The Ann Arbor Chronicle » GCSI

GCSI Gets Ann Arbor Lobbying Contract

Chronicle Staff — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:10:15 +0000

A $48,000 annual contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. for lobbying services was approved by the Ann Arbor city council at its June 16, 2014 meeting. According to a memo accompanying the item, GCSI has contributed to Ann Arbor’s efforts to increase state funding for fire protection, land-use planning, and parks and recreation projects.

GCSI is also supposed to monitor issues currently pending before the legislature and advocate for the city’s specific interests. GCSI has done this kind of work for the city of Arbor since 2001.

GCSI also provides lobbying services for Washtenaw County, as well as other local municipalities. The city’s main liaison with GSCI is Kirk Profit, an Ann Arbor resident and former Michigan state legislator.

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

June 16, 2014: Council Live Updates

Dave Askins — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:10:55 +0000

Editor’s note: This “Live Updates” coverage of the Ann Arbor city council’s June 16, 2014 meeting includes all the material from an earlier preview article published last week. The intent is to facilitate easier navigation from the live updates section to background material already in this file. Outcomes of council votes are also available in the Civic News Ticker.

The city council’s last meeting of the 2014 fiscal year, on June 16, 2014, features an agenda packed with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure like bridges (including art), the sanitary sewer system and the stormwater system, as well as several resolutions related to construction of new sidewalks.

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

Related to new sidewalk construction is a resolution that would authorize a $75,000 contract with the Greenway Collaborative, to support the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council in late 2013. Part of the task force’s responsibility is to create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling sidewalk gaps in the city.

The $75,000 cost for the pedestrian safety task force consultant is the same amount the council will be asked to allocate to support the work of Ann Arbor SPARK, a local economic development agency. The contract with SPARK is renewed annually, as is another contract on the June 16 agenda – for lobbying services from Governmental Consultant Services Inc. The GCSI contract is for $48,000.

Also on the council’s June 16 agenda are three items with a connection to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. One is the approval of an end-of-year budget adjustment that was already approved at the DDA board’s June 4, 2014 meeting. Another is approval of a $37,500 expenditure from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to help pay for an affordable housing needs assessment. At its June 4 meeting, the DDA board authorized a $37,500 grant for the same study.

In the final item with a DDA connection, the council will be asked to authorize $69,555 for the conversion of 223 mercury-vapor cobrahead streetlights to LED technology. This project would convert streetlights that are all outside the DDA district. The project is on the city council’s agenda because the DDA board recently declined to fund a similar LED conversion project – for streetlights inside the DDA tax capture district.

Several other June 16 agenda items relate to the downtown area, even if they don’t have an explicit DDA connection. Two of them involve changes to downtown zoning ordinances that have been recommended by the planning commission. The zoning question to be given initial consideration by the council is whether to downzone the southeast corner of William and Main streets from D1 to D2, but with a 100-foot height limit.

Other downtown items on the council’s June 16 agenda include site plan approvals for First Martin’s hotel project at Ashley and Huron, and the Bank of Ann Arbor expansion at Fifth Avenue and Washington Street.

A resolution to improve Liberty Plaza, a downtown park at the southwest corner of Division and Liberty streets, also appears on the agenda – sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Added as sponsors since its initial appearance on the agenda are Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

The council will be asked to approve four items related to supportive services for the criminal justice system: (1) a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services for mental health treatment services for the 15th District Court’s sobriety and mental health courts; (2) a $44,200 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court; (3) a $108,174 contract with Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services; and (4) a $40,000 contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants.

Recycling is the final topic with multiple items on the June 16 agenda. The council will be asked to approve funds for a $95,694 contract with Recycle Ann Arbor to create a multi-family recycling incentive pilot program. The council will also be asked to approve $39,480 to reimburse the city’s operator of its materials recovery facility for repair of a conveyor that feeds the baler. And finally, the council will be asked to approve $35,000 for Recycle Ann Arbor to provide solid waste services associated with student move-out activity.

The June 16 council meeting will also feature the annual historic district commission awards and the introduction of one of the Ann Arbor police department’s K-9 units, who won highest honors at a recent national certification trials event. This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items.

More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

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

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s June 16 agenda is heavy with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges

The council will be asked to approve a $187,184 contract with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the Fuller Road, Maiden Lane, and East Medical Center Drive bridges rehabilitation project. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes “re-painting of each bridge, repairing corroded structural steel, bridge abutment and pier (substructure) repairs, expansion joint removal and replacement, bridge deck patching, placing an overlay on the existing bridge decks, bridge railing repairs, guard rail upgrades, brush trimming and removal around the perimeter of the bridge structures, and other related work.”

Money for the design work is available in the approved FY 2014 public services area street millage capital budget. The state of Michigan’s local bridge program pays for 95% of eligible construction expenses up to $790,000. The project will also receive $1,373,440 in federal surface transportation funding, administered through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The federal program pays for 81.85% of eligible construction expenses. But neither the state nor the federal sources will pay for the design work that the council’s action will fund.

Physical Infrastructure: Stadium Bridges Art

This amendment to the contract on the June 16 council agenda adds art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services. This was one of the projects for which the city council left funding in place, when it voted on March 3, 2014 to transfer most of the unspent money from the now defunct Percent for Art funding program back to the funds from which the money was originally drawn.

By way of additional background, in early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for this public art project. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's original proposal] The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to the Ann Arbor public art commission and then later to the city council for approval.

Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback] The public art commission recommended the project’s approval at its April 23, 2014 meeting.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along the north side of East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining

The council will be asked to approve the award of a $1,566,121 construction contract with Lanzo Lining Services for the 2014 sewer lining project. According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the project includes the lining of about 18,028 lineal feet of sanitary sewer and 2,942 lineal feet of storm sewer at 16 locations throughout the city. The memo describes sewer lining as a “trenchless technology which enables the pipe to be repaired without disturbing the surface above.”

Physical Infrastructure: Manholes

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to award a $47,193 contract to Fonson Inc. for the Eighth Street sanitary sewer manhole replacement project. The manholes in question are described in the staff memo accompanying the project as “101 years old, composed of brick and … disintegrating.”

The deterioration of the manholes is attributed to corrosion from sewer gases, vibration from traffic, decades of freeze/thaw cycles and variations in hydrostatic soil pressures. The deteriorated condition includes spalling, weakened mortar, missing bricks and excessive groundwater infiltration, according to the memo.

Physical Infrastructure: Water Main

The council will be asked to award a $1,324,357 construction contract to Douglas N. Higgins Inc. for the Arbor Oaks Phase II water main replacement project. This project will replace the older water mains in the Bryant neighborhood. The water mains in the neighborhood are described in a staff memo as experiencing frequent breaks and in generally poor condition.

The project will install 1,100 feet of 12-inch water main and 2,360 feet of 8-inch water main along Santa Rosa Drive, Jay Lee Court, Lucerne Court, Burlingame Court, Blain Court, Hardyke Court, and Bryant Elementary School property. Included in the project is the resurfacing of the street, replacement of some curb and gutter, and reconstruction of some storm sewer structures.

Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms

The council will be asked to approve a $149,500 contract with Emergency Restoration Company for the renovation of restrooms and locker rooms in Fire Stations #3 and #4. The staff memo accompanying the item indicates that the project will renovate the existing restroom facilities to create two unisex restrooms and showers at each station. Facilities and ventilation in the locker room and restroom areas will be improved.

Fire Station #3 is located on the city’s west side, on Jackson Road. Fire Station #4 is located on the city’s southeast side, on Huron Parkway. [Google Map of all five fire station locations]

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater

The council will be asked to authorize transfer up to $157,264 in funds from the park maintenance and capital improvements millage fund to the stormwater fund – to authorize state revolving fund (SRF) debt payment and loan forgiveness for the stormwater and rain garden components of the skatepark project, located at Veterans Memorial Park.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, a state revolving fund loan is being used to fund the rain garden installation at the skatepark and to reimburse the city’s stormwater fund. Additional stormwater components were approved by the state for 50% loan forgiveness. The transfer of funds that the council is being asked to approve is necessary for the total debt payment of $118,632.00 plus 2% interest over 20 years. The skatepark is scheduled to have a grand opening on June 21 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Physical Infrastructure: Wastewater Study

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $62,800 contract with Black & Veatch Ltd. for a water & wastewater system capital cost recovery study. Background to this contract is June 3, 2013 city council action to change the calculation of the water and sanitary improvement charges for properties connecting to city water mains or sanitary sewers – but only for a two-year period, from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2015.

The effect of the council’s action was to reduce the connection charges considerably. It was understood at the time that the two-year period would allow for the hiring of a consultant to review the city’s fees and charges for connections to the water and sanitary sewer systems and make recommendations for revision. That’s why the Black & Veatch item appears on the council’s June 16 agenda. The principles at stake are described in the staff memo accompanying the item as follows:

When making future changes to improvement charges and connection fees, it is important that various competing elements are satisfied. The fees must be easy to explain and easy to understand to be accepted by the users. The fees must recover costs equitably. The fees must not result in either an undue burden on existing rate payers of the systems or an undue burden on new customers connecting to the systems. The fees must be easily understood and neither over recover costs nor under recover costs. Any under-recovery of costs would place undue and inequitable financial burdens on current rate payers. To meet these goals and gain the experiences of other utilities, it is desirable to contract with a consulting firm that has nationwide experience in this area.

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve the amendment of a purchase order for stormwater services with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. The request of the council is to increase the amount of the existing contract with the water resources commissioner by $30,000. The existing contract was approved for FY 2011 for $69,215 with a 3% annual increase, which would have put the amount for FY 2014 and FY 2015 at $75,633 and $77,902, respectively. The council is being asked to approve funding at $105,633 and $107,902, for FY 2014 and FY 2015, respectively.

Informational Infrastructure: HR and Payroll Software

The council will be asked to approve a $570,900 contract with NuView Inc. to replace the city’s human resource and payroll system. The staff memo accompanying the item explains why the existing software, acquired in 2007, is being replaced:

In 2007, the City installed a Human Resource and Payroll system called Ultipro, by Ultimate Software. The Ultipro system included modules for Recruiting, Benefits Administration, Human Resource Administration and Payroll. The City has experienced a variety of issues related to the underlying database architecture utilized by Ultimate Software. In addition, due to changes such as new legislative requirements, the increase in recruiting volume and the increase in manual data entry involved in benefits administration, the City has found the Ultipro system unable to meet its Human Resource needs.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians

The council’s agenda features several items related to special-assessed sidewalk construction projects, as well as funding for a pedestrian safety and access task force. Four different special-assessed sidewalk construction projects are on the agenda – two public hearings to be held at the June 16 meeting (for Scio Church and Barton Drive) and two resolutions to set public hearings for future meetings (for Pontiac Trail and Stone School Road).

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

Two resolutions appear on the agenda in connection with construction of a new sidewalk on Pontiac Trail – one to direct the assessor to prepare an assessment roll, and another to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 21. The assessable cost is $72,218. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14.

The project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s a part of the city’s Complete Streets program. In addition to the sidewalk, approximately 1,960 feet of curb and gutter is being added north of Skydale along Pontiac Trail to protect existing wetland areas. [.pdf of Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment area]

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk

The council has previously directed the preparation of a special assessment roll for a new sidewalk along the west side of Stone School Road. This work will be done in conjunction with the Stone School Road reconstruction project from I-94 to Ellsworth Road. The total sidewalk project cost is roughly $128,500, of which about $55,000 will be special assessed. So the requested action of the council on June 16 will be to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 7.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing

The sidewalk on Barton Drive would extend eastward from Bandemer Park at Longshore Drive. The cost of the Barton Drive sidewalk has been calculated to be $80,606. Of that, about $36,000 will be paid from federal surface transportation funds. Of the remaining $44,606, the city’s general fund would pay $42,626, leaving just $1,980 to be paid through the special assessment. The city council had voted at its May 19, 2014 meeting to set the assessment roll and to schedule the public hearing for June 16.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing

Another public hearing based on previous council action at its May 19 meeting will be held at the June 16 meeting – on the special assessment to fund construction of a sidewalk on Scio Church Road. For the Scio Church sidewalk project, the total cost is expected to be $365,100. Of that, about $164,000 will be paid from a federal surface transportation grant. The remaining $201,100 will be paid out of the city’s general fund and by the special assessment of just $1,626.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming

The council will be asked to approve a traffic calming project on Larchmont Drive at a cost of ~~$55,000~~ $8,800.

Larchmont traffic calming proposal: Three speed humps.

The action includes an appropriation for five other traffic calming projects, totaling $55,000.

The approval of this project comes in the context of the council’s budget deliberations last month, when an amendment was offered but rejected by the council that would have cut the FY 2015 budget allocation for art administration from $80,000 to $40,000 and put the $40,000 is savings toward traffic calming projects. The amendment got support only from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Traffic calming projects must undergo a neighborhood engagement process in which at least 60% of households support the designed project. In the case of the Larchmont project, 13 out of 15 households supported the project.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant

The council will be asked to approve a $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the work of the pedestrian safety and access task force as a facilitator. The task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

The group has begun to meet and has elected Feldt to chair the task force. The resolution on the council’s June 16 meeting agenda comes after the council voted down a resolution at on April 7, 2014 that included a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations was familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting.

But subsequently the city issued an RFP (requests for proposals) for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893] Task force members participated in the selection process from among three respondents to the RFP. Besides Project Innovations and the Greenway Collaborative, ENP & Associates responded to the RFP. ENP is the consultant the city used for the recent review of downtown zoning.

Business Services

On the council’s agenda are two contracts that are approved annually – one for business development services and one for lobbying services.

Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services. This is an annual contract. At its May 19, 2014 meeting, the council spent roughly five hours of deliberations on amendments to the FY 2015 budget, and just under 30% of that time was spent on two amendments involving SPARK – neither of which were approved by the council.

Ann Arbor city council budget deliberations FY 2015: 4 hours 45 minutes by amendment topic.

SPARK is also the entity with which the local development finance authority (LDFA) contracts for business accelerator services. One of the proposed amendments to the FY 2015 budget would have decreased the amount of funding to SPARK from the LDFA, resulting in an increase to the amount the LDFA would have reserved for future infrastructure projects. The second budget amendment debated on May 19 would have eliminated the $75,000 in the FY 2015 budget for the contract the council will be asked to approve as part of its June 16 agenda.

Ann Arbor SPARK also receives money from other governmental units in Washtenaw County. In 2013, the $75,000 paid by the city of Ann Arbor to SPARK accounted for more than half of the $132,888 total contributed by all governmental units besides Washtenaw County. The county levies a tax under Act 88, and out of that levy, last year the county contributed $200,000, according to the information provided to the city by SPARK. [.pdf of 2013 "return on investment" from Ann Arbor SPARK] [.pdf of 2013 Ann Arbor SPARK projects]

Business Services: GCSI Lobbying

GCSI is also supposed to monitor issues currently pending before the legislature and advocate for the city’s specific interests. GCSI has done this kind of work for the city of Arbor since 2001. GCSI also provides lobbying services for Washtenaw County, as well as other local municipalities. The city’s main liaison with GSCI is Kirk Profit, an Ann Arbor resident and former Michigan state legislator.

Downtown

The council will be handling several items on its June 16 agenda that relate to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority specifically, or the downtown area generally.

Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment

The council will be asked to approve a routine fiscal-year-end budget adjustment for the Ann Arbor DDA. The DDA board approved the adjustment at its June 4, 2014 meeting. The main part of the adjustment is a $1.6 million payment made for the First & Washington parking garage, which is part of the City Apartments project. The amount was budgeted by the DDA for last year, but not paid until this year.

The rest of the adjustment is attributable to expenditures out of the DDA’s housing fund – $500,000 of it to support Ann Arbor Housing Commission projects. The remaining $37,500 went to support a countywide housing needs assessment – an amount that was approved by the board at the same June 4 meeting in a separate vote. The DDA will end the fiscal year with $6,167,757 in fund balance. The breakdown of that total is: TIF ($619,571); Housing ($160,154); Parking ($2,161,676) and Parking Maintenance ($3,226,356).

Downtown: Affordable Housing Needs Assessment

The council will be asked to authorize $37,500 from the affordable housing trust fund to support the Washtenaw County housing needs assessment. The Ann Arbor DDA had approved the same amount at its meeting on June 4, 2014. Money from the city and DDA is being considered as “up to” amounts. Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of economic and community development (OCED), told the DDA board at its June 4 meeting that $75,000 from a HUD Sustainable Communities grant would be the first money spent toward the assessment.

The firm selected by the OCED to do the needs assessment is czb LLC out of Virginia. [.pdf of RFP for the needs assessment] The current needs assessment will update a report done in 2007. According to a memo from OCED staff to the DDA, the final report will “provide a clear, easy to understand assessment of the local housing market, identify current and future housing needs, and provide specific and implementable policy recommendations to advance affordable housing.

The goal for this update is to include an analysis that links transportation cost and accessibility, as well as other environmental and quality of life issues to the location of affordable housing.” The RFP for the needs study describes the timeline for the work as including a draft for review due at the end of October 2014, with a final presentation due in mid-December.

(Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a purchase agreement with DTE to convert 223 mercury-vapor cobrahead streetlights to LED technology. The up-front cost of the conversion will be $69,555 – but that amount will be reduced to $55,060 after rebates. The annual electric bill from DTE for the 223 streetlights is currently $45,128. After conversion, the projected annual cost will be $30,910. The savings would result in about a 3.1-year payback period on the net cost of $55,060.

