set of recommendations for animal control services, put forward by a policy task force that’s been meeting since May. It was an item brought forward during the meeting by Barbara Bergman, and had not been part of the published agenda. [.pdf of Bergman's resolution] The commissioners also received a more detailed report from the task force. [.pdf of policy task force report]

County commissioner Barbara Bergman.

The recommendations are intended to work in concert with a directive already passed by the board at its Sept. 19 meeting. At that meeting, commissioners approved a resolution also brought forward by Bergman that directed county administrator Verna McDaniel to begin negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley toward a new contract for animal control services. The resolution also stated that if McDaniel doesn’t believe sufficient progress is being made by Oct. 30, then she’s authorized to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to seek bids from other organizations.

The issue of how to handle animal control services – including state-mandated services as well as non-mandated services – dates back to budget cuts proposed in 2011. The county now has a contract with HSHV through the end of 2012. Early this year, the board formed a policy task force and a separate work group, led by Sheriff Jerry Clayton, to analyze costs for services that HSHV now provides. For the most recent Chronicle coverage of this effort, see: “Task Force: Negotiate with Humane Society.”

At the board’s Sept. 19 meeting, much of the debate centered on the fact that formal recommendations from the task force hadn’t yet been presented to the board. Those recommendations are intended to guide negotiations with HSHV, and to serve as the foundation for a possible RFP. There were also questions over how much flexibility McDaniel would have in her negotiations. The current 2013 budget has allocated $250,000 for animal control services. This year, the county is paying $415,000 to HSHV, down from $500,000 in 2011. Commissioners expect that the final amount negotiated for 2013 will be higher than the budgeted $250,000 – and if that’s the case, the board will need to amend the budget.

The service recommendations described in the Oct. 3 resolution include: (1) licensing all dogs at the point of adoption or recovery; (2) holding all stray animals for only the minimum number of days required by state law; (3) providing animal cruelty investigations; (4) holding animals for bite quarantine or other court-mandated reasons for the minimum time required by state law; (5) specifying by contract the required holding period, medical attention and basic humane care for animals; (6) posting information on the county website regarding animals that are available for adoption or recovery; (7) supporting county policies for registration and licensing of animals; and (8) establishing a monthly report for the county board of commissioners regarding animal control operating metrics.

HSHV board vice president Mark Heusel attended the Oct. 3 meeting, but did not formally address the board.

Animal Control Services: Board Discussion

Barbara Bergman began by thanking everyone who’d worked on this project. The recommendations warrant further discussion, she said, but not that night – the first presidential debate was being held later in the evening, and people wanted to get home to watch it, she said. But county administrator Verna McDaniel needed more than “fluff” to begin negotiations, Bergman said. The recommendations are intended to provide guidelines for those talks.

From left: Mark Heusel of the Humane Society of Huron Valley board talks with county commissioner Yousef Rabhi before the Oct. 3, 2012 county board.

When some commissioners started asking about items in the task force report, Bergman reminded them that the motion on the floor related to her resolution of recommendations – not the report. Rob Turner asked a question about process: Is this just a starting point for a fuller discussion about animal control policy?

Conan Smith replied that the board will need to take a series of steps. The first thing is for McDaniel to negotiate with HSHV, based on the set of recommendations that the board would be voting on that night.

Dan Smith made a series of comparisons intended to put the cost of animal services in context. The HSHV has estimated that the total cost of housing an animal is $53.13 per day, he noted. If you do a Priceline.com search, you can find hotel rooms in the Ann Arbor area for $50 a night. Or multiplying that amount by 30 days, you can find a pretty nice apartment in the area for $1,500 per month, he said. And if you use it as a monthly mortgage payment, that would get you a $333,860 house based on 4% interest and a standard 30-year mortgage.

Turner pointed out that this task force report was sent to commissioners at a late date. What’s more, some of the information is incorrect, he said, and as a task force member, he wanted to go over it and make sure it accurately reflects the group’s work. He agreed with Bergman that it wasn’t the right time to discuss the report. They need more time to review it before bringing back questions and comments.

Leah Gunn noted that the resolution before the board gave direction to McDaniel. Time is of the essence, she said. The county needs to find out whether it can negotiate a deal with HSHV. If not, the county needs to take other steps, she said.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the recommendations related to animal control services.

Future discussions about this issue will likely prove contentious. In an email sent to the board and HSHV representatives on Oct. 2, Gunn outlined her position this way:

Since the Board has instructed the County Administrator to negotiate with the Humane Society of Huron Valley, I would suggest that we vote to accept the report as prepared by Conan, and then vote on the resolution presented by Barbara. Her resolution is more succinct, is in resolution format, and contains language saying that we (the BOC) authorize the “purchase of the listed services” to be provided by a vendor. These are the minimum required by law. As part of this process, Verna has already suggested that she talk with those jurisdictions which have animal control ordinances. I would leave this in her good hands.

