Graph from weatherspark.com showing the -12 F temperature at the start of the Jan. 6, 2014 city council meeting. (Image links to weatherspark.com)

The direction came after the city council met in a closed session for about half an hour. Councilmembers emerged to craft and then pass the resolution. It gives direction to explore options to make the purchase financially feasible. That means finding a way to finance a $12.8 million deal. The sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street is currently pending to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, in an agreement that was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

The topic of the possible land acquisition ties in to an upcoming Jan. 13 city council work session about economic development.

At the start of the Jan. 6 meeting, the council got an update from three key staff members about the city’s response to the snowstorm that had hit the entire Midwest over the weekend.

From public services area administrator Craig Hupy they heard an update on snowplowing, which was continuing during the meeting. From police chief John Seto, they heard an update on the police department’s support for relocating residents of a housing complex after a water pipe burst. And from Mary Jo Callan, Washtenaw County’s director of the office of community and economic development, they heard an update on efforts to address the needs of the homeless population during the freezing weather.

Concern for how the homeless were faring was the topic of eight out of nine speakers who signed up for public commentary reserved time.

In its regular business agenda, the council dispatched two items leftover from its last meeting of 2013. One of those items was the official termination of a four-year-old memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan for construction of the Fuller Road Station project. That item was voted through with little controversy, although mayor John Hieftje compared it to digging someone up who died a couple of years ago and re-burying them.

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/University of Michigan parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on Fuller Road Station at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012.

The other item delayed from last year was a resolution assigning a specific cost to the removal of on-street metered parking spaces, in connection with future developments: $45,000 per space. That amount was based on the cost of constructing a new parking space in a structure. After the policy was amended during the Jan. 6 meeting, it included a requirement that lost revenue also be compensated, based on projections of revenue for the space for the next 10 years. An average parking meter in the system generates $2,000 in annual income.

Apart from those previously delayed items, the rest of the council’s agenda was mainly filled with future development.

Accounting for two of the council’s Jan. 6 voting items was Traverwood Apartments – a First Martin development on the city’s north side. The site is located on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The council gave final approval of some rezoning necessary for the complex of 16 two-story buildings. And on a separate vote, the council gave site plan approval and a wetland use permit associated with the apartment complex.

The council also approved the upward expansion of the Montgomery Ward building on South Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The estimated $3.8 million project will expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors.

And finally, the council approved the site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. The restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – will be constructed on the east side of the Macy’s building. The restaurants would be operated by two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

As part of the consent agenda, the council approved agreements with Sprint for placing antennas at four facilities: the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure, and the water treatment plant on Sunset Road. The contracts are being revised upwards to $45,000 a year at each location, with 4% annual escalators.

The council also approved appointments to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival board of directors.

Members of a pedestrian safety task force, established late last year, were also nominated at the meeting. A confirmation vote will come at the council’s meeting on Jan. 21. Related at least indirectly to that, city administrator Steve Powers has provided the council with the first part of his response to the council’s direction in connection with the city’s updated non-motorized transportation plan.

Edwards Brothers Property

By way of background, the sale of the Edwards Brothers Malloy on South State Street is currently pending to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, in a deal that was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release.

The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

But a right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers.

Edwards Brothers Property: Council Deliberations

At the end of the meeting, the council voted to go into a closed session for discussion of land acquisition and written attorney-client communication. Those are both allowable exceptions to Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald reviewed the wording of the resolution on the Edwards Brothers property with city clerk Jackie Beaudry.

When councilmembers emerged from the closed session after about a half hour, they voted to go back into open session, and then immediately recessed the meeting so that the verbiage of the resolution could be crafted. [.pdf of amended Edwards Brothers resolution on Jan. 6, 2014]

The resolution directed Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers and city attorney Stephen Postema to gather information to help the city council determine whether to purchase the 16.7-acre property on South State Street. The resolution provides direction to explore options to make the purchase financially feasible. That means finding a way to finance a $12.8 million deal.

Some brief back-and-forth resulted in the addition of a deadline for assembling the information: Jan. 30, 2014. Last year there had been some disagreement about when the clock had started ticking on the 60-business-day window for the city to exercise its right of first refusal. In response to an emailed query after the meeting, city administrator Steve Powers stated:

The City is operating on a timeline to provide notice to Edwards Brothers prior to February 25, 2014. This calculation is made from Nov. 27th, 2013.

On returning from recess about 15 minutes later, the council reopened the agenda to add the resolution on the Edwards Brothers property.

Mayor John Hieftje recited a standard explanation of the city’s interest in preserving the city’s tax base. He called the acquisition of the old Pfizer property and the property along South Division where the Blimpy Burger’s previously stood part of a pattern that the University of Michigan has displayed.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she was glad additional information was being gathered so the council could decide whether to exercise its right of first refusal. She said it would be invaluable to have that information so that the council can make its decision. Staff would be looking at the zoning questions, she said, which will help to inform the council’s decision. The site, at 16.7 acres, is the largest remaining such parcel in the city, she said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) echoed Hieftje and Lumm. The University of Michigan’s acquisition of property is a long-term challenge the city faces, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution directing the city administrator and city attorney to gather information on exercising the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property.

Snowstorm

At the start of the meeting, much of the city administrator’s communications and the public commentary dealt with the snowstorm that began Jan. 4, which ultimately dropped 10.4 inches of snow on the city and subsequently pushed temperatures to -14 F.

Snowstorm: City’s Response

City administrator Steve Powers introduced Craig Hupy, public services area administrator, to give an update on the city’s snow removal response during and after the recent snowstorm.

From left: Public services area administrator Craig Hupy, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The official tally for snowfall was 10.4 inches. Hupy described how the city had been using 12-hour shifts since New Year’s Eve, and was starting its seventh day of continuous plowing. Hupy said the colder weather was starting to affect the equipment and they were experiencing some breakdowns. He also described how the ridge that the plows were leaving behind on their first pass as the temperatures dropped was pretty stiff, which meant that sometimes motorists who tried to drive through it were getting hung up on that ridge. And that delayed the ability of the plows to make a second pass, he said.

Twenty-four snowplows were working on the local streets right then, and four plows were working major streets to keep drifts back, he said. Hupy also gave a summary of the mileage driven by the city’s snowplows.

Based on data provided to The Chronicle before the meeting, from midnight Sunday through around 1 p.m. Monday, Ann Arbor city snowplows logged 7,641 vehicle miles. Eleven of the city’s fleet logged at least 300 miles during that period. Top mileage for any plow, logged by vehicle number 4551, was 483.9 miles. [.jpg of snowplow mileage chart]

Next to be introduced was Mary Jo Callan, Washtenaw County’s director of the office of community and economic development. Her email message to councilmembers from earlier in the day had by that time been attached to the council’s online agenda. [Callan's Jan. 6, 2014 email] She gave the council a status update. That included reading aloud a portion of her written update:

All community shelters are open, including: the Delonis Center, IHN/Alpha House, Salvation Army’s Staples Center, and Ozone House. Housing Access is also open, and able to connect those in need with shelter options.

Callan said the Delonis Center had opened its daytime warming center, and 25 people were using it. The warming center has a capacity of 200, she said. No one had been turned out into the cold up to that point, she said. The restriction on intoxication in order to gain admittance to the warming center had been loosened, she noted. If someone arrives who is intoxicated to the point of being dangerous or severely disruptive to other guests, they are provided transportation to the Home of New Vision’s Engagement Center.

Callan continued by describing how known campsites had been visited by PORT (the county’s project outreach team). The soundness of tent structures was assessed. Various materials were distributed, she said. The work by PORT had begun on Friday before the storm in anticipation of the storm, she said, and that outreach had continued. Callan reported that 15 people had been put into hotels, extended at least until Friday, Jan. 10.

Callan described a number of warm places, not necessarily warming centers, that were accessible in the urban core area from Ann Arbor to Ypsilanti and in between. As examples, Callan listed off the Delonis Center, Ann Arbor city hall, all Ann Arbor District Library locations, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, Homeward Bound, University of Michigan Medical Center, and IHN Alpha House.

Callan then read aloud a statement from St. Joe’s, which has space for 30 people. St. Joe’s is looking to coordinate with the county and city on this. The county’s community support and treatment services (CSTS) and Alpha House are coordinating to staff that possible St. Joe’s facility, she said, if a decision is made to use it. That decision would be made later that night, she added.

Mayor John Hieftje got clarification from Callan on the situation with the daytime warming center at Delonis – a capacity of 200, with about 25 people making use of it.

From left: Mayor John Hieftje and city administrator Steve Powers.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) asked a question about how much money this is costing all the organizations. He wanted information about how much it is costing so that the city could understand what it might do to help.

Responding to a question from Margie Teall (Ward 4), Callan thanked the council for its recent support of affordable housing. She mentioned the plan that the Ann Arbor housing commission (AAHC) has for Miller Manor to convert it to a front-desk staffed facility. She said the world had changed a lot since the 2007 needs assessment was done. So she’d be providing fresh information soon about what the current needs actually are.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he was glad that the Delonis Center had loosened its restriction on intoxication. He inquired about those people who have been prohibited from accessing the Delonis Center due to behavioral problems. Callan said that the 15 people that PORT has responded to were in that category.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said that the collection of organizations that have stepped forward seemed ad hoc. She wanted to know if it could be better publicized and systematized. Yes, said Callan. There is a plan in place, but it could be better. In some cases, she said, staff for some facilities couldn’t get into work due to the snow.

Police chief John Seto was then invited to the podium to report out. He said there had been no staff shortages, and the AAPD is “response capable.” He said that the department had not seen increased calls for service. On Saturday, Jan. 4, there had been a water pipe rupture at a large student apartment complex, he said, and the city’s emergency manager Rick Norman had worked with the University of Michigan’s office of the dean of students to place students from that building in temporary housing.

City’s Response to Snowstorm: Public Commentary

During public commentary on a different topic at the start of the meeting, saying that she wanted to start on a positive note, Kathy Griswold reported that her street had been plowed early Monday morning and that when she drove around town, she observed the streets were well-plowed, even the mid-block crosswalks.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). In the foreground are Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

Tracy Williams introduced himself as a homeless resident. People are in trouble, he said, and although we can keep talking, we need to be doing. He suggested 721 N. Main as a possible warming shelter. The city’s plan to demolish the building and turn it into a park would prevent that, he noted. Williams said that instead of turning it into a park, the city should turn it into a cemetery – because that way, the city’s homeless might finally find a place to rest there.

Ryan Sample commended the Delonis Center for operating beyond its capacity. He urged the city to open the doors to the 721 N. Main building for use as a warming center.

Tate Williams said that the existing social services network is overtasked and underfunded. It leaves many people unable to receive the help they need to survive, he said. He asked for the city to provide a way for citizens to help in an organized way – including opening their homes to the homeless.

Sheri Wander told the council she lives on White Street. She apologized if her remarks came off as emotional. She’d spent the last several days delivering propane tanks to those who are living in tents. She said she was “in awe” of PORT as they raced around to put some people in hotel rooms. She was proud of what the city had done, but it shouldn’t be done at the last minute, she said. She hears over and over that the city has the infrastructure and the capacity to take care of people. But she didn’t think there’s enough sanctioned capacity to take care of people. “I know the city can do better,” she said. Wander wanted the city to look at 721 N. Main, even though that facility isn’t perfect, she said. She quoted G.K. Chesterton: “Anything worth doing is worth doing badly.”

Greg Pratt thanked all the previous speakers by name. He also thanked Mary Jo Callan. He appreciated all the support. But he offered an alternative pledge of allegiance: “I pledge allegiance to the people of the city of Ann Arbor and to the principle for which we all stand: warming centers open at 45 F degrees, with room for people who blow above .10.” The phrase “for which we all stand” was a cue for the rest of the audience in attendance advocating for the homeless community to stand up, which they did. Pratt concluded his remarks by raising his fist: “Power to the people!”

Odile Hugonot-Haber read aloud Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes the right to housing. She said that city officials seemed to want to say that everything is just fine. She allowed that what the city had done was good, but called for more to be done. The timer ending her speaking time then went off prematurely, and her remarks concluded after about a minute and a half, instead of three minutes.

Alan Haber thanked Odile for reading aloud from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ann Arbor should adopt warmth as a fundamental human right, he said. Warmth is not just temperature, he noted. Statistics might show that everyone is taken care of, he said, but from what he’s heard and seen, that’s not so. The city needs a space that is managed by those who use it, he said. All of us should be more contributory. The homeless “them,” he said, are seen as a problem. But they have creativity and skills. He called on the council to consider 721 N. Main as an option.

City Response to Snowstorm: Council Coda

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) noted that when Camp Take Notice was dispersed, the city had interfered with an attempt to create a self-governed community to deal with homelessness in the way that Haber described. Eaton ventured that the city might lease a city building to a group. His remarks drew applause.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth?

The council considered a resolution that defines a policy setting the amount that a developer would need to pay, if a project causes an on-street metered parking space to be removed from the system.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The proposed amount in the original resolution was $45,000 per space. The money to be paid would be passed through to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The payment goes to the Ann Arbor DDA because the DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city.

The resolution had been postponed for the second time at the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting, and that’s why it appeared on the Jan. 6 agenda. The rationale for originally postponing the item on Dec. 2 – offered by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who sponsored the resolution – was that because it amounts to a fee, a public hearing should be held on the matter before the council voted.

After the public hearing held at the council’s Dec. 16 meeting, the council’s deliberations focused on the question of the accounting procedures to be used by the DDA in tracking any money that might be paid under the policy.

Given that the rationale for the policy is that the money would be put toward the cost of constructing new parking spaces, councilmembers wanted to know how the money would be reserved for that purpose.

In this matter, the council was acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, the DDA has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

Taylor, the resolution’s sponsor, participated in meetings during the fall of 2013 of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects.

Based on Taylor’s reasoning on the TIF question, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, would be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation. The city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) parking program allows a developer (as one option) to satisfy an on-site parking space requirement by paying $55,000. (The other option is to enter into a 15-year agreement to purchase monthly parking permits at a 20% premium.)

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could be calculated by taking the actual costs and dividing by 738 – the number of spaces in the structure. Based on a recent memo from executive director Susan Pollay to city administrator Steve Powers, about 30% or $15 million of the cost of the project was spent on items “unneeded by the parking structure.” That included elements like oversized foundations to support future development, an extra-large transformer, a new alley between Library Lane and S. Fifth Avenue, new water mains, easements for a fire hydrant and pedestrian improvements.

The actual amount spent on the Library Lane structure, according to DDA records produced under a Freedom of Information Act request from The Chronicle, was $54,855,780.07, or about $1.5 million under the project’s $56.4 million budget. Adjusting for those elements not needed for the parking structure yields a per-space cost of about $52,000. [(54,855,780.07*.70)/738] [.pdf of Nov. 22, 2013 memo from Pollay to Powers][.pdf of budget versus actual expenses for the 738-space Library Lane structure]

By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually.

Based on information provided to the council by the DDA, the majority of on-street spaces that have been removed from the system since 2006 can be attributed to University of Michigan projects.

How Much Is a Parking Structure Worth: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) described the resolution, noting that it creates a policy that the contract between the city and the DDA describes.

From right: Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) wanted to amend the resolution. She said that the true cost of a metered parking space should include the net present value estimate for the revenue associated with a parking space. She’d chosen a 10-year projection provided by the staff. She and Taylor had had some back-and-forth on the amendment, she reported. Her amendment ensured that the city would get 17% of the revenue from that portion of the payment that compensates for lost revenue.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wanted to amend the resolution so that the money that goes to the DDA is recorded as restricted funds for capital projects in the parking system.

Taylor responded, saying that they were both excellent ideas, which he was happy to support. The changes were considered “friendly.” [At its Dec. 18, 2013 meeting, the DDA operations committee discussed the matter and concluded that the money paid under the meter-removal policy would be shown as a restricted amount in the DDA’s parking maintenance fund.]

Taylor also offered an amendment of his own: swapping out the phrase “on the parcels” for “in the right of way.” That amendment was accepted as “friendly” as well.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said the changes were an improvement. She thanked staff. She supported the resolution. Lumm reviewed how many meters had been removed in the past. She thought it was important to adopt a requirement for reimbursement for lost revenue, because the amounts that accumulate can be substantial.

By way of more detailed background, the policy applies in part only if the DDA were to determine that the removal of a parking space is not a community benefit, but rather is localized to a particular development. Subsequent council deliberations focused on a part of the policy that provides for a review of the decision by the city administrator: “The City Administrator shall review the DDA’s determination of whether space removal would constitute a community benefit, and is authorized to reverse such determination if, in the City Administrator’s reasonable discretion, the DDA has incorrectly evaluated the existence of ‘community benefit.’”

Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

At the Jan. 6 meeting, Jack Eaton (Ward 4) raised the question about the authorization of the city administrator to review the DDA decision. Given that the city administrator now sits on the DDA board, Eaton wanted to substitute “city council” as the party responsible for the review.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she understood the conflict that was being pointed out. But she didn’t think the council should review the decision. She felt it could be handled within the administration. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he didn’t have a problem with the city administrator having the authority to override the DDA as a whole.

City administrator Steve Powers stated that he felt he could balance the responsibility, noting that his ultimate accountability is to the city council.

Eaton noted that he was not questioning the ability of Powers to balance the decision, but thought it was bad public policy to have someone sitting on a board who then reviews the decisions of that same board.

Mayor John Hieftje responded by saying that the DDA statute requires conflict in some ways. Petersen noted that the DDA has not drafted a policy for evaluating public benefit.

Kailasapathy characterized the issue as one of checks and balances, and not the integrity of Powers. We’re human beings and we’re fallible, she said. Having the same person implementing the policy and reviewing it isn’t good policy, she said.