None of the streetlights to be converted are in the DDA district. Streetlights in the DDA district were part of a similar proposal considered by the DDA board at its May 7, 2014 meeting, but postponed by the board at that meeting until June 4. By the time of the June 4 meeting, however, a decision had already been made that the DDA would not be funding an LED conversion this year. [DTE's program has an annual cycle, but is not necessarily offered every year.] If the DDA board had approved funding for converting lights in the DDA district, it would have affected 212 non-LED streetlights.

Streetlight locations are mapped in the joint Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system. Data available by clicking on icons includes ownership as well as the lighting technology used. This one is a high pressure sodium light operating at 400 watts.

The project the DDA declined to fund this year would have included converting 100 watt MV (mercury vapor), 175 watt MV and 100 watt HPS (high pressure sodium) lights to 65 watt LED (light emitting diode). Further, 400 watt MV and 250 watt HPS lights would have been converted to 135 watt LED. Finally, 1000 watt MV and 400 watt HPS lights would have been converted to 280 watt LED. Currently, the city pays DTE $72,585 a year for the energy used by the 212 downtown streetlights. After conversion, the annual cost for the 212 lights would be expected to drop to $51,895, for an annual savings of $20,690.

In deliberations at the DDA board’s May 7 meeting, DDA board member Roger Hewitt opposed the grant, because the savings that would be realized accrues to the city of Ann Arbor, which pays the energy bills for the lights. Hewitt noted that the relationship between the city and the DDA includes a number of fund transfers to the city. Even though the amount is not huge, Hewitt said, the expenditure of several small amounts could eventually impair the DDA’s ability to pay for major infrastructure improvements.

Other board members joined Hewitt in their concerns, questioning what projects might be sacrificed if the DDA paid for the LED conversion. Concern was also expressed over the possibility that the result of a streetscape framework planning effort could result in a decision to replace all cobrahead lights in the downtown area with pedestrian-scale lampposts. And that would mean that the new LED fixtures would be used for only a short while.

Downtown: Zoning, Character District

The council will be asked to give initial approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Because these would be changes to the zoning code, which is expressed in city ordinances, any council action that might be taken would need a second and final vote at a future meeting, in order to be enacted.

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

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

To be considered separately by the city council are votes that would: (1) change the zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) change the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to increase the D2 height limit from 60 feet to 100 feet. Assuming the zoning change is made for the parcel at 425 S. Main, it would be the only D2 parcel in the character district. The changes to the character overlay district also include upper story setbacks from any residential property. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

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

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

The items on the council’s June 16, 2014 agenda are just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission. That set of initial recommendations from the planning commission to the city council – which the council then accepted and for which the council asked the planning commission to draft ordinance language – included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had also called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character overlay district – lower than the 100 feet put forward at the commission’s May 6 meeting.

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

Downtown: Hotel Site Plan

The city council will be asked to approve the site plan for First Martin’s proposed extended-stay hotel at 116-120 West Huron Street. The planning commission gave a recommendation of approval at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

Rendering of proposed hotel at the northeast corner of West Huron and Ashley. The One North Main building is visible to the east.

The proposal calls for a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels. The hotel will be operated by Marriott.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron includes a Greyhound bus depot and a one-story building that houses the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau. Both of those buildings will be demolished. The bus depot facade will remain in place as part of the new building’s design. [.pdf of staff report]

First Martin has secured a letter of commitment from Zipcar, a car-sharing service, for two vehicles. Parking spaces for those cars are proposed at the northeast corner of the site. For purposes of the city’s parking requirement, the two Zipcars would count as eight off-street parking spaces, and would satisfy the requirement. The two existing curbcuts – on North Ashley and West Huron – will be closed, and access to the two parking spaces, loading dock and trash/recycling would be from the mid-block alley to the north. The alley is currently one-way, and will be converted to a two-way alley and repaved.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron, looking north. One North Main is the building on the right. The city’s Ann Ashley parking structure is visible in the background.

Streetscape changes will include curb bump-outs on North Ashley, on the north and south ends of the site for passenger drop-off. Nine bicycle parking spaces are required for the project, and would include two bike hoops in the North Ashley right-of-way and two in the West Huron right-of-way, for a total of eight bike spaces. Three more hoops are proposed for the Ann Ashley parking structure, with First Martin paying for labor and materials. The city of Ann Arbor and Downtown Development Authority would assume responsibility for maintenance of those hoops.

Construction is estimated to cost $13 million. In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo noted that the Greyhound bus depot has been at that location since 1940, and the site has been a transportation hub since 1898.

Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan

The city council will be asked to approve the site plan for an addition to the Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters at 125 South Fifth Avenue. The planning commission recommended approval of the project at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

The site plan involves reorienting the main entrance – moving it from the center of its South Fifth Avenue side to the southeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. Existing doors will be replaced with windows. A 9,179-square-foot third-floor addition would be constructed over the rear of the building’s east side. In total, the building would be 32,651 square feet after construction. The project is estimated to cost $4.2 million. [.pdf of staff memo]

Bank of Ann Arbor building at the northeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. The proposed renovations will create a “tower” entrance into the building at this corner.

According to the staff memo, the design “seeks to transform the current style from contemporary to traditional by replacing the yellow brick façade with brown and red-colored bricks and limestone-colored stone accents and trim and creating a brick and glass tower at the street corner to create a prominent entry.”

The original two-story building was constructed in 1965, which included the drive-thru window. An addition was completed in 1999. The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on Jan. 14. The board suggested making the entry structure taller and more closely aligning the bank’s design features with those of the adjacent Ameritech building to the east.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density in the downtown area. D1 zoning requires a special exception use for drive-thrus, which the planning commission considered on May 20 in a separate vote. Because the project is going through a site plan approval process, the requirement for a special exception use was triggered. Special exception uses do not require additional city council approval.

The bank has an existing drive-thru teller window on its north side. No changes are planned to that configuration, however. In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo said if the drive-thru were used more frequently, staff might suggest additional design features, like a more clearly marked crossing or differentiated surface materials. But because there are only 20-25 transactions per day at the drive-thru, and given the “successful history” of the existing drive-thru, staff was comfortable with it remaining as is, DiLeo said.

Modifications to drive-thru regulations are in the works, but not yet enacted. The planning commission approved new drive-thru regulations earlier this year. Amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus received initial approval at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting, and received final approval at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting.

Downtown: Liberty Plaza

Mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), joined by Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), are sponsoring a resolution that would direct the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

Funding for the collaborative work in the amount of $23,577 would come from the parks and recreation budget. In addition to a concept for a “re-imagined Liberty Plaza,” the effort is supposed to result in options for funding construction, to be provided by city staff. A report is to be provided to the park advisory commission by December 2014 and to the city council a month later in January 2015.

This resolution comes in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp. Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park.

The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Taylor, Hieftje, Teall and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Courts Human Services

On the council’s June 16 agenda are several items related to the criminal justice system, specifically for some of the specialty courts operated by the 15th District Court. As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve an amendment to a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services – for mental health treatment services to people who are participating in the sobriety court and the mental health court.

Also on the consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $44,200 amendment to a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court. The council will be asked to approve a $108,174 amendment to a contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services.

And finally, the consent agenda includes a resolution for a $40,000 amendment to a contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants.

Recycling

The council’s June 16 agenda includes three items related to recycling.

Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot

The council will be asked to approve a two-year $95,694 contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for a recycling incentive program for multi-family residential units. This item is based on the city’s solid waste plan, which the city council adopted at its Oct. 7, 2013 meeting.

The plan includes evaluating methods to increase recycling participation through pilot programs. Among those methods is the introduction of a recycling incentive program for multi‐family housing units. According to the staff memo accompanying this item, a manual sort of waste conducted in the fall of 2012 found that only 12% of the trash that single-family residents threw away was recyclable, compared to 26% of the trash that multi-family residents threw away. The completion of the pilot program is expected in December 2016. According to the memo, Recycle Ann Arbor’s proposal includes:

Gather information on best multi-family recycling practices in North America.
Survey and/or interview key multi-family constituencies in Ann Arbor to better understand the challenges and opportunities for recycling in this sector. Based on feedback received, develop 3 to 5 methodologies for further testing and analysis.
Identify pilot parameters and measurement protocols.
Identify pilot communities to involve in the pilot programs (ultimately targeting approximately 1,000 units) and ramp up pilot start-up.
Implement pilot programs.
Analyze results of pilot programs.
Provide detailed recommendations to the City on best practices and report results to participating multi-family communities.

Methodologies that will be tested as part of the pilot will include the following:

Recycling rewards program: Evaluate if a recycling rewards program would be effective in improving recycling participation rates in multi-family locations
Indoor collection bins: Most multi-family locations share outdoor recycling bins. Determine if the provision of indoor recycling bins would help increase recycling rates.
Multi-family recycling leader program: Determine if the use of recycling leaders at individual locations would help increase recycling rates.
300-gallon recycling cart: Determine if the use of 300-gallon carts instead of the standard 96-gallon cart would help increase recycling.

Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair

The council will be asked to approve a $39,480 reimbursement to Resource Recovery Systems – the city’s contracted operator of its materials recovery facility (MRF) – for repair of the baler infeed conveyor belt. According to a staff memo accompanying the item, the belt was last replaced in 2007, and has worn out. Such conveyors are described in the memo as lasting five to seven years.

Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $35,000 annual contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for services associated with the move-out of University of Michigan students.

According to the staff memo on the item, RAA’s proposal includes a staffed drop-off location at the corner of Tappan and Oakland streets during student fall and spring move-out periods. The site is also used to collect reusable items (through organizations such as the Salvation Army, Kiwanis, or the Reuse Center), bulky metal items, and recyclable materials.

4:10 p.m. Staff responses to councilmember questions about agenda items. [.pdf of staff responses to June 16, 2014 agenda questions]

6:14 p.m. Paul Fulton of the city’s IT department is setting up the laptop with the Historic District Commission awards presentation. Thomas Partridge has already arrived.

6:48 p.m. Eppie Potts, who’s receiving the Preservationist of the Year Award tonight from the Historic District Commission, has arrived. She quips: “Usually I’m here to yell at them!”

7:08 p.m. The only councilmember not yet arrived is Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). Mayor John Hieftje is here, but he seems to have stepped away for a bit. We’re basically ready to go.

7:09 p.m. Warpehoski is now here.

7:10 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Approval of agenda. All are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wants to note that there will be a resolution added on the settlement on the Goldstone case. City attorney Stephen Postema says it can go at the end.

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

7:13 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. Steve Powers is thanking Chief John Seto for the Ann Arbor police department and Ann Arbor fire department event on Saturday, recognizing public safety officers for their bravery and service. He thanked Seto for the open house, where equipment was demonstrated. He’s announcing the grand opening of the skatepark on June 21. He’s thanking residents for their patience as the city rolls out its street reconstruction projects for the season.

7:14 p.m. INT-1 Introduction of Ann Arbor Police K-9 Murray and Officer Pat Maguire. Murray, the dog, is named after Vada Murray, an Ann Arbor Police Department officer who passed away a few years ago. His wife and children are in attendance.

7:15 p.m. Chief Seto is introducing Officer Maguire and K-9 Murray. The pair earned distinction in a recent trials competition.

7:16 p.m. INT-2 Presentation of Historic District Commission annual awards. This is the 30th annual presentation of the awards.

7:18 p.m. Tom Stullberg, chair of the HDC, is giving the presentation.

7:18 p.m. Rehabilitation Awards are presented in recognition of substantial work that returned a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration, facilitating contemporary needs but respecting the features of the property that are significant to its historic and architectural values.

7:18 p.m. University of Michigan For East Quad. Details: Built in 1940; $116 million renovation; replaced slate roof, restored leaded glass, replaced window glazing, restored exterior walls; repaired wood paneling and fireplaces in main floor lounges.

7:19 p.m. University of Michigan for Munger Residences, formerly called the Lawyers Club. Details: Built between 1923 and 1933; $39 million renovation; upgraded infrastructure, replaced slate roof (reusing many original pieces), repaired exterior masonry; added two elevators without compromising historical integrity.

7:19 p.m. Jim Kosteva, UM director of community relations, is on hand to accept the awards on behalf of UM.

7:20 p.m. Preservation Awards are presented in recognition of superior maintenance of a significant property to preserve its essential historical, cultural or architectural value for a period of 10 years or more.

7:20 p.m. Susan and Martin Hurwitz for 1520 Cambridge 1520 Cambridge. Details: Built in 1913 for Max and Clemence Winkler; Colonial Revival; round topped windows, classical surround of pilasters and broken pediment, prominent modillions; owned and maintained by Susan and Martin Hurwitz since 1991.

7:20 p.m. Kappa Alpha Theta (Eta Chapter): 1414 Washtenaw. Details: Built in 1867 for Dr. Silas Pratt; Colonial Revival; remodeled by Louis H. Boynton when purchased by Kappa Alpha Theta in 1916; one of the first Greek letter organizations to locate on Washtenaw; received State of Michigan Historic Designation in 1983.

7:21 p.m. First Presbyterian Church for 1432 Washtenaw. Details: Built in 1938; Gothic Revival in the English Country style; renovations in 1956 and 1998; Lancet windows with stained glass, buttresses, steep slate roof; stand of mature trees leading to main entry are remnants of the “picnic grove” that surrounded home at the previously occupying site.

7:21 p.m. Ann Arbor City Club for 1830 Washtenaw. Details: Built in 1888 by Evart Scott as farmhouse; remodeled into Colonial Revival home by Louis H. Boynton when purchased in 1917 for Dr. R. Bishop Canfield; purchased by Ann Arbor Women’s City Club in 1951 and remodeled into clubhouse; 1962 addition designed by Ralph Hammett.

7:22 p.m. Ken Wisniski and Linda Dintenfass for 13 Regent Drive. Details: Designed by local architect David Osler in 1964 for William and Margaret Mundus; Mid-Century Modern; five levels, mostly hidden from public view; renovation by Stan Monroe in 2012 to change third level into master bedroom and rebuild five decks; owned and maintained by Ken Wisniski and Linda Dintenfass since 1999.

7:23 p.m. Howard Shapiro for 7 Regent Drive. Details: Designed by Alden Dow in 1964 for Joe Morris; three levels, views the Arb; flat roof with flared edges on the west, resembles three boxes with a hidden entry; influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright (Dow studied at Taliesin in the 1920s); owned and maintained by Dr. Howard Shapiro since 2002.

7:23 p.m. Margaret Bignall and Paul Hossler for 1448 Broadway. Details: Built in 1852 by John Lennon; Greek Revival; typical early 19th century settler house; 950 square feet, 1½ story, side gable; small, historic barn behind house; owned and maintained by Margaret Bignall and Paul Hossler since 1980.

7:24 p.m. Carol and Robert Mull for 1111 Fair Oaks. Details: Designed in 1916 by Fiske Kimball for James N. and Clara Petrie; inspired by Monticello and the White House; irregular floor plan: round rooms in center and rectangular rooms on sides; Ives Woods/Burns Park neighborhood; owned and maintained by Carol and Robert Mull since 1979.

7:25 p.m. Stone School Cooperative Nursery for 2811 Stone School. Details: Built in 1911 as a rural schoolhouse; incorporated materials from 1853 schoolhouse previously on site; original foundation stone and school bell and belfry; purchased and restored in 1995 by the Stone School Cooperative; listed on National Register of Historic Places in 1995.

7:25 p.m. John Hollowell for 844 W. Huron. Details: Built in 1872 by William H. Mallory; Gothic Revival; two porches, two bay windows, eared trim with elaborate scroll details; 1890s Victorian lamp posts from Belle Isle; Old West Side; owned and maintained by John Hollowell since 1970s.

7:26 p.m. Steve Sivak for 1158 Pomona. Details: Built in 1955 for Joseph and Emma Albano; Mid-Century Modern; long, low lines, prominent carport, exposed rafters, vertical cedar siding, flat roofs; large expanses of window glass on the sides, blank façade offering privacy from the street; owned and maintained by Steve Sivak since 1995.

7:27 p.m. Akhavan Rayhaneh for 2022 Delafield. Details: Built in 1958 by James P. Wong for Richard Hadden; “Bonnet house”; Mid-Century Modern; steeply pitched gable in front, floor to ceiling windows form part of façade, overhang has exposed rafters; owned and maintained by Akhavan Rayhaneh since 1989.

7:27 p.m. Special Merit Awards are presented in recognition of exceptional people, projects, landscapes or other unique preservation projects.

7:28 p.m. Susan Wineberg and Patrick McCauley: Authors of “Historic Ann Arbor: An Architectural Guide”; describes over 350 Ann Arbor buildings; includes 40 University of Michigan buildings; four years researching, documenting, photographing, and writing; valuable resource to anyone interested in architecture or history of Ann Arbor.

7:28 p.m. Preservationist of the Year is presented to an individual who has provided the city of Ann Arbor with exemplary services in the pursuit of historic preservation, incentives, and/or education.

7:28 p.m. Ethel K. Potts is the 2014 Preservationist of the Year. Details: attended the University of Michigan; served on city’s zoning board of appeals and the planning commission; advocate for historic preservation; mentor to future preservationists; “This city means a lot to me, its buildings and history must be maintained for generations to come.”

7:30 p.m. Potts is getting an enthusiastic ovation from the audience and councilmembers.

7:30 p.m. Recess. We’re in a short recess so that the awardees can exit.

7:37 p.m. We’re back.

7:37 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.]

Two people are signed up to talk about the $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative to support the work of the pedestrian safety and access task force, both of them members of the task force: Vivienne Armentrout and Linda Diane Feldt. Three people are signed up to talk about the $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK: Kai Petainen, Jeff Hayner and Dave DeVarti. Hayner’s second topic is the East Stadium bridges art installation. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about improved affordable housing and economic development.