The other parts of the report are merely for reference, and I simply do not agree with the numbers that were provided to the Sheriff’s Dept. We are still in the dark about exactly how many dogs are our responsibility. I emphasize the we are NOT responsible for people’s pet dogs. If someone owns a dog, that is their responsibility, not that of the taxpayers’ of Washtenaw County.

As long as one child in Washtenaw County goes to bed hungry, I am not much interested in dogs.

Environmental Awards

Four environmental excellence awards were given out by the Washtenaw County commissioners at their Oct. 3 meeting. The awards ”honor local businesses and non-profit organizations who provide exceptional leadership in environmental protection during National Pollution Prevention Week.” The winners were chosen by the county’s environmental health division and the office of the water resources commissioner.

The University of Michigan’s Radrick Farms Golf Course received the 2012 Excellence in Water Quality Protection Award for its “innovative water and energy conservation measures, environmental stewardship programs, and stormwater management systems.” The 2012 Excellence in Waste Reduction and Recycling Award was given to Wylie Elementary School of Dexter, for its “extensive recycling program, purchasing of recycled products, and educating their students in waste reduction and conservation ethics.” And The Trenton Corp. of Ann Arbor received the 2012 Excellence in Pollution Prevention Award for “reducing the use of toxic substances and preventing pollution before it is produced.”

The overall winner, covering all three categories, was the village of Dexter. Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, gave the award, which was accepted by village manager Donna Dettling.

After the presentations, Bobrin received a standing ovation from the board and audience. She had noted that this will be her last time presenting the awards – she did not run for re-election, and will leave office later this year.

Misc. Communications

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Misc. Communications: Appointments Caucus

Board chair Conan Smith announced that there are a number of appointments to be made to various county boards, commissions and committees, so there will be an appointments caucus on Wednesday, Nov. 7 starting at 5:30 p.m. in the conference room of the county administration building. [The building, where board meetings are held, is located at 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor. The caucus meetings are open to the public.]

Commissioners will meet in caucus to review applications, he said. For the appointments on which there’s consensus, those names will be brought forward to the board at its meeting that same evening. The rest would be considered at the board’s Dec. 5 meeting. He noted that in November, there will be only one meeting of the board.

A listing of all vacancies, as well as an online application to apply for an opening, can be found on the county’s website.

Wes Prater noted that there are two vacancies on the veterans affairs committee. He wondered if those vacancies have been posted. Pete Simms of the county clerk’s office reported that he’d spoken with Michael Smith, director of the county department of veterans affairs, and that the positions would be posted in the Washtenaw Legal News. He also confirmed that all of the VFW posts in the county would be contacted.

Ronnie Peterson then asked where exactly the caucus would be held. When Smith repeated the location, Peterson replied that it’s important for citizens to know the appointments process. Smith explained that as board chair, he is responsible for making nominations to the board for their approval, but before he does, he solicits feedback from commissioners. It’s not a necessary part of the process, he said – that is, the caucus isn’t required. The required public part happens at the board meetings, when nominations are put forward and commissioners vote on them.

Peterson contended that he didn’t know that appointment caucuses were being held. Why are some people appointed and others aren’t? It’s important to do this work in the public eye, he said. Peterson was sure that some commissioners already had lined up votes for the candidates they wanted to appoint, but he said he doesn’t do those kind of deals.

Leah Gunn observed that notices about the appointments caucus meetings are posted and the meetings are open to the public and attended by the press. [Since late 2008, The Chronicle has attended most of those caucuses, which typically occur twice a year.] Gunn pointed out that some appointments require specific qualifications, which means that not everyone who applies is qualified. She described it as a fair, open process.

Peterson reiterated his complaints about making deals in back rooms. [Peterson periodically raises this issue. He objects to holding any meeting outside the main boardroom where proceedings are televised.]

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. 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 University of Michigan’s Radrick Farms Golf Course received the 2012 Excellence in Water Quality Protection Award for its “innovative water and energy conservation measures, environmental stewardship programs, and stormwater management systems.” The 2012 Excellence in Waste Reduction and Recycling Award was given to Wylie Elementary School of Dexter, for its “extensive recycling program, purchasing of recycled products, and educating their students in waste reduction and conservation ethics.” And The Trenton Corp. of Ann Arbor received the 2012 Excellence in Pollution Prevention Award for “reducing the use of toxic substances and preventing pollution before it is produced.”

The overall winner, covering all three categories, was the village of Dexter. Janis Bobrin, the county’s water resources commissioner, gave the award, which was accepted by village manager Donna Dettling.

After the presentations, Bobrin received a standing ovation from the board and audience. She had noted that this will be her last time presenting the awards – she did not run for re-election, and will leave office later this year.