Kunselman indicated agreement that it might not be good policy, but noted that government is messy. If the city council should review the decision, as Eaton was suggesting, he wondered if the council shouldn’t just take back the whole parking system. He didn’t think it’s possible to avoid the kind of conflict that Eaton had identified. The language is fine the way it is, Kunselman said.

Lumm said she appreciated Kunselman’s remarks. Having someone else besides Powers in the administration review the decision would still mean that person would be reporting to Powers, she noted. And to drag the city council into it, she said, wouldn’t be a good idea. She ventured that the council might want to weigh in on the drafting of the public benefit policy.

Eaton said it’s purely a process question, and it’s not a desire for the city council to take over that role – but he doesn’t know who else would take that role.

Petersen said that it’d been a good discussion and it showed that the council needs training on what is and isn’t a conflict of interest. [Petersen was alluding to a resolution that she'd put forward, which the council passed at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting, calling for the development of an ethics education program.] She compared it to having a separate person collect the money and count the money. She was willing to let the issue go forward with the city administrator being the reviewer.

Outcome on Eaton’s amendment: Only Kailasapathy and Eaton vote for the amendment, so it failed.

Outcome on main resolution: The council voted unanimously to approve the policy, as amended, for charging a fee of $45,000 for removal of an on-street parking space, plus payment of 10-years worth of projected revenues generated by the space.

Killing Fuller Road Station MOU

The council considered a resolution that terminates a four-year-old memorandum of understanding between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan on Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. [.pdf of Nov. 5, 2009 MOU text as approved by the city council] However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter.

The item had been postponed from the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sponsored that Dec. 16 resolution. The idea to terminate the MOU has its origins in election campaign rhetoric. He had stated at a June 8, 2013 Democratic primary candidate forum that he intended to bring forth such a resolution to “kill” the Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that forum:

Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project. Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

The city continues to pursue the possibility of a newly built or reconstructed train station, but not necessarily with the University of Michigan’s participation, and without a pre-determined preferred alternative for the site of a new station. At its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, the council approved a contract with URS Corp. Inc. to carry out an environmental review of a project called the Ann Arbor Station. That review should yield the determination of a locally-preferred alternative for a site.

At the Dec. 16 meeting, Kunselman led off deliberations by saying he wanted to postpone the resolution. He indicated that he thought he’d managed to add the item to the agenda on the Friday before the Monday meeting, but it turned out he had not done so. In light of the council’s discussion at their Dec. 9 budget planning session – when councilmembers had said they’d strive to avoid adding resolutions at the last minute – Kunselman said he wanted it postponed.

On Dec. 16, mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) both indicated they’d vote for the resolution – but also said they didn’t think the resolution was necessary. They indicated they were willing to vote for the resolution without postponing. Kunselman nevertheless wanted to postpone it, because it was added late to the agenda. That’s why it appeared on the Jan. 6 agenda.

Killing Fuller Road MOU: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Kathy Griswold said she supported the termination of the Fuller Road Station memorandum of understanding. She called on the council to pay attention to process.

Road Station MOU: Council Deliberations

At the Jan. 6 meeting, Kunselman introduced the resolution. He called it wrapping up loose ends on a document that doesn’t have an expiration date. Hieftje said it’s like digging someone up who died a couple of years ago and re-burying them, but he was not opposed to that.

Outcome: The council voted to terminate the Fuller Road Station MOU.

Traverwood Apartments

The council considered two questions related to a First Martin Corp. project, which would construct a residential complex on the city’s north side. The project – located on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road – is called Traverwood Apartments.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

Two separate items were on the council’s agenda – one for the rezoning required for the project, and the other for the site plan and wetland use permit.

At the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting, the initial approval of the required rezoning was given. Also approved at that meeting was a donation of 2.2 acres, just north of the project site – by Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp., to the city. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Aerial view of the site for the proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needed to be rezoned R4D.

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

Traverwood Apartments: Public Hearing

During the public hearing on the rezoning aspect of the proposal, Mike Martin of First Martin told the council that the project team was in attendance and available to answer questions.

Thomas Partridge gave general commentary critical of the rezoning proposal. He wanted the proposal postponed until there is a requirement in every such proposal that ensures the turnaround of egregious past discrimination.

During a recess, Peggy Rabhi showed Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting what her concerns were about the Traverwood Apartments project.

During the public hearing on the Traverwood Apartments site plan, Partridge followed up on his earlier remarks, by saying that it amounts to egregious discrimination to not take up the question of whether a site was used for the Underground Railroad, before approving the site plan.

Peggy Rabhi posed questions about the wetland use permit. She said it looked like the project will preserve the “lake” and the largest pond on the south end of the property. The south pond is home to frogs, newts and salamanders, she said. Those species pass the winter not in the pond, but rather adjacent to the pond, she said. She hoped that First Martin would be willing to work with the city’s natural area preservation staff on this issue.

Stacie Printon told the council she’s a park steward for the park adjacent to the property. She expressed some concerns and made some suggestions. The southwest portion of the plan abuts Leslie Park golf course and Leslie Woods, so she had concerns about the impact on those woods. There will be some cutting into the slopes, she said. There are three trees worthy of preservation, numbered 2582, 2583, and 2584. Buildings #5 and #6 come very close to the corner, she said. She suggested combining the buildings into a single L-shaped building that might eliminate the need for a retaining wall.

Traverwood Apartments: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led things off, saying that she’d seen the development team having a conversation with those who spoke during the public hearing.

She asked for some response to the concerns described during the public commentary. Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting responded by offering a description of the retaining walls – which are tiered so that the impact on the critical root zones of nearby trees is minimized.

During a recess, the Traverwood Apartments development team discussed aspects of the project with member of the public who spoke during the public hearing.

The location of the building that had been mentioned was predicated on the 22-foot deep sanitary sewer, he said, which had public easement associated with it. So it couldn’t be moved or twisted as had been suggested. The entire hedgerow along the south and the west had been preserved, he noted.

Ophoff described how the timing of the construction was key to various considerations. One was the interest in protecting the Indiana bat habitat at the north end of the site where there are shagbark hickories. To the extent that trees needed to be removed, he said, they wanted to do that when any bats that might live there during the warmer months were not there. So that tree removal needed to begin as soon as possible, now during the winter months, he explained.

Ophoff then described how the newts and salamanders will be finishing their mating in the spring around March and May before the project starts work. Right now they’re hibernating in the sedimentation basin in the mud.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) asked about a pipe to be installed in connection with the wetland. Wetland #2 has three parts, Ophoff explained – a natural pond, a ditch, and a detention basin. The ditch will be enclosed in a pipe, so that driveway connections can be established. That 1,800 square feet is mitigated with about 2,700 square feet. Eaton was concerned that the pipe was undersized – because it could only handle a 10-year storm. Ophoff said that such pipes are not generally designed to accommodate a 100-year rain. If there were a 100-year rain, there would be standing water in a lot of places, he said.

Responding to Eaton’s concern, Ophoff noted that the ditch is not a creek, and normally there’s no water flow there.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the site plan and wetland use permit for the Traverwood Apartments project. In a separate vote, taken before the site plan and wetland use permit vote, the council approved without discussion the required rezoning.

Montgomery Ward Building

The council considered the site plan for a four-story addition to the existing two-story building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor. The plan calls for creating 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units. Planning commissioners recommended approval of the project’s site plan at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view of the Montgomery building (indicated with crosshatches) at 210 S. Fourth Ave. in downtown Ann Arbor.

The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors. The ground floor would remain commercial space. Current tenants include Salon Vertigo and Bandito’s Mexican Restaurant. The top floor will include a stair/elevator lobby, restroom, wet bar, and access to several roof decks. Part of the fifth-floor roof will be covered in vegetation as a green roof.

Because the building is located in a historic district, it required a certificate of appropriateness from the city’s historic district commission. The HDC granted that certificate at its Sept. 12, 2013 meeting.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density. According to a staff memo, eight footing drain disconnects will be required.

According to a report from the July 10, 2013 citizen participation meeting, the units will be marketed to “anyone who wants to live downtown.” If approvals are received, construction is expected to begin next summer. The project’s architect is Brad Moore.

Moore is also the architect for an expansion project on the adjacent property – a three-floor addition to the Running Fit building at East Liberty and South Fourth, which will create six residential units. That project received a recommendation of approval from planning commissioners at their Oct. 15, 2013 meeting and was subsequently approved by the city council on Dec. 2, 2013.

During the public hearing, architect Brad Moore described the project as next to the Running Fit building, which the council had recently approved. He described the basic highlights of the project. Also during the public hearing Thomas Partridge said the attempt to rehabilitate the property is admirable. But he’d not heard the two words he thought were essential: “Affordable housing.”

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the site plan for the old Montgomery Ward building.

Briarwood Mall Restaurant Expansions

The council considered the site plan for construction of two freestanding restaurants at Briarwood Mall.

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the parcel where two new restaurants are proposed, adjacent to Macy’s.

The proposal calls for building two new restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 188 spaces. The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094. The site is located in Ward 4.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and development agreement in action at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting. The project was originally considered at the commission’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, but postponed because of outstanding issues.

Originally, the planning staff had indicated that the project would require rezoning a portion of the parking lot from P (parking) to C2B (business service. However, according to a memo accompanying the commission’s Nov. 19 meeting packet, planning staff subsequently determined that because the original 1973 Briarwood Mall zoning anticipated the expansion of Hudson’s (now Macy’s ) to the east, no rezoning was needed.

During the council’s Jan. 6 public hearing on the Briarwood Mall site plan, Thomas Partridge told the council he was a recent candidate for the city council as well as for the Michigan state house and senate. He’d attended meetings of several different public bodies over the last decade. He reiterated his standard call for a requirement that all site plans include provisions for access to public transportation and affordable housing.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the Briarwood Mall restaurant expansion site plan.

Cellular Antenna Licensing

As a part of its consent agenda, the council considered two items involving cellular phone antennas mounted on city facilities. By council rule, contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda.

Antennas from left: Plymouth Road water tower, Ann-Ashley parking structure, Manchester Road water tower.

One of the consent agenda items related to the specific contracts with Sprint for placing antennas at four facilities: the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure, and the water treatment plant on Sunset Road. The contracts are being revised upwards to $45,000 a year at each location with 4% annual escalators. The previous agreements ranged from $25,920 to $39,283, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

Total revenue to the city for cell antennas budgeted for FY 2014 is $520,000, all of which goes towards debt service on the Justice Center.

The staff memo also indicated that Sprint has been given initial administrative approval to undertake replacement of some of its equipment related to its 4G deployment.

The other consent agenda item related to cellular phone antennas made it unnecessary in the future for items like the agreements with Sprint to come before the city council for approval. Instead, the city administrator was given the power to approve licensing agreements with cellular service providers – even though they exceed the $25,000 threshold for council approval set forth in a city-charter required ordinance.

Outcome: The council approved the consent agenda, including the cellular antenna items.

Ann Arbor Summer Festival Board

The council considered a resolution appointing directors to the board of the nonprofit Ann Arbor Summer Festival. It reflected a certain amount of bureaucratic housecleaning, as all of the appointments were retroactive, some of them dramatically so:

• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Paul Cousins (trustee, Dexter Village)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Erica Fitzgerald (attorney with Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Linda Girard (CEO, Pure Visibility)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Kimberly Scott (attorney with Miller Canfield)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Ellie Serras (community relations director, Main Street BIZ)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Christie Wong Barrett (manufacturing council at U.S. Department of Commerce)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Tim Freeth (head of industry, Google)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Jerold Lax (attorney with Pear Sperling Eggan and Daniels)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Kenneth Magee (former head of University of Michigan public safety)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Kevin McDonald (city of Ann Arbor, assistant city attorney)
• Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2016 Tom Crawford (city of Ann Arbor, chief financial officer)
• Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2016 Mary Kerr (president, Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau)
• Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2016 Dug Song (CEO of Duo Security, tech entrepreneur)

Most of these members, however, do not appear to meet the membership criteria listed out in the description available on the city’s online Legistar system, which reads:

Membership/Committee Composition: Representatives from each of the following: Ann Arbor Street Art Fair, South University Merchants Association, State Street Area Art Fair, State Street Area Association, Michigan Guild of Artists and Artisans, Main Street Area Association, Washtenaw Non-Profits, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, Ann Arbor City Council (2-1 each caucus), City and County Government Departments (4 votes total): Ann Arbor Building Dept., Ann Arbor Police Dept., Ann Arbor Fire Dept., Ann Arbor Solid Waste Dept., Ann Arbor Transportation Division, Ann Arbor Attorney’s Office, Washtenaw County Health Dept., U of M (2 votes total): Community Relations, Public Safety, Michigan Union, Plant Operations, Parking Services.

Mayor John Hieftje, who sponsored the resolution, did not respond before the council meeting to an emailed Chronicle query about the issue, but spoke to The Chronicle after the meeting. He said it wasn’t clear from what document the Legistar description originated, but that it would be removed from the online description.

Some confusion surrounding these appointments is reflected in one of the resolved clauses of the resolution, which reads:

RESOLVED, That the Mayor and City Council request that the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, Inc., clarify the designation process in their Bylaws and implement an annual designation process by August 1, 2014.

The Ann Arbor Summer Festival runs for about three weeks each year and includes indoor ticketed performances and free outdoor events at the Top of the Park. Revenues come from ticket sales, sponsorships and donations.

Ann Arbor Summer Festival financial data from 2000-2011 from the National Center for Charitable Statistics. http://nccsweb.urban.org/

Hieftje told the council that the resolution had been prompted by a bylaws review of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival board. He then praised the Summer Festival for its work.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the board appointments to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival.

Nominations to Pedestrian Safety Task Force

Nominations were made at the Jan. 6 meeting for the nine members of the pedestrian safety task force, which was established by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. The nominations are: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson. The council will vote on their confirmations at its Jan. 21 meeting.

Related to that, the first part of the non-motorized transportation plan implementation strategy that the city administrator was directed by the city council to develop had also been released by the time of the Jan. 6 meeting. This was the part of the council’s direction that dealt with improvement of traffic enforcement at and around crosswalks. [.pdf of crosswalk traffic enforcement plan implementation strategy]

Highlights of that strategy include targeted enforcement that was to take place on Jan. 9 and Jan. 10 using council-authorized police overtime pay for that purpose. The police department has also developed an on­line tool for reporting traffic complaints and concerns.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: New Year’s Events

At the end of the meeting, during council communications time, Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked police chief John Seto and the staff for their work on the New Year’s Eve celebration activities on Main Street, called The Puck Drops Here. She hoped it would be repeated.

Comm/Comm: Dream Nite Club

City attorney Stephen Postema reported to the council that the Michigan Court of Appeals had upheld the city’s position in the revoking the Dream Nite Club’s liquor license. Postema thanked the police department for its role in that.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge called on the council to protect the most vulnerable. He criticized various “right wing proposals.” He wanted provisions in all site plan approvals requiring accessibility for public transportation and affordable housing.

Partridge also addressed the council at the conclusion of the meeting during public commentary general time. He allowed that people might question why he attends council meetings calling on the council to abide by the law and the constitution. He called for reform and a turnaround of the council. He called again, as he has before, for the resignation of mayor John Hieftje and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. He alleged that he’s had property stolen and has been subject to threats of intimidation. Huge amounts of snow have been piled up around buildings that house handicapped people, he claimed.

Present: Jane Lumm, Margie Teall, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins Jack Eaton, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Absent: Sabra Briere, Mike Anglin.

Next council meeting: Jan. 21, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. [.pdf of Nov. 5, 2009 MOU text as approved by the city council] However, a withdrawal by UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sponsored the resolution, which first appeared on the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 agenda, but was postponed at that meeting. The idea to terminate the MOU has its origins in election campaign rhetoric. He had stated at a June 8, 2013 Democratic primary candidate forum that he intended to bring forth such a resolution to “kill” the Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that forum:

Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project. Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

The city continues to pursue the possibility of a newly built or reconstructed train station, but not necessarily with the University of Michigan’s participation, and without a pre-determined preferred alternative for the site of a new station. At its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, the council approved a contract with URS Corp. Inc. to carry out an environmental review of a project called the Ann Arbor Station. That review should yield the determination of a locally-preferred alternative for a site.

Kunselman led off deliberations at the Dec. 16 meeting saying he would like to postpone the resolution. He indicated that he thought he’d managed to add the item to the agenda on the Friday before the Monday meeting, but it turned out he had not done so. In light of the council’s discussion at their Dec. 9 budget planning session – when councilmembers had said they’d strive to avoid adding resolutions at the last minute – Kunselman said he wanted it postponed.

Mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) both indicated at the Dec. 16 meeting that they’d vote for the resolution – but also said they didn’t think the resolution was necessary. They indicated they were willing to vote for the resolution without postponing. Kunselman nevertheless wanted to postpone it, because it was added late to the agenda.

At the Jan. 6 meeting, Hieftje said the resolution was like digging someone up who died a couple of years ago and re-burying them, but he was not opposed to it. The resolution passed unanimously.

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 Ann Arbor city council’s first regular meeting of the year, on Jan. 6, 2014, features a relatively light agenda with only a half dozen substantive voting items.

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

Two of those items were postponed from the final meeting of 2013, on Dec. 16.

One of those postponed items was the official termination of a four-year-old memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan for construction of the Fuller Road Station project.

That was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under the terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter. The vote to terminate the MOU has its origins in the politics of Stephen Kunselman’s Ward 3 re-election campaign in 2013, when he promised to bring forward such a resolution.

The council’s postponement of the MOU termination at its Dec. 16 meeting was not due to any particular controversy about the vote itself. Instead, the postponement resulted from the fact that the item had been added to the agenda on the same day as the meeting, and that’s a practice the council has agreed should be avoided.