7:40 p.m. Vivienne Armentrout is a member of the pedestrian safety and access task force. She’s asking the council to approve the contract with The Greenway Collaborative. It’s already in the FY 2014 budget, so it’s “not new money,” she says. She says the task force is “itching” to take on its task. The task force needs the council’s support now, to continue its work – the task force has met three times so far. Armentrout is reviewing the responsibility the council gave the task force. She’s describing how some members of the task force participated in the selection of the facilitator, from the three who responded to the city’s RFP. [.pdf of Armentrout's remarks]

7:41 p.m. Kai Petainen is reading the following statement aloud: [Petainen public comment] [Ann Arbor SPARK 2013 annual report] and [21st Century Jobs Trust Fund 2013 Annual Report]

7:46 p.m. Linda Diane Feldt is a member of the pedestrian safety and access task force – and she was elected chair of the group. She’s thanking the council for appointing her to the task force. She’s asking for the council’s support – in the form of approving the $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative. She’d participated in the selection process of the consultant, she says. The process that will unfold will involve thousands of volunteer hours, she notes. The value of the work will far exceed the value of the contract, she says. The task force has already dived into its work. She’s noting that The Greenway Collaborative is a local firm with excellent qualifications.

7:49 p.m. Jeff Hayner says that the spirit of economic development is alive and well. There are many partners in this effort, including the UM Tech Transfer Office. He’s criticizing Ann Arbor SPARK for high salaries, but says they’re not using income for terrorist activities. He says that SPARK has misrepresented its results. He suggests revising the resolution to reduce the $75,000 to just 10% of that figure.

7:51 p.m. David DeVarti is a former city councilmember and former member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. He’s speaking against the funding for SPARK, asking the council to deny it or table it. He allows that as a DDA member he had voted for money for SPARK. He’d been disappointed by what SPARK had produced, but he’d gone along to get along with mayor John Hieftje and with Bob Guenzel. He points out that $75,000 could go a long way for a human services agency. He asks that the council hold Ann Arbor SPARK to the same kind of standards as it does the human services agencies it has contracts with. That would create a real sense for the council for what SPARK is failing to provide in terms of documentation.

7:54 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a resident of Ward 5 as well as recent candidate for various public offices. He calls for improved funding for affordable housing and economic development. He wants the council to take direct responsibility for funding the elimination of homelessness and measurably increasing the amount of funding available for affordable housing.

7:59 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of two slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:59 p.m. Sally Petersen says that the LDFA board will be discussing an independent audit of the SmartZone at its meeting tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. She also notes that the LDFA board has heard the council’s interest in seeing investments in infrastructure.

7:59 p.m. Kunselman is talking about the activity of the nuisance committee, of which he’s the only member. He’s also explaining his research on the DDA terms. Attached to the agenda are old DDA records Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) retrieved from the University of Michigan Bentley Library. [link]

8:03 p.m. Kunselman is now talking about the issue of TIF refunds that were made by the DDA in the early 1980s. He’s now talking about the DDA’s development plan and the requirements for that plan in the statute. He’s calling for the council to work with the DDA to work on a new development plan. He’s pointing out that the city administrator is the city’s representative on the DDA board. He said he’s told city administrator Steve Powers that he expects the DDA will be following the law.

8:04 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is alerting people to the removal of some stop signs on Nixon Road near Green and Dhu Varren. This is a temporary measure related to nearby construction. She asks people to be careful. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is now talking about the same stop sign removal issue. There will be additional police enforcement, she says.

8:05 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) announces that the Michigan Theater has agreed to purchase the State Theater.

8:07 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is announcing that the environmental commission had three vacancies. There were 10 applicants. He says that tonight Allison Skinner, Benjamin Muth and Mark Clevey are being presented as candidates to serve on the city’s environmental commission. The vote on their appointments will be at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting.

8:08 p.m. MC-1 Confirmation of June 2, 2014 nominations. Nominated at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting for reappointment to the city planning commission were Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan. Nominated at that meeting for reappointment to the commission on disability issues were Linda Evans and Larry Keeler. Those confirmations are being voted on tonight.

8:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm the appointments.

8:08 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Audrey Wojtkowiak is being nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission to fill the vacancy left by Christopher Geer. The vote on her confirmation will come at the council’s next meeting.

8:10 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje is reviewing the awards to firefighters and police officers that were made last Saturday.

8:12 p.m. Hieftje is reviewing the last winter and the work that human service agencies did. He’s worried about the capacity for that work if the winter is as back next year.

8:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm the appointments.

8:10 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje is reviewing the awards to firefighters and police officers that were made last Saturday.

8:12 p.m. Hieftje is reviewing the last winter and the work that human service agencies did. He’s worried about the capacity for that work if the winter is as bad next year.

8:14 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. On tonight’s agenda are five hearings:

PH-1 Anderson-Pebbles annexation. This is a standard annexation into the city from Scio Township. The zoning for the 0.22 acre parcel at 375 Glenwood Street will be handled after the annexation is complete.
PH-2 Bank of Ann Arbor addition. This is the site plan for the addition on the building at Fifth Avenue and Washington streets. [For additional background, see Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan above.]
PH-3 116-120 West Huron site plan. This is the site plan for First Martin’s hotel project. [For additional background, see Downtown: Hotel Site Plan above.]
PH-4 Scio Church sidewalk assessment. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing above.]
PH-5 Barton Drive sidewalk assessment. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing above.]

8:15 p.m. PH-1 Anderson-Pebbles annexation. Thomas Partridge says that the property should be required to have access to public transportation.

8:16 p.m. That’s it for this public hearing.

8:19 p.m. PH-2 Bank of Ann Arbor addition. Ray Detter is expressing support for this project. It takes a building that has been criticized as being “suburban” and making it an asset, instead of building something that is 180 feet tall, even though the site’s zoning would allow for that.

8:20 p.m. Thomas Patridge is advocating for a requirement that access for public transportation be provided at the site. The bank should be a good corporate citizen and give priority to considerations like that.

8:21 p.m. Edward Vielmetti is pointing out that the current site has Juneberry trees that are just now becoming ripe, and they are delicious. He hopes that the site after renovation will also have good landscaping.

8:22 p.m. PH-3 116-120 West Huron site plan. Ray Detter is expressing support for the project. He notes that a part of the project will preserve the facade of the bus depot.

8:22 p.m. PH-4 Scio Church sidewalk assessment. No one speaks during this public hearing.

8:26 p.m. PH-5 Barton Drive sidewalk assessment. Jeff Hayner says this is his neighborhood. He thanks everyone in the room and in the neighborhood who came together to get this done. It’s been at least 12 years in the works, he says. He encourages the pedestrian task force to take a look at the area. He’s questioning the cost for the project, however. It would have a long-term positive impact, he said. No offense to the public art commission, he says, but the council will be voting on $350,000 for decorative elements on the East Stadium bridges, when the approach to the bridge is in terrible shape.

8:26 p.m. Council minutes. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

8:26 p.m. Consent Agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

CA-1 Approve DTE LED Conversions ($69,555/$55,060 after rebates). [For additional background, see (Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion above.]
CA-2 Approve contract with Black & Veatch Ltd. ($62,800).
CA-3 Approve purchase of hydrofluorosilicic acid for water treatment from PVS Nolwood Chemicals (estimated $34,000/yr).
CA-4 Amend service purchase order for stormwater services with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner (increase of $30,000 for FY 2014 & FY 2015).
CA-5 Approve contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for solid waste student move-out services ($35,000/yr). [For additional background, see Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services above.]
CA-6 Award contract for 8th Street sanitary sewer manhole replacement to Fonson Inc. ($47,193). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Manholes above.]
CA-7 Approve a contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services ($75,000). [For additional background, see Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK above.]
CA-8 Approve amendment to contract with the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for mental health court ($44,200).
CA-9 Approve amendment to contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services for mental health treatment services to sobriety court and mental health court participants ($76,242).
CA-10 Approve amendment to contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court appointed counsel to indigent defendants ($40,000).
CA-11 Street closings for the Firecracker 5K (Friday, July 4, 2014).
CA-12 Street closings for Sonic Lunch (Thursday, July 10, 2014 and Thursday, July 31, 2014).
CA-13 Street closing for the 2014 Washtenaw Indie Awards, Saturday (June 28, 2014).
CA-14 Approve contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. for Lobbying Services ($48,000). [For additional background, see Business Services: GCSI Lobbying above.]
CA-15 Approve May 22, 2014 recommendations of the Board of Insurance Administration ($66,142).

8:27 p.m. Outcome: The council approved the consent agenda except for items CA-1, CA-7 and CA-10.

8:30 p.m. CA-1 Approve DTE LED conversions ($69,555/$55,060 after rebates). Kunselman says he’s happy this is coming along. He has a question about why the DDA is not funding the project for conversion of lights inside the DDA district. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy says that the general fund pays for streetlights.

Nate Geisler, the city’s energy programs analyst, is explaining that the DDA is undertaking a streetscape framework planning effort and that gave rise to hesitancy by DDA board members to pay for converting those lights at this time.

8:32 p.m. Kunselman questions whether the DDA will be able to implement its streetscape framework plan without council approval, because they are city streets. Kunselman points out that there are cobrahead lights that are out on Division Street. “Point taken,” Hupy says.

8:34 p.m. Hieftje says that DTE owns the lights, but the city pays the electric bill. The DDA had historically paid for conversion of the LED lights. Briere recalls taking a series of tours with downtown merchants to look at the lights and how the lights work. She asks if Hupy can provide information by the next council meeting about which lights in the downtown have been decommissioned and not removed, or are otherwise not working.

8:35 p.m. Lumm is talking about doing LED conversion when a repair is needed.

8:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve CA-1 on the consent agenda.

8:37 p.m. CA-7 Approve a contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services ($75,000). Kailasapathy notes that she’d requested some information about SPARK when the council had debated the FY 2015 budget. She has concerns about the job creation numbers. She’s not talking about LDFA money, just the $75,000 from the general fund. She’s now reviewing the contributions of other municipalities, compared to the $75,000 that the city of Ann Arbor contributes.

8:39 p.m. Relative contributions that she’s discussing are here: [link]

8:42 p.m. Kailasapathy is reviewing the tax rebate given to Mahendra. She says she will not support the SPARK contract.

8:44 p.m. Petersen says that the concerns about the presentation of metrics are valid, but these are the metrics that were chosen. SPARK doesn’t tell companies where to locate, she says. She compares SPARK to the Welcome Wagon. Large floor-plate office space doesn’t exist in Ann Arbor, she says, but it does in Pittsfield Township. SPARK is agnostic about there companies locate, and she allows that Pittsfield is getting a better deal than Ann Arbor. SPARK isn’t taking sole credit for job creation, she says. She’ll support this, because SPARK is the only economic development agency we have.

8:45 p.m. Eaton moves to table, and points out that such motions don’t allow debate.

8:47 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 6-5 to table this resolution. Voting to table were Kunselman, Kailsapathy, Eaton, Anglin, Briere, and Lumm.

8:48 p.m. CA-10 Approve amendment to contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court appointed counsel to indigent defendants ($40,000). Taylor, an attorney with Hooper Hathaway, provides legal services to this firm and asks the council to vote to allow him not to participate in the vote. They take that vote. He takes a seat in the audience.

8:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve CA-10 on the consent agenda.

8:48 p.m. C-1 425 S. Main Street rezoning of 1.1 Acres from D1 (Downtown Core Base District) to D2 (Downtown Interface Base District). The council is being asked to give initial approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Because these would be changes to the zoning code, which is expressed in city ordinances, any council action that might be taken would need a second and final vote at a future meeting, in order to be enacted. First up is the zoning. The next item will involve the character district overlay. [For additional background, see Downtown: Zoning, Character District above.]

8:49 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council’s representative to the planning commission, is reviewing the resolution. She encourages her colleagues to move it forward to a second reading.

8:51 p.m. Anglin is raising the question of heights in D2 – and ventures that D2 zoning is supposed to be 60 feet. Planning manager Wendy Rampson is now at the podium. She’s explaining the notion of “base zoning” – that’s D1 or D2 – and the character overlay districts. The height restrictions are not part of the base zoning, but rather the character overlay districts.

8:54 p.m. Kunselman elicits the fact that the Ashley Mews development, across the street, is a planned unit development (PUD) and is 110 feet tall.

8:55 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is glad to see this come forward, but he’ll have some questions about the character district resolution. He notes that the focus had been on the Huron Street corridor, but he’d asked that this parcel be included in the review of the downtown zoning. He says that D2 is the appropriate zoning, and he’s grateful that the parcel was included in the scope of the review as he’d requested.

8:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning of 425 S. Main from D1 to D2.

8:56 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

9:05 p.m. We’re back.

9:05 p.m. C-2 Main Street Downtown character overlay zoning districts building massing standards. This is the second of two downtown zoning items. The focus of the deliberations will likely be the 100-foot height limit the planning commission has recommended for the D-2 zoned area of the Main Street character area. All other D-2 areas of the downtown have a 60-foot height limit. [For additional background, see Downtown: Zoning, Character District above.]

9:07 p.m. Briere is reviewing the planning commission discussion on this item. She says the commission had heard from many members of the community on this issue. The commission had split on this 6-3. [Briere voted as one of the three dissenters.] She’s explaining the rationale for those in the majority – that it would be suitable to terrace a 100-foot building away from the neighborhood.

9:09 p.m. But Briere points out that the city council’s resolution stated D2 at 60 feet. The basic premise of the majority was that even in winter there would be available sunlight, but Briere didn’t think that was the main issue.

9:10 p.m. Lumm complains that there’s no minutes available from the planning commission’s deliberations on the 6-3 vote. [Deliberations are reported in detail in The Chronicle's report of the planning commission's May 6, 2014 meeting.] Lumm asks planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain why the planning commission changed the height from 60 feet to 100 feet.

9:13 p.m. Rampson is reviewing basis of the planning commission’s decision. The commission felt that a 100-foot height would provide some flexibility so that someone would not try to build out the site to 60 feet everywhere on the parcel as one massive building. Rampson says the minutes will be ready by the council’s next meeting, noting that the commission’s meeting was very long.

9:17 p.m. Anglin says this is a unique site. His fear is that the council will be asked to approve the change on a second reading at its next meeting. Now is the chance for the council to set the zoning correctly. He doesn’t want to start the ball rolling toward a second reading on a time schedule. He doesn’t want to approve this tonight.

9:18 p.m. Kunselman asks Rampson what the zoning was before the A2D2 process. It was C2-A or C2-AR, she thinks. There were no height limits. Kunselman notes that this would be the only D2 with a height limit of 100 feet. Why not just leave it D1 and reduce the allowable height from 180 feet to 100 feet?

9:21 p.m. Rampson tells Kunselman that the point of A2D2 was to provide certainty for a property owner about what could be built. He ventures that that never works, and that’s why he’d voted against the A2D2 zoning. He agrees with Anglin that he wouldn’t support moving it forward tonight. Warpehoski says he’s also concerned, but says that moving it to second reading would allow the setting of a public hearing, which would provide a chance for people to weigh in.

9:23 p.m. Petersen asks Anglin if he’s making a motion to postpone. Anglin is reiterating his point that it’s important to set the zoning the way the council wants. Briere says she’s reviewed The Chronicle’s report of the planning commission meeting. Those who spoke at the public hearing were not the adjacent neighbors, she says. She really wants to return it to the planning commission. She moves to refer it to the planning commission for reconsideration.

9:25 p.m. Hieftje says this would accomplish Anglin’s objective. Kunselman says he’ll support this. Lumm says she’ll support Briere’s motion. Lumm was surprised to see the recommendation from the planning commission, as it was different from the council’s direction.

9:26 p.m. Taylor says that moving something from first to second reading is a well-established way to solicit additional input, and he’d oppose the motion to refer it back to the planning commission as an unnecessary step.

9:28 p.m. Briere says Taylor is right about the procedure being well-established, but she appeals to an argument that Leigh Greden had made when he was on the council: He knew that he’d be voting against it at second reading, so it was a waste of time to vote to move it to second reading. Petersen is saying she supports referring it back to planning commission.

9:30 p.m. Hieftje asks Briere if there were people on the planning commission who were on the fence: Would she expect a different outcome from the planning commission? Briere says she thinks there were some people on the fence. She stresses that zoning is the council’s purview. She says there’s no harm and no foul in saying to the commission: This is not quite what we want.

9:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to refer back to the planning commission the the Main Street character district overlay for D2, after amending the height limit recommended by the planning commission – from 100 feet to 60 feet.

9:32 p.m. City attorney Stephen Postema whispers something in Hieftje’s ear. Hieftje points out that the zoning change to which the council had given initial approval is impacted by the council’s decision to refer the character district question back to the planning commission.

9:35 p.m. The council reconsiders item C-1.

9:35 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to table C-1.

9:38 p.m. The council is now reconsidering item C-2. Warpehoski is arguing for moving it along, based on the fact that the parcel is currently zoned D1 where a structure that’s 180 feet tall can be built. Taking a step toward rezoning it to D2 is a step forward. Kunselman suggests replacing the references to 100 feet to 60 feet.

9:39 p.m. Kunselman says if the public wants a height limit greater than 60 feet, the council will hear that.

9:40 p.m. Briere says that this seems simple, but there’s all kinds of other language in the character district that refers to stepped back construction. She says this is about by-right development, so it’s important that the council get it right.

9:43 p.m. Eaton is suggesting that the First Street character overlay language be swapped in. Rampson points out that the First Street character was designed for the industrial buildings abutting the Allen Creek corridor.

9:44 p.m. Warpehoski asks if council and planning commission need to be in concurrence on this. No, Rampson says. That’s just for the master plan.