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

Speakers included Mitch Rhode, CEO of Saline-based Quantum Signal and founder of “NoPaxton.com,” which has mobilized against drilling in this area. Paxton Resources – a company based in Gaylord, Mich.– has notified the county that it has filed an application with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality to drill an exploratory oil and natural gas well in Saline Township. [.pdf of notification letter]

Rhode said he was approached in October about the possibility of licensing the mineral rights on his property. After looking into it, he said what he found was frightening: drilling that resulted in well contamination and property devaluation, and damaged roads caused by company tanker trucks, among other effects. He and other speakers noted that there is insufficient state regulation and oversight of these activities.

Several commissioners thanked the speakers for coming and expressed their own intent to look into the issue, though it’s not clear what action can be taken at the county level. Yousef Rabhi called it one of the most important issues facing this community, and noted that there’s already been an example of industrial contamination – the 1,4 dioxane contamination of underground aquifers caused by the former Gelman Sciences manufacturing plant in Scio Township. Court-ordered cleanup of that contamination has been ongoing for years.

Wes Prater has prepared a resolution similar to one passed last year by the Wayne County commission, which called for a statewide and national ban on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. Washtenaw County commissioners are expected to take up the resolution following the April 19 working session. That meeting begins at 6 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

This brief was filed soon after adjournment of the board’s April 4 meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Matt Naud, Ann Arbor's environmental coordinator, moderated a panel discussion on resource management – the topic of the first in a series of four sustainability forums, all to be held at the Ann Arbor District Library. (Photos by the writer.)

It was the first of four public forums, and part of a broader sustainability initiative that started informally nearly two years ago, with a joint meeting of the city’s planning, environmental and energy commissions. The idea is to help shape decisions by looking at a triple bottom line: environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity.

In early 2011, the city received a $95,000 grant from the Home Depot Foundation to fund a formal sustainability project. The project’s main goal is to review the city’s existing plans and organize them into a framework of goals, objectives and indicators that can guide future planning and policy. Other goals include improving access to the city’s plans and to the sustainability components of each plan, and to incorporate the concept of sustainability into city planning and future city plans.

In addition to city staff, this work has been guided by volunteers who serve on four city advisory commissions: Park, planning, energy and environmental. Many of those members attended the Jan. 12 forum, which was held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library.

The topics of the forums reflect four general themes that have been identified to shape the sustainability framework: Resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. The Jan. 12 panel on resource management was moderated by Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator. Panelists included Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council (and a member of the city’s greenbelt advisory commission); Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest and natural resource planning coordinator; Jason Tallant of the city’s natural area preservation program; Tom McMurtrie, Ann Arbor’s solid waste coordinator, who oversees the city’s recycling program; and Chris Graham, chair of the city’s environmental commission.

Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program, also participated by giving an overview of sustainability issues and challenges that local governments face. [The university has its own sustainability initiative, including broad goals announced by president Mary Sue Coleman last fall.]

The Jan. 12 forum also included opportunities for questions and comments from the audience. That commentary covered a wide range of topics, from concerns over Fuller Road Station and potential uses for the Library Lot, to suggestions for improving the city’s recycling and composting programs. Even the issue of Argo Dam was raised. The controversy over whether to remove the dam spiked in 2010, but abated after the city council didn’t vote on the question, thereby making a de facto decision to keep the dam in place.

Naud said he’s often joked that the only sure way to get 100 people to come to a meeting is to say the topic is a dam – but this forum had proven him wrong. The city is interested in hearing from residents, he said: What sustainability issues are important? How would people like to be engaged in these community discussions?

The forum was videotaped by AADL staff and will be posted on the library’s website. Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” and an update on the project given at the November 2011 park advisory commission meeting.

Sustainability & Resource Management: Setting the Stage

Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program, began the panel presentation by saying that he’d been asked to talk about the big picture concepts related to these themes, and challenges that local governments face in dealing with them. He emphasized that the concept of sustainability encompasses more than just the environment, but that this first forum would focus on environmental issues.

Dick Norton, chair of the University of Michigan urban and regional planning program, and a member of the Huron River Watershed Council executive committee.

Norton gave a brief overview of possible ways to think about attributes of a clean environment, related to topics that would be discussed by panelists. For air and water quality, it’s important that those resources are unpolluted, available in sufficient quantity, and that residents have adequate access. Viable ecosystems are one way to provide clean air and water, he said. Ecosystems provide filtering functions, and are a source of biodiversity – we suffer if we homogenize our environmental base, he said. Ecosystems also provide an aesthetic quality, making places pleasant to live.

Regarding responsible resource use, Norton pointed to the three Rs: Reduce, reuse, recycle. Recycling is good, he said, but reuse is better and reducing is the best approach to responsible resource use. It’s also important to think about the waste stream, and how waste can be used as input for new systems. Composting is one example of that.