The other item delayed from the Dec. 16 meeting was a resolution assigning a specific cost to the removal of an on-street parking space, in connection with future developments: $45,000. That item first appeared on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda, but the council postponed it, based on a desire to hold a public hearing on the matter before taking action. The Dec. 16 postponement came after questions were raised during council deliberations, about the accounting procedures that would be used by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to track any money that might be collected under the policy.

Apart from those previously delayed items, the rest of the council’s agenda is filled out primarily with items concerning future development.

Accounting for two of the council’s Jan. 6 voting items is Traverwood Apartments – a First Martin development on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The council will consider final approval of some rezoning necessary for the complex of 16 two-story buildings. And on a separate vote, the council will consider the site plan approval and a wetland use permit associated with the apartment complex.

A third development item on the Jan. 6 agenda is the site plan for the upward expansion of the Montgomery Ward building on South Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors.

And a final development item on the Jan. 6 agenda is a site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. The restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – would be constructed on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall. The restaurants would be operated by two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

The consent agenda features two items involving cellular phone antennas mounted on city facilities. One of the items relates to the specific contracts with Sprint for placing antennas at four facilities: the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure, and the water treatment plant on Sunset Road. The contracts are being revised upwards to $45,000 a year at each location, with 4% annual escalators.

The other consent agenda item that’s related to cellular phone antennas, if it’s approved, would make it unnecessary in the future for items like the agreements with Sprint to come before the city council for approval. Instead, it would give the city administrator the power to approve licensing agreements with cellular service providers – even though they exceed the $25,000 threshold for council approval set forth in a city-charter required ordinance.

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

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

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth?

A resolution that was postponed for the second time at the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting is now on the Jan. 6 agenda. It would define how much developers would need to pay the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority if a developer’s project requires removal of a metered on-street parking space. The proposed amount is $45,000 per space. The payment would go to the Ann Arbor DDA because the DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city.

The rationale for postponing the item on Dec. 2 – offered by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who sponsored the resolution – was that because it amounts to a fee, a public hearing should be held on the matter before the council voted.

After the public hearing held at the council’s Dec. 16 meeting, the council’s deliberations focused on the question of the accounting procedures to be used by the DDA in tracking any money that might be paid under the policy. Given that the rationale for the policy is that the money would be put toward the cost of construction for new parking spaces, councilmembers wanted to know how the money would be reserved for that purpose.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, the DDA has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

Taylor, the resolution’s sponsor, participated in meetings during the fall of 2013 of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects.

Based on Taylor’s reasoning on the TIF question, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, would be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation. The city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) parking program allows a developer (as one option) to satisfy an on-site parking space requirement by paying $55,000. (The other option is to enter into a 15-year agreement to purchase monthly parking permits at a 20% premium.)

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could be calculated by taking the actual costs and dividing by 738 – the number of spaces in the structure. Based on a recent memo from executive director Susan Pollay to city administrator Steve Powers, about 30% or $15 million of the cost of the project was spent on items “unneeded by the parking structure.” That included elements like oversized foundations to support future development, an extra-large transformer, a new alley between Library Lane and S. Fifth Avenue, new water mains, easements for a fire hydrant and pedestrian improvements.

The actual amount spent on the Library Lane structure, according to DDA records produced under a Freedom of Information Act request from The Chronicle, was $54,855,780.07, or about $1.5 million under the project’s $56.4 million budget. Adjusting for those elements not needed for the parking structure yields a per-space cost of about $52,000. [(54,855,780.07*.70)/738] [.pdf of Nov. 22, 2013 memo from Pollay to Powers][.pdf of budget versus actual expenses for the 738-space Library Lane structure]

By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually.

Killing Fuller Road Station MOU

An item postponed from the Dec. 16, 2013 meeting would officially terminate a four-year-old memorandum of understanding between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan on Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. [.pdf of Nov. 5, 2009 MOU text as approved by the city council] However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sponsored the Dec. 16 resolution. The idea to terminate the MOU has its origins in election campaign rhetoric. He had stated at a June 8, 2013 Democratic primary candidate forum that he intended to bring forth such a resolution to “kill” the Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that forum:

Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project. Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

The city continues to pursue the possibility of a newly built or reconstructed train station, but not necessarily with the University of Michigan’s participation, and without a pre-determined preferred alternative for the site of a new station. At its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, the council approved a contract with URS Corp. Inc. to carry out an environmental review of a project called the Ann Arbor Station. That review should yield the determination of a locally-preferred alternative for a site.

Kunselman led off deliberations at the Dec. 16 meeting saying he would like to postpone the resolution. He indicated that he thought he’d managed to add the item to the agenda on the Friday before the Monday meeting, but it turned out he had not done so. In light of the council’s discussion at their Dec. 9 budget planning session – when councilmembers had said they’d strive to avoid adding resolutions at the last minute – Kunselman said he wanted it postponed.

Mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) both indicated they’d vote for the resolution – but also said they didn’t think the resolution was necessary. They indicated they were willing to vote for the resolution without postponing. Kunselman nevertheless wanted to postpone it, because it was added late to the agenda. It now appears on the Jan. 6 agenda.

Traverwood Apartments

Also on the council’s Jan. 6 agenda is a First Martin Corp. project, which would construct a residential complex on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The development is called Traverwood Apartments.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

Two separate items are on the council’s agenda – one for the rezoning required for the project, and the other for the site plan and wetland use permit.

At the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting, the initial approval of the required rezoning was given. Also approved at that meeting was a donation of 2.2 acres, just north of the project site – by Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp., to the city. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Aerial view of proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned R4D.

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

Montgomery Ward Building

Another item on the city council’s Jan. 6 agenda is the site plan for a four-story addition to the existing two-story building (the old Montgomery Ward building) at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor. The plan calls for creating 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units. Planning commissioners took action to recommend approval of the project’s site plan at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view of the Montgomery building (indicated with crosshatches) at 210 S. Fourth Ave. in downtown Ann Arbor.

The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors. The ground floor would remain commercial space. Current tenants include Salon Vertigo and Bandito’s Mexican Restaurant. The top floor will include a stair/elevator lobby, restroom, wet bar, and access to several roof decks. Part of the fifth-floor roof will be covered in vegetation as a green roof.

Because the building is located in a historic district, it required a certificate of appropriateness from the city’s historic district commission. The HDC granted that certificate at its Sept. 12, 2013 meeting.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density. According to a staff memo, eight footing drain disconnects will be required.

According to a report from the July 10, 2013 citizen participation meeting, the units will be marketed to “anyone who wants to live downtown.” If approvals are received, construction is expected to begin next summer. The project’s architect is Brad Moore.

Moore is also the architect for an expansion project on the adjacent property – a three-floor addition to the Running Fit building at East Liberty and South Fourth, which will create six residential units. That project received a recommendation of approval from planning commissioners at their Oct. 15, 2013 meeting and was subsequently approved by the city council on Dec. 2, 2013.

Briarwood Mall Restaurant Expansions

A site plan for construction of two freestanding restaurants at Briarwood Mall is also on the council’s Jan. 6 agenda.

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the parcel where two new restaurants are proposed, adjacent to Macy’s.

The proposal calls for building two new restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 188 spaces. The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094. The site is located in Ward 4.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and development in action at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting. The project was originally considered at the commission’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, but postponed because of outstanding issues.

Originally, the planning staff had indicated that the project would require rezoning a portion of the parking lot from P (parking) to C2B (business service. However, according to a memo accompanying the commission’s Nov. 19 meeting packet, planning staff subsequently determined that because the original 1973 Briarwood Mall zoning anticipated the expansion of Hudson’s (now Macy’s ) to the east, no rezoning was needed.

Cellular Antenna Licensing

The consent agenda for Jan. 6 features two items involving cellular phone antennas mounted on city facilities. By council rule, contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda.

Antennas from left: Plymouth Road water tower, Ann-Ashley parking structure, Manchester Road water tower.

One of the consent agenda items relates to the specific contracts with Sprint for placing antennas at four facilities: the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure, and the water treatment plant on Sunset Road. The contracts are being revised upwards to $45,000 a year at each location with 4% annual escalators. The previous agreements ranged from $25,920 to $39,283, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The staff memo also indicates that Sprint has been given initial administrative approval to undertake replacement of some of its equipment related to its 4G deployment.

The other consent agenda item related to cellular phone antennas, if it’s approved, would make it unnecessary in the future for items like the agreements with Sprint to come before the city council for approval. Instead, it would give the city administrator the power to approve licensing agreements with cellular service providers – even though they exceed the $25,000 threshold for council approval set forth in a city-charter required ordinance.

3:54 p.m. Now added to the agenda are nominations for the nine members of the pedestrian safety task force, which was established by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

4:00 p.m. An email from Mary Jo Callan, Washtenaw County’s director of the office of community and economic development – sent today to city administrator Steve Powers, among others – outlines the county’s response with respect to the homeless during the snowstorm. The email indicates she’ll be at tonight’s city council meeting to provide additional information. [Callan's Jan. 6, 2014 email] Most of the nine people signed up for public commentary have indicated they’ll be addressing the topic of shelter for the homeless during the inclement weather.

4:22 p.m. Part of the tally associated with the 10.4 inches of snow that fell on Ann Arbor is the vehicle miles traveled from midnight Sunday through around 1 p.m. Monday by Ann Arbor city snow plows: They logged 7,641 vehicle miles. Eleven of the city’s fleet logged at least 300 miles during that period. Top mileage for any plow, logged by vehicle number 4551, was 483.9 miles. [.jpg of snowplow mileage chart]

4:25 p.m. Staff responses to city council “caucus questions,” which are submitted in advance of the meeting, are now available. [.pdf of Jan. 6, 2014 staff answers to caucus questions]

6:28 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Three audience members have arrived so far. Yellow agenda sheets are stacked neatly on the public speaking podium.

6:42 p.m. Chief of police John Seto and public services area administrator Craig Hupy have circulated through council chambers. Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting has arrived with posterboards for the Traverwood Apartments project.

6:53 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) have now arrived. Eaton is explaining to Odile Hugonot Haber that he’s not, as was rumored, bringing a resolution tonight to fund a warming center. He characterizes the issue as not an emergency, in the sense that it gets cold every winter. But it’s become an emergency because adequate action hasn’t been taken in the past. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is also now here.

6:58 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje and city administrator Steve Powers are here. City attorney Stephen Postema is here. Postema has started a beard. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is also here, with fresh beard.

7:01 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) has now arrived, clean-shaven.

7:04 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) has now arrived. Kathy Griswold, signed up to speak during public commentary, has now arrived.

7:06 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) has arrived, as has Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

7:08 p.m. Brad Moore, architect for the Montgomery Ward building expansion, is here.

7:11 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:11 p.m. Roll call of council. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) are absent.

7:11 p.m. Hieftje reports that Briere is out with the flu.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda.

7:15 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers has introduced Craig Hupy, public services area administrator, to give an update on the city’s response to the recent snowstorm. Official tally for snowfall was 10.4 inches. He’s describing how the city has been using 12-hour shifts. Twenty-four snowplows are working on the local streets right now. Four plows are working major streets to keep drifts back. Hupy also gives the mileage summary, which was reported above.

7:17 p.m. Mary Jo Callan has been introduced. She is Washtenaw County’s director of the office of community and economic development. Her message from earlier in the day is now attached to the agenda. [Callan's Jan. 6, 2014 email] She gives a status update. She says the Delonis Center has opened the daytime warming center. Twenty-five people were using the daytime warming center, she says. It has a capacity of 200. No one has been turned out into the cold up to this point, she says. The restriction on intoxication has been loosened, she notes.

7:18 p.m. Known campsites were visited by PORT (the county’s project outreach team), she says, and soundness of tent structures were assessed. Various materials were distributed, she says. First Pres will be open tomorrow, among other facilities, she says.

7:20 p.m. Callan is reading aloud a statement from St. Joe’s, which has space for 30 people. St. Joe’s is looking to coordinate with the county and city on this. The county’s community support and treatment services (CSTS) and Alpha House are coordinating to staff that facility, if a decision is made to use it. That decision will be made later tonight, she said.

7:22 p.m. Hieftje is getting clarification from Callan on the situation with the daytime warming center at Delonis – a capacity of 200, with about 25 people making use of it.

7:22 p.m. Eaton asks a question about how much money this is costing for all the organizations. He wants information about how much it is costing so that the city can understand what it might do to help.

7:25 p.m. Responding to a question from Teall, Callan thanks the council for its recent support of affordable housing. She mentions the plan that the Ann Arbor housing commission has for Miller Manor to convert it to a front-desk staffed facility. She says the world has changed a lot since the 2007 needs assessment was done. So she’ll be providing fresh information soon about what the current needs actually are.

7:26 p.m. Warpehoski says he’s glad that the Delonis Center has loosened the restriction on intoxication. He inquires about those people who have been prohibited from accessing the Delonis Center due to behavioral problems. Callan says that the 15 people that PORT has responded to were in that category.

7:28 p.m. Kailasapathy says that the collection of organizations that have stepped forward seems ad hoc. She wants to know if it can be better publicized and systematized. Yes, says Callan. There is a plan in place, but it could be better. In some cases, she said, staff for some facilities can’t get into work due to the snow.

7:30 p.m. Police chief John Seto now reports out. He says there have been no staff shortages, and the AAPD is “response capable.” Last Saturday, there was a water pipe rupture at a University of Michigan student dorm, he says, and AAPD had helped with that.

7:30 p.m. Powers notes that parks and recreation programs had been cancelled today and tomorrow due to the severe cold. Hieftje thanks Powers for keeping councilmembers up to date.

7:31 p.m. Public commentary – reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

A total of nine people are signed up to speak during public commentary reserved time. Eight of them are signed up to speak on the topic of providing shelter to the homeless during the current inclement weather [current temperature -12 F with forecast high temperature of around 0 F for Tuesday, Jan. 7]: Thomas Partridge, Tracy Williams, Ryan Sample, Tate Williams, Sheri Wander, Greg Pratt, Odile Hugonot-Haber, and Alan Haber.

Kathy Griswold is signed up to speak on the topic of the termination of the Fuller Road Station memorandum of understanding.

7:36 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls on the council to protect the most vulnerable. He criticizes various “right wing proposals.” He wants provisions in all site plan approvals requiring accessibility for public transportation and affordable housing.

7:39 p.m. Saying that she wanted to start on a positive note, Kathy Griswold reports that her street was plowed early this morning and that when she drove around town, she observed the streets were well-plowed, even the mid-block crosswalks. She supports the termination of the Fuller Road Station memorandum of understanding. She calls on the council to pay attention to process. She cautions that enforcement for traffic might be understood as much more than just handing out tickets, and that there could be far more positive interactions between officers and residents besides just ticketing.

7:41 p.m. Tracy Williams introduces himself as a homeless resident. People are in trouble, he says. We can keep talking, but we need to be doing, he says. He suggests 721 N. Main as a possible warming shelter. The city’s plan to demolish the building and turn it into a park would prevent that, he notes. He says that instead of turning it into a park, they should turn it into a cemetery – because that way, the city’s homeless might finally find a place to rest there.

7:41 p.m. Ryan Sample commends the Delonis Center for operating beyond its capacity. He urges the city to open the doors to the 721 N. Main building for use as a warming center.

7:43 p.m. Tate Williams says that the existing social services network is overtasked and underfunded. It leaves many people unable to receive the help they need to survive. He asks for the city to provide a way for citizens to help in an organized way – including opening their homes to the homeless.

7:46 p.m. Sheri Wander lives on White Street, she says. She apologizes if her remarks come off as emotional. She’s spent the last several days delivering propane tanks to those who are living in tents. She says she was “in awe” of PORT today as they raced around to put some people in hotel rooms. She’s proud of what the city has done, but it shouldn’t be done at the last minute, she says. She hears over and over that we have the infrastructure and the capacity to take care of people. But she doesn’t think there’s enough sanctioned capacity to take care of people. “I know the city can do better,” she says. Wander wants the city to look at 721 N. Main, even though that facility isn’t perfect, she says. She quotes G.K. Chesterton: “Anything worth doing is worth doing badly.”

7:48 p.m. Greg Pratt thanks all the previous speakers by name. He also thanks Mary Jo Callan. He appreciates all the support. But he offers an alternative pledge of allegiance, and on the phrase “to the principle for which we stand,” the rest of the audience stands. The pledge calls for 45 F degrees as the threshold for opening the warming center.

7:51 p.m. Odile Hugonot-Haber is reading aloud Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes the right to housing. She says that city officials seem to want to say that everything is just fine. The timer goes off. [That seems a bit abbreviated. Possibly the timer was set incorrectly.]

7:52 p.m. Alan Haber thanks Odile for reading aloud from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ann Arbor should adopt warmth as a fundamental human right, he says. Warmth is not just temperature, he says. Statistics might show that everyone is taken care of, he says, but from what he’s heard and seen, that’s not so. The city needs a space that is managed by those who use it, he says. All of us should be more contributory. The homeless “them,” he says, are seen as a problem. But they have creativity and skills. He calls on the council to consider 721 N. Main as an option.

7:55 p.m. Communications from council. Eaton says that Anglin is stuck in Florida and could not be at the council meeting. Anglin is with his 94-year-old mother. Eaton notes that when Camp Take Notice was dispersed, the city had interfered with an attempt to create a self-governed community to deal with homelessness in the way that Haber described. Eaton ventures that the city might lease a city building to a group. His remarks draw applause.

7:55 p.m. MC-1 Appointments: Confirmations. The council is being asked tonight to confirm nominations to city boards and commissions that were made at the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting: Kristin Tomey to the Ann Arbor public art commission, filling the vacancy of Wiltrud Simbeurger for a term ending Dec. 31, 2016; and Benjamin Bushkuhl, a reappointment, to the historic district commission for a term ending Dec. 6, 2016.

7:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm the two appointments on the agenda.