9:45 p.m. Kunselman asks if the council approves the change to 60 feet, would the planning staff can clean up the other language before the second reading?

9:48 p.m. Based on Rampson’s response, Kunselman thinks the planning staff can deal with the other language, and describes not voting on a final change until October or November. Anglin is complaining about Stalinist architecture and how developers threaten to build those kinds of buildings.

9:50 p.m. Outcome: Kunselman’s amendment is approved over dissent from Taylor.

9:51 p.m. Outcome: The council has given initial approval to C-2 as amended.

9:51 p.m. C-1 The council now takes up C-1 off the table.

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to C-1.

9:52 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

9:58 p.m. We’re back.

9:58 p.m. DC-1 Improve Liberty Plaza. This resolution would direct the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…” Funding for the collaborative work in the amount of $23,577 would come from the parks and recreation budget. [For additional background, see Downtown: Liberty Plaza above.]

9:59 p.m. Taylor is explaining the background to the resolution. He says there’s been a good deal of discussion about people’s aspirations for downtown parks not at Liberty Plaza. But Liberty Plaza is already there, even though it does not meet our “collective aspirations,” he says. Ann Arbor needs a downtown park that is vibrant and has green space.

10:02 p.m. Petersen says she’d originally had a concern that the resolution didn’t incorporate Library Lane. She feels strongly that the entire block should be considered as a whole. Petersen moves to refer the issue to the park advisory commission. Hieftje suggests to Petersen that the council can talk about it a bit. He says that he sees this resolution as a reaction to work that PAC has already done in making recommendations on downtown parks.

10:06 p.m. Kunselman questions the funding allocation. He says that the city has just one park planner – Amy Kuras. So he was not sure he wanted to place that responsibility on her. He wondered why direction had to be given to staff and PAC, saying that PAC doesn’t need direction to act in this manner. He suggests that the University of Michigan landscape architecture students could be a partner on the design. He notes that Mike Martin is attending the meeting, but wouldn’t call him to the podium. [Martin is attending because of a resolution related to a hotel project by First Martin Corp., which comes later on the agenda.]

Kunselman has heard rumors that First Martin is planning to demolish the Michigan Square building (west of Liberty Plaza) in the next year, and he wants to know if that’s true before redesigning the park.

10:08 p.m. Kunselman said that the problem of people hanging out at Liberty Plaza wouldn’t be solved through redesign. But the UM had solved its problem with people hanging out at State and North University by doing the only thing that works – removing the seating. He says that it’s important to have downtown beat cops. He says he’ll support Petersen’s motion to refer it back to PAC.

10:10 p.m. Hieftje asks Powers to comment. Powers says the amount was the amount included in the “parks fairness” budget resolution. He doesn’t know if it’s enough money. Sumedh Bahl, community services area administrator, comes to the podium.

10:13 p.m. Briere is reflecting on her perceptions of Liberty Plaza. She was happy to see it on the agenda, and had added her name as a sponsor. She didn’t know if this was enough money. She supports it but doesn’t object to referring it to PAC.

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

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

10:21 p.m. Lumm says she’s going to propose some amendments to this resolution. She’s adding language about an “integrated plan for the Library Block.” She’s ticking through a number of amendments to various resolved clauses.

10:21 p.m. Taylor says that Lumm’s amendments are not “friendly,” so the council will need to vote on the amendments.

10:23 p.m. Hieftje says he’s been told by experts that without the newsstand downstairs and the restaurant adjacent to it, Liberty Plaza can’t succeed because it doesn’t have “eyes on the park.”

10:26 p.m. Hieftje is contrasting Liberty Plaza with Sculpture Plaza, at Fourth and Catherine. He says Liberty Plaza needs to be redesigned. He doesn’t mind postponing this, but wanted the council to talk about this tonight. He describes the resolution as providing seed money. Liberty Plaza has been “festering” there for quite some time. Petersen says there’s a shining light in Liberty Plaza, which is the sensory garden, and she hopes that if Liberty Plaza is redesigned, an alternate place can be found.

10:28 p.m. Teall says that Library Lane and Liberty Plaza are not connected. It’s asking too much of the resolution to expect it to connect the whole block.

10:29 p.m. Teall says that many people have responded to the Library Green Conservancy by saying that we should focus on improving Liberty Plaza, but no one has done that. This resolution would do that.

10:30 p.m. Warpehoski is sizing up how he sees the issue.

10:30 p.m. Lumm has now sent her amendments around via email.

10:35 p.m. Petersen reiterates the desirability of connecting Liberty Plaza and Library Lane, even if they are not currently connected. Taylor allows that integrated planning on a large scale does on occasion make sense. But he feels that a park that is already here and that has design challenges can be addressed. “These parks will not be connected,” he says, because there is private land between them.

10:36 p.m. Eaton is arguing for considering Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane lot at the same time, as they have many common traits.

10:37 p.m. Eaton will support Lumm’s amendments as well as Petersen’s motion to refer it to PAC.

10:39 p.m. Powers clarifies that the money in the resolution is in the FY 2015 budget. Anglin feels that it’s a budget amendment and might need 8 votes. Powers explains that it’s not a budget amendment, because the money is already there, so it doesn’t need 8 votes.

10:39 p.m. Briere says she’ll support the amendments.

10:41 p.m. Kunselman ventures that there’s an easement that connects the Liberty Plaza and Library Lane, and a gate that First Martin uses to periodically block off access so that there’s no opportunity for adverse possession.

10:42 p.m. Kunselman wonders if First Martin is interested in working with the city. Putting up a retaining wall, blocking the stair and back filling the area is essentially the basic option, Kunselman.

10:43 p.m. Hieftje says that there’s no easement, as Kunselman had contended. Mike Martin, from the audience, tells Hieftje that he’s right.

10:44 p.m. Hieftje says that if this resolution is attached to the Library Lane project, it will take years to accomplish anything, he cautions.

10:48 p.m. Here are Lumm’s amendments: [.pdf of Lumm's amendments]

10:49 p.m. Warpehoski is citing parliamentary procedure: a motion to refer takes precedence over a motion to amend. So he’s moving to refer the unamended resolution to PAC.

10:51 p.m. Lumm doesn’t want to refer the resolution without her amendments.

10:54 p.m. Kunselman asks Taylor why this was not brought up to PAC before bringing it to council. Taylor says it’s not necessary, as it’s the council’s prerogative to set policy. If passed as drafted, it would have established Liberty Plaza as a priority of the council. Hieftje notes that the referral is now the question before the council.

10:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to refer to PAC the unamended resolution allocating funds to move forward a process for the redesign of Liberty Plaza.

10:56 p.m. Closed Session. A vote to go into closed session fails. So the council votes instead to suspend the rule on a unanimous vote required for going into closed session after 11 p.m.

10:56 p.m. They’re still in open session.

10:56 p.m. DC-2 Approve 2014 Ann Arbor Jaycees Carnival. The event will take place at Pioneer High School June 25 to June 29, 2014.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Jaycees Carnival.

10:57 p.m. DC-3 Kids Day This resolution was added to the agenda just today, so it’s not a part of the consent agenda with other street closing resolutions. This would close State Street between William and Washington for Kids Day on Saturday, June 28, 2014 from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the street closing for Kids Day.

10:57 p.m. DB-1 Approve the Anderson-Pebbles annexation 0.22 Acre, 375 Glenwood Street. This is a standard annexation, from Scio Township.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Anderson-Pebbles annexation.

10:57 p.m. DB-2 Approve Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters addition. The council is being asked to approve the site plan for an addition to the Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters at 125 South Fifth Avenue. The site plan involves reorienting the main entrance – moving it from the center of its South Fifth Avenue side to the southeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. Existing doors will be replaced with windows. A 9,179-square-foot third-floor addition would be constructed over the rear of the building’s east side. [For additional background, see Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan above.]

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for the Bank of Ann Arbor addition.

10:57 p.m. DB-3 Approve 116-120 West Huron Street Site Plan and Development Agreement (First Martin hotel). The council is being asked to approve the site plan for First Martin’s proposed extended-stay hotel at 116-120 West Huron Street. The proposal calls for a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels. The hotel will be operated by Marriott. [For additional background, see Downtown: Hotel Site Plan above.]

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the First Martin hotel project.

10:57 p.m. DB-4 Approve Amendment to contract with Widgery Studio, LLC to fabricate and install public art at the Stadium Boulevard Bridges ($353,552). The council is being asked to approve a contract with Widgery Studio LLC to fabricate and install public art at the East Stadium Boulevard bridges. The city had already contracted with Widgery on May 20, 2014 for $8,248 to finalize the structural design of the artwork with an engineer. This amendment to the contract on tonight’s council agenda adds art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services. [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Art above.]

10:59 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the discussions the council has had in the past on the public art program and the return of much of the money to the funds of origin. She remains unconvinced that this is the optimal investment the city could make with the money. She’s thanking members of the art commission for their effort. “It is a nice project,” she says.

11:00 p.m. Teall is inviting John Kotarski and Bob Miller to the podium to give a presentation on the bridges art. They are vice chair and chair, respectively, of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

11:08 p.m. Lumm is asking about the approach to the bridge to the west. Bob Miller notes that the art is located at Rose White Park. At that location looking west, he doesn’t think it’s going to conflict. Kunselman is asking about the durability of the glass panels. Is it replaceable? Yes, explains Miller, they can be replaced one louver at a time.

11:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the funding for fabrication and installation of public art at East Stadium Boulevard bridges.

11:11 p.m. DB-5 Approve $37,500 for affordable housing needs assessment. Kailasapathy expresses concern that the trust fund should be used for capital construction. It’s a small amount, but the small amounts can chip away at the balance, she says. Briere reads aloud the policy, which allows money in the affordable housing trust fund to be used for analysis, which this is.

11:14 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support this. She allows that perhaps the policy on allocation could use some updating.

11:16 p.m. Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, has been asked to the podium to explain how the assessment will start. The policy on allocation of funds does need to be updated, Callan says. The housing & human services advisory board (HHSAB) is interested in working on that with the city, she says.

11:20 p.m. Kunselman asks CFO Tom Crawford to the podium. Kunselman ventures that there is no affordable housing trust fund, but rather just an account where the city keeps track. Crawford explains that for the city’s audit, the fund is folded into the general fund. It’s noted as a restricted line item. Kunselman is proposing to change the allocation from the affordable housing trust fund to the general fund. This is just a study, he says, and he doesn’t think the city should be using the affordable housing fund for that.

11:22 p.m. Lumm prefers to use the affordable housing fund. Hieftje agrees with Lumm. The needs assessment will guide the construction of affordable housing, he says.

11:24 p.m. Briere says that the existing policy does not specify only capital investment, so she wants to pay for it out of the affordable housing fund.

11:25 p.m. Outcome: Kunselman’s amendment fails, with support only from Kunsleman, Eaton, Warpehoski, Angin, and Kailasapathy.

11:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the $37,500 from the affordable housing trust fund to pay for the housing needs assessment.

11:26 p.m. DS-1 Approve a Contract with NuView, Inc. to replace the city’s human resource and payroll system ($570,900). The staff memo accompanying the item explains why the existing software, acquired in 2007, is being replaced:

In 2007, the City installed a Human Resource and Payroll system called Ultipro, by Ultimate Software. The Ultipro system included modules for Recruiting, Benefits Administration, Human Resource Administration and Payroll. The City has experienced a variety of issues related to the underlying database architecture utilized by Ultimate Software. In addition, due to changes such as new legislative requirements, the increase in recruiting volume and the increase in manual data entry involved in benefits administration, the City has found the Ultipro system unable to meet its Human Resource needs.

11:26 p.m. Lumm has asked a staff member from HR to explain this in detail.

11:27 p.m. The topic is recruitment of veterans. The goal is to make the “onboarding” of candidates paperless.

11:28 p.m. Not all the data will be migrated to the new system. The systems will run parallel for a month or more as a safety check.

11:29 p.m. Kailasapathy is pleased to see the five-year cumulative savings that was provided by the staff analysis.

11:30 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with NuView for the human resources and payroll system.

11:30 p.m. DS-2 Transfer funds to authorize State Revolving Fund (SRF) debt payment and loan forgiveness for stormwater and rain garden components of the skatepark project (Not To Exceed $157,264). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater above.]

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the the transfer of funds in connection with the skatepark rain garden.

11:31 p.m. DS-3 Approve contract with Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services ($108,174). [For additional background, see Courts Human Services above.]

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Dawn Farm.

11:31 p.m. DS-4 Set assessment roll for Pontiac Trail Sidewalk ($72,218) [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the assessment roll for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk.

11:31 p.m. DS-5 Set public hearing for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment project. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the public hearing on the Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment project – for July 21.

11:32 p.m. DS-6 Set public Hearing for the Stone School Road sidewalk project. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk above.]

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the public hearing on the Stone School Road sidewalk special assessment project – for July 7.

11:32 p.m. DS-8 Approve a contract with Emergency Restoration Company for the renovation of restrooms and locker Rooms in Fire Stations #3 and #4 ($149,500). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms above.]

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with ERC for fire station restroom renovation.

11:33 p.m. DS-9 Approve award of a construction contract to Lanzo Lining Services Inc. Michigan for the 2014 sewer lining project ($1,566,121). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining above.]

11:34 p.m. Lumm is asking what all is included. The answer from staff is that there could be additional locations where work could be done.

11:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Lanzo Lining Services.

11:34 p.m. DS-10 Award a construction contract with Douglas N. Higgins Inc. for the Arbor Oaks water main replacement project ($1,324,357). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Water Main above.]

11:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to award the construction contract with Douglas N. Higgins Inc.

11:34 p.m. DS-11 Approve installation of traffic calming devices on Larchmont Drive ($55,000). The project would install three speedhumps. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming above.]

11:35 p.m. Lumm says that the neighborhood is so excited – as the application went in five years ago. She’s thanking staff who worked on this.

11:38 p.m. Eaton notes that $60,000 had been budgeted for the whole year. Is this $55,000 taking up most of the whole year’s budget? Nick Hutchinson is explaining that the $55,000 that’s being brought forward is from FY 2014. The actual cost of this particular project is just $8,800, Hutchinson explains.

11:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the installation of traffic calming devices on Larchmont.

11:39 p.m. DS-12 Approve a contrast with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the Fuller Road, Maiden Lane, E. Medical Center Drive bridges rehabilitation project ($187,184) According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes “re-painting of each bridge, repairing corroded structural steel, bridge abutment and pier (substructure) repairs, expansion joint removal and replacement, bridge deck patching, placing an overlay on the existing bridge decks, bridge railing repairs, guard rail upgrades, brush trimming and removal around the perimeter of the bridge structures, and other related work.” [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges above.]

11:41 p.m. Briere wants to know if the amenities that would complete the Border-to-Border Trail are included in this work. Hupy explains that this resolution is for maintenance of existing bridge structures. Kunselman says it’s his understanding that there’s a lot of “human activity” near the location. He wants to know if assistance will be provided to those people who are living in tents. Hupy says there will be plenty of notice given before construction starts.

11:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the bridges rehabilitation project.

11:42 p.m. DS-13 Approve a contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the pedestrian safety and access task force ($75,000). This is a contract that had originally been recommended by staff to be awarded to a different vendor, but without issuing an RFP. After issuing an RFP, The Greenway collaborative was selected. The task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant above.]

11:42 p.m. Lumm thanks Powers and staff for listening to the concerns of council on this project.

11:43 p.m. Lumm is concerned that this effort could be expanded in its scope and could require additional funding.

11:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the pedestrian safety task force.

11:43 p.m. DS-14 Approve contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for multi-family recycling incentive pilot program ($95,694). This resolution is based on recommendations in the city’s solid waste plan. [For additional background, see Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot above.]

11:46 p.m. Kunselman asks RAA staff to come to the podium. Kunselman says that he’s heard it might be the last opportunity he has to ask Tom McMurtrie a question. “As a city employee,” that’s correct, McMurtrie says. Kunselman gets clarification that it’s city employees who do trash collection. He asks what kind of outcomes could be expected.

11:48 p.m. The RAA staff member says the point of the study is to understand the nuances of recycling in multi-family units: transience, language barriers, a willingness to go down from the third floor to put recyclables in container. They want to figure out what makes multi-family units tick. It’s a nut that no one nationally has cracked, he says.

11:50 p.m. Lumm is talking about Palo Alto and Seattle as benchmarks. She asks how much improvement McMurtrie thinks is possible. Based on the percentage of recyclables in the waste stream, McMurtrie thinks there’s potential for improvement.

11:53 p.m. Lumm asks why the work needs to be contracted out. Hupy indicates to Lumm that in him and McMurtrie she’s looking at the staff. Taylor says he thinks this is great – as it’s an area where improvement is needed. Hieftje ventures there’s a “gold mine” out there as far as how much additional material can be recycled in multi-familiy housing units.

11:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for a multi-family recycling incentives pilot program.

11:53 p.m. DS-15 Reimburse Resource Recovery Systems for repair of baler infeed conveyor at the Material Recovery Facility ($39,480). RSS operates the city’s material recovery facility under a contract. The typical pattern is for RSS to handle the replacement of equipment with reimbursement from the city. [For additional background, see Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair above.]

11:55 p.m. Teall invites McMurtrie to the podium to congratulate him on his retirement. Solid waste has changed so much in the time that Teall has been on the council. McMurtrie notes that it’s been almost 24 years and he finds it rewarding to do work that touches on every single resident.

11:56 p.m. Hupy says that there’s a new staff member who’ll be taking over for McMurtrie. McMurtrie’s retirement party will be held on July 1 from 3-5 p.m.

11:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the reimbursement to RSS for repair of the MRF baler infeed conveyor.