Norton then outlined four challenges that local governments face when dealing with these issues. The first is factual uncertainty. The world is complex, and there is a great amount of scientific uncertainty. That gives people ammunition to argue against environmental protection, he said. There’s uncertainty over when a substance becomes pollution, for example. Carbon dioxide or arsenic are common elements – at what amounts do those elements become pollutants? Another uncertainty relates to resource depletion. The environment is a resilient receptor, Norton said – it can take a lot of shock to its system. But at what point does disruption and depletion of resources become too great? That uncertainty makes it difficult for government to act, he said.

Moral disagreements are another challenge for governments, Norton said. Is nature a form of sacred life, or just toilet paper on a stump? Should nature be preserved at the expense of jobs? And who gets to decide? Norton said he tells his students that if you have a collaborative planning process, you’ll encounter a plurality of values. That’s a challenge.

Capacity problems – both legal and financial – are also an issue, Norton said. Local governments are creatures of the state, he said, and can only do what the state enables them to do by law. A lot of local officials are reticent to undertake proactive environmental protection, but they have a lot more capacity to act than they think, he contended.

Regarding fiscal capacity, Norton noted that financial resources are highly strained, and there’s a sentiment that local governments can’t afford this “sustainability stuff.” But Norton argued that energy efficiency, for example, is often less expensive in the long term, though it usually requires a higher upfront investment. He encouraged officials to make decisions based on a longer timeframe.

The final challenge Norton cited is a category he called “unhappy propensities” – localism, parochialism and inertia. Localism is the attitude that “we get to decide,” he said. Parochialism is the belief that if something is happening outside of our borders, we don’t need to worry about it. That works if the problems are downstream, but not so much if it’s an upstream problem headed our way.

Then there’s the challenge of inertia: We’ve always done it this way, so why change? Norton noted that sustainability is a different way of looking at things, and that means change. Ann Arbor is stepping out in front of other communities, Norton said, and is pushing these boundaries. He encouraged a broader perspective, looking at decisions as they fit into a bigger system.

Water Resources: Protecting the Huron River

Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, began by describing the history of HRWC. The nonprofit was founded in 1965 by 17 communities along the Huron River who were concerned about protecting this water resource. They knew they couldn’t just look at it from the perspective of where the river flowed through their individual jurisdictions.

Sometimes people overlook the value of the watershed, Rubin said. In addition to providing drinking water, the river also is an asset for recreation, property values, wildlife habitat and stormwater control. The watershed – including the Huron River and its tributaries – is arguably the region’s largest natural feature.

Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council.

The Huron River is the only river in southeast Michigan that’s a state-designated “natural river.” The designation affords the river special protections, she said, related to development and vegetation. The watershed also is protected by strong local and regional regulations and partnerships, Rubin said, citing the Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority as one example.

The watershed offers a wealth of recreational and fishing opportunities, Rubin said, and provides a habitat to threatened and endangered wildlife, including the northern madtom, the snuffbox mussel, the prairie fringed orchid, the least shrew, and the massasauga rattlesnake.

But although the Huron River is the cleanest urban river in Michigan, she said, there are also problems. Many sections are classified as “impaired,” based on the inability to meet certain uses, like swimming or fishing, as laid out in the federal Clean Water Act. Two major problems are excess levels of phosphorus and E. coli – a problem that’s especially common in urban areas, Rubin said. Sources for E. coli include animal and human feces, which can be discharged into the river from wastewater or sewer overflow during storms.

Other problems causing the impaired classification relate to sediment, erratic flows, low dissolved oxygen, mercury and PCBs.

Rubin outlined several broader threats to the area’s water resources. The region, sandwiched between the urban areas of Detroit and Lansing, has lost many of its natural areas, she said. Ann Arbor itself has become more urbanized, which has contributed to the loss of habitat, as well as to pollution, warmer temperatures and erratic flows.

Hydrologic changes are another threat. The river has 97 documented dams, Rubin said, and this changes flow patterns tremendously. It leads to the loss of wetlands, causes sedimentation, and alters the way that the ecosystem functions.

Rubin also identified “non-point” source pollution as a threat to the watershed. As rain falls onto roofs, into gutters, and onto roads, it collects pollutants that eventually flow into the river. That’s the No. 1 cause of water pollution in the U.S., she said.

A variety of tools are used to address these issues, Rubin said, including watershed-wide partnerships, data that’s collected and analyzed, advocacy and education. Due to efforts by the watershed council and the University of Michigan, the Huron is one of the best studied rivers in Michigan, she said.

The watershed council pushes people to do more to protect the river, Rubin said. Staff and volunteers work on water-quality monitoring, for example, as well as an adopt-a-stream program, which includes data collection and experiential learning.

There’s value in having “eyes on the river,” Rubin concluded. Among other things, it enables the long-term tracking of trends, and provides a scientific basis to advocate for local and state protection policies.