7:56 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Nominations are being made for the pedestrian safety task force, which was established by the council at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, Owen Jansson. A confirmation vote will be taken at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting.

7:56 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Four public hearings are on the agenda. The first two relate to the Traverwood Apartments project – a proposed complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. One of the Traverwood Apartments public hearings relates to some rezoning that’s required as a part of the project. The second public hearing is on the Traverwood Apartments site plan and a wetland use permit associated with the apartment complex.

A third public hearing on tonight’s agenda is the site plan for the upward expansion of the Montgomery Ward building on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors.

And the fourth public hearing is on the site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. The restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – would be constructed on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be operated by two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

7:57 p.m. PH-1 Traverwood Apartments rezoning. Mike Martin of First Martin tells the council that the project team is in attendance and available to answer questions.

8:01 p.m. Thomas Partridge is giving general commentary critical of the rezoning proposal. He wants the proposal postponed until there is a requirement in every such proposal that ensures the turnaround of egregious past discrimination.

8:01 p.m. That’s it for PH-1.

8:08 p.m. PH-2 Traverwood Apartments site plan and wetland use permit. Partridge follows up on his remarks on PH-1 saying that it amounts to egregious discrimination to not take up the question of whether a site was used for the Underground Railroad, before approving the site plan.

8:08 p.m. Peggy Rabhi has questions about the wetland use permit. She says it looks like the project will preserve the “lake” and the largest pond on the south end of the property. The south pond is home to frogs, newts and salamanders, she says. Those species pass the winter not in the pond but rather adjacent to the pond, she says. She hopes that First Martin would be willing to work with the city’s natural area preservation staff on this issue.

8:11 p.m. Stacie Printon says she’s a park steward for the park adjacent to the property. She expresses some concerns and makes some suggestions. The southwest portion of the plan abuts Leslie Park golf course and Leslie Woods, so she has concerns about the impact on those woods. There will be some cutting into the slopes, she says. There are three trees worthy of preservation, numbered 2582, 2583, and 2584. Buildings #5 and #6 come very close to the corner, she says. She suggests combining the buildings into a single L-shaped building that might eliminate the need for a retaining wall.

8:11 p.m. That’s it for PH-2.

8:13 p.m. PH-3 – Montgomery Building site plan. Architect Brad Moore describes the project as next to the Running Fit building, which the council had recently approved. He’s describing the basic highlights of the project.

8:16 p.m. Thomas Partridge says the attempt to rehabilitate the property is admirable. But he’d not heard the two words he thinks are essential: “Affordable housing.”

8:16 p.m. That’s it for PH-3.

8:19 p.m. PH-4 Briarwood restaurants site plan. Thomas Partridge says he was a recent candidate for the city council as well as for the Michigan state house and senate. He’s attended meetings of several different public bodies over the last decade. He reiterates his standard call for a requirement that all site plans include provisions for access to public transportation and affordable housing.

8:20 p.m. That’s it for PH-4.

8:20 p.m. Approval of previous meeting’s minutes.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the previous meeting’s minutes.

8:20 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes three items: (1) authorization for the city administrator to approve cell phone antenna licensing agreements, even if they exceed the $25,000 threshold requiring city council approval; (2) authorization to pay Scio Township $46,807 in sewer hookup charges for the Varsity Ford property at 3480 Jackson Ave.; and (3) approval of cell phone antenna licensing agreements with Spring at four city locations – the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure and the water treatment plant facility on Sunset Road. [For additional background on cell phone antenna licensing, see Cellular Antenna Licensing above.]

Worth noting is that total revenue to the city for cell antennas budgeted for FY 2014 is $520,000, all of which goes toward debt service on the Justice Center.

8:21 p.m. Councilmembers can pull out items on the consent agenda for separate consideration. Hieftje says that an administrative change has been made to correct the name of the company in CA-3.

Warpehoski pulls out CA-2.

8:21 p.m. CA-2 Scio Twp. Sewer connection fees. Councilmembers are discussing this item that Warpehoski pulled out for separate consideration. Warpehoski says he doesn’t understand why the city is paying instead of the landowner. Hupy explains that the landowner is paying the city, and the city is meeting the request of its customer in the most cost-effective way possible. The landowner is paying the city’s fee to the city. The city is paying the township to service the city’s customer. Warpehoski says he doesn’t fully understand it, but he’s comfortable going ahead.

Kunselman asks Hupy to describe the property: It’s Varsity Ford on Jackson Road. Hupy describes it as cleaning up a situation that came to light as the city prepared to renegotiate the agreement between the city and Scio Township for sewer service.

8:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved the Scio Township sewer hookup payment.

8:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved all the items on the consent agenda.

8:28 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

8:36 p.m. And we’re back.

8:36 p.m. B-1 Traverwood Apartments rezoning. This project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story apartment buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned as R4D. The city council gave initial approval of the rezoning at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting.

8:37 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give final approval of the Traverwood Apartments rezoning.

8:37 p.m. DC-1 Approve a city policy regarding removal of on-street metered public parking spaces. This item would establish $45,000 as the fee to be charged to developers and passed through to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for removal of an on-street metered public parking space. The conceptual basis for the amount is the cost per space of constructing new parking structures. [For additional background see How Much Is a Parking Space Worth? above.]

8:38 p.m. Taylor describes the resolution. The resolution creates a policy that the contract between the city and the DDA describes.

8:41 p.m. Petersen wants to amend the resolution. She says that the true cost of a metered parking space should include the net present value estimate for the revenue associated with a parking space. She’d chosen a 10-year projection provided by the staff. She and Taylor had had some back-and-forth, she reports. Her amendment ensures that the city would get 17% of the revenue from the $45,000 payment.

8:43 p.m. Kailasapathy wants to amend the resolution so that the money that goes to the DDA is recorded as restricted funds for capital projects in the parking system. Taylor says that they are both excellent ideas, which he’s happy to support. The changes are considered “friendly.”

8:45 p.m. Taylor also has an amendment: swapping out “on the parcels” for “in the right of way.” That’s accepted as friendly as well.

8:48 p.m. Lumm says the changes are an improvement. She thanks staff. She supports the resolution. Lumm is reviewing how many meter have been removed over time. She thinks it’s important to adopt a requirement for reimbursement, because these do accumulate to amounts that can be substantial.

8:51 p.m. Eaton has a question about the authorization of the city administrator to review the DDA decision. Given that the city administrator now sits on the DDA board, he wants to substitute in “city council” for that. Teall says she understands the conflict that’s being pointed out. But she doesn’t think the council should review the decision. She feels it could be handled within the administration. Kunselman says he doesn’t have a problem with the city administrator having the authority to override the DDA as a whole. Powers says that he can balance the responsibility, noting that his ultimate accountability is to the council.

8:54 p.m. Eaton says he’s not questioning the ability of Powers to balance the decision, but thinks it’s bad public policy to have someone sitting on a board who then reviews the decisions of that same board. Hieftje responds by saying that the DDA statute requires conflict in some ways. Petersen says there’s no drafted policy the DDA has for evaluating public benefit. [The issue here is the ability to waive the $45,000 fee if there's a public benefit to removing the on-street parking space.]

8:57 p.m. Kailasapathy characterizes the issue as one of checks and balances, and not the integrity of Steve Powers. We’re human beings and we’re fallible, she says. Having the same person implementing the policy and reviewing isn’t good policy, she says. Kunselman indicates he agrees that it might not be good policy, but notes that government is messy. If the city council should review it, he wonders if the council shouldn’t just take back the whole parking system. He doesn’t think it’s possible to avoid the kind of conflict that Eaton has identified. It’s fine the way it is, he says.

9:00 p.m. Lumm says she appreciates Kunselman walking the council through the nuance. Having someone in administration review the decision would mean that person would still be reporting to Powers, she notes. And to drag the city council into it, she says, wouldn’t be a good idea. She ventures that the council might want to weigh in on the drafting of the public benefit policy. Eaton says it’s purely a process question, and it’s not a desire for the city council to take over that role, but he doesn’t know who else would.

9:01 p.m. Petersen says that it’s been a good discussion and that it shows that the council needs training on what is and isn’t a conflict of interest. She compares it to having a separate person collect the money and count the money. She’s willing to let it go forward with the city administrator being the reviewer.

9:01 p.m. Outcome on Eaton’s amendment: Only Kailasapathy and Eaton vote for the amendment. It fails.

9:02 p.m. Outcome on main resolution: The council has voted unanimously to approve the policy, as amended, for charging a fee of $45,000 for removal of an on-street parking space.

9:02 p.m. DC-2 Termination of MOU on Fuller Road Station. This resolution would formally terminate the four-year old MOU between the city and the University of Michigan for construction of joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The university withdrew from the project two years ago under the terms of the agreement. The resolution is a formality. [For additional background, see Killing Fuller Road Station MOU above.]

9:03 p.m. Kunselman introduces the resolution. He calls it wrapping up loose ends for a document that doesn’t have an expiration date. Hieftje says it’s like digging someone up who died a couple of years ago and re-burying them, but he’ s not opposed to it.

9:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to terminate the Fuller Road Station MOU.

9:03 p.m. Ann Arbor Summer Festival board appointments. This resolution appoints directors to the board of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival. It reflects a certain amount of bureaucratic housecleaning, as all of the appointments are retroactive, some of them dramatically so:

• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Paul Cousins (trustee, Dexter Village)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Erica Fitzgerald (attorney with Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Linda Girard (CEO, Pure Visibility)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Kimberly Scott (attorney with Miller Canfield)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Ellie Serras (community relations director, Main Street BIZ)
• Oct. 1, 2011 to Sept. 30, 2014 Christie Wong Barrett (manufacturing council at U.S. Department of Commerce)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Tim Freeth (head of industry, Google)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Jerold Lax (attorney with Pear Sperling Eggan and Daniels)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Kenneth Magee (former head of University of Michigan public safety)
• Oct. 1, 2012 to Sept. 30, 2015 Kevin McDonald (city of Ann Arbor, assistant city attorney)
• Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2016 Tom Crawford (city of Ann Arbor, chief financial officer)
• Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2016 Mary Kerr (president, Ann Arbor Area Convention & Visitors Bureau)
• Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2016 Dug Song (CEO of Duo Security, tech entrepreneur)

Most of these members, however, do not appear to meet the membership criteria listed out in the description available on the city’s online Legistar system, which reads:

Membership/Committee Composition: Representatives from each of the following: Ann Arbor Street Art Fair, South University Merchants Association, State Street Area Art Fair, State Street Area Association, Michigan Guild of Artists and Artisans, Main Street Area Association, Washtenaw Non-Profits, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, Ann Arbor City Council (2-1 each caucus), City and County Government Departments (4 votes total): Ann Arbor Building Dept., Ann Arbor Police Dept., Ann Arbor Fire Dept., Ann Arbor Solid Waste Dept., Ann Arbor Transportation Division, Ann Arbor Attorney’s Office, Washtenaw County Health Dept., U of M (2 votes total): Community Relations, Public Safety, Michigan Union, Plant Operations, Parking Services.

Some confusion surrounding these appointments is reflected in one of the resolved clauses of the resolution, which reads:

RESOLVED, That the Mayor and City Council request that the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, Inc., clarify the designation process in their Bylaws and implement an annual designation process by August 1, 2014.

9:04 p.m. Hieftje says that this item was prompted by a bylaws review of the Ann Arbor Summer Festival board. He then praises the Summer Festival.

9:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the board appointments to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival.

9:04 p.m. DB-1 Traverwood Apartments site plan and wetland use permit. This is a proposed complex of 16 two-story buildings on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. This is the second of two items on the agenda related to this project. Earlier in the meeting the council approved the rezoning necessary for the project. [For additional background see Traverwood Apartments above.]

9:06 p.m. Lumm leads things off, saying that she’d seen the development team having a conversation with those who spoke during the public hearing. She asks for some response of the concerns described. Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting responds to the description of the retaining walls that are tiered so that it minimizes the impact on the critical root zones of nearby trees.

9:09 p.m. Ophoff is describing how the newt and salamanders will be finishing their mating in the spring around March and May before the project starts work. He describes how the project accommodates bats.

9:12 p.m. Eaton asks about a pipe to be installed in connection with a wetland. Wetland #2 has three parts, Ophoff explains. Eaton is concerned that the pipe is undersized.

9:13 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan and wetland use permit for the Traverwood Apartments project.

9:13 p.m. DB-2 Montgomery Ward building site plan. The council is being asked to approve the site plan for the upward expansion of the old Montgomery Ward building on South Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors. [For additional background see Montgomery Ward Building above.]

9:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the site plan for the old Montgomery Ward building.

9:14 p.m. Briarwood restaurants site plan. The council is being asked to approve the site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. The restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – would be constructed on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be operated by two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana. [For additional background see Briarwood Mall Restaurant Expansions above.]

9:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Briarwood Mall restaurant expansion site plan.

9:14 p.m. DS-1 Approve a purchase order with Hastings Air Energy Control Inc. The council is being asked to approve a contract with Hastings Air Energy Control Inc. for 15 systems to capture exhaust from fire department vehicles. The amount of the contract is $109,845. Most of the cost is being funded by a federal grant, which the council formally accepted at its May 13, 2013 meeting. A local match of $21,969 was required on the grant, which was for $87,876.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the systems will be deployed “within the city’s five operating fire stations as part of the city’s commitment to providing its fire fighting personnel and visitors of city fire stations a safer and cleaner living atmosphere, while supporting the city’s leading role in protecting the overall quality of the environment.”

9:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the contract with Hastings Air Energy Control Inc. for exhaust capturing systems.

9:15 p.m. DS-2 Accepting sanitary sewer easement. The council is being asked to accept a standard grant of easement for sanitary sewer from the owners of the properties at 2200, 2220, 2240, and 2260 Wolverhampton Court.

9:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the grant of easement for the properties at Wolverhampton Court.

9:16 p.m. Communications from the council. Teall thanks police chief John Seto and the staff for their work on the New Year’s Eve celebration activities on Main Street, called The Puck Drops Here. She hoped it would be repeated.

9:16 p.m. Communications from the city attorney. City attorney Stephen Postema reports that the Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld the city’s position in the revocation of the Dream Nite Club’s liquor license. Postema thanks the police for their role in that.

9:18 p.m. Clerk’s Report. The clerk’s report is now received.

9:18 p.m. Public commentary There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

9:21 p.m. Thomas Partridge is the only speaker. He says that people might question why he attends council meetings calling on the council to abide by the law and the constitution. He calls for reform and a turnaround of the council. He calls again as he has before for the resignation of mayor John Hieftje and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. He alleges that he’s had property stolen and been subject to threats of intimidation. Huge amounts of snow have been piled up around buildings that house handicapped people, he claims.

9:22 p.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into a closed session for discussion of land acquisition and written attorney-client communication.

9:39 p.m. While we’re waiting for the closed session to conclude, here’s the first part of the non-motorized transportation plan implementation strategy that the city administrator was directed by the city council to develop: [.pdf of non-motorized plan implementation strategy]

9:51 p.m. Councilmembers have emerged from the closed session.

9:53 p.m. They’re back, but have decided to take a short break.

10:02 p.m. It sounds like the council will be considering a resolution that will direct the city administrator to make inquiries about the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street, with an eye toward possibly exercising the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the property.

10:03 p.m. The resolution is being crafted during the recess.

10:07 p.m. Council is back in open session.

10:10 p.m. They’re opening the agenda to add a resolution directing the city administrator and city attorney to gather appropriate information to explore the possibility to exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the 2500 S. State property owned by Edwards Brothers. The resolution also directs the development of financing proposals that would be feasible for the city. The information is to be gathered by Jan. 30.

10:12 p.m. Hieftje is reciting the standard explanation of the city’s interest in preserving the city’s tax base. He calls the acquisition of the old Pfizer property and the property along Division where the Blimpy Burger’s previously stood part of a pattern that the University of Michigan has displayed.

10:14 p.m. Lumm is glad they’re gathering the additional information so the council can decide whether to exercise its right of first refusal. She says it will be invaluable to have that information so that the council can make the decision. Staff will be looking at the zoning questions, she says, which will help to inform the council’s decision. The site, at 16.7 acres, is the largest remaining such parcel in the city, she says.

10:15 p.m. Taylor echoes Hieftje and Lumm. The University of Michigan’s acquisition of property is a long-term challenge the city faces, he says.

10:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the resolution directing the city administrator and city attorney to gather information on exercising the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property.

10:16 p.m. Here’s the text of the unamended resolution. The amended version contains the due date of Jan. 30. [Edwards Brothers Resolution of Inquiry and Information Gathering Jan. 6, 2014]

10:16 p.m. Here’s the amended resolution. [Amended Edwards Brothers Resolution of Inquiry and Information Gathering Jan. 6, 2014]

10:16 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Jan. 6, 2014 meeting agenda.

Two of those items were postponed from the final meeting of 2013, on Dec. 16.

One of those postponed items was the official termination of a four-year-old memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan for construction of the Fuller Road Station project.

That was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under the terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter. The vote to terminate the MOU has its origins in the politics of Stephen Kunselman’s Ward 3 re-election campaign, when he promised to bring forward such a resolution.

The council’s postponement of the MOU termination at its Dec. 16 meeting was not due to any particular controversy about the vote itself. Instead, the postponement resulted from the fact that the item had been added to the agenda on the same day as the meeting, and that’s a practice the council has agreed should be avoided.

The other item delayed from the Dec. 16 meeting was a resolution assigning a specific cost to the removal of an on-street parking space, in connection with future developments: $45,000. That item first appeared on the council’s Dec. 2 agenda, but the council postponed it, based on a desire to hold a public hearing on the matter before taking action. The Dec. 16 postponement came after questions were raised during council deliberations, about the accounting procedures that would be used by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to track any money that might be collected under the policy.