11:56 p.m. DS-16 Amend Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority budget for fiscal year 2014. This is a routine type of adjustment, which has been approved by the DDA board. [For additional background, see Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment above.]

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the amendment of the DDA budget.

11:59 p.m. DS-17 Goldstone vs. Warner settlement.

11:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve a $35,000 settlement.

12:01 a.m. Briere to planning commission. As a result of the background work by the city attorney’s office on terms of appointments to boards and commissions, it was determined that Briere needed to be reappointed in order to continue to serve beyond the end of June.

12:02 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve Briere’s appointment to the planning commission until Nov. 17, 2014.

12:02 a.m. Communications from council. Briere has now invited Ann Arbor SPARK CEO Paul Krutko to the podium because he had not had an opportunity to answer questions on the SPARK funding item, which was tabled earlier in the meeting. Krutko says that SPARK is a complicated organization. Krutko says that two reports that had been questioned by a member of the public were about two different activities – work for the state compared to work for Ann Arbor. There’s a variety of reports that SPARK has to provide. He’s sorry that it’s confusing, he says.

12:07 a.m. Krutko is now responding to more questions from Briere.

12:15 a.m. Lumm is telling Krutko that she shares the concerns about SPARK’s reporting. She doesn’t have a problem with the $75,000. She’s saying that more councilmembers wanted to table instead of postpone. She’s reviewing the importance of being good stewards of public funds. Now there’s back and forth between Lumm and Krutko. Lumm says that once a reconciliation of the numbers is achieved, then everyone will be comfortable.

12:16 a.m. Kunselman is now talking about the complexity of economic development. Kunselman asks if layoffs are computed as a part of the jobs numbers.

12:18 a.m. Krutko says there are 22 SPARK staff members. Responding to the lower unemployment figures in this area, Kunselman quips: Thank god for you!

12:21 a.m. Taylor expresses his concern about the tabling and calls it a “self-inflicted wound.” Ann Arbor had a reputation previously for being against growth, he says. That had changed. But now this was a step backward, Taylor says. He indicates that the council had not made a responsible, professional and temperate decision.

12:23 a.m. Warpehoski expresses his dismay that the council had tabled the SPARK resolution (without debate). Kunselman is now taking a turn, defending the tabling action as opposed to postponing.

12:24 a.m. Kailasapathy says she looks at it as a question of how much Ann Arbor taxpayers give – through Act 88 money, which is levied countywide.

12:25 a.m. Kailasapathy says that the council has not said that it won’t pay the $75,000. It’s a matter of getting the information and getting the numbers reconciled, she says.

12:27 a.m. Petersen regrets she used the term, “Welcome Wagon” to describe SPARK’s work – because SPARK is more complex than that. She says that when councilmembers had questions in advance of the FY 2015 debate, they’d had some additional questions and they were given answers within a week.

12:28 a.m. Petersen says that some of the questions have been asked only very recently and many of the questions about SPARK have been answered.

12:31 a.m. Lumm says she would have preferred to postpone instead of tabling, but she knew it would be taken up back up off the table. Briere says she plans to bring this back on July 1 [but the council's next meeting is not until July 7].

12:33 a.m. Teall says she is angry not just that the SPARK resolution was tabled but that there was a rush to table. She reiterates that she’s angry about the fact that the council has departed from the style of interaction that they’d agreed to at their planning retreat.

12:34 a.m. Hieftje is ticking through standard talking points in support of SPARK and economic development.

12:34 a.m. Hieftje says that the tabling was “over the top.”

12:35 a.m. Clerk’s Report. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the clerk’s report.

12:35 a.m. Public Comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:37 a.m. Kai Petainen says that the difference in the jobs numbers reported by Ann Arbor SPARK and the state stems from how the numbers are reported. He’s reading aloud a note about intent to hire as being recorded as a success, but in the other report there are actual jobs reported.

12:39 a.m. Edward Vielmetti is now addressing the council. He said he thought they tabled something earlier in the meeting, but had they then discussed it at length later. They can discuss whatever they like, but he calls it “not a stunning display of council effectiveness.”

12:40 a.m. Closed Session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation.

1:05 a.m. We’re back.

1:05 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

June 16, 2014: City Council Meeting Preview

Dave Askins — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:45:45 +0000

The city council’s last meeting of the 2014 fiscal year on June 16, 2014 features an agenda packed with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure like bridges (including art), the sanitary sewer system and the stormwater system, as well as several resolutions related to construction of new sidewalks.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the June 16, 2014 meeting agenda.

Related to new sidewalk construction is a resolution that would authorize a $75,000 contract with the Greenway Collaborative, to support the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council in late 2013. Creating a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling sidewalk gaps in the city is part of task force’s responsibility.

In the final item with a DDA connection, the council will be asked to authorize $69,555 for the conversion of 223 mercury vapor cobrahead streetlights to LED technology. This project would convert streetlights that are all outside the DDA district. The project is on the city council’s agenda because the DDA board recently declined to fund a similar LED conversion project – for streetlights inside the DDA tax capture district.

Several other June 16 agenda items related to the downtown area, even if they don’t have an explicit DDA connection. Two of them involve changes to downtown zoning ordinances that have been recommended by the planning commission. The zoning question to be given initial consideration by the council is whether to downzone the southeast corner of William and Main streets from D1 to D2, but with a 100-foot height limit.

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

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s June 16 agenda is heavy with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges

Money for the design work is available in the approved FY 2014 public services area street millage capital budget.

The state of Michigan’s local bridge program pays for 95% of eligible construction expenses up to $790,000. The project will also receive $1,373,440 in federal surface transportation funding, administered through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The federal program pays for 81.85% of eligible construction expenses. But neither the state nor the federal sources will pay for the design work that the council’s action will fund.

Physical Infrastructure: Stadium Bridges Art

The council will be asked to approve a contract with Widgery Studio LLC to fabricate and install public art at the East Stadium Boulevard bridges. The city had already contracted with Widgery on May 20, 2014 for $8,248 to finalize the structural design of the artwork with an engineer. This amendment to the contract on the June 16 council agenda adds art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services.

This was one of the projects for which the city council left funding in place, when it voted on March 3, 2014 to transfer most of the unspent money from the now defunct Percent for Art funding program back to the funds from which the money was originally drawn.

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to the Ann Arbor public art commission and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

The public art commission recommended the project’s approval at its April 23, 2014 meeting.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along the north side of East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining

The council will be asked to approve the award of a $1,566,121 construction contract with Lanzo Lining Services for the 2014 sewer lining project.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the project includes the lining of about 18,028 lineal feet of sanitary sewer and 2,942 lineal feet of storm sewer at 16 locations throughout the city. The memo describes sewer lining as a “trenchless technology which enables the pipe to be repaired without disturbing the surface above.”

Physical Infrastructure: Manholes

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to award a $47,193 contract to Fonson Inc. for the Eighth Street sanitary sewer manhole replacement project.

The manholes in question are described in the staff memo accompanying the project as “101 years old, composed of brick and … disintegrating.” The deterioration of the manholes is attributed to corrosion from sewer gases, vibration from traffic, decades of freeze/thaw cycles and variations in hydrostatic soil pressures. The deteriorated condition includes spalling, weakened mortar, missing bricks and excessive groundwater infiltration, according to the memo.

Physical Infrastructure: Water Main

The council will be asked to award a $1,324,357 construction contract to Douglas N. Higgins Inc. for the Arbor Oaks Phase II water main replacement project.

This project will replace the older water mains in the Bryant neighborhood. The water mains in the neighborhood are described in a staff memo as experiencing frequent breaks and in generally poor condition. The project will install 1,100 feet of 12-inch water main and 2,360 feet of 8-inch water main along Santa Rosa Drive, Jay Lee Court, Lucerne Court, Burlingame Court, Blain Court, Hardyke Court, and Bryant Elementary School property. Included in the project is the resurfacing of the street, replacement of some curb and gutter, and reconstruction of some storm sewer structures.

Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms

Fire Station #3 is located on the city’s west side, on Jackson Road. Fire Station #4 is located on the city’s southeast side, on Huron Parkway. [Google Map of all five fire station locations]

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater

The skatepark is scheduled to have a grand opening on June 21 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Physical Infrastructure: Wastewater Study

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $62,800 contract with Black & Veatch Ltd. for a water & wastewater system capital cost recovery study.

Background to this contract is June 3, 2013 city council action to change the calculation of the water and sanitary improvement charges for properties connecting to city water mains or sanitary sewers – but only for a two-year period, from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2015. The effect of the council’s action was to reduce the connection charges considerably. It was understood at the time that the two-year period would allow for the hiring of a consultant to review the city’s fees and charges for connections to the water and sanitary sewer systems and make recommendations for revision. That’s why the Black & Veatch item appears on the council’s June 16 agenda.

The principles at stake are described in the staff memo accompanying the item as follows:

When making future changes to improvement charges and connection fees, it is important that various competing elements are satisfied. The fees must be easy to explain and easy to understand to be accepted by the users. The fees must recover costs equitably. The fees must not result in either an undue burden on existing rate payers of the systems or an undue burden on new customers connecting to the systems. The fees must be easily understood and neither over recover costs nor under recover costs. Any under-recovery of costs would place undue and inequitable financial burdens on current rate payers. To meet these goals and gain the experiences of other utilities, it is desirable to contract with a consulting firm that has nationwide experience in this area.

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve the amendment of a purchase order for stormwater services with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

The request of the council is to increase the amount of the existing contract with the water resources commissioner by $30,000. The existing contract was approved for FY 2011 for $69,215 with a 3% annual increase, which would have put the amount for FY 2014 and FY 2015 at $75,633 and $77,902, respectively. The council is being asked to approve funding at $105,633 and $107,902, for FY 2014 and FY 2015, respectively.

Informational Infrastructure: HR and Payroll Software

In 2007, the City installed a Human Resource and Payroll system called Ultipro, by Ultimate Software. The Ultipro system included modules for Recruiting, Benefits Administration, Human Resource Administration and Payroll. The City has experienced a variety of issues related to the underlying database architecture utilized by Ultimate Software. In addition, due to changes such as new legislative requirements, the increase in recruiting volume and the increase in manual data entry involved in benefits administration, the City has found the Ultipro system unable to meet its Human Resource needs.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

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

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk

So the requested action of the council on June 16 will be to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 7.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing

The city council had voted at its May 19, 2014 meeting to set the assessment roll and to schedule the public hearing for June 16.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing

Another public hearing based on previous council action at its May 19 meeting will be held at the June 16 meeting – on the special assessment to fund construction of a sidewalk on Scio Church Road.

For the Scio Church sidewalk project, the total cost is expected to be $365,100. Of that, about $164,000 will be paid from a federal surface transportation grant. The remaining $201,100 will be paid out of the city’s general fund and by the special assessment of just $1,626.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming

The council will be asked to approve a traffic calming project on Larchmont Drive at a cost of ~~$55,000~~ $8,800.

Larchmont traffic calming proposal: Three speed humps.

The action includes an appropriation for five other traffic calming projects, totaling $55,000.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant

The council will be asked to approve a $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the work of the pedestrian safety and access task force as a facilitator.

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

The resolution on the council’s June 16 meeting agenda comes after the council voted down a resolution at on April 7, 2014 that included a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations was familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting. But subsequently the city issued an RFP (requests for proposals) for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893]

Task force members participated in the selection process from among three respondents to the RFP. Besides Project Innovations and the Greenway Collaborative, ENP & Associates responded to the RFP. ENP is the consultant the city used for the recent review of downtown zoning.

Business Services

On the council’s agenda are two contracts that are approved annually – one for business development services and one for lobbying services.

Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK

Ann Arbor city council budget deliberations FY 2015: 4 Hrs 45 Min by amendment topic.

SPARK is also the entity with which the local development finance authority (LDFA) contracts for business accelerator services.

One of the proposed amendments to the FY 2015 budget would have decreased the amount of funding to SPARK from the LDFA, resulting in an increase to the amount the LDFA would have reserved for future infrastructure projects. The second budget amendment debated on May 19 would have eliminated the $75,000 in the FY 2015 budget for the contract the council will be asked to approve as part of its June 16 agenda.

Business Services: GCSI Lobbying

As a part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. for lobbying services. According to the memo accompanying the item, GCSI has contributed to Ann Arbor’s efforts to increase state funding for fire protection, land-use planning, and parks and recreation projects. GCSI is also supposed to monitor issues currently pending before the legislature and advocate for the city’s specific interests. GCSI has done this kind of work for the city of Arbor since 2001.

Downtown

The council will be handling several items on its June 16 agenda that relate to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority specifically, or the downtown area generally.

Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment

The council will be asked to approve a routine fiscal-year-end budget adjustment for the Ann Arbor DDA. The DDA board approved the adjustment at its June 4, 2014 meeting.

The main part of the adjustment is a $1.6 million payment made for the First & Washington parking garage, which is part of the City Apartments project. The amount was budgeted by the DDA for last year, but not paid until this year.

The DDA will end the fiscal year with $6,167,757 in fund balance. The breakdown of that total is: TIF ($619,571); Housing ($160,154); Parking ($2,161,676) and Parking Maintenance ($3,226,356).

Downtown: Affordable Housing Needs Assessment

Money from the city and DDA is being considered as “up to” amounts. Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of economic and community development (OCED), told the DDA board at its June 4 meeting that $75,000 from a HUD Sustainable Communities grant would be the first money spent toward the assessment.

The RFP for the needs study describes the timeline for the work as including a draft for review due at the end of October 2014, with a final presentation due in mid-December.

(Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion

The annual electric bill from DTE for the 223 streetlights is currently $45,128. After conversion, the projected annual cost will be $30,910. The savings would result in about a 3.1-year payback period on the net cost of $55,060.

None of the streetlights to be converted are in the DDA district.

Streetlights in the DDA district were part of a similar proposal considered by the DDA board at its May 7, 2014 meeting, but postponed by the board at that meeting until June 4. By the time of the June 4 meeting, however, a decision had already been made that the DDA would not be funding an LED conversion this year. [DTE's program has an annual cycle, but is not necessarily offered every year.] If the DDA board had approved funding for converting lights in the DDA district, it would have affected 212 non-LED streetlights.

Currently, the city pays DTE $72,585 a year for the energy used by the 212 downtown streetlights. After conversion, the annual cost for the 212 lights would be expected to drop to $51,895, for an annual savings of $20,690.

Downtown: Zoning, Character District

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

Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

Those initial Dec. 3, 2013 recommendations from the planning commission had come in response to a previous direction from the city council, given at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. The council’s action in early 2013 came in response to the controversial 413 E. Huron development. The items on the council’s June 16, 2014 agenda are just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission.

That set of initial recommendations from the planning commission to the city council – which the council then accepted and for which the council asked the planning commission to draft ordinance language – included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had also called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character overlay district – lower than the 100 feet put forward at the commission’s May 6 meeting. The site’s current zoning allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height.

At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Downtown: Hotel Site Plan

Rendering of proposed hotel at the northeast corner of West Huron and Ashley. The One North Main building is visible to the east.

The main hotel entrance is proposed for the building’s west side, facing North Ashley, while the main entrance for the restaurant or retail space is proposed to face West Huron, on the building’s south side. The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the downtown. According to the staff memo, five off-street parking spaces are required. First Martin has secured a letter of commitment from Zipcar, a car-sharing service, for two vehicles. Parking spaces for those cars are proposed at the northeast corner of the site. For purposes of the city’s parking requirement, the two Zipcars would count as eight off-street parking spaces, and would satisfy the requirement.

The two existing curbcuts – on North Ashley and West Huron – will be closed, and access to the two parking spaces, loading dock and trash/recycling would be from the mid-block alley to the north. The alley is currently one-way, and will be converted to a two-way alley and repaved.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron, looking north. One North Main is the building on the right. The city’s Ann Ashley parking structure is visible in the background.

Streetscape changes will include curb bump-outs on North Ashley, on the north and south ends of the site for passenger drop-off.

Nine bicycle parking spaces are required for the project, and would include two bike hoops in the North Ashley right-of-way and two in the West Huron right-of-way, for a total of eight bike spaces. Three more hoops are proposed for the Ann Ashley parking structure, with First Martin paying for labor and materials. The city of Ann Arbor and Downtown Development Authority would assume responsibility for maintenance of those hoops.

Construction is estimated to cost $13 million.

In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo noted that the Greyhound bus depot has been at that location since 1940, and the site has been a transportation hub since 1898.

Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan

Bank of Ann Arbor building at the northeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. The proposed renovations will create a “tower” entrance into the building at this corner.

The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on Jan. 14. The board suggested making the entry structure taller and more closely aligning the bank’s design features with those of the adjacent Ameritech building to the east.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density in the downtown area.

D1 zoning requires a special exception use for drive-thrus, which the planning commission considered on May 20 in a separate vote. Because the project is going through a site plan approval process, the requirement for a special exception use was triggered. Special exception uses do not require additional city council approval. The bank has an existing drive-thru teller window on its north side. No changes are planned to that configuration, however.

In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo said if the drive-thru were used more frequently, staff might suggest additional design features, like a more clearly marked crossing or differentiated surface materials. But because there are only 20-25 transactions per day at the drive-thru, and given the “successful history” of the existing drive-thru, staff was comfortable with it remaining as is, DiLeo said.

Downtown: Liberty Plaza

Mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are sponsoring a resolution that would direct the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

Courts Human Services

On the council’s June 16 agenda are several items related to the criminal justice system, specifically for some of the specialty courts operated by the 15th District Court.

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve an amendment to a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services – for mental health treatment services to people who are participating in the sobriety court and the mental health court. Also on the consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $44,200 amendment to a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court.