Following Rubin’s presentation, Matt Naud asked the audience a trivia question: How many cities use the Huron River for their drinking water? Just one – Ann Arbor, he said. That’s why the city cares about its upstream partners.

Solid Waste: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Tom McMurtrie, the city’s solid waste coordinator, began by saying that recycling is one of the most effective things that people can do to reduce their carbon footprint. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified Ann Arbor as one of the nation’s top recycling communities, he said. So how did the city get to this point?

From left: Kerry Gray, Ann Arbor's urban forest & natural resource planning coordinator; Jason Tallant of the city's natural area preservation program; and Tom McMurtrie, solid waste coordinator.

In the 1970s, the city brought curbside recycling to every home in the city, McMurtrie said. Back then, recycling required more work – residents had to separate green glass from brown glass, cardboard from newspapers. It reminded him of a favorite New Yorker cartoon: “Recycling in Hell.”

In 1991 the city introduced two-stream recycling. And every multi-family building was added, which doubled participation. The city built a sorting facility at the location of the current drop-off site.

Then in 2010, McMurtrie said, the city moved to another level of recycling: single stream. New plastics were added to the list of recyclables, and new carts with radio-frequency tags were deployed, which allowed single-family homes to record their recycling and be eligible for a rewards program.

In mid-2010, a $3.5 million overhaul was completed to the city’s materials recovery facility – known as the MRF (pronounced “murf”)– at 4150 Platt Road. Overall tonnages of recyclables have tripled, he said, with materials coming from as far away as Toledo and Lansing. Four new hybrid recycling trucks were purchased, which use less fuel.  Four more hybrid trucks will likely be added in 2012, he said.

McMurtrie also pointed to the concepts of “reduce” and “reuse.” His suggestions included shopping for fresh food at the farmers market, where less packaging is used, and using reusable bags whenever possible. About two years ago, the city also added the option of including food waste in its composting program, he noted. Every pound of food or yard waste that’s composted greatly reduces the burden on landfills, he said.

Showing images extracted from a core boring taken at the closed Ann Arbor landfill, McMurtrie noted that most materials in the landfill haven’t decomposed.

McMurtrie concluded by saying that the city is working on an update of its five-year solid waste plan, and he encouraged residents to participate by giving their input. The first meeting will be held on Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012 from 4-6 p.m. in the 4th floor conference room in Larcom City Hall, 301 E. Huron. The meeting is open to the public.

Urban Forest Management

Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest and natural resource planning coordinator, said that until recently, the city didn’t have a comprehensive understanding of its urban forest resources. In 2009, city staff finished an updated tree inventory, cataloging location and maintenance needs, among other things. The city has 42,776 street trees, 6,923 park trees (in mowed areas), and 7,269 potential street planting locations, she said.

Maintenance needs were also inventoried, with 1,642 trees identified as priority removals and 3,424 trees that needed priority pruning. An additional 43,271 trees needed routine pruning, and 1,362 stumps needed to be removed.

In 2010, the city completed an evaluation of its urban tree canopy, Gray reported. The canopy covers nearly 33% of the city. Of that, 46% is located in residential areas, 23.7% is in the city-owned right-of-way, and 22% is in recreational areas, such as parks. Compared to other cities, Ann Arbor’s tree canopy is average, she said.

Chart of tree diversity in Ann Arbor. (Links to larger image)

Gray addressed the issue of tree diversity, and said the city discourages the planting of maple trees, which account for 37% of the public tree population. ”Plant something other than a maple – that’s my take-away message,” she said.

Ann Arbor’s urban forest is a tremendous asset, Gray said. Public trees provide an estimated annual $2.8 million in benefits related to energy, property values, stormwater control, air quality and other benefits.

But in the past, there hasn’t been a management plan for the urban forest, unlike the city’s other assets, Gray said. So in 2010, city staff began developing an asset management plan, with the goal of maintaining the urban forest and maximizing its benefits. The city is doing a lot of public engagement related to this plan, she said – more information is online at a2.gov/urbanforestry.

Matt Naud added a coda to Gray’s presentation, noting that the city lost about 10,000 city street trees that were attacked by the emerald ash borer several years ago. The city spent over $2 million just to remove the trees, he said, and that doesn’t count what it cost residents for tree removal on private property. That’s why tree diversity is important – you don’t know what’s coming next, he said.

Natural Area Preservation

Jason Tallant of the city’s natural area preservation program (NAP) began his comments by showing a slide of the Furstenberg Nature Area – it’s the image he sees when he closes his eyes to think about the topic of sustainability, because it integrates the built environment with the native landscape.

NAP straddles the line between providing services for people, he said, and empowering them to preserve natural features in the city’s parkland and on their own property. He read NAP’s mission statement: “To protect and restore Ann Arbor’s natural areas and foster an environmental ethic among its citizens.”

Ann Arbor resident David Diephuis, center, talks with urban forester Kerry Gray, left, and Jason Tallant of the city's natural area preservation program.