Apart from those previously delayed items, the rest of the council’s agenda is filled out primarily with items concerning future development.

Accounting for two of the council’s Jan. 6 voting items is Traverwood Apartments – a First Martin development on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The council will consider final approval of some rezoning necessary for the complex of 16 two-story buildings. And on a separate vote, the council will consider the site plan approval and a wetland use permit associated with the apartment complex.

A third development item on the Jan. 6 agenda is the site plan for the upward expansion of the Montgomery Ward building on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors.

And a final development on the Jan. 6 agenda is a site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. The restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – would be constructed on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be operated by two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

The consent agenda features two items involving cellular phone antennas mounted on city facilities. One of the items relates to the specific contracts with Sprint for placing antennas at four facilities: the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure, and the water treatment plant. The contracts are being revised upwards to $45,000 a year at each location, with 4% annual escalators.

The other consent agenda item that’s related to cellular phone antennas, if it’s approved, would make it unnecessary in the future for items like the agreements with Sprint to come before the city council for approval. Instead, it would give the city administrator the power to approve licensing agreements with cellular service providers – even though they exceed the $25,000 threshold for council approval set forth in a city-charter required ordinance.

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

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth?

A resolution that was postponed for the second time at the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting is now on the Jan. 6 agenda. It would define how much developers would need to pay the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority if a developer’s project requires removal of a metered on-street parking space. The proposed amount is $45,000 per space. The payment would go to the Ann Arbor DDA because the DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city.

The rationale for postponing the item on Dec. 2 – offered by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who sponsored the resolution – was that because it amounts to a fee, a public hearing should be held on the matter before the council voted.

After the public hearing held at the council’s Dec. 16 meeting, the council’s deliberations focused on the question of the accounting procedures to be used by the DDA in tracking any money that might be paid under the policy. Given that the rationale for the policy is that the money would be put toward the cost of construction for new parking spaces, councilmembers wanted to know how the money would be reserved for that purpose.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, the DDA has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

Taylor, the resolution’s sponsor, participated in meetings during the fall of 2013 of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects.

Based on Taylor’s reasoning on the TIF question, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, would be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation. The city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) parking program allows a developer (as one option) to satisfy an on-site parking space requirement by paying $55,000. (The other option is to enter into a 15-year agreement to purchase monthly parking permits at a 20% premium.)

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could be calculated by taking the actual costs and dividing by 738 – the number of spaces in the structure. Based on a recent memo from executive director Susan Pollay to city administrator Steve Powers, about 30% or $15 million of the cost of the project was spent on items “unneeded by the parking structure.” That included elements like oversized foundations to support future development, an extra-large transformer, a new alley between Library Lane and S. Fifth Avenue, new water mains, easements for a fire hydrant and pedestrian improvements.

The actual amount spent on the Library Lane structure, according to DDA records produced under a Freedom of Information Act request from The Chronicle, was $54,855,780.07, or about $1.5 million under the project’s $56.4 million budget. Adjusting for those elements not needed for the parking structure yields a per-space cost of about $52,000. [(54,855,780.07*.70)/738] [.pdf of Nov. 22, 2013 memo from Pollay to Powers][.pdf of budget versus actual expenses for the 738-space Library Lane structure]

By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually.

Killing Fuller Road Station MOU

An item postponed from the Dec. 16, 2013 meeting would officially terminate a four-year-old memorandum of understanding between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan on Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. [.pdf of Nov. 5, 2009 MOU text as approved by the city council] However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced on Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sponsored the Dec. 16 resolution. The idea to terminate the MOU has its origins in election campaign rhetoric. He had stated at a June 8, 2013 Democratic primary candidate forum that he intended to bring forth such a resolution to “kill” the Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that forum:

Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project. Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

The city continues to pursue the possibility of a newly built or reconstructed train station, but not necessarily with the University of Michigan’s participation, and without a pre-determined preferred alternative for the site of a new station. At its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, the council approved a contract with URS Corp. Inc. to carry out an environmental review of a project called the Ann Arbor Station. That review should yield the determination of a locally-preferred alternative for a site.

Kunselman led off deliberations at the Dec. 16 meeting saying he would like to postpone the resolution. He indicated that he thought he’d managed to add the item to the agenda on the Friday before the Monday meeting, but it turned out he had not done so. In light of the council’s discussion at their Dec. 9 budget planning session – when councilmembers had said they’d strive to avoid adding resolutions at the last minute – Kunselman said he wanted it postponed.

Mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) both indicated they’d vote for the resolution – but also said they didn’t think the resolution was necessary. They indicated they were willing to vote for the resolution without postponing. Kunselman nevertheless wanted to postpone it, because it was added late to the agenda.

Traverwood Apartments

Also on the council’s Jan. 6 agenda is a First Martin Corp. project, which would construct a residential complex on the west side of Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road. The development is called Traverwood Apartments.

The project, estimated to cost $30 million, would include 16 two-story buildings for a total of 216 one- and two-bedroom units – or 280 total bedrooms. Eight of the buildings would each have 15 units and 11 single-car garages. An additional eight buildings would each have 12 units and 8 single-car garages.

Two separate items are on the council’s agenda – one for the rezoning required for the project, and the other for the site plan and wetland use permit.

At the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting, the initial approval of the required rezoning was given. Also approved at that meeting was a donation of 2.2 acres, just north of the project site – by Bill Martin to the city. The donated acreage is next to the Stapp Nature Area and the Leslie Park golf course.

Aerial view of proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2225 Traverwood Drive, north of Plymouth Road.

The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the site plan and the required rezoning at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting. The site is made up of two parcels: a nearly 16-acre lot that’s zoned R4D (multi-family residential), and an adjacent 3.88-acre lot to the south that’s currently zoned ORL (office, research and light industrial). It’s the smaller lot that needs to be rezoned R4D.

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

Montgomery Ward Building

Another item on the city council’s Jan. 6 agenda is the site plan for a four-story addition to the existing two-story building (the old Montgomery Ward building) at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor. The plan calls for creating 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units. Planning commissioners took action to recommend approval of the project’s site plan at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view of the Montgomery building (indicated with crosshatches) at 210 S. Fourth Ave. in downtown Ann Arbor.

The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building – a former Montgomery Ward’s department store – to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors. The ground floor would remain commercial space. Current tenants include Salon Vertigo and Bandito’s Mexican Restaurant. The top floor will include a stair/elevator lobby, restroom, wet bar, and access to several roof decks. Part of the fifth-floor roof will be covered in vegetation as a green roof.

Because the building is located in a historic district, it required a certificate of appropriateness from the city’s historic district commission. The HDC granted that certificate at its Sept. 12, 2013 meeting.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density. According to a staff memo, eight footing drain disconnects will be required.

According to a report from the July 10, 2013 citizen participation meeting, the units will be marketed to “anyone who wants to live downtown.” If approvals are received, construction is expected to begin next summer. The project’s architect is Brad Moore.

Moore is also the architect for an expansion project on the adjacent property – a three-floor addition to the Running Fit building at East Liberty and South Fourth, which will create six residential units. That project received a recommendation of approval from planning commissioners at their Oct. 15, 2013 meeting and was subsequently approved by the city council on Dec. 2, 2013.

Briarwood Mall Restaurant Expansions

A site plan for construction of two free-standing restaurants at Briarwood Mall is also on the council’s Jan. 6 agenda.

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the parcel where two new restaurants are proposed, adjacent to Macy’s.

The proposal calls for building two new freestanding restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 188 spaces. The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094. The site is located in Ward 4.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and development in action at their Nov. 19, 2013 meeting. The project was originally considered at the commission’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, but postponed because of outstanding issues.

Originally, the planning staff had indicated that the project would require rezoning a portion of the parking lot from P (parking) to C2B (business service. However, according to a memo accompanying the commission’s Nov. 19 meeting packet, planning staff subsequently determined that because the original 1973 Briarwood Mall zoning anticipated the expansion of Hudson’s (now Macy’s ) to the east, no rezoning was needed.

Cellular Antenna Licensing

The consent agenda for Jan. 6 features two items involving cellular phone antennas mounted on city facilities. By council rule, contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda.

Antennas from left: Plymouth Road water tower, Ann-Ashley parking structure, Manchester Road water tower.

One of the consent agenda items relates to the specific contracts with Sprint for placing antennas at four facilities: the Plymouth Road water tower, the Manchester Road water tower, the Ann-Ashley parking structure, and the water treatment plant. The contracts are being revised upwards to $45,000 a year at each location with 4% annual escalators. The previous agreements ranged from $25,920 to $39,283, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The staff memo also indicates that Sprint has been given initial administrative approval to undertake replacement of some of its equipment related to its 4G deployment.

The other consent agenda item related to cellular phone antennas, if it’s approved, would make it unnecessary in the future for items like the agreements with Sprint to come before the city council for approval. Instead, it would give the city administrator the power to approve licensing agreements with cellular service providers – even though they exceed the $25,000 threshold for council approval set forth in a city-charter required ordinance.

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

The item had been added to the agenda on the day of the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). He had attempted to add the item on Friday before the Monday meeting, but had not managed to do that. In that context, during the Dec. 16 meeting Kunselman asked for a postponement, even though other councilmembers seemed inclined to vote for it without much debate.

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote.  [.pdf of Nov. 5, 2009 MOU text as approved by the city council]

However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under the terms of the MOU, was announced Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter.

The idea to terminate the MOU has its origins in election campaign rhetoric. Kunselman had stated at a June 8, 2013 Democratic primary candidate forum that he intended to bring forth such a resolution to “kill” the Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that forum:

Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project.

Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

Kunselman prevailed in that Democratic contest over Julie Grand. He has since taken out petitions to run for mayor in 2014. Current mayor John Hieftje has announced that he will not be seeking re-election to an eighth two-year term.

The city continues to pursue the possibility of a newly built or reconstructed train station, but not necessarily with the University of Michigan’s participation, and without a pre-determined preferred alternative for the site of a new station. At its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, the council approved a contract with URS Corp. Inc. to carry out an environmental review of the Ann Arbor Station project – which should yield the determination of a locally-preferred alternative for a site.

That rail station project relates most immediately to the prospect that Amtrak will be offering improved intercity service on the Chicago-Detroit Amtrak line.

The total budgeted for the Ann Arbor Station contract at the Oct. 21 meeting – which covers public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – was $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city will pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. A transfer of $550,000 to the city’s major grant fund was approved a year ago by the city council at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting for the total project budget.

The federal grant that will cover 80% of the project cost, up to $2.8 million for the federal share, had been accepted by the council at its June 4, 2012 meeting. So for the contract approved on Oct. 21, the city’s share worked out to approximately $165,000, with the Federal Rail Authority covering the remaining $660,000.

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 city now needs to provide around $550,000 in new matching funds in order to receive the federal money to complete the work. The federal grant funds are still available – and according to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the intent is to work with the city of Ann Arbor to see the project through to completion.

The Ann Arbor city council had voted 9-2 to accept the federal money – through the FRA’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program – at its June 4, 2012 meeting. That acceptance was based on the understanding that around $701,600 in already-expended city funds could count toward a required 20% match.

But now the FRA has informed the city that none of its previously incurred expenses are eligible to count toward the match on the grant, which would fund completion of a preliminary engineering and environmental assessment for a new rail station in Ann Arbor.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje indicated that a resolution will appear on the city council’s Oct. 15 meeting agenda that addresses the determination made by the FRA. The resolution reflects both a financial and a political strategy. The financial strategy is to allocate money from the city’s general fund budget. The political strategy includes a commitment in the resolution to submit the construction of a new rail station to a popular vote. The political component of the strategy is related to the fact that the proposed  Fuller Road location  for the new rail station is city parkland.

Financial Strategy

The city’s financial strategy now, as reflected in the resolution to be placed on the council’s Oct. 15 agenda, is to revise its general fund FY 2013 budget. The $550,000 amount to be allocated from the general fund reserve by the council’s resolution is based on a lower total cost estimate for the study. Initially, the study was projected to cost $3.5 million, which would have required a 20% match of about $700,000. Now it’s expected that the project can be completed for about $2.75 million.

The resolution directs the city administrator to seek as much as $300,000 in contributions from “other eligible local partners” to offset the cost of the local match. If the full $300,000 could be identified – from sources like the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – that would leave the city’s eventual share at $250,000.

As part of the city’s FY 2013 budget, $307,781 had already been allocated for the rail station study – as a contingency if the University of Michigan did not pay invoices associated with some already-completed work. That contingency became a reality in August when the city and the university agreed that the money was not owed under a memorandum of understanding between the two bodies. The FRA’s determination means that work for which the $307,781 had been allocated is not eligible to be counted as part of the local match.

Those already-expended funds had been used in connection with work associated with the Fuller Road Station – for conceptual planning, environmental documentation efforts and some preliminary engineering. The city paid for that work from its major street fund, alternative transportation fund, and previously existing economic development funds over the past three years.

Fuller Road Station was a conceptual pre-cursor to what is now called the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. In partnership with the University of Michigan, the proposed Fuller Road Station included a 1,000-space parking structure to be built in conjunction with a new rail station on an identified site nestled between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive, adjacent to the UM medical campus. The location is controversial, because it’s on city parkland. However, UM withdrew from that project earlier this year, on Feb. 10. The university decided instead to revisit its earlier plans to build additional parking on Wall Street.

When the council accepted the HSIPR grant at its June 4, 2012 meeting, the council also approved a $196,192 amendment to an existing contract with SmithGroup JJR for continued study and planning work that had been started in connection with the Fuller Road Station project. The work under the contract is supposed to be funded from the HSIPR grant, and will involve continued “… re-examination of the current program definition to affirm it is consistent with the stakeholder goals for the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station Project, and revisions as required to the conceptual plan” as well as completion of required National Environmental Policy Act documentation.

Political Strategy

The political strategy for addressing the FRA determination is to commit to setting a date on which the question of proceeding with construction of a new rail station would be submitted to a voter referendum.

RESOLVED, That at or before the completion of a final design for the Ann Arbor Station project, City Council will set a date by which the City will submit the question of moving forward with construction to a vote of the citizens of Ann Arbor; and …

The council had considered in late summer placing a more general issue on the November ballot – a city charter amendment that would require certain types of long-term leases of city parkland to require a popular vote. The city charter already requires that the sale of parkland be voted on in a popular referendum. However, the council decided at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting not to place that charter amendment on the ballot this November.

The Fuller Road site is city parkland. So for that specific site, the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 resolution – if approved – would have essentially the same effect as the charter amendment.

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

The city had also planned to build a train station at the site. The university withdrew from the partnership earlier this year, on Feb. 10, 2012. The city of Ann Arbor has continued with its planning for the rail station portion of the project, accepting a $2.8 million grant from the Federal Rail Administration on June 4, 2012 for a site alternatives analysis. That $2.8 million grant had a $0.7 million local match requirement, which the city intends to meet with funds already expended by the university and the city. The amount billed by the city to the university was part of that local match component of the FRA grant.

In the agreement reached between the city and the university, UM does not owe the $271,446 – because the university has already met its 78% share of expenses as specified in the MOU. That means the city will use part of the $307,781 that had already been included in the FY 2013 budget to cover those costs, in the event it was determined that UM did not owe the money.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From left: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager Eli Cooper. (Photos by the writer.)

First, the council accepted the award of a roughly $2.8 million federal grant to help fund a site-alternatives analysis for possible construction of a new train station. That analysis is meant to result in the confirmation of a locally-preferred alternative to be reviewed by the Federal Rail Administration.

The grant requires a local match of roughly $700,000, which the city expects to make with funds it has already expended – in connection with the Fuller Road Station project, before the University of Michigan withdrew its participation earlier this year. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) voted against accepting the grant.

One of many concerns expressed by Lumm was that the study would not be conducted starting with a “clean sheet,” which city transportation program manager Eli Cooper acknowledged was the case. But Cooper observed that starting with a clean sheet would mean wiping away previous work that had already been done.

Some of that work has been completed by SmithGroup JJR. At its June 4 meeting, the council also approved a $196,192 amendment to an existing contract with the firm – for further site analysis, funded by the new federal grant. Partly on the basis of a perceived conflict of interest by SmithGroup JJR in conducting the current work – given that it had done the previous work on site analysis – Lumm and Anglin also voted against that contract amendment as a two-person minority.

Lumm and Anglin were joined by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) in voting against a revised agreement among four parties that establishes a framework for possibly creating a larger transportation authority. The four parties to the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. In conjunction with reconsidering the four-party agreement, the council also approved articles of incorporation for the new Act 196 transit authority that would eventually need to be filed by Washtenaw County – on request from the AATA – in order to establish a new governance structure.

The council had previously approved the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012. The need for the Ann Arbor city council to reconsider the documents arose after the Ypsilanti city council amended those documents before approving them on May 15. On a unanimous vote, the Ann Arbor city council accepted only those amendments made by the Ypsilanti city council that affected the city of Ypsilanti. The Ann Arbor council majority gained one vote from its 7-4 approval of the agreement in March – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) switched her earlier position and voted for it. The following day, on June 5, the Ypsilanti city council reconsidered and adopted the version of the four-party agreement that had been approved by the Ann Arbor council.

The result of the action by the two councils is an agreement that the cities will treat their transit taxes differently with respect to a municipal service charge. The city of Ann Arbor will impose the charge and keep roughly $90,000 that would otherwise go to the new transit authority, while Ypsilanti will forward an estimated $3,000 to the new transit authority, rather than applying that charge.

The four-party agreement will next be formally considered by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners – first at a June 14, 2012 working session. It now appears almost certain that the final ratification of all parties to the agreement will not occur with sufficient lead time for a countywide transit millage to be placed on the November 2012 ballot.