The council will be asked to approve a $108,174 amendment to a contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services. And finally, the consent agenda includes a resolution for a $40,000 amendment to a contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants.

Recycling

The council’s June 16 agenda includes three items related to recycling.

Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot

The council will be asked to approve a two-year $95,694 contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for a recycling incentive program for multi-family residential units.

This item is based on the city’s solid waste plan, which the city council adopted at its Oct. 7, 2013 meeting. The plan includes evaluating methods to increase recycling participation through pilot programs. Among those methods is the introduction of a recycling incentive program for multi‐family housing units.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, a manual sort of waste conducted in the fall of 2012 found that only 12% of the trash that single-family residents threw away was recyclable, compared to 26% of the trash that multi-family residents threw away.

The completion of the pilot program is expected in December 2016.

According to the memo, Recycle Ann Arbor’s proposal includes:

Gather information on best multi-family recycling practices in North America.
Survey and/or interview key multi-family constituencies in Ann Arbor to better understand the challenges and opportunities for recycling in this sector. Based on feedback received, develop 3 to 5 methodologies for further testing and analysis.
Identify pilot parameters and measurement protocols.
Identify pilot communities to involve in the pilot programs (ultimately targeting approximately 1,000 units) and ramp up pilot start-up.
Implement pilot programs.
Analyze results of pilot programs.
Provide detailed recommendations to the City on best practices and report results to participating multi-family communities.

Methodologies that will be tested as part of the pilot will include the following:

Recycling rewards program: Evaluate if a recycling rewards program would be effective in improving recycling participation rates in multi-family locations
Indoor collection bins: Most multi-family locations share outdoor recycling bins. Determine if the provision of indoor recycling bins would help increase recycling rates.
Multi-family recycling leader program: Determine if the use of recycling leaders at individual locations would help increase recycling rates.
300-gallon recycling cart: Determine if the use of 300-gallon carts instead of the standard 96-gallon cart would help increase recycling.

Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair

According to a staff memo accompanying the item, the belt was last replaced in 2007, and has worn out. Such conveyors are described in the memo as lasting five to seven years.

Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $35,000 annual contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for services associated with the move-out of University of Michigan students.

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

County Board Handles Budget, Policy Items

Mary Morgan — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:45:46 +0000

Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting (March 19, 2014): Budget and finance issues were the focus of several items at the March 19 meeting, including a report that the county saw a $3.92 million surplus for its general fund in 2013. The county’s fiscal year is the same as the calendar year. Total general fund revenues were $105.797 million, with total expenses of $101.876 million.

Pat Kelly, former Dexter Township supervisor, talks with county commissioner Conan Smith and finance director Kelly Belknap before the March 19, 2014 county board meeting. The board passed a resolution of appreciation for Pat Kelly during the meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The board also heard from county treasurer Catherine McClary, who reported that foreclosures are decreasing, as are delinquent taxes. Delinquent taxes are a leading economic indicator for both mortgage foreclosures and tax foreclosures, she noted, so the decreases are good news. Commissioners gave initial authorization to the treasurer’s office to borrow up to $30 million against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all of the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions, an annual process.

Commissioners also authorized the county administrator to hire a contract employee who will support budget-related work this year for the county board and administration. The vote came over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr., who felt the work could be absorbed by existing staff.

The budget was also the focus of an update from lobbyist Kirk Profit and his colleague Gary Owen at Lansing-based Governmental Consultant Services Inc., who talked about how action in the state government might impact Washtenaw County. GCSI is the lobbyist for the county and several other local governments, including the city of Ann Arbor. Their updates included the fact that legislation has been introduced to repeal Act 88, which the county uses to levy taxes for economic development and agriculture. This year, the county has budgeted $973,000 in revenues from an Act 88 levy.

In other action, the board appointed former Superior Township supervisor Bill McFarlane to the county road commission board, to fill the seat left vacant by the recent death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. The remainder of that six-year term runs through Dec. 31, 2014.

Commissioners supported McFarlane, but also discussed the possibility of changing the process so that interviews with applicants would be held at a public meeting. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), who as board chair makes these nominations, described the process of nominating a new road commissioner as a difficult one, and highlighted the need for a five-member road commission. Currently the road commission board consists of three members. It’s an issue that Rabhi plans to bring up at an April 17 working session.

The board also took a step toward allowing employees to get health insurance coverage for the treatment of autism. Commissioners gave initial approval that would authorize adding an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) rider to existing active employee and retiree benefits.

And a resolution to oppose a mineral mining operation in Lyndon Township drew criticism from Dan Smith (R-District 2), who objected to the county board weighing in on an issue that’s not within its purview. Other commissioners felt the county had a vested interest in formally voicing an opinion, both because of broader economic and environmental impacts that would affect residents, and because the county parks & recreation commission owns property in the township. Smith’s decision to state “present” – rather than casting a yes or no vote – resulted in brief discussion about board rules.

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining

A resolution opposing a mineral mining proposal in Lyndon Township appeared on the March 19 agenda.

The resolution stated that the county board “formally opposes the establishment of the proposed McCoig Materials mining operation in Lyndon Township on the basis of the very serious negative consequences to the surrounding communities.” The company is proposing a sand and gravel mine on 189 acres north of Chelsea on M-52. The rural site is located near several parks and nature areas, including Waterloo State Recreation Area, the Pinckney State Recreation Area, Park Lyndon, the Green Lake Camping area, and the Waterloo-Pinckney Hiking Trail. Over 31,000 acres of protected land is located in that area.

McCoig is asking Lyndon Township for special land use zoning and has submitted an application for a mineral mining operation. Public hearings on the issue have drawn heavy opposition. On its website, the township has noted that its authority is limited:

Michigan State Legislators have greatly reduced township control by passing Act 110 of 2006 (125.3205). Under that law, the township must not “prevent the extraction, by mining, of valuable natural resources from any property unless very serious consequences would result from the extraction of those natural resources. Natural resources are considered valuable for the purposes of this section if a person, by extracting the natural resources, can receive revenue and reasonably expect to operate at a profit.” The township’s authority is limited to “reasonable regulation of hours of operation, blasting hours, noise levels, dust control measures, and traffic that are not preempted by part 632 of the Michigan environmental laws,” 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.63201 to 324.63223.

The county board’s resolution addresses these issues, stating in its “whereas” clauses that “the noise, dust, air pollution, and additional heavy traffic generated by the operation of the mine and the transportation of the minerals will likely have serious negative consequences for the natural environment and wildlife …” [.pdf of full resolution]

The issue was also raised during the March 11, 2014 meeting of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission. WCPARC director Bob Tetens subsequently sent a letter to Lyndon Township supervisor Mark Keezer outlining several concerns with the project. [.pdf of Tetens letter] The letter indicates that WCPARC is willing to purchase the property.

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining: Public Commentary

A resident of Lyndon Township spoke during public commentary, saying he’s not anti-mining. “But my mama taught me there’s a right place for everything, and in the heart of the largest state recreation area in the lower Peninsula is not the right place.” He strongly encouraged commissioners to pass the resolution and to do everything in their powers to support the citizenry, “who I can tell you is very strongly against this.”

Larry Murphy, a Scio Township resident, told commissioners that he’s a candidate for the county board. [Murphy, a Republican, has filed to run for the Aug. 5 primary in District 1. The seat is currently held by Democrat Kent Martinez-Kratz, who is running for re-election.] Murphy said he attended the public meeting earlier in the month about this proposal, which was held by the Lyndon Township planning commission. He said he was shocked that about 500 people attended. It’s really a disaster in terms of the environment and the effect on recreation, Murphy said. It’s also a disaster in terms of transportation, because of the trucks that would be going through downtown Chelsea. He encouraged the board to oppose this project. He wanted people to know that opposition to this is bi-partisan. “This mining company, McCoig, has no support, no friends in Washtenaw County,” Murphy concluded.

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining: Board Discussion

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) – who represents the county district that includes Lyndon Township – described the situation, noting that the mining would directly affect a county park. Park Lyndon shares a lake with the proposed sand mine, he noted, and the company plans to use water from the lake as part of its mining operation. He pointed to the letter by Bob Tetens, director of the county parks & recreation commission, as giving a good explanation of the objections. Martinez-Kratz also noted that about 700 people had attended two public meetings in the township, overwhelmingly opposed to this proposal. He thought the community would appreciate the county’s opposition.

From left: Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Dan Smith (R-District 2) spoke about process and the county board’s role. “It seems that this board simply can’t mind its own business. Here we are, yet again, sticking our nose in someone else’s business.” This is a matter for Lyndon Township to decide what’s best for them, he said. The planning commission is holding public hearings and getting lots of public comment. The planning commission will review that public comment, as well as the advice from their attorneys, and make a decision. The township board will subsequently weigh in as well. If voters are unhappy about that, they have a right of referendum, Smith noted. Residents can circulate petitions and perhaps overturn whatever decision is made. If a lawsuit occurs, it will be the taxpayers of Lyndon Township who’ll be paying for it, he noted.

It’s not the job of the county board to sort out these issues, Smith said. This isn’t under the county’s control, he added, “and I wish you would stop having things in front of us that are not under our purview.” [In general, Smith has consistently objected to resolutions weighing in on issues – usually at the state level – that are outside the purview of the county board.]

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he appreciated Dan Smith’s position that the township board will be making the decision. But Washtenaw County is a significant landowner in Lyndon Township, he noted, with properties including Park Lyndon and West Lake Preserve. The resolution that the board is considering plainly articulates the impacts on natural resources as being the main driver of the county’s concern, C. Smith said. The township is gathering public opinion, and the county as a landowner has an interest in that land and the possible impacts of the mining facility. “It’s right for us to articulate our concerns,” he said. The resolution doesn’t carry any more weight than other landholders, he said, and he supported it.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) asked whether the Lyndon Township board supported or opposed the mining proposal. Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) didn’t think the township board had made a determination – that’s why they’re soliciting public comment. Sizemore wondered what the county board’s resolution would do. Rabhi replied that it expresses the board’s opposition to the mining operation.

Sizemore said Dan Smith had a point about it being the township’s business. But Sizemore noted that he served on the county parks & recreation commission, which has a lot of land there, so he’d support the resolution. [Dan Smith and Conan Smith also serve on the parks & recreation commission.]

Kent Martinez-Kratz (D-District 1) talks with former Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly.

Rabhi thanked Martinez-Kratz for advocating on this issue. Rabhi noted that his own personal interest in it stems from his background in environmental studies. He’s heard from people at the University of Michigan that they also have concerns about this project. Rabhi called Tetens’ letter well-stated, outlining many concerns that people share. It’s a community-wide issue, he said, not just isolated to the township. Lyndon Township is within Washtenaw County, and the county has a duty to take a stance on this – because the environment in the county is a countywide asset to all citizens. “We are doing the right thing by passing this resolution in opposition of the mining operations in Lyndon Township,” Rabhi said. It should be a concern for all of Washtenaw County.

Dan Smith countered that if the state wanted the county board to have control over land use, then the legislature could amend the zoning enabling act. In some states, land use is a county matter, he said. If that were the case, then the question of this mining operation would rightfully be before the county board, and it would make the determination.

The proper response, D. Smith continued, is in Tetens’ letter, where Tetens indicated the willingness of the parks & recreation commission to buy the property. It makes perfect sense for natural areas preservation, he said.

Martinez-Kratz thought the state would want the county board to advocate on issues that are important to the county. This issue is important for economic and environmental reasons, he said. It won’t be resolved quickly, and he thought that township officials would look for guidance from the county as well as from the township residents.

Outcome: The resolution passed. Alicia Ping (R-District 3) was absent, and Dan Smith (R-District 2) stated “present.”

Lyndon Township Mineral Mining: The Vote – Coda

Kent Martinez-Kratz asked corporation counsel Curtis Hedger for clarification about how Dan Smith’s vote would be recorded. The board rules state that a commissioner must vote yes or no unless there’s a conflict of interest, but Hedger noted that there’s no mechanism to enforce the rule.

Hedger said he did some research, because Smith had indicated that he would be making the “present” statement. It will be recorded that Smith stated “present,” Hedger said. But because it takes an affirmative vote to approve a resolution, then anything else is considered a “soft no.” Yousef Rabhi recommended making a note next to the vote, indicating that it’s not in keeping with the board rules.

Specifically, the board rules – as adopted unanimously by commissioners at their Jan. 8, 2014 meeting – state:

O.  VOTING:

Every  member  who  shall  be  present,  including  the  Chair,  when  a  motion  is  last  stated  by  the  Chair,  and  no  other,  shall  vote  for  or  against  the motion  unless  the  member  has  a  conflict  of  interest,  in  which  case  the  member  shall  not  vote.

1.  Roll  Call  Vote:

Roll  call  vote  shall  be  taken  when  called  for  by  any  member  of  the  Board,  and  on  board actions  to  adopt  ordinances,  resolutions  and  the  appointment  or  election  of  officers.

2.  Votes  Required:

Procedural  and  other  questions  arising  at  a  meeting  of  the  Commissioners,  except  for  those  decisions  required  by  statute  or  by  these  rules (Specifically,  Rule  II  F – Closing  Debate  in  Committees  and  Rule  III  R – Suspension/ Amendment  or  Rescission  of  Board  Rules)  to  have  a  higher  majority,  shall  be  decided  by  a  majority  of  the  members  present.  A  majority  of  the  members  elected  and  serving,  however, shall  be  required  for  the  final  passage  or  adoption  of  a  motion,  resolution  or  allowance  of  a  claim.

Ronnie Peterson noted that commissioners are individually elected, and they can choose to vote or not vote. Every commissioner stands by their individual commitments to vote, he said. The resolution passed with majority support, he noted. The board establishes its practices and norms by example, Peterson said. Whatever the board finds acceptable is how it will function, regardless of what the official rules state, he added. “I don’t like that, but we’ve established that in the past.”

Appointments

At the board’s March 19 meeting, Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) made nominations to six county committees, commissions and boards. [.pdf of application packet] Nominations are made by the board chair, with confirmation of the appointments made by a vote of the full board.

Appointments: Road Commission Board

Yousef Rabhi nominated former Superior Township supervisor Bill McFarlane to the Washtenaw County road commission board, to fill the seat left vacant by the recent death of long-time road commissioner Fred Veigel. The remainder of that six-year term runs through Dec. 31, 2014. Unlike most other county-appointed boards, road commissioners receive annual compensation of $10,500.

Superior Township supervisor Ken Schwartz, a former road commissioner.

McFarlane was among 10 applicants for the position. Others who applied included former county commissioner Rob Turner; Mike Henry, chair of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party; and University Bank CEO Stephen Ranzini.

During the evening’s first opportunity for public commentary, Ken Schwartz – a former county commissioner, former road commissioner and current supervisor of Superior Township – spoke briefly in support of McFarlane’s appointment. He noted that McFarlane was very experienced in local government. McFarlane had served as Superior Township’s supervisor for 22 years and before that worked for the sheriff’s department. “Bill is more than qualified to step in,” Schwartz said. McFarlane has worked with municipal budgets, and understands the difference between primary roads and local roads. He’d be an excellent choice, Schwartz concluded.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) said he was glad that McFarlane would be back working for the county. He described McFarlane as very bright and “super genial,” and as someone who is trusted by the communities that are impacted by decisions of the road commission.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) described McFarlane as a personal friend, and said there was no question about his integrity. He was pleased that McFarlane was willing to serve, and he supported the nomination.

However, Peterson said he was concerned about following proper procedures, and that the board hadn’t always done that. In the past, they’d gotten rid of a 24-year veteran on the road commission, Peterson said, “through a process that was very questionable.” [Peterson didn't mention any names, but was possibly referring to Steve Puuri, who retired as managing director of the road commission in 2011 after nearly 25 years.]

Following the rules and procedures is the only way that people know that something is being done in a fair, consistent way, he said. Peterson questioned why there hadn’t been public interviews of potential candidates to the road commission board.

Peterson also said he hadn’t yet heard about the recommendations regarding the future of the road commission, which a board subcommittee had undertaken. He wanted to have some discussion about that. If the nomination were anyone else besides McFarlane, Peterson said he might not vote for that person, because he didn’t think the process had been fair, clear or consistent.

Conan Smith responded, saying that candidates for the road commission in the past had been interviewed, but that hadn’t happened for at least seven years. The more recent appointments to the road commission hadn’t been made that way, he noted, and perhaps the board should return to its past practice. He said he knew how rough it was for the board chair to have to make the decision.

C. Smith noted that since the current appointment runs only through the end of 2014, there would be a chance soon to implement an interview process when the county board makes an appointment for the term that begins on Jan. 1, 2015. He thought it would be very valuable for the public to have input.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) said he supported McFarlane. He disagreed with Peterson and C. Smith, saying that citizens elected the county commissioners so that the commissioners would make decisions. It’s the board’s job to make these appointments, he said, not to set up an advisory committee to make recommendations. He thought the board was letting go of its authority, and letting residents decide “when they don’t know a third of the story.”

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) noted that the road commission would be the topic of an April 17 working session, which he chairs. He suggested continuing discussion of the issue at that time. The working session will also include a report from the subcommittee that is making recommendations on the future of the road commission. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “No Major Change Likely for Road Commission.”]

Rabhi described the process of nominating a new road commissioner as a difficult one. He appreciated the diversity of backgrounds among the applicants. He said he called all 10 applicants for 15-30 minutes or more, to talk about their interests and qualifications. “It was a very hard and stressful process for me.” McFarlane has the qualifications necessary to fill this vacancy, Rabhi said, and he was happy to put his name forward.

Rabhi said it would be great to find a way to engage all the applicants, who are passionate about roads and road funding. Perhaps there’s a way to do that in an ongoing basis, he said.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8), chair of the county board.