A lot of sustainability practices are based on history, Tallant said, specifically what occurred prior to European settlement. He quoted from the 1836 land survey notes of John M. Gordon, who described the land between Ann Arbor and Dixboro: “Oaks of the circumference of 9-15 feet abound in the forests… White Oak and Burr Oak at intervals of 30-40 feet with an undergrowth 5-6’ high which has the appearance of being annually burnt down as I am informed it is.”

The history of the land is really important when thinking about how to move into the future, Tallant said. He showed a slide of the types of vegetation on land in the Ann Arbor area prior to settlement, and noted that much of the area had been covered by a mixed-oak or oak-hickory forests, with wetlands along the river. It wasn’t a monoculture, he noted, but rather a mixed environment, depending on topography, hydrology, soil type and other factors.

NAP facilitates restoration work in all of the city parks and natural areas, Tallant said. Their work includes conducting controlled burns, taking detailed inventories of the plants and animals within the city, and knowing what’s occurring in the landscape. They also do invasive species control, he said – when you see someone walking along with an orange-colored bag full of garlic mustard, they’re restoring the land so that its biodiversity isn’t diminished. That work helps create a resilient ecosystem, he said.

Outreach, Education

Chris Graham, chair of the city’s environmental commission, said he hoped that the previous speakers had given the audience an idea of the extraordinary things that Ann Arbor is doing related to sustainability. Residents should be very proud, he said.

Graham explained that the original “Ann’s arbor” was a grove of large burr oak trees – the “children” of those early oaks are obvious in the area near St. Andrew’s Church, he said, north of city hall. Underneath those oaks were roughly 300 species of plants that the native Indians burned every year.

Just a few decades ago, there were no regulations related to landmark trees, Graham noted. Controversies in the 1970s and ’80s, when development resulted in the removal of many of those trees, led to changes in Chapter 62 of the city code – what’s known as the natural features ordinance, Graham said. Ann Arbor stepped up courageously, he said, and added a natural features standard that must be met in order to gain site plan approval for any development.

What are natural features? Graham asked. His list includes woodlands, native forest fragments, some wetlands, waterways, and floodplains. Related to native forest fragments, Graham said there’s an idea hatching to develop a stewardship program, similar to the city’s natural area preservation program. The new program would look at native forest fragments in all parts of the city, including the University of Michigan and private land – the fabric of natural features knits itself across the city, he said. The plan would be to do outreach and education, so that property owners would know what’s in their back yards.

The children of trees that existed in the 1820s won’t last without help, Graham said. “Come join us in this endeavor.”

Questions & Comments

During the last portion of the forum, panelists fielded questions and commentary from the audience. This report summarizes the questions and presents them thematically.

Questions & Comments: Recycling

Question: Why doesn’t the city’s recycling program accept No. 3 plastics or biodegradable materials?

Tom McMurtrie noted that No. 3 plastics – made from polyvinyl chloride – are a significant contaminant if mixed with other plastics. The city needed to be responsible, he said, and fortunately there aren’t a lot of No. 3 products in the waste stream.

As for biodegradables, McMurtrie said that’s been a challenging issue. On the surface, it looks like a good idea, he said. However, research shows that biodegradable products break down into very small particulates that aren’t necessarily good for the environment. Most of the particulates are petroleum-based, he said, and end up staying in the environment in that form. The other issue is that if those particulates end up in the recycling stream, they act as contaminants.

Question: Are there plans to eventually accept post-consumer food waste? And how much contamination ends up in the compost stream?

McMurtrie fielded this question too, inviting the speaker to participate in the city’s solid waste plan update. This issue of post-consumer food waste will be explored, although there are some repercussions around that issue, he said. Regarding contamination in the compost stream, that hasn’t been a problem, McMurtrie said. The city switched to a private operator about a year ago, and it’s worked out well, he said. [At its Dec. 6, 2010 meeting, the city council approved contracting with WeCare Organics to operate the city's composting facility.]

Question: If reducing waste is really the goal, how will incentives be built into the program to achieve that goal? There are incentives to recycle, but how can the city encourage reduction?

McMurtrie called this a great question, and said that a simplistic approach might be to use a graduated fee system for trash collection – to charge more for large trash containers, and less for smaller ones. The city is already doing that to some extent, he said. Households that use 96-gallon trash containers pay a fee each year – $38 – while there’s no fee for 64-gallon or 32-gallon containers. Perhaps the city could incentivize more in that area.

Jeanine Palms asked city staff about whether there are plans to give incentives to residents for reducing their waste, not simply for recycling it.

Jeanine Palms, who had asked the original question, wondered if there was any way to charge for the actual amount of waste that a household produced. McMurtrie replied that it’s an option, but that city council has been hesitant to take that approach. It risks becoming a kind of regressive tax on low-income people with large families, he said.