In other transportation-related action – affecting pedestrians – the council gave final approval to a revision to the city’s sidewalk repair ordinance. The ordinance revision relieves property owners of responsibility for sidewalk maintenance, during the five-year period of the millage that voters approved for that purpose in November 2011. The revision also provides a mechanism for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to pay for sidewalk repairs within its geographic district.

In other business, the council gave final approval to new water, sewer and stormwater rates. It also revived a previous requirement that it had rescinded last year – that a construction utility board (CUB) agreement be signed with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council as a condition of award for city construction contracts. The council had rescinded the requirement in deference to a law enacted by the Michigan legislature, but a federal court has since enjoined against enforcement of that law.

In some of its other action items, the council formally made a change in the composition of the Elizabeth Dean tree fund, and authorized two street closings for the Sonic Lunch summer music series in Liberty Plaza. The council also heard public commentary on a range of topics, including a proposed warming center for the homeless.

Federal Rail Administration Grant

The council considered action on two items that relate to a possible new train station for the city of Ann Arbor. The first was acceptance of a grant made through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT). The grant would fund initial planning and environmental documentation related to possible construction of what’s now called the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. The contract for the work is being funded with a federal grant worth $2,806,400 with a required 20% local match of $701,600. The grant was awarded by the Federal Rail Administration in connection with the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program.

City administrator Steve Powers (left) chats with University of Michigan community relations director Jim Kosteva before the city council’s June 4 meeting. Kosteva was not attending the meeting in connection with the rail project, but to receive an award on behalf of the university from the city’s historic district commission for Burton Tower.

A conceptual pre-cursor to the project was called the Fuller Road Station, which had included the University of Michigan’s participation. UM was interested in a 1,000-space parking structure to be built in conjunction with a new rail station on an identified site nestled between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive, adjacent to the UM medical campus. However, UM withdrew from that project earlier this year, on Feb. 10. The university decided instead to revisit its earlier plans to build additional parking on Wall Street.

For purposes of the federal local match requirement, Ann Arbor now intends to use funds already expended toward the former Fuller Road Station project – for conceptual planning, environmental documentation efforts and some preliminary engineering. Over the past three years, the city has paid for that work from its major street fund, alternative transportation fund, and the previously existing economic development fund.

The city also hopes that UM will contribute toward the costs of the work already done. However, the city’s FY 2013 budget, approved by the council at its May 21 meeting, allocates up to $307,781 from the city’s general fund to cover the local match, if an agreement with UM can’t be reached. Responding to recent Chronicle queries, city administrator Steve Powers and UM community relations director Jim Kosteva have characterized the conversations between the city and the university on this topic as “ongoing dialogue.”

The grant was the subject of public commentary from several people.

FRA Grant – Public Commentary

Sumi Kailasapathy told the council she regretted that some of the city’s cherished parkland appears to be taking one more step toward conversion to a railway station and parking garage [a reference to the Fuller Road site]. She described how in many Asian countries, temple lands are considered sacred. In Ann Arbor, for many residents, parks hold a similar sacred status, she said. [Kailasapathy is a Democratic candidate for the Ward 1 city council seat – to which incumbent Sandi Smith has announced she's not seeking re-election.]

Kailasapathy noted that while parkland is one of the permissible uses for land zoned PL (public land), it’s the only use that has a limitation on incompatible uses, she said.

By way of background, at its July 6, 2010 meeting, the city council approved a change to the use regulations for PL (public land) to replace airports as an allowable use with the more general “transportation facilities.” The change explicitly included “municipal airports, rail stations, bus stations, bicycle centers, auto and bicycle parking facilities” as examples of such facilities.

Kailasapathy reminded the council that the city’s zoning ordinance states: “No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated parkland which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.”

The Fuller Road site is designated as parkland in the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, she said, adding that a train station would not be customarily incidental to the principal use of that land. She asked the council to respect the zoning ordinance and preserve the site as it was intended – for enjoyment as parkland. Adopting other uses for parkland without a vote of the people, she continued, is in direct opposition to the charter amendment passed by a large margin of voters in 2008, which prohibits the sale of parkland without a popular referendum.

From an economic and financial point of view, Kailasapathy said, there needs to be a detailed business plan for a train station, which lays out the funding mechanism for the station and the trains. Until there are answers in writing to those questions, she said that spending on the train station should stop.

Jack Eaton told the council he was there to speak in opposition to the Fuller Road train station. [Eaton is contesting the Ward 4 Democratic primary, challenging incumbent Margie Teall.] He noted that Ann Arbor residents have repeatedly and consistently supported parkland. They approved dedicated millages for park acquisition and maintenance. They approved a charter amendment that restricts the sale of parkland. The city’s zoning ordinance restricts the use of parkland. He reiterated the point about allowable uses of parkland that Kailasapathy had made, regarding structures on parkland that are not customarily associated with a parcel’s principal use. The city also has a long history of supporting public transportation, he said. But a train station is not consistent with parkland use, and he asked the council to consider the precedent that would be set by re-purposing the parkland at the Fuller site for use as a train station.

Nancy Shiffler addressed the council as chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She noted that she’d sent a letter with concerns about the two resolutions related to what’s now being called the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. By appearing before the council, she wanted to reinforce those concerns about the process outlined for the environmental assessment, which is a component of the Federal Rail Administration grant, and is required under National Environmental Policy Act guidelines. Although NEPA regulations require that contractors be chosen to avoid any conflict of interest, the selection of SmithGroup JJR introduces just such a conflict, she contended. SmithGroup JJR has been contracted for the train station project from the outset – with the assumption that it will be located at the Fuller Road site.

The preliminary engineering component, for which SmithGroup JJR is contracted for, she said, can’t start until the environmental assessment has been approved by the FRA. The scope of work in the contract for SmithGroup JJR’s work makes clear that the intent is to end up with a recommendation for the Fuller Road site, she said. One of the deliverables, she continued, includes a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the Fuller Road site. Under those circumstances, she said, it’s hard for her to believe that SmithGroup JJR could produce an objective report. A part of the environmental assessment is consideration of alternative sites for the project – that’s reflected by including, in the scope of services document, the current Amtrak site as a possible location.

But elsewhere it’s indicated that they’re planning to take the structures with the footprint for the Fuller Road site and “plop it onto the current Amtrak site,” she said, rather than designing a plan to fit that particular site. That’s not the way to support an objective analysis, she said, unless the council’s intent is to support a forgone conclusion. The council should require that competitive bidding be used for the contract, she said. Her group has shared these concerns with MDOT and FRA in the past and would continue to do so.

Rita Mitchell spoke on behalf of the group Protect A2 Parks. She described herself as an advocate for the integrity of Ann Arbor’s public parks and honest processes that follow the will of the people on significant decisions for the city, like those before the council that night. She felt the council did not have adequate information to make a decision. She noted that the name of the project has changed from Ann Arbor Multimodal Center, to Fuller Intermodal Transit Station, to Fuller Road Station, to its current name: Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. In the course of different council actions taken over the last few years, those described as stakeholders, city councilmembers and city staff have focused on the same piece of city parkland – for a project that has not been completely defined or approved by the council. She pointed to the city project that relocated sewer lines to accommodate a planned station there – for whatever rail project it is.

Mitchell allowed that the sewer relocation had been included in the city’s capital improvements plan, but it had not been a high priority at the time it was approved. The invitation to bid was entitled “Contract Documents for Fuller Road Station Phase One, Northside Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Relocation and Site Utility Construction Project.” SmithGroup JJR has been involved with the design since the start and is biased, Mitchell continued. The public participation so far, she said, consisted of a planning commission work session, a park advisory commission meeting and a public open house – all held between Sept. 10 and Sept. 17 of 2009. She questioned whether those meetings were adequately noticed. She contended that there’s been only one true “public hearing” – held by the planning commission in 2010. Other presentations were held as presentations, with city staff maintaining tight control on questions from citizens, she said. There was no sense of asking citizens what they wanted.

James D’Amour told the council that he is very much in support of public transit, including trains that run to Chicago. He contended that city transportation program manager Eli Cooper has stressed that acceptance of the grant means the city is obligated to carry out a full planning process. So a yes vote, D’Amour argued, strongly commits the city to build a new train station. But the city has no finalized plans for construction or financing, he said. The FRA grant funding doesn’t add to the city’s budget. D’Amour contended that voting yes commits the city to matching 20% of this grant and whatever grants are received from the federal government in the future. Because the city has no guarantees of future funding, the city would be left “holding the bag,” he contended. Voting no costs the city nothing financially, he said. He called it reckless for the council to make this decision without further thought about the consequences. He asked the council to postpone a vote.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations

During the time allotted for council communications toward the start of the meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) responded to the commentary on the rail station by saying he was impressed with speakers who had taken the time to learn about the issues. They had good suggestions about how to proceed as a council. The speakers love the city as councilmembers do, he said. While some of the things they said might not be technically correct, they are the people that the council represents, he said. The council needs to be conscious of that and be respectful of their position and their interest in improving Ann Arbor, Anglin concluded.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – Commitment?

When the council arrived at the FRA grant agenda item, it was Jane Lumm (Ward 2) who led off the deliberations. She started by focusing on the issue that had been raised during public commentary – about the kind of commitment that the city’s acceptance of the grant reflected.

Councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Lumm asked transportation program manager Eli Cooper: By accepting the grant, is the city committing to proceed with the project? A second question she had: Was the city “in any way, shape or form” committing to spending any additional local money? Cooper explained that by accepting the grant, the city would be committing to the work identified in the list of deliverables under the grant. Those include a detailed work program, an environmental document, conceptual plan and preliminary engineering after the FRA’s authorization to enter into that phase of the work. So, Cooper said, there’s a break in the contract where the FRA has the right to direct the city to proceed to undertake the work under the grant agreement.

The final deliverables are a set of preliminary plans – which could complete the city’s work, if the city decided to stop at that point. There are no additional federal funds awarded to the project at this time, he said, and the city would have to apply under a separate agreement for any subsequent work. It’s not the case, Cooper said, that if you commit to spending the first dollar that you’re fully committed to build whatever project comes out of the process. He felt it would be the community’s desire and it would be in the community’s best interest to pursue subsequent grants. But by accepting the planning grant, there’s no requirement that the city is committing to deliver a final project.

Lumm picked up on Cooper’s use of the phrase “at this time” and wanted to know if that meant there’d be an eventual commitment. Cooper responded with, “The simple answer is no.” If there were no federal funds available after the planning grant-funded activity is completing, the federal agency would itself require the city to go back and revisit the environmental clearance document. The city could not be forced to proceed during the short term or at any time, he said, under the terms of accepting the $2.8 million grant.

Lumm confirmed with Cooper that currently there were no federal funds identified for the project at this point, beyond the planning grant. Cooper said the lack of identified federal funding is a risk that had been outlined in the city’s application. Lumm asked again if by accepting the grant, the city was committing to spending any additional local funds. Cooper told Lumm that there’s no additional investment required to “complete the work that’s before us.” That’s because the city has identified local in-kind funds for the match as funds that have already been expended. Lumm said she meant beyond the planning grant activity – would there be any future local funds required?

Cooper told Lumm he wouldn’t say that no future local funds would be required to deliver a train station. If the economy were in such condition that there was another federal stimulus project that provided 100% funding – like recent awards to Battle Creek and Dearborn – then Ann Arbor “might be so blessed,” he said. But Cooper indicated that if a federal grant award for the actual construction of a rail station is made under terms of the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant – like the current planning grant – then a 20% local match would be required. That local (non-federal) match could be made by a combination of state, city, university or the local transit authority, Cooper said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wanted to clarify Cooper’s answer further: By accepting this grant, she ventured, the city was not committing to going beyond the scope of the contract. Cooper’s reply: “Correct.” Briere described it as a grant, and if the city were to decide at the conclusion of the grant phase that it’s done, then the city would be done. She said it’s her understanding that unless the city receives additional federal assistance beyond this grant, the city did not expect to build anything. Cooper told Briere that there’d been no city staff recommendation to date that the city invest 100% of funds for any rail improvement.

Briere asked if it’s the city’s intent to provide any money for the maintenance and operation of a rail system. After clarifying the question, Cooper said, “The answer is no.”

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – Spending to Date

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if Cooper could provide a detailed breakdown of spending to date on the Fuller Road project, noting that the last information he had was from a year ago, which had been produced by the city under a Freedom of Information Act request.

The source of the funds outlined in a staff memo provided to the council before the meeting provided the following breakdown.

$  54,621 FY2010 Major Streets Fund (0021)
$  54,621 FY2010 Alternative Transportation Fund (0061)
$ 104,742 FY2010 Economic Development Fund (0045)
$ 327,733 University of Michigan Contribution
$  46,664 FY2010 Sewage Disposal System Fund (0043)
$  64,564 FY2010 Street Repair Millage Fund (0062)

-

Anglin appeared more interested in getting an itemized breakdown of actual expenditures to date. Cooper indicated that the spreadsheet he had in front of him showed expenditures related to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and EA (environmental assessment) for the project amounting to $737,784.90.

Anglin said he was confused by the project, because for a time the city had talked about an intermodal facility, then talked about commuter rail and was now talking about passenger rail. The city has a train station and has had one for many years. If the city were to accept this grant, Anglin wanted to know if the requirement was to study the feasibility of potential sites. Cooper told Anglin that such a study was absolutely one of the prerequisites of any investment of federal funding – to look at the “no-build” alternative, as well as the alternative that would simply improve the existing facility.

Anglin indicated that some material the council had received described how by 2015 all Amtrak facilities will need to be ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. He wondered why the city was in the railroad business, and he ventured that the city was not qualified to build a train station or a railroad or anything like that. He did not like the idea of any of the city’s money going in that direction.

Anglin said he’d spoken against the train station from the point of view of the use of parkland, and the lack of a financial plan. It comes at a time when the city is having a difficult time taking care of the essentials, he said. That bothered him. A train station would be a nice thing to have, if the city were in flush times. But it seemed to him that accepting the grant still commits the city to a 20% match – which the city has already spent. He said he could not ever remember a vote by the council saying that it wanted the Fuller Road site to become an intermodal station or a train station. It’s all very confusing, he said.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – National Rail Policy

Anglin asked Cooper to clarify what’s going on. Cooper began by saying that for transportation infrastructure funding, there are funding crises at all levels – federal, state and local. In conversation with MDOT, which has recently created an office of rail passenger service, they’ve indicated that stations are local issues, Cooper said. From the standpoint of rail operations, he continued, the emphasis and focus of the state and the feds is to keep the trains moving. Access to amenities locally (like stations) are seen as a local contribution. What Ann Arbor began in 2006 and continued through 2009, he said, was a local process that included the adoption of the city’s transportation plan update. That’s a part of the city’s master plan, he pointed out. So the city’s master plan indicates the provision of a better train station in Ann Arbor as something that merits consideration.

Because that’s a matter of adopted city policy, staff have pursued grant resources that have been made available, Cooper continued. And Ann Arbor was fortunate enough to be selected by the FRA for the grant that was before the council for consideration, he said. It’s a difficult decision, Cooper added, to deal with the day-to-day issues of today, compared to making an investment in an asset that will serve the community for “decades if not centuries.” The challenge for city staff was to respond to the council’s direction, so the grant was pursued and an application was made. Cooper noted that he’d stood before the council on many occasions in connection with the project and looked forward to the council’s future direction – through environmental analysis, preliminary engineering to the design, and construction at any location that the planning process determines.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked Cooper why he felt that Ann Arbor’s application to the FRA was successful when so many other communities had applied but were not successful. Cooper felt that Amtrak itself recognizes that the Ann Arbor station is the busiest in the state of Michigan. It’s also on a Detroit-Chicago line that is not adequate to meet current demands.

Amtrak ridership at the Ann Arbor station. Over the last 10 years, ridership through the Ann Arbor station has shown a consistent increasing trend. For 2012 (heavy black line) the ridership levels continued at their peak levels to date through March. In April there was a significant decrease compared to last year’s record numbers. (Chart by The Chronicle using MDOT data. Links to larger image.)

Cooper felt it was important to remind councilmembers that the federal government has awarded $0.5 billion to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to acquire and upgrade the rail line between Detroit and Chicago. This past April, FRA and MDOT purchase bilevel passengers cars to increase the capacity of each train. The number of people who will be traveling along the line will increase, he said. Cooper said that Amtrak expects that ridership will double over the next 25 years. We’re currently stressed, he said. It’s well recognized now that for certain times of the year, the Amtrak station capacity and all the parking around it are 100% consumed.

Cooper described how tracks are being upgraded to allow for faster trains. The number of trains could be increased – from six per day to 10 per day, and the capacity of each train is increased with higher-capacity cars and adding cars. The platforms that are outlined in Amtrak designs for appropriate stations are 1,000 feet long, Cooper said. The current Amtrak station platform is not nearly that long, he noted. The intent, he said, is to have 1,000 foot trains with passenger cars that people can get on and off for that roughly quarter-mile stretch. That’s the enormity of the type of infrastructure that a high-speed passenger rail system needs, he said. That’s the opportunity that Ann Arbor has in front of it – to position itself to continue to be a leading community that provides “first-rate, world-class transportation in and out of our city,” Cooper said.

Hohnke ventured that the investment being made by the federal government in Michigan’s high-speed rail would lead to the ability of Ann Arborites to make connections from Chicago, for example, to the rest of the Midwest.

He also asked Cooper to give some background on why the funds are available on the federal level. Cooper said he felt the issue is that there’s pressure on the national aviation system – to meet the demand for people to travel 300-600 miles throughout the country. As business and commerce increases throughout the Midwest, Cooper said, the capacity of the airspace and the road networks is limited. While it might appear that there’s adequate capacity near Kalamazoo, for example, as you approach the metropolitan corridors, there are congestion issues, he said. The rail system is seen as an underutilized asset in North America, he said, and that’s why it’s federal policy to make those investments. Cities like Cleveland, St. Louis, Chicago, and Minneapolis are all about 300-500 miles from each other, and high-speed rail is an efficient and effective way for travelers to cover that distance.