Noting that this might be extremely controversial, Rabhi then said the county needs a five-member road commission. Currently the road commission board consists of three members. “This process highlighted that need” to expand, he said. With five members, the road commission would have more representation from more backgrounds and more parts of the community. That would result in a more productive dialogue than three commissioners can have, Rabhi said, especially given the restrictions of the state’s Open Meetings Act.

It’s an issue that Rabhi plans to bring up at the April 17 working session.

Rabhi said he’d love to hear about how the public interview process has worked in the past, noting that he wasn’t on the board when those kind of interviews occurred. He’d like to review that process, as long as it’s not taking away the decision-making from the board.

In this case, given the vacancy and the need for a full road commission board, a new commissioner needed to be appointed quickly, Rabhi said. He again stressed that he’d spent a lot of time talking to applicants as well as to fellow county commissioners, to get their input. He hoped the board would support McFarlane.

Sizemore wanted to know when the county board could change the pay of the road commissioners. Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger said it can’t be done during a road commissioner’s current term. It would have to be done and take effect at the beginning of the new term. Sizemore said that if the road commission board is expanded to five members, perhaps the salary should be reduced to $6,000 each. Hedger pointed out that there would be varying salaries for a period, because the terms for the road commissioners are staggered.

Peterson said he didn’t know where the idea of having a citizens advisory committee had come from, and emphasized that the appointments are made by the board. Whatever process is put in place should also be decided by the board, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously appointed Bill McFarlane to the Washtenaw County road commission.

Later in the meeting, Ronnie Peterson asked whether expanding the road commission to five members would actually mean dissolving the existing road commission and establishing a new one. He asked corporation counsel Curtis Hedger to research that question. He said he wasn’t advocating for it, and joked that he hoped people wouldn’t call him about it.

Yousef Rabhi also suggested that the board might consider designating positions on the road commission board based on specific skills – like community outreach, or technical expertise – so that there’s more diversity of background, especially if the road commission board is expanded to five members. It might even include geographic designations, he said. That might be something else that Hedger could explore.

In general, Rabhi said he wanted to move road commission appointments away from being political and more toward being policy-driven.

Appointments: Other Commissions & Committees

Yousef Rabhi made several other nominations on March 19:

Accommodations ordinance commission, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014: Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).
Agricultural lands preservation advisory committee, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014: Erica Bloom (environmental/conservation group/natural resources professional).
Workforce development board, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2016: John Haberthy (private sector) and Matthew Sandstrom (private sector).

In addition, five nominations were made to the Act 88 advisory committee, for terms ending Dec. 31, 2014. Three county commissioners – Conan Smith (D-District 9), Alicia Ping (R-District 3) and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) – were appointed, along with citizens Todd Clark and Art Serafinski.

Action on appointing the Act 88 advisory committee had been originally considered at the board’s Feb. 19, 2014 meeting. The item was postponed after Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns over the policy governing the committee’s role. The committee had been created at the board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, as part of a broader policy to help the board allocate revenues levied under Act 88 of 1913. No appointments had been made at that time, however. The county levies the tax to fund economic development and agricultural activities, including Ann Arbor SPARK. [.pdf of March 19 staff memo on Act 88]

Outcome: All appointments were approved by the board.

Staff for Budget Work

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a proposal to hire a contract position that would support budget-related work for the county board and administration. The item had been originally considered, but postponed, at the board’s meeting on Feb. 5, 2014. It was subsequently given initial approval on March 5, 2014.

County administrator Verna McDaniel.

This process started on Nov. 20, 2013 meeting, when commissioners gave direction to county administrator Verna McDaniel to research and recommend staffing options that would support the board’s community investment priorities. As part of adopting a four-year budget, the board set up a new strategic model to help it determine where the county’s resources should go. The board set goals as well as outcomes that are intended to measure how those goals are being achieved.

The priority areas for investment that were approved by the board in 2013 are: (1) ensure community safety net through health and human services, inclusive of public safety; (2) increase economic opportunity and workforce development; (3) ensure mobility and civic infrastructure for county residents; (4) reduce environmental impact; and (5) ensure internal labor force sustainability and effectiveness.

The dollar amount for this position wasn’t included in the resolution, which stated that “compensation shall not exceed the scope of the Administrator’s authority.” The administrator has discretion to spend up to $50,000 on professional services contracts, and up to $100,000 for any proposed goods, services, new construction or renovation. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution] A four-page job description had been included in the Feb. 5 board packet. The person would report to the county administrator in terms of daily operations. [.pdf of job description] [.pdf of scope of services]

The issue was debated at some length during the board’s Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, when commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) questioned the process for hiring this kind of staff support. On Feb. 5, several commissioners expressed concern about spending money on this position and wanted more details about funding and duties, which led to the postponement. There was no discussion about the item on March 5, when it was given initial approval on a 7-1 vote, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) had been absent.

Staff for Budget Work: Board Discussion

On March 19, Ronnie Peterson asked for the item to be pulled out for a separate vote. He said he supported the staff position, but wanted to clarify some things. He joked that the chair, Yousef Rabhi, “took me to the back room, to make sure I did not waver.”

Peterson referred to the following “whereas” clause, highlighting a reference to the board leadership:

WHEREAS, upon approval, the Administrator is directed to work with Board Leadership to contractually engage a qualified professional to assist the BOC to develop strategies and provide oversight for the integration of Board-defined community impacts and outcomes into organizational and departmental programs, policies and budget priorities and;

Peterson said he wasn’t part of the board leadership, and he wanted to know how they perceived the role of this new employee. [The leadership includes board chair Yousef Rabhi; vice chair Alicia Ping; Felicia Brabec, chair of the ways & means committee; and Andy LaBarre, chair of the working sessions.] How would the communication flow from the leadership to the rest of the board? Peterson asked. He noted that the new staff person would be under the supervision of the county administrator, but would report to the board.

Felicia Brabec said that the “whereas” clause relates to hiring the person, and she encouraged all commissioners to be involved in that process. She was open to changing “board leadership” to simply “the board.”

Regarding the flow of information, Brabec said the person would regularly come to board meetings to update commissioners about the work. That way, commissioners would be on the same page when they needed to make decisions for the budget reaffirmation later this year, she said.

Rabhi supported an amendment to strike the phrase “to work with Board Leadership.” But Conan Smith said he thought the board should be involved in the hiring. Peterson agreed, saying the board should be very open about this hiring, and should let other employees know what this person will be doing. The role should be clearly defined, he said. Peterson agreed that the entire board should be involved, not just the leadership.

The proposed amendment changed the “whereas” clause to state [emphasis added]:

WHEREAS, upon approval, the Administrator is directed to work with the Board to contractually engage a qualified professional to assist the BOC to develop strategies and provide oversight for the integration of Board-defined community impacts and outcomes into organizational and departmental programs, policies and budget priorities and;

Outcome on amendment: On a voice vote, commissioners approved the amended “whereas” clause.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5).

Rolland Sizemore Jr. wondered whether in the future he should contact county administrator Verna McDaniel, or the new staff person that would be hired. He was skeptical about the need to hire someone new. “We’ve already got 1,300 employees, but you guys feel we need to hire somebody else to do Verna’s job, and Verna’s job is to tell somebody on her staff to get some work done.”

Sizemore also asked why there were no dollar amounts specified in the resolution for this new hire, or a timeframe for this work. Finally, he asked whether the county would also need to hire someone to implement the recommendations made by the new employee. He didn’t support the hire, saying that the county already had staff who could do this work.

Brabec and McDaniel clarified that the contract would likely be between $50,000 to $75,000, and would not exceed the amount that the county administrator is allowed to spend without board approval – a $100,000 limit. In terms of a timeframe, McDaniel said it would likely be a contract at least through 2014. The board would need to decide whether the work would continue beyond that, she said.

Sizemore noted that not long ago, the county was poised to borrow up to $350 million “because we were in such desperate straits,” but now there’s money to hire someone new. He would not support the resolution. [Sizemore was referring to a bond proposal that had been floated in early 2013 to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations. McDaniel had initially said the bond was crucial to the county's financial health, but the proposal was dropped in July of 2013 amid concerns over cost and process, as well as uncertainty related to the state approval process that was required for this type of bonding.]

Outcome: The resolution on hiring a contract employee for budget work passed on a 6-1 vote, over dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. Dan Smith was out of the room when the vote was taken, and Alicia Ping was absent.

Autism Coverage

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) brought forward a resolution from the floor, authorizing the county to provide health insurance coverage for the treatment of autism. The resolution would authorize adding an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) rider to existing active employee and retiree benefits. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Adding the rider would cost the county an estimated $182,589 this year, according to staff – to be paid to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. To cover that cost, each county department will be charged on a per-employee basis. In addition, the county will pay for claims made by employees for this benefit, with the assumption that most if not all claims would be reimbursed by the state. LaBarre described the amount of claims that the county might be required to pay as a “moving target, but one I think we can meet.” He said the policy is needed for employee recruitment and retention, as well as for the “basic moral argument” that coverage should be provided.

Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

The board has been discussing this possibility for several months. LaBarre noted that Conan Smith (D-District 9) had brought up the issue last fall, pointing out that the county didn’t provide full mental health parity. That was because of budgetary constraints, LaBarre said.

At its Jan. 22, 2014 meeting, the board received a staff presentation about the possibility of offering such coverage. Colleen Allen, CEO of the Autism Alliance of Michigan, attended that meeting to answer questions and advocate for coverage. The board created a committee to explore the cost to the county for providing employee health insurance coverage for autism. Committee members were LaBarre, Felicia Brabec (D-District 4), and Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6). The committee’s charge was to (1) investigate the cost and sustainability of coverage of autism spectrum disorders; and (2) recommend a policy providing and funding coverage if the state reimbursement fund is exhausted.

The federal Mental Health Parity & Addiction Equity Act of 2008 mandates that any group plan with 50 or more members – like Washtenaw County government – must offer both medical and mental health benefits. Under more recent federal health care reform, there’s been an expansion of benefits, and mental health benefits are considered a mandatory part of basic health care, starting this year. However, autism isn’t included as part of that mental health mandate.

On the state level, in October 2012 a state of Michigan mandate took effect stating that all fully insured plans must provide coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The county is not a fully insured plan, however. Because the county is self-funded, it was exempt from this state mandate.

The costs of treatment are estimated to be about $60,000 a year to cover a child with autism. The state of Michigan has made coverage a priority, and has started setting aside funds to reimburse organizations that provide coverage. In fiscal year 2012-13, $15 million was made available, with an additional $11 million in fiscal 2013-14. Of that, only about $500,000 has been expended on reimbursements. The program is handled by the Michigan Dept. of Insurance and Financial Services.

The state program provides for reimbursement of up to $50,000 per year per child between the ages of 0 to 6, up to $40,000 per year from ages 7-12, and up to $30,000 per year for ages 13-18.

County staff have estimated that offering the coverage would result in up to a 5% increase in medical expenses, or up to $1 million annually. This year, medical expenses are budgeted at about $20 million. The county is expected to be fully reimbursed by the state of Michigan for the amounts that are allowed under the autism program.

The resolution given initial approval on March 19 included two resolved clauses:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners authorizes the implementation of the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ADS) rider to existing active and retiree as soon as feasibly possible through Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, providing mental health and physical health parity.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Washtenaw County commits to a review of claims paid and/or reimbursed on an annual basis as our individual experience is not yet known. Such review would occur prior to the annual review process with Blue Cross/Blue Shield to determine if such benefit (rider) would be continued in the next year of benefits.

Autism Coverage: Board Discussion

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) thanked the committee and staff for their work. He asked Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, what percentage of costs the county could be expected to bear for this coverage.

Heidt described the annual payment to Blue Cross Blue Shield – of about $182,000 – as a kind of “permission slip” that would allow the county to offer the coverage. That amount will be pre-funded from the county’s medical fund reserves, and it will then be charged out to each county department based on the number of employees in each department – both general fund employees and non-general fund employees.

Employees that take advantage of the coverage would pay if there’s a deductible on their current insurance plan, or if there’s co-insurance, Heidt explained. The majority of employees pay 10% as co-insurance. She reminded the board that the administration is still negotiating with unions that represent about 300 employees at the sheriff’s office, so the benefits for those employees are different at this point.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

The remainder of the claim would be paid by the county, with the expectation that the county would be reimbursed from the state, based on the age of the child that’s receiving treatment. The annual state reimbursement levels are $50,000 through age 6, $40,000 from ages 7-12, and $30,000 from ages 13-18.

Rabhi noted that Lansing is “a very dynamic place,” and he wondered what the impact would be if the state reimbursement program is eliminated. Heidt replied that currently about $25 million is available in the state reimbursement fund. The committee recommends that the county review the benefits and claims annually, to determine if the coverage would continue to be offered in the following year, Heidt said.

Rabhi noted that once the county offers a benefit, it’s hard to take that benefit away. If for some unforeseen reason there’s suddenly no money available from the state, he said, the county would need to evaluate if it’s a benefit that they can continue to pay for. But it’s hard to see the county removing that benefit, he said. Heidt stressed the importance of annually evaluating the county’s expenses, because at this point it’s unclear how many employees will take advantage of the coverage.

Rabhi supported offering coverage, but wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t a guarantee every year. He was concerned about what might happen if state funding disappeared, and what impact that would have on employees as well as on the county budget. He also noted that a lot of the county’s departments that get funding primarily from non-general fund sources are short on cash. What kind of burden will this coverage place on those departments? Heidt replied that of the $182,000 total, about $102,000 of that will be charged to non-general fund departments, based on the number of employees in each of those departments.

But this year, that $182,000 total would be pro-rated based on when the coverage begins, she noted – so that total amount will likely be only about $75,000 this year, since the coverage won’t be started until well into the year.

Rabhi said he wanted to be clear that the families who access this benefit aren’t a burden – that’s not what he meant. He was simply trying to understand the dollars that the county will be spending.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked about the $182,589 payment to Blue Cross Blue Shield, noting that it effectively doubles the cost of providing the coverage. He wondered what BCBS was doing with that money. Heidt replied that BCBS is charging that amount in anticipation of the claims that might be made. Based on whatever the county’s actual experience is with autism claims, that annual payment to BCBS might be less in the following year, she said. Smith asked what the dollars are used for within the insurance company. County administrator Verna McDaniel said that the basic understanding is that the money goes into an insurance pool, but beyond that, it’s not clear how it is allocated.

Smith said the issue of autism coverage didn’t arise because there’s state funding available for reimbursement. It came up because of the desire for mental health parity, and because many commissioners thought the county already provided autism coverage and were surprised when that wasn’t the case. Every other mental health issue is covered. Heidt noted that autism is the only mental health issue that doesn’t have coverage mandated by the state. Smith wondered how it’s possible that this relatively minor coverage is costing the equivalent of $15 per employee per month to add to the county’s health care costs. Heidt said it’s probably because there are so many unknowns.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Smith asked how the cost of the autism rider compares to other riders that the county has with BCBS. Heidt said it’s been a long time since the county added a new rider, so she didn’t have those costs broken out. Smith replied that he “loved the Blues” and has been covered by that entity his entire life. But he wanted some sort of explanation about how BCBS calculates the autism rider. Heidt said she’d talk to the county’s BCBS agent to get more information.

LaBarre agreed with Rabhi about the county needing to go into this with “our eyes wide open.” The county can leverage state funds now, but it’s not a given in the future. LaBarre noted that some commissioners wonder why this isn’t being done as part of the budget reaffirmation later this year. It’s not without risk in terms of cost, he said, but the merits of doing it as soon as possible make it worth supporting.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) said he hoped the county never takes back the benefits offered to employees. They should figure out how to finance this benefit, regardless of state aid. It’s about making a commitment to employees who have made previous sacrifices, he said.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said he was happy to move this item forward for an initial vote. But because of the budgetary impacts it has, and the fact that the county is barely three months into a four-year budget, he hoped that it would come back to the board for final approval not on April 2 but rather as part of the board’s budget reaffirmation process later in the year. At that time, they’d have a better handle on the county’s finances for the year and how the county could fund this benefit, he said.

Felicia Brabec (D-District 4) thanked the staff for working on this issue, saying it was important to “right this wrong.” She agreed that it was important to figure out how to pay for the benefit if the state fund is eliminated, but it’s important to move this forward so that families who need this benefit can access it.

Brabec noted that Heidt is working on how families can get coverage for older children, from ages 18-26, who aren’t eligible for reimbursement from the state.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to offering autism coverage.

2013 Year-End Financial Update

County administrator Verna McDaniel introduced the year-end financial update by telling commissioners that “I think you’ll be pleased.” [.pdf of financial update]

Tina Gavalier, the county’s finance analyst, delivered the report. She noted that the audit is still in progress so these are preliminary results. It’s unlikely that anything will change drastically, she added.

From left: Washtenaw County finance director Kelly Belknap and finance analyst Tina Gavalier.

The county had a projected general fund revenue surplus of $2.356 million for the year. Surpluses in several areas contributed to that result, including intergovernmental revenue ($1.3 million, primarily due to payments in state revenue-sharing), fees and service revenue from the county clerk/register of deeds office ($591,000), and the sheriff’s office ($495,000).

On the expenditure side, the county spent $1.564 million less than budgeted. The bulk of that comes from $1.338 million in personnel savings from attrition, position vacancies, and planned reductions. Over $1 million of that was in the sheriff’s office, Gavalier reported, where there are 25 vacancies.

The total year-end surplus for the general fund was $3.92 million. Total revenues were $105.797 million, with total expenses of $101.876 million.

Looking ahead, Gavalier noted that there are several areas to monitor, including child care fund expenditures that are rising due to caseload and placements. [The child care fund is a joint effort between state and county governments to fund programs that serve neglected, abused and delinquent youth in Michigan. Fifty percent of the fund comes from state dollars.]