Dick Norton weighed in, saying that the answer depends on what you want to reduce. Palms’ question and McMurtrie’s answer had focused on trash, he said, but there are other things that people consume, like energy, water and land. Urban planners try to design cities to create greater density and transportation systems so that people can live more compactly. The ways that cities are built out impacts how much people consume, he said.

Norton also pointed to research on the impact of monetizing behavior. One study looked at a daycare center, which started charging parents who showed up late to pick up their kids. The intent was to create a disincentive for people, and to eliminate the late pick-ups. But instead, more people started showing up late, Norton said. When a monetary amount was attached to that behavior, people decided it was worth the amount charged. So incentives can result in perverse outcomes, he noted.

We have to start changing our cultural expectations, Norton continued. We have to stop thinking about living the big life, then throwing it away later. And that’s a tougher nut to crack, he said.

Chris Graham pointed to another thing that could be reduced: Turf grass. The amount of energy, pollutants, time and effort that’s spent on maintaining lawns in the city is counterproductive when trying to achieve sustainability, he said.

Laura Rubin addressed the question from the perspective of water resources. She noted that the city has a graduated water rate structure, so that heavier users pay more. The Huron River Watershed Council have been holding focus groups on the issue of water conservation. Because water is plentiful in the Great Lakes region, the issue of saving water isn’t always compelling. It’s better to tie the issue to energy conservation, she said.

When people talk about reasons why they might want to save water, the knee-jerk answer is to save money, Rubin noted. But when asked, no one in the focus groups could report what their water bill is, she said. Rubin concluded by noting that while our culture seems to be driven by money and economics, other motivations are often at play.

Matt Naud pointed out that information on water consumption per household is available on the city’s website. Residents can get a lot of data about their water usage by typing in their address and water bill account number, he said.

Comment: Portland, Oregon, has mandated that residents compost their food waste – that’s a direction that Ann Arbor should be headed. Currently, compost pick-up in Ann Arbor runs from April through December. I still eat fruits and vegetables in the winter – compost pick-up should be year-round.

Matt Naud encouraged the speaker to participate in the city’s solid waste plan update, saying that this type of feedback is exactly the kind of thing the city needs to hear.

Question: I live in an apartment in order to be environmentally sound. When will food compost pick-up be available for multiple family dwellings? I now take my food scraps to friends who live outside the city and raise chickens. So there’s no lack of motivation.

Matt Naud again suggested that this kind of feedback would be useful for the city’s solid waste plan update. Tom McMurtrie said that most multi-family buildings can get compost carts. Requests can be made by calling 99-GREEN.

Questions & Comment: Air Quality – Fuller Road Station

Question: The proposed Fuller Road Station will be a parking structure with almost 1,000 spaces that will bring 1,000 cars into an area near Fuller Pool and Fuller Park. It seems like this will affect the air quality along the Fuller Road corridor and the Huron River. It’s already a heavily used traffic corridor with a lot of emissions, and it seems like Fuller Road Station would really change the quality of air.

Matt Naud said he wasn’t sure if a formal air-quality study has been completed for the Fuller Road Station project. He offered to contact Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, and find out what’s being done or what the plan is.

Questions & Comment: Water Quality – Argo Dam

Comment: I was really surprised to see the number of dams along the Huron River. Fred Pearce wrote a book called “When the Rivers Run Dry.” He has almost nothing good to say about dams.

Laura Rubin noted that there are 97 documented dams along the Huron River – until recently there were 98, but one was removed in Dexter. Beyond that, there are at least 50 other dams that the Huron River Watershed Council has discovered while taking inventory for a new dam management tool it’s developing. A lot of the dams are connected to aging infrastructure, she noted – used at former wastewater treatment plants, or to generate electricity. Some dams have been retired from their original uses. Some are just piles of rubble.

Dams are very detrimental from an environmental point of view, Rubin said, but socially they can be very successful. They can have recreational value. For the Huron River, flood control isn’t a problem, so dams aren’t generally needed for that purpose, she said. A lot of river systems and social systems have been engineered, she noted, and it’s hard to change that mentality.

Dick Norton said the issue highlights the fact that “green” and “nature” don’t have the same meaning for everyone. Norton, who’s on the executive committee of the Huron River Watershed Council, noted that the council was involved in discussions about whether to remove Argo Dam, and it had been painful. [The watershed council advocated for dam removal.] A lot of people who would typically be on the same side of an environmental issue were on different sides of the Argo Dam issue, because they valued natural resources in different ways, he said. The debate was emblematic of issues that society struggles with, he added. Norton said he sympathizes with local officials, who get hammered by people on various sides of an issue.

Questions & Comment: Public Outreach

Comment: I’ve been a townie since 1967 – and have been to a lot of the concerts that are in the posters hanging around the room. [The concert posters were part of a retrospective organized by the Ann Arbor District Library called "Freeing John Sinclair."] Outreach needs to go much further.