Hohnke confirmed that expenditures to date locally will cover the local match requirement. Cooper said it’s his understanding that based on the timing of the notice of funding eligibility, the resources that have been expended to date will satisfy the 20% local match requirement. Hohnke ventured that if that turns out to be accurate, then the city is looking at the opportunity to have almost $3 million to continue planning work for a passenger rail station. Cooper clarified that the roughly $700,000 local match will leverage $2.8 million in federal funds for a total investment of $3.5 million.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – Support, Opposition, Delay?

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she was excited about the project. As someone who goes past the train station, she encounters people who are coming and going. Right now, she said, a whole bunch of people pile out with 30-pound suitcases and they have to go up a long flight of stairs, across the Broadway bridge, and down another flight of stairs to find their car. It’s clear that the current train station is not adequate. The study will indicate what would need to be done to improve the existing station if it were to remain in the current location, Smith said. Cooper confirmed that’s within the scope of services that SmithGroup JJR will provide – whether the existing station can be modified to meet existing demand.

Smith asked about the traffic issue – would a traffic analysis be part of this? Yes, said Cooper. Smith felt that the pushback from the community on this was either unwarranted or at least premature – because we don’t know yet what the answer is going to be. Regardless, some kind of “blueprint” for the issue would emerge for a better train station, Smith said.

Cooper sought to make clear that while no final decision has been made after seven years of effort, there is a leading preferred local alternative. The council and the federal government will have to make a final decision about whether there is an acceptable locally-preferred alternative [the Fuller Road site]. There’s clearly been a substantial amount of effort, and now more work will be put into documenting that and clarifying that, meeting with residents and providing all that information to the FRA, Cooper said. And ultimately the FRA will evaluate whether the existing site or the locally-preferred alternative is better.

Smith reiterated that she is excited about the project going forward and that the city is on the verge of something great. She said she couldn’t imagine that there’s a Democrat sitting around the table who would not be excited to see this project coming out of Washington right now.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) followed up on the federal high-speed rail program. She said she understood the federal investment to be one-time federal stimulus money. Cooper indicated that the total investment had come over the course of more than one year from a combination of different funding mechanisms. Lumm asked if any of the money could be used for the construction of the train station. Cooper said that if there were money left from the planning grant, the money could be used to build something. But understanding the complexity of the final design and construction drawings, Cooper felt it was highly unlikely that the city could build anything with that amount of money.

Lumm asked Cooper about future federal transportation funding. Cooper said that was an ongoing debate – it had been going on for several years. He indicated he didn’t want to offer an opinion about how that might turn out.

Lumm wanted to know if the city had surveyed people who ride the trains. She also asked about having more robust public engagement on the issue. Cooper noted that the term “locally-preferred alternative” is one associated with the federal regulatory process. That process also includes various formal terms for the environmental documents – an environmental assessment is different from an environmental review or from an environmental impact statement. The draft preliminary locally-preferred alternative is something that needs to be given to the lead agency – in this case, the FRA – for their review and comment. There’s a draft environmental assessment that clearly states there’s a locally-preferred alternative, he said. That’s purely a city staff and consultant product, and was never reviewed by the FRA.

However, there was an effort put into that assessment to come up with that locally-preferred alternative, Cooper explained. It was subjected to about 18 meetings. He allowed that there are a variety of opinions about how effective the public engagement had been. However, he said there’s been a website set up with frequently asked questions that derived from the process. There were changes made between the initial plans and the locally-preferred alternative that came in response to input from the public, he said. The council had held working sessions on the topic and staff had done additional work based on direction from the council, he said.

Cooper said that the staff have been thorough and deliberative, and while they haven’t reached a final conclusion, they have “a leading track” of a locally-preferred alternative. The city is required to do so in order to advance the project for the review of a federal agency and that agency’s ultimate approval, he said. The first steps of this grant agreement, if the council approved it that night, would be to begin refining the existing documents so that the city can respond to concerns the FRA has outlined, and that include additional public meetings if they’re required. So it’s not on a “fast track” but rather on a “deliberative track,” Cooper said. Ultimately, the city will get a determination from the FRA about whether the intrusion into parkland for the train station is justified.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) literally don’t see eye to eye on the Ann Arbor train station issue.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that, like Smith, he was excited about the project. Transportation is one of the essentials. He stressed that the preliminary step the council will be taking won’t bear fruit for several years. He’d asked the mayor of Dearborn how long they’d been working on the planning for the new rail station that recently broke ground, and Derezinski had been told around 12 years. Derezinski called the acceptance of the grant for Ann Arbor an essential step for the future of the city. You have to take some of these steps, he said, and you have to have some faith in the future. People of good intentions are on both sides of the issue, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Cooper if there was a deadline for accepting the grant. Cooper said there was not a deadline per se. But the preliminary environmental analysis, Cooper said, “grows older each day.” Kunselman wanted to know how long the city would have before that analysis would be considered “stale.” Cooper told him that would ultimately be up to the FRA, but that after a couple of years, he expected that would be too long. Kunselman ventured that meant the city had considerable time. Cooper countered that the preliminary analysis had been done a year and a half ago. Part of the proposal is to freshen up some of the analysis. Kunselman asked about a roundabout design for Maiden Lane and Fuller Road – would that be part of the traffic analysis? Cooper said he didn’t think so. Kunselman felt like another work session would be very helpful.

Kunselman expressed concern about the amount of money that was being paid to SmithGroup JJR. He asked if the following sentence was correct: “The not-to-exceed cost for the work associated with this amendment is estimated to be $196,192.00, and will be funded by a federal High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program Grant awarded to the State of Michigan and being made available through a contract between the City and the Michigan Department of Transportation.” He wanted to know if that money would be city dollars or federal grant dollars. Cooper explained that it would be federal grant dollars, under city control.

Kunselman’s line of questioning was abandoned as relevant to the subsequent agenda item – the resolution on the SmithGroup JJR contract. Kunselman asked if it would be possible to have another work session on the topic. Cooper said that if the city were to continue working on the project, then acceptance of the grant would allow that work to happen, with the aid of the federal grant.

Anglin said that for the original intermodal project, the council had been told there were 11 sites that had been considered and that the site selected would be the Fuller Road site. So if the city has already done that selection process, he wondered why the city was going back and looking at that question. He then discussed the train schedules and the difficulty that they present to travelers. The problem with the train is not with the train station, he said, but rather with the way the trains are scheduled. Building a new station won’t improve train service at all, he contended. He said he was afraid the city was about to embark on something that will be “a big boondoggle for our little town.” He said he was against the acceptance of the grant. He contended that the $1.3 million for the relocation of sewer pipes should be counted as an expense connected to the train station. Anglin contended that the city was committing to a $60 million project down the road, and he didn’t think the city had the money for that.

Kunselman said he was torn because he loved trains. He was looking forward to riding the train to Providence, Rhode Island to visit his daughters – who are graduating from high school this year and will attend Brown University. However, he did not like spending general fund dollars. Cooper clarified that the contract amendment with SmithGroup JJR would be federal grant dollars. Kunselman pointed out that the some of the matching funds that had already been expended originated as general fund dollars.

From left: Ward 3 councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman.

Kunselman asked if the MichCon site on Broadway would be included in the further study? Cooper indicated that the analysis would include the prevailing conditions at the time of the study. Right now, Cooper said, MichCon has not made the land immediately adjacent to the Amtrak station available. He said that as part of a design workshop, MichCon might be looked at to see if it could remedy any of the issues at that location. But that parcel was not one of the 15 sites that the city had looked at starting four years ago, he said. Subsequently, the staff reviewed privately-owned properties, and two rose to consideration – one was a private manufacturing plant, and the other was the MichCon property.

Kunselman noted that MichCon had indicated openness to selling the property to the city. Mayor John Hieftje said that his own discussions with MichCon related to the river side of the parcel, not the part close to the railroad tracks.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said two things were important to her. First, no new dollars would go to the project. By accepting this grant, the city would be able to spend federal dollars from the grant. Without accepting the grant, Briere said, the city can’t get to the point of looking at what the project might look like, or how it might be different from the project design as it looked 18 months ago, or what the impact on traffic will be, or whether the site at Fuller is the best possible site. The city is not making a commitment to build anything, she said, but everyone knows that once you’ve gone a certain distance, that you want to build whatever it is you struggled to get approved. But without spending the federal grant, she added, the city won’t get to the point of a decision about what to do if there are no funds to build the train station in a couple of years.

Briere addressed the idea that it’s unprecedented for a city to construct a train station. She assured people that it’s not unprecedented. The current station was constructed with state and local dollars, and the selection of the site grew out of a citizen and staff decision by committee. The location was selected to be next to the old historic train station, even though it had already outgrown the parking capacity, she said, because people sitting around a table like the current council romantically believed that the train station should be where it had always been. She allowed that she, too, is romantic and loved the Gandy Dancer [a restaurant in the former train station]. She’d be delighted if the city had a train station right there. But the FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] flood maps show that the entire piece of land is in the flood plain. What implications does that flood map have for potential improvements to the site? she asked. Briere figured she would not get an answer to that question unless the city accepted the grant. She said she was eager to accept the grant, but wanted to separate the grant from the location. That’s a conversation she wants as well.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) ventured that this had been the longest time the council had ever spent accepting a grant. Given that there would be no additional local dollars spent as part of accepting the grant, and that it did not reflect a commitment to build a train station, and that it preserved options going forward, it was not clear to him why the council would not accept the federal funds. Hohnke pointed to the lesson of Troy, Mich., where the local Tea Party had pressured the Troy city council to reject the offer of similar federal funds. That news was covered nationally, and Hohnke characterized the consensus view as an exercise in cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Acceptance of the grant was an opportunity to align Ann Arbor with the federal and state investment in high-speed rail.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) just before raising a point of order about the length of Jane Lumm’s (Ward 2) speaking turns.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said her issue is what commitment the city is making by accepting the grant. She indicated that she was not satisfied with the answers she’d heard concerning the required commitment. She felt that what was needed was a “clean sheet,” starting from scratch. She would not sign a blank check, and there are too many unknowns, she said. She would not support acceptance of the grant. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) raised a point of order about the number and length of Lumm’s speaking turns. Mayor John Hieftje asked Lumm to wrap up, which she did.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was certainly going to support acceptance of the grant. The council has a chance to do something good for Ann Arbor by moving forward with an exciting project. Meeting transportation needs is core to maintaining Ann Arbor as a vibrant, thriving place to live. So it’s “mission-critical,” he said. Acceptance of the grant doesn’t reflect a final decision – that decision would be made later, he said. The grant is bound “by the four corners of the document,” he said. People who speak to the council in general opposition to the project never fail, Taylor said, to express their affection for rail. They say: “I’m not against rail, I’m against this project.” He said he took them at their word.

However, the corollary to that, Taylor said, is that being in favor of the project doesn’t make you “anti-park.” The Fuller Road site, he said, is not “some bucolic wonderland.” It’s not a soccer field or a tennis court or a brook, but rather a parking lot, he said, and it’s been that way since 1993. No child has played there since the Clinton administration, he said. If another location is better, then let’s look at that, said Taylor, but he’d be delighted to vote yes. [.gif animation of aerial photography of the site beginning in 1940, with the last slide from 1998]

Margie Teall (Ward 4) also indicated she is excited about this project and it needs a bigger discussion. That bigger discussion can’t happen until the city gets the information from the studies that are being done, she said.

Hieftje asked city administrator Steve Powers if acceptance of the grant would affect the city’s ability to pay for core services. No, Powers answered.

Hieftje asked about ridership on Amtrak. Cooper said it continues to move in an upward direction as the speeds along the Detroit-Chicago corridor are increasing to 110 mph. Hieftje characterized the service that Ann Arbor would eventually have as the kind of train service that other parts of the country have. Ann Arbor’s Amtrak station is the busiest in the state, he said. Referring to the city’s sustainability framework that will be coming to the council for approval, Hieftje said he didn’t know how the city would achieve those sustainability goals, without investments in rail. [.pdf of proposed sustainability goals]

Hieftje disputed the idea that the council had never voted on the project. He pointed out that the memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan on the precursor to the current project had gotten a unanimous vote from the council. [That vote had been taken at the city council's Nov. 5, 2009 meeting.]

Outcome: The council voted to accept the Federal Rail Administration grant ($2.8 million, based on a $700,000 local match to be provided by Ann Arbor with already-expended funds) – with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

SmithGroup JJR: Rail Station Planning Work

A separate item on the council’s agenda related to money that’s provided through the Federal Rail Administration grant. The council considered a $196,192 amendment to an existing contract with SmithGroup JJR for continuation of study and planning work that was already done in connection with the Fuller Road Station project. The work under the contract will be funded from the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant, and will involve continued “… re-examination of the current program definition to affirm it is consistent with the stakeholder goals for the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station Project, and revisions as required to the conceptual plan,” as well as completion of required National Environmental Policy Act documentation.

SmithGroup JJR: Rail Station Planning Work – Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed skepticism that the work would be approached objectively. She asked the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, how he could ensure that there’ll be an objective “clean sheet.” Cooper indicated that it was not the intent to have such a “clean sheet” and he could not assure her there would be one. He said in order to assure a “clean sheet,” the city would have to wipe away the previous work.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) engaged in a conversation about the potential depth of flood waters at the current Amtrak site. Given the length of the platforms involved [1,000 feet], Kunselman ventured that some location between the Fuller Road site and the current Amtrak location might be appropriate.

Lumm wanted to make sure that the current Amtrak location got “a fair shot.”

Asked if SmithGroup JJR had a conflict of interest, assistant city attorney Mary Fales indicated that she did not believe so.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was pleased that sites other than the Fuller Road site would be engaged as part of the study, and that consideration of the Fuller Road site was “not stacking the deck” but rather taking into account an already established factual basis.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract amendment with SmithGroup JJR, with dissent from Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Four-Party Agreement

The council reconsidered an agreement among four parties on a framework for possible transition of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to a broader geographic service area, governance, and funding base.

The four parties to the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA. In conjunction with reconsidering the four-party agreement, the council also considered articles of incorporation for the new Act 196 transit authority. Those articles would eventually need to be filed by Washtenaw County – on request from the AATA – in order to establish a new governance structure. According to the four-party agreement, even if a new governance structure is established under Act 196 of 1986, the transition of assets from AATA to the new authority, tentatively named The Washtenaw Ride, would not take place until a voter-approved funding mechanism is established.

The council had previously approved the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012, with implied approval of the attached appendix that included the articles of incorporation. The need for the Ann Arbor city council to reconsider the documents arose after the Ypsilanti city council amended those documents before approving them on May 15.

The Ypsilanti amendment to the four-party agreement related to a 1% municipal service charge that the agreement originally allowed the two cities to impose on their transportation millages, before forwarding the millage money to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council struck the municipal service charge from the agreement for both cities. It amounted to around $3,000 that the city of Ypsilanti would forgo, but $90,000 for Ann Arbor.

For the most recent general Chronicle coverage of transit issues, see: “AATA Board OKs Key Countywide Documents.”

Four-Party Agreement: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge complimented the work of those who’d been presented with awards from the Ann Arbor historic district commission – at the start of the meeting – quipping that he hoped he did not appear to be an antique himself. He told the council that he had an appreciation of history. He called on the public to support countywide transportation, saying it’s essential for moving forward economically, and it’s a civil rights issue as well. He called for support of the four-party agreement.

Four-Party Agreement: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed an amendment to the four-party agreement that essentially reversed the amendments that had been undertaken by the Ypsilanti city council to the extent that they applied to the city of Ann Arbor. The impact of the amendment preserved the ability of the city of Ann Arbor to apply a 1% municipal service charge to its millage before passing along the millage proceeds to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council’s amendment had eliminated that for both cities. The financial impact on the two cities is disparate – because of the difference in millage rate (roughly 2 mills for Ann Arbor and 1 mill for Ypsilanti) and the relative value and amount of property in Ann Arbor compared to Ypsilanti. For Ypsilanti, the 1% translates to roughly $3,000, compared to $90,000 for Ann Arbor.

In arguing for the amendment, Lumm noted that the Ann Arbor council had essentially already voted on the issue, on Feb. 6, 2012, during its initial consideration of the four-party agreement, when it considered an amendment related to the municipal service charge.

Lumm cited an email from the city’s chief financial officer attesting to the fact that the city’ financial staff spent a considerable amount of time on transportation issues. The municipal service charge is fair, Lumm said, and that’s why it’s there. She also felt that in the future, city staff would be spending even more time – as transportation evolves regionally.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Michael Ford – CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – to describe what services the AATA receives from the city that are covered by the service charge. She also asked what effect would it have on the AATA if the city did not assess the charge. Ford told Briere that the money could go into transportation service for Ann Arbor. One type of charge started in 1975, Ford said, and it was for tax assessment, billing, collections, receiving and banking. Since that time, an administrative fee has been added – for coordination and review of transportation plans and over city planning, and city clerk services related to AATA matters. Such a fee might have been appropriate when the AATA was in its infancy stages, Ford said, but his own staff now deals with transportation issues involving coordination with other jurisdictions. Those services are something that the AATA is actually doing on its own, Ford said.

Briere asked how the AATA would use the $90,000 from the municipal service charge if it were available to the AATA to spend. Ford reiterated that it could be reallocated into increased services – adding frequency to routes #4, #5, or #3, for example.

Mayor John Hieftje said he was inclined to support the amendment.

Outcome on the municipal service charge amendment: The council unanimously approved the amendment to restore the municipal service charge.