Other issues to watch that could have a financial impact include fringe benefit projections and trends, personal property tax reform, the possible legislative repeal of Act 88, and state revenue-sharing/county incentive program payments. Regarding Act 88, Gavalier noted that the county has budgeted $973,000 in revenues from an Act 88 levy in 2014, to fund economic development and agricultural-related programs. “So if that’s repealed, there are some decisions that will need to be made,” she said.

Gavalier outlined the next steps for budget-related action that involves the board. The 2014 equalization report will be presented in April, along with a year‐end audit and financial statement. Quarterly budget updates for 2014 will occur in May, August and November. And this fall, the board will make a budget affirmation, with possible amendments to the remaining years of the four-year budget that was adopted in late 2013, for the period from 2014 through 2017.

McDaniel told the board that the county was recently notified that it’s receiving a national Alliance for Innovation award for its four-year budget. [Former Washtenaw County administrator Bob Guenzel previously served on the board of that group, which is based in Phoenix.]

2013 Year-End Financial Update: Board Discussion

Conan Smith (D-District 9) asked Tina Gavalier for more details about the intergovernmental revenue line item. She replied that the surplus of about $1.3 million comes from combining federal, state and local government revenues going into the general fund. Most of that came from a $1.495 million surplus in state revenue-sharing. The county received $9,602,028 in state-revenue sharing in 2013, compared to the budgeted amount of $7,665,098. The $1.495 million surplus in state-revenue sharing was offset by a $238,046 shortfall in local government revenue.

The $1.495 million in state revenue-sharing reflects the first two payments for 2014 that were actually made in October and December of 2013. There will be six payments in total for 2014, including those two, she said, but the payments that were made in 2013 had to be recorded in that year. She described it as a “one-time windfall.”

Kelly Belknap, the county’s finance director, pointed out that the state and county are on different fiscal years. The state’s fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30. The county uses a calendar year as its fiscal year. That difference resulted in the timing of the payments, she explained, and the way in which they are accounted for in the county’s budget.

Gavalier also noted that the state Dept. of Treasury issued a guidance letter (No. 2013-1) stating that revenue-sharing is no longer based on statewide sales tax revenue, but instead will be a state appropriation.

C. Smith asked that the upcoming steps in the budget schedule reflect a supplemental budget update in the May-June timeframe, to reflect the updated revenue projections that will be coming in the equalization report. The board would be looking to adjust the budget at that time, based on any revenue shortfall or surplus. When Gavalier replied that it would be part of the budget update in August, Smith stressed that it should happen earlier – in May or June.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Delinquent Tax Borrowing

In an annual action to help the cash flow of local governments in Washtenaw County, the county board was asked to give initial authorization to county treasurer Catherine McClary to borrow up to $30 million against the amount of delinquent property taxes in all of the county’s 80 taxing jurisdictions. [.pdf of delinquent tax resolution]

Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary.

The estimated amount of delinquent taxes is lower than in recent years, possibly reflecting a recovering economy. Last year, the board authorized borrowing up to $40 million, and the treasurer’s office ended up actually borrowing much less.

After March 1, taxing jurisdictions – including cities, townships, schools systems and libraries, among others – turn their delinquent taxes over to the county, and are reimbursed for that amount. The county treasurer then assumes responsibility for collecting these delinquent taxes. This is a standard procedure that’s conducted annually at this time of year. The borrowed funds are used for cash flow purposes, to fund operations for the first half of the year.

Under the state’s General Property Tax Act, the county treasurer is required to collect delinquent taxes. Section 87 of the act allows the county to set up a revolving fund – which was done several decades ago – so that the county can borrow the estimated amount of delinquent taxes, then pay in advance to all the taxing jurisdictions the amount that they would have collected if there had been no delinquent payments.

Dan Smith (R-District 2) thanked McClary for making this happen, saying this was very helpful to the townships and other municipalities that can get all their taxes upfront and then settle up after properties are foreclosed.

McClary noted that foreclosures are going down, “which is very, very good news.” It also appears that there will be a slight drop in delinquent taxes, she said. Delinquent taxes are a leading economic indicator for both mortgage foreclosures and tax foreclosures, so that’s also good news, McClary said. There’s also been a definitive drop in forfeitures, which is the step immediately preceding a foreclosure.

Last year, the county had authorized the treasurer’s office to borrow up to $40 million, but there ended up being only $21 million in delinquent taxes, McClary said. And only $16 million was borrowed, because there was a small reserve in the county’s tax revolving fund – about $4 million. So a small amount of self-funding is possible, she said, which saves the county money. Approximately 4% of what the treasurer’s office borrows represents either interest or fees. “So any time we can reduce the amount of delinquent tax borrowing, we’re doing a favor for the taxpayers,” McClary said.

She noted that the $4 million in the tax revolving fund is the result of a county board decision. Commissioners could decide to put that money into a capital projects fund or the county’s general fund, she said, but they’ve chosen to keep it as reserves. That helps the county when credit rating agencies make their evaluations, she said. It would help more if there were more money in those reserves, she added.

McClary noted that the county board recently approved a new way to pay off debt incurred from bonding, typically for public works projects in local municipalities. [At its Oct. 2, 2013 meeting, the board authorized the change to allow local units of government to repay bonds early via the county’s delinquent tax revolving fund. The intent is to reduce interest rate payments while posing no financial risk to the county. At the same meeting, the board approved restructuring debt held by Bridgewater Township, which owed $585,000 on $1.095 million in bonds issued in 2004 to fund a sewer system.]

The treasurer’s office agreed to loan Bridgewater Township money to pay off the bonds, with the township repaying the treasurer’s office at a lower interest rate than it was paying for the bond debt, which was averaging 4.1%. The interest rate that is being used to repay the treasurer’s office is slightly above the average weighted yield that the county was getting on its portfolio, McClary reported, “so it’s a very good deal for the county coffers as well.”

McClary also told the board that she’s been working with Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner. That office has a lot of small bond issues for drain projects, in the range of $200,000 to $400,000. Depending on the size of the issue, they might be spending as much as half of any issue on fees and interest. If the $4 million in the delinquent tax revolving fund could be raised, she said, the county would gain more stability from the credit rating agencies and would be in a position to do more internal loans. She said she hasn’t yet made a formal proposal about that, but that’s where she’s headed.

Outcome: Commissioners gave initial approval to the authorization, with a final vote expected on April 2.

Treasurer’s Report

County treasurer Catherine McClary gave a report on investments in 2013. [.pdf of 2013 treasurer's report] [.pdf of 2012 treasurer's report]

Investment earnings were $637,866 for the year. That compares with $755,681 in 2012. Fees and interest on delinquent taxes totaled $3.72 million in 2013, compared to $5.046 million in 2012. Fees for dog licenses were $62,718 last year, up from $59,748 in 2012. And income from tax searches was $23,052 compared to $31,760 in 2012.

Chart showing three-year historical comparison of Washtenaw County investments.

Total cash and investments reported as of December 2013 was $145.226 million, down from $156.081 million at the end of 2012. The 2012 figure included $4.67 million in funds related to the county accommodations tax, which at that time was administered by the treasurer’s office. In October 2012, the board approved an ordinance change that shifted control over administering and enforcing Washtenaw County’s accommodation tax from the county treasurer to the county finance director.

McClary noted that the average weighted yield of the county’s investments was 0.476% in 2013, compared to the three-month Treasury benchmark of 0.07%.

McClary highlighted three other items during her remarks to the board. The social workers in her office – who work with residents with delinquent taxes – have been certified by the state Dept. of Human Services to do intakes for residents in a range of programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. Her office is also participating in the Step Forward Michigan program, which uses federal mortgage prevention funds to also prevent tax foreclosure. It’s the only state in the country to do that, she said.

Finally, McClary reported that property assessments are increasing. She told commissioners that she had prepared a brochure for residents about how to appeal their assessments.

Resolution of Appreciation for Pat Kelly

The March 19 agenda included a resolution of appreciation for former Dexter Township supervisor Pat Kelly. [.pdf of resolution]

Pat Kelly, former Dexter Township supervisor.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District8) began by wishing Kelly a happy birthday.

Rabhi noted that Kelly had stepped down from her role as Dexter Township supervisor, after serving in that role for 12 years. He said he had served on many boards and committees with her, and knows that she’s someone who cares about all residents of Washtenaw County. He read aloud the resolution, which highlighted Kelly’s work on the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study, the Washtenaw County Transit Master Plan, Washtenaw County Police Services Steering Committee, and several other public entities.

The resolution also noted that Kelly “led Dexter Township’s response to a devastating tornado in 2012 and worked tirelessly and diligently to establish communication channels with affected residents, safely coordinate volunteer efforts to aid in the massive clean-up, and, with significant and important assistance from the County and Road Commission, supported and led township efforts to remove debris and fallen trees from private property at little or no cost to residents…”

Kelly was visibly emotional when she responded, saying she was touched by the recognition. Almost two years ago, she said, she’d stood at the same podium and thanked commissioners for helping her community after the 2012 tornado. “It’s been a good partnership,” she said.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) praised Kelly’s negotiating skills in representing her township as well as the entire county. When he first was elected, Smith said, the tension between the county and townships over police service contracts, provided through the sheriff’s office, seemed insurmountable. “It seemed like we were going to be at war for a generation,” he said. At one of his most frustrating moments during his first term, Smith recalled, Kelly called him and “very gently explained the interests that your colleagues in the townships had and concerns in a way that just opened my eyes to the possibility of a real partnership.” The county could not have reached a resolution without Kelly’s leadership on that issue, he said. “You’ve been a calming force in huge turmoil, and a passionate deliverer of messages without creating conflict in that process.”

Smith said he knew the county would find some way to keep her deeply engaged with policy work and community leadership.

Outcome: The board unanimously passed a resolution of appreciation for Pat Kelly.

Report from Lansing Lobbyist

Lobbyist Kirk Profit and his colleague Gary Owen at Lansing-based Governmental Consultant Services Inc. gave a presentation to the board about action in the state government that might impact Washtenaw County. GCSI is the lobbyist for the county and several other local governments, including the city of Ann Arbor.

The state budget is actually in good shape, Profit said, with about $52 billion in expenditures and a surplus of about $970 million. He commended the state legislators who represent districts in Washtenaw County, saying that they represent the local interests very well, even though they’re in the minority, as Democrats. He said it was great to have the state Senate majority leader representing part of Washtenaw County as well. [Sen. Randy Richardville, a Republican, represents District 17, which includes six southern and central townships in the county, and the city of Saline.]

Kirk Profit, a paid state lobbyist for Washtenaw County, and commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Revenue sharing is moving in the right direction, Profit said. This year the county will get about $5.5 million, and he expected the county would get about $6.9 million in 2015. The state doesn’t have a good track record in terms of the county’s ability to count on state revenue-sharing, he said. It’s good to understand that going forward.

He noted that the personal property tax referendum will be on the ballot in August of 2014. [The tax is being phased out starting in 2014 through 2022. As part of that change, a statewide voter referendum is slated for Aug. 5, 2014 to ask voters to authorize replacement funds from other state revenue sources.]

Eliminating the PPT removes about $576 million statewide, which primarily are revenues that fund local municipalities. The voter referendum would authorize a use tax to be collected by a new Michigan Metropolitan Areas Metropolitan Authority, which would distribute the funding by statute.

Profit noted that TIF (tax increment finance) capture is “hot” in Lansing right now. State Rep. Eileen Kowall has drafted legislation that addresses several issues related to TIF, including the ability to opt out, resetting the base for TIF capture, and sunset clauses. “It’s going to receive a lot of attention and a lot of dialogue,” Profit said, but it wasn’t clear whether it will pass.

While noting that the state budget is in great shape, Profit said there are also some areas that have holes, including health care funding, education and roads. Some legislators would prefer to give the entire surplus back to taxpayers as refunds, he noted. Profit said he wasn’t sure how these issues will be resolved, but the legislature will be addressing these matters over the next 60-90 days.

The legislature recently approved about $215 million in supplemental funding for roads, which will bring about $1 million to Washtenaw County, Profit said. The city of Ann Arbor will get about $450,000. Other cities and villages will get much less, he said. Profit praised Gov. Rick Snyder, saying that Snyder is “right there on roads” and had demanded that the legislature produce funding for roads.

The southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA), which includes Washtenaw County, received close to $2 million for operating expenses to fund it until an anticipated millage vote in 2016, Profit said.

Profit told the board that Act 88 is under some attack, with legislation introduced that would repeal it. [The county’s position is that it is authorized to collect up to 0.5 mills under Act 88 without seeking voter approval. That’s because the state legislation that enables the county to levy this type of tax was enacted in 1913, which predates the state’s Headlee Amendment. The county currently levies 0.07 mills under Act 88.]

Profit said that GCSI’s Gary Owen was working aggressively to make sure legislators understand the significance of Act 88 funding for Washtenaw County. Profit said the target of the repeal legislation is Gratiot County.

The state’s supplemental budget included $750,000 for indigent defense, and Profit credited Washtenaw County public defender Lloyd Powell for successfully advocating for that funding.

Collective bargaining continues to draw a lot of attention in Lansing, Profit said. He also noted that GCSI is working with judge Donald Shelton and Dan Dwyer, court administrator of the Washtenaw Trial Court, on implementing e-filing statewide.

Breastfeeding in public is another issue that GCSI is following, Profit said. He noted that state Sen. Rebekah Warren introduced legislation that was passed in the Senate to guarantee a woman’s right to breastfeed in public places.

Profit also mentioned interest at the state level regarding the Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Act. Pending legislation “would dramatically limit your ability recoup costs that you might incur for FOIA responses, and also perhaps to dramatically limit your ability to have certain protected conversations from open meetings requirements.” Profit said GCSI would work closely with corporation counsel Curtis Hedger on that.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger and Felicia Brabec (D-District 4).

Profit highlighted an increase in state arts funding from $2 million to $10 million, which translates into about $590,000 coming to Washtenaw County for a variety of arts organizations.

Gary Owen of GCSI said he’d been working with Evan Pratt, the county’s water resources commissioner, regarding action at the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) that will affect the Pall-Gelman 1,4 dioxane cleanup in Washtenaw County. The MDEQ is updating its cleanup standards, and Mike Gebhard has been participating in that process and is on the MDEQ’s toxicity committee. Gebhard is a former environmental analyst/hydrogeologist with Washtenaw County who now works for the county’s information technology department.

The MDEQ will make a recommendation to the state’s Office of Regulatory Reinvention in July, which will include the new standards, Owen said, but those recommendations will be known before then. “It will most likely be a drastic difference than what it is today, but the process will determine that,” he said.

Regarding the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources trust fund, Owen cited the county’s success in getting grants in the past few years. He credited Bob Tetens, director of the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, with that success, which Owen said is probably unparalleled across the state. Owen cited several grants, including $300,000 for the Rutherford Pool in Ypsilanti, $300,000 for the Ann Arbor skatepark, and over $1 million for the acquisition of 54 acres near Domino’s Farms.

Regarding the possible repeal of Act 88, Owen said GCSI is working to make sure that Washtenaw County’s interests are addressed.

Report from Lansing Lobbyist: Board Discussion

Dan Smith (R-District 2) said the comments regarding Act 88 are “misplaced.” It’s not about what the money is spent on in Washtenaw County, he said. “It’s about how the money is collected, and what the law says that money can be spent on.” In his opinion, Smith said, the Washtenaw County board hasn’t done its proper due diligence, “despite my repeated requests.”

Regarding roads, D. Smith noted that legislation has been introduced to repeal the sunset clause on the ability of a county board of commissioners to absorb the duties and responsibilities of a road commission. He asked for a prognosis of that bill. Kirk Profit replied that the outcome is hard to read. GCSI will continue to watch it, but Profit didn’t think legislators had made up their mind yet.

Conan Smith (D-District 9).

D. Smith noted that a subcommittee of the board had recently finished a process regarding what the county would do, but the recommendation hadn’t yet been brought forward to the full board. A working session on that is scheduled for April 17. But Smith’s take on the bill is that it would provide the board with a lot of tools, while forcing the board to dramatically alter things right now. It would be productive to have a longer time to discuss how to best manage this critical transportation infrastructure, he said, noting that it’s not something that can quickly be decided. People are very resistant to change, Smith said, and need more time to work on it. He hoped the legislature would repeal the sunset clause.

Conan Smith (D-District 9) agreed with Dan Smith on the road commission issue. Removing the sunset wouldn’t mean that the county would get rid of the road commission, he said. Statewide, not many counties have taken advantage of the current ability to do that. But he hoped that option would be made available for a longer period.

Regarding Act 88, C. Smith said he had a different perspective from Dan Smith. But he thought they might agree on the fact that Act 88 is just one response that the county has to a “broken municipal finance system.” The state took millions of dollars of state revenue-sharing away from the county over the past several years. If that hadn’t happened, he said, perhaps the county wouldn’t be scraping to find other revenue sources.

C. Smith said he understood why some people want to repeal Act 88, but they should be beating the bigger drum of fixing the system. Lots of cities are on the cusp of financial insolvency, he noted, so he’d advocate not to mess with Act 88 until this bigger problem is fixed.

Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) echoed C. Smith’s sentiments on Act 88. The county needs tools to address the needs of citizens, Rabhi said, “and right now the state is just tying our hands.” Personal property tax repeal is another example, he said. Rabhi said that Act 88 funding works and benefits the community, and he didn’t think legislators understood that.

Urban County Plan Public Hearing

The March 19 meeting included a public hearing to give input for the Washtenaw Urban County 2014-15 action plan. The hearing was set to solicit