My neighborhood is concerned about the Gelman 1,4 dioxane plume, and about property values. Very few of my neighbors are paying attention to other issues that were mentioned tonight. They don’t want taxes to go up, or property values to do down, and they don’t want to pay more for a trash cart. They need to understand sustainability issues in ways that make sense to them. I’d like to see more outreach.

Matt Naud acknowledged that outreach is a challenge. Funding for this kind of effort is one issue – many people who work on sustainability issues are funded by grants, and “that’s not sustainable,” he said.

Questions & Comment: Land Use, Natural Areas – Library Lot

Question: Will the city have a public conversation about the future use for the top of the new underground parking structure – the Library Lot? A lot of people would like to see a park or green space there. Is the city going to ask for ideas from the public?

Sabra Briere, Ward 1 city councilmember.

Matt Naud asked city councilmember Sabra Briere – the only elected city official who attended the forum – to comment.

Briere noted that early last fall, at the city council’s direction, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority began to explore alternate uses of  the five city-owned parcels in downtown Ann Arbor. Those parcels include the Library Lot on South Fifth Avenue north of William; the former YMCA lot north of William between Fourth and Fifth avenues; the Palio lot at the northeast corner of Main and William; the Kline lot on Ashley north of William; and the bottom floor of the parking structure at Fourth and William.

This is a plan that hasn’t been developed yet, so no one can say what will happen, she said, but part of the plan will be to solicit public input. In the near term, she said, the Library Lot will be a surface parking lot, with trees planted. That’s not the long-term plan, she said. However, Briere added, no one knows how long the near-term will last.

Dick Norton commented that there’s a need to see how to make urban environments more green, but it’s also important to worry about maintaining farmland outside of the city. Development should go into already developed cities – it’s important to think about how to accommodate more people in urban areas so that large tracts of farmland and forest can be preserved outside of cities. It’s a difficult trade-off, he noted, especially because different jurisdictions are involved, and different perspectives. Residents of the city don’t want it to change and grow bigger, while farmers don’t want to be told that they can’t sell their land for development – in many cases, that’s their retirement plan.

But if the city wants to reduce energy and preserve farmland, turning the Library Lot into open space probably isn’t the best use for it. The site should probably be put to a more urban use, Norton said. It’s something to think about.

Matt Naud noted that at one of the future sustainability sessions, the city’s greenbelt program will likely be included. [Laura Rubin of the Huron River Watershed Council is a member of the city's greenbelt advisory commission, which oversees the greenbelt program. The program, funded by a 30-year millage, preserves farmland and open space outside of the city by acquiring property development rights.]

Comment: Some years ago, we dug out the grass on our lawn extension and replanted it with native plants – and we were ticketed by the city. The city needs to straighten out that disconnect.

Jason Tallant of the city’s natural areas preservation program applauded the planting of native plants in the easement. Some residents are putting in rain gardens or bioswales, which is great, he said. But the key point, he said, relates to public safety. If the plantings obstruct the view – of pedestrians using a crosswalk, for example – that’s a problem. That’s why the city enforces height restrictions on plants in the easement, he said. The thing to remember is “the right plant for the right place.” [The height restriction limits vegetation to an average height of 36 inches above the road surface.]

Questions & Comments: Future Forums

Question: It was interesting to hear about what the city is doing, but this forum didn’t match my expectations. I thought you’d have more opportunities for asking questions and engaging in dialogue. As I decide whether to attend future sessions, I wonder if the format will be the same?

This is an experiment, Matt Naud said. The first forum was intended to give people a taste of what the city is doing toward sustainability in different areas – city staff are never quite sure how much information is getting out, he said. The question is whether to hold longer sessions, to give the public more time to ask questions and give commentary, or to hold smaller focus sessions that take a deeper dive into these issues.

Naud said the city staff would like to hear what kind of format would be most effective – feedback forms were provided at the forum. Basically, if people want a certain kind of meeting and will attend it, the city will hold it, he said.

Naud said he’s held public meetings about the Gelman 1,4 dioxane issue and only a dozen people would come. It’s hard to know what issues will draw a turnout. He said he’s often joked that the only sure way to get 100 people to come to a meeting is to say the topic is a dam – but this forum has proven him wrong, he said. The city wants to know how people prefer to give feedback, and how this discussion should move forward, Naud said.

Future Forums

Three more forums in this sustainability series are planned. All forums will be held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library building, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

• Feb. 9, 2012: Land Use and Access – including transportation designs, infrastructure, land uses, built environment, and public spaces.
• March 8, 2012: Climate and Energy – including an overview of Ann Arbor’s climate action plan, climate impacts, renewable and alternative energy, energy efficiency and conservation.
• April 12, 2012: Community – including housing, public safety, public art, recreation, outreach, civic engagement, and stewardship of community resources.

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