Briere clarified that by approving the four-party agreement, the council is also approving the articles of incorporation, so she encouraged her colleagues to think about whether they had any remaining questions on that document.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) clarified with assistant city attorney Mary Fales that after the council approved the amended document, it would need to go back to the Ypsilanti city council and the AATA board as well for reconsideration and reapproval. [Ypsilanti did that the following evening, on June 5, 2012.]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked about the agreement with Ypsilanti, noting that Ypsilanti is a vital part of the community. He noted however, that Ypsilanti is strapped financially. Outside the framework of a possible new transit authority, Anglin said he’d be willing to work with Ypsilanti to provide services. His fear was that the agreement would be putting an undue burden on Ypsilanti, which would lead to some hard decisions in the future. He wanted to keep Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti in “strong unison.” Ford responded by saying that he would not speak for Ypsilanti, but that he felt Ypsilanti was looking to provide transit service at a higher level. Route #4 [between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti] is up 20% since increasing the frequency of service. He felt that Ypsilanti thinks “this is the way to go” in partnership with Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Ford about the purchase of service agreement (POSA) between Ypsilanti and the AATA. Kunselman noted that it expires in June 2012. Ford confirmed that is the case and said that the AATA is working with Ypsilanti on that issue. Kunselman asked Ford to elaborate on what happens when the POSA expires. If it’s extended, where will the funding come from? Ford said that Ypsilanti and the AATA are talking about that right now and would be meeting on that issue to work out some strategies.

Kunselman pressed the issue of where the money would come from – not from the city of Ypsilanti, because they don’t have the money, he said. The only source of additional funding for Ypsilanti would have to come from the Ann Arbor millage or from state funding or federal funding, Kunselman ventured. He felt like the Ann Arbor millage was the most likely revenue source and asked Ford to explain if that were an option. Ford said there are different options on the table right now and he would like to meet with Ypsilanti to discuss them.

Kunselman asked about expanded services that are to be offered – based on a possible additional 0.5 mill countywide millage. Ford indicated that as part of the new transit authority, expanded service is planned for both Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor – he pointed to higher frequency service, later evening service, and more weekend service. He passed around a brochure outlining some of the features of the improved services.

From left: Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) peruse an AATA brochure as Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) speaks.

Kunselman noted that Ypsilanti can’t pay for the level of service it enjoys now. With an additional 0.5 mill worth of revenue, that might get Ypsilanti to the point where it can cover its existing service. But if services are to be expanded in Ypsilanti, Kunselman asked, where will the money come from to cover that? Ford said that Ypsilanti’s millage and additional funding for the countywide authority would together fund Ypsilanti’s transportation, and that Ypsilanti has to make that clear to its citizens.

Kunselman came back to his question about the city of Ann Arbor millage: Is it an option that the city of Ann Arbor millage will be used to help support Ypsilanti during tough times? Ford said he’d rather talk to Ypsilanti first and find out what the options are.

Kunselman asked about ridership and revenues. Ford noted that according to a recently published USA Today report, AATA was fourth in the nation, measured by ridership increase. Kunselman also asked about discount fares that are expected to end. Ford confirmed that the new service to the Detroit Metro Airport (AirRide) has a promotional fare of $10, which will go up to $12 at the end of July. That service, Ford reported, had started off with 400 passengers a week and is now carrying over 1,000 passengers a week. Kunselman asked who is paying for long-term parking in the downtown Ann Arbor parking structures. Ford explained that through partnership with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (which manages the city’s downtown public parking), AirRide passengers can park for two-weeks for $2 in a downtown parking structure. Kunselman elicited the fact that the AATA is not paying the DDA the difference in the regular cost. Ford characterized that arrangement as the DDA providing the AATA with the opportunity to grow the AirRide service.

Kunselman stated that he would not support the four-party agreement. He said he’d been out to Chelsea recently and he had a problem with running empty buses past that farmland. Kunselman said he was more interested in working with Ann Arbor’s immediate neighbors where there is the most density and where it makes sense to run fixed-route buses – like Ypsilanti.

The council’s subsequent deliberations unfolded along similar lines to previous discussions. Highlights included Briere’s observation that some Ann Arbor city councilmembers’ concerns about only having 7 of 15 seats on a new countywide transportation authority board were countered by worries in other communities that Ann Arbor would dominate with 7 of 15 seats. She noted that the five-year service improvement plan includes increased frequency and more weekend and evening service.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that the four-party agreement and the articles of incorporation lay the groundwork for intergovernmental cooperation: “You can’t have intergovernmental cooperation without intergovernmental cooperation.”

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) couched his support in terms of the importance of regional approaches to issues.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if it’s accurate that other jurisdictions can opt out of the countywide authority. Ford confirmed that’s the case, but said the idea is to get everybody involved with an opportunity to participate. The more communities that participate, the better it is for everybody, Ford said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he was hopeful that the council’s unanimous support for the amendment that night might lead to unanimous support for the whole agreement. There’s a great benefit to the city if the council speaks with a loud, clear voice. He allowed that it was a bit of a stretch to expect that those who opposed the agreement the first time around would vote for it on that basis.

Kunselman confirmed for Hohnke that it was a stretch to expect that – by ticking through some of his by-now-familiar objections.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the amended four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who had previously voted against it, supported it this time around.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance

The council considered final approval to a revision to the city’s sidewalk repair ordinance – in light of the voter-approved sidewalk repair millage, which passed in November of 2011.

The basic idea is that for the period of the authorized millage – through fiscal year 2016 (which ends June 30, 2017) property owners will not be responsible for repairs to sidewalks abutting the property on which they pay taxes. There are various wrinkles and contingencies in the revised ordinance for properties located within the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax increment finance (TIF) district.

Ann Arbor voters authorized an additional 0.125 mill to be levied as part of the street repair millage, which was also renewed at that November 2011 election for 2.0 mills, for a total of 2.125 mills.

As part of the resolution passed by the city council to place the sidewalk millage question on the November 2011 ballot, the council directed the city attorney and other staff to provide the ordinance revision for the council’s consideration on or before Dec. 1, 2011. Like the council’s deliberations on May 21, when initial approval was given for the ordinance change, they did not include any comment at the council table about why the revision came to the council nearly half a year after the date specified. Nor did discussion by the council focus on the basic purpose of the ordinance change – to ensure that property owners were not held responsible for sidewalk repairs adjacent to their property.

Instead, the focus of council deliberations was on the wrinkle of the ordinance revision that pertains to the area of the city inside the DDA district.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge stressed that safe pedestrian transportation is very important for seniors and handicapped people.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the background of the ordinance revision by describing the purpose of the ordinance change as setting up a way to give the city responsibility for maintaining and repairing sidewalks inside the DDA district, and for the DDA to provide funding for that task. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pointed out that funding to be provided by the DDA comes from the DDA’s TIF [tax increment finance] capture of the newly enacted city sidewalk millage.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) chats with assistant city attorney Mary Fales before the June 4 meeting.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know if the DDA would make payments to the city after the sidewalk repairs, or if the city treasurer would withhold the money prior to disbursing the TIF capture to the DDA? Craig Hupy, interim public services area administrator, told Kunselman that he anticipated the DDA would return the tax capture of the 0.125 mill tax to the city. Kunselman asked if there’s a separate agreement between the city and the DDA to that effect – if so, he wanted to see a copy of that agreement. Hupy noted that the ordinance revision lays out the two options – either the DDA does the work, or the DDA returns the money to the city for the DDA area.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the revision to the sidewalk repair ordinance.

Water, Sewer, Stormwater Rates

The council was asked to give final approval to increased rates for drinking water, sanitary sewer and stormwater utilities. According to a staff memo, the impact of the increases on an average single-family customer comes to 3.21% across three different rate increases – assuming the same level of consumption as last year. That 3.21% increase works out to $19.40 per year.

By way of illustration of the rates, the drinking water rate for the vast majority of residential customers is tiered, based on usage. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.27 to $1.31. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.64 to $2.74 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.50 to $4.69. For additional amounts more than 45 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $6.50 to $6.78 per unit.

One hundred cubic feet is 748 gallons. So a rate of $1.31 per unit translates to significantly less than a penny a gallon – $0.00175.

Ann Arbor’s tiered rate system was implemented in 2004. Before that, the rate for all usage levels was the same. In 2003, that was $1.97 per unit. In 2004, the lowest tier was dropped to $0.97. This year’s rate for the lowest tier is still less than what the general rate was in 2003. However, basic service charges for water and sewer service were implemented as part of the tiered system – which for the smallest size 5/8-inch meter are currently $10.57 and $11.25 per quarter, for water and sewer, respectively. The stormwater service charge is $6.77 per quarter. Those service charges did not increase this year.

[Link to Google chart illustrating the history of Ann Arbor water rates] [.jpg of chart showing history of Ann Arbor water rates] [.pdf of water, sewer rates]

Water Rates: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge told the council that they need to come up with a formula that is progressively oriented and that does not impose undue burdens on tenants.

Water Rates: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) pressed for some explanation of how the financial incentives are set up for the stormwater discounts. By way of background, residents can get discounts to the stormwater charge – based on a formula that includes the amount of impervious surface area on their property. Residents can get discounts for various measures. By way of example, by installing one or more rain barrels, residents can get a discount of $1.96 per quarter.

Craig Hupy, interim public services area administrator, explained to Smith that the amount of the discount is based on the estimated actual reduction in the cost of services. The city has actually pushed hard to get discounts up to the current level. Smith allowed that it was a fair rationale, but she wished that the incentive would be high enough that people would actually implement those measures.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked what the administrative charge covered for the stormwater fee. Hupy explained that it’s for the overflight, with infrared photography to measure impervious surface – on which the stormwater rates are based.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the new water, sewer and stormwater rates.

Dean Tree Fund Committee Changed

The council considered an item to officially eliminate the city council appointee to the Elizabeth Dean Tree Fund committee. The committee was established in 1975 to oversee the use of 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.

The formal elimination of the city council committee member leaves the committee with seven voting members and one non-voting member – the city’s urban forestry & natural resources planning coordinator. The city’s description of the committee indicates “No Council Rep. Based on City Council action taken on 1/6/03.” Based on city council action on that date, it appears that no councilmember was appointed when all of the council committee assignments were made. It appears that in subsequent years, the council has not had a representative on the Dean Tree Fund.

A staff memo accompanying the resolution indicates that the reason for the formal change is a desire to have an odd number of voting members and to reduce the quorum requirement for meetings from five members to four.

For fiscal year 2012, the investment income to the fund is budgeted at $85,000.

Currently, only six people are listed as members of the Dean Tree Fund committee, in the city’s Legistar system: Albert E. Gallup, Bonita D. Ross Ion, Jane Immonen, John R. Bassett, John Remsberg, and Warren Attarian.

During the brief council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) observed that the council’s action was making official an unofficial practice. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) indicated support for having the city’s urban forestry & natural resources planning coordinator on the committee. He said there were major changes taking place with the urban forest and he hoped there would be information about that in the near future.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the change in the composition to the Elizabeth Dean Tree Fund committee.

CUB Agreements

Last year, the Michigan state legislature passed Act 98 of 2011, which prohibited municipalities from signing construction contracts in which contractors were required make an agreement with a collective bargaining organization.

At the time, the city of Ann Arbor had such a requirement: Contractors signing construction contracts with the city had to execute a Construction Utility Board (CUB) agreement with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council, as a condition of the contract. So on Aug. 15, 2011, in response to the state law, the city council rescinded that requirement.

However, the U.S. District Court has since found Act 98 to be unenforceable, based on the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relation Act. The court’s decision has been appealed, but currently Act 98 cannot be enforced.

So at its June 4 meeting, the council considered reinstating the CUB agreement requirement. Brief deliberations were highlighted by Jane Lumm’s (Ward 2) objections to the requirement, on philosophical and practical grounds. She pointed to similar pending legislation that might be enacted that would address the court ruling, as well as the possibility that the U.S. District Court’s ruling could be overturned.

Outcome: The council reinstated the CUB requirement, with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Warming Shelter, Community Center

Alluding to the presentation of the historic district awards at the start of the meeting, Orian Zakai told the council she hoped that 40 minutes could also be devoted to the tents of Camp Take Notice and the people who live there and who are about to be evicted. She wanted to talk about the Imagine Community project – a nonprofit organization working to open a 24-hour warming center by next winter. It would also serve as a daytime community center that is open to all. No one should sleep outside in the Michigan winter, she said, and everyone should have a space to explore their creativity. The North Main community offers very limited services, she said. She doesn’t see her group as a charitable organization, but as a hub of creative people who inspire each other and care for each other.

She said that her group’s weekly daytime creative program at the Delonis Center, a shelter at 312 W. Huron, has taught them that it doesn’t take much to bring people together through creativity – all you need is some enthusiasm, some art supplies, some musical instruments, paper and pens, and safe space.

The Imagine Community needs a space of its own, she said, and has approached the city several times about the building owned by the city at 721 N. Main. They’d been given two tours of the building and found it suitable for their intended purposes. Despite many conversations with city officials, she said, the city had informed her group that the city would not consider giving her group the space.

Mary Conway told the council that Camp Take Notice will be soon be dispersed. There are 50 residents, she said, but that number varies on regular basis. Wherever they wind up, she said, they will have needs – bathroom, a tent, a place to eat, a place to get water, a place to wash and clean their clothes. The Delonis Center, she said, can’t help many of the people at Camp Take Notice, because of drug abuse and behavioral problems. But the needs of these people need to be addressed. She said that if the city won’t make the building at 721 N. Main available, the city should at least set up port-a-johns at Liberty Plaza [a city park at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division]. There needs to be an alternative plan, she said, otherwise homeless people are going to interfere with business and tourism. The homeless are residents of Washtenaw County, she said. She said she was joined that night by two residents of Camp Take Notice who are barred from the Delonis Center. Conway invited councilmembers to read some of the poetry that had been written by members of the homeless community at imaginewarmingcenters.org. “We can make them a part of our great city of Ann Arbor,” she concluded.

Alexandra Hoffman followed up on comments from Zakai on the possible use of 721 N. Main. She said she didn’t want to believe that a city would drag along a group of caring citizens in an attempt to frustrate and exhaust them. Her group was not exhausted and won’t give up, she said. She felt it was possible to turn the deserted, wasted space into an opportunity. To change homelessness, you have to change yourself, she told the councilmembers. It’s important to change the focus away from the failures of those who are homeless, she said, and rather turn attention to our communal failing – that someone doesn’t have a place to go for warmth and support.

Lilly Au disputed remarks made by mayor John Hieftje to the effect that no one was being turned away who wanted access to a warming shelter. She talked about the challenges that the homeless face in getting referred to the Dawn Farm treatment program. Right now, she said, it’s just the faith community that takes care of the homeless.

Comm/Comm: Vacancies on Boards/Commissions

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) alerted her colleagues to the fact that John German needs to be reappointed to the city’s environmental commission. There is another vacancy on that commission too, she added. [Briere serves as the city council appointee to that commission.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that there are still two vacancies on the taxicab board.

Comm/Comm: Crime

City administrator Steve Powers publicly congratulated the Ann Arbor police department on arrests made in connection with graffiti offenses and an armed robbery at the Broadway Party Store.

Comm/Comm: Argo Cascades

City administrator Steve Power reported that on Memorial Day, the city grossed over $72,000 between the Argo and Gallup liveries – as the city was sold out of kayaks.

Comm/Comm: South State Street Corridor

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, reported on a retreat the commission had held recently, focused on the South State Street corridor. The city is currently engaged in a process to study the corridor, from Stimson down to Ellsworth. [For more detail on that retreat, see Chronicle coverage: "South State Corridor Gets a Closer Look"]

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

Next council meeting: Monday, June 18, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

A conceptual pre-cursor to the project was called the Fuller Road Station, which included the participation of the University of Michigan in the form of a 1,000-space parking structure to be built in conjunction with a new rail station on an identified site nestled between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive, adjacent to the UM medical campus. However, UM withdrew from that project earlier this year, on Feb. 10, 2012. The university decided instead to revisit its earlier plans to build additional parking on Wall Street.

For purposes of the federal local match requirement, Ann Arbor now intends to use funds already expended in connection with work associated with the Fuller Road Station – for conceptual planning, environmental documentation efforts and some preliminary engineering. The city has paid for that work from  its major street fund, alternative transportation fund, and the previously existing economic development funds over the past three years.

The city also hopes that UM will contribute toward the costs of the work already done. However, the city’s FY 2013 budget, approved by the council at its May 21 meeting, allocates up to $307,781 from the city’s general fund to cover the local match, if an agreement with UM can’t be reached. Responding to Chronicle queries last week, city administrator Steve Powers and UM community relations director Jim Kosteva have characterized the conversations between the city and the university on this topic as “ongoing dialogue.” The June 4 vote on the acceptance of the grant was 9-2, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) dissenting.

The council also approved a $196,192 amendment to an existing contract with SmithGroup JJR for continuation of study and planning work that was already done in connection with the Fuller Road Station project. The work under the contract will be funded from the HSIPR grant, and will involve continued ”… re-examination of the current program definition to affirm it is consistent with the stakeholder goals for the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station Project, and revisions as required to the conceptual plan” as well as completion of required National Environmental Policy Act documentation. Lumm and Anglin also dissented on the SmithGroup JJR contract.

Several people spoke against the two actions during public commentary at the start of the council meeting, or submitted written statements in advance of the meeting. They cited a range of concerns, including their objection to the possible conversion of city parkland to a use as a transportation facility without a popular referendum. Also a concern was the ability of SmithGroup JJR to be objective in its site alternatives environmental analysis, given that SmithGroup JJR has been the city’s consultant for the preliminary work, which had assumed that the site of a new train station would be on Fuller Road near the UM medical campus. Another objection was that no good argument had been made that the city should build and operate a building for Amtrak to use as a train station. The existing Amtrak station that serves Ann Arbor is located on Depot Street near the Broadway bridges.

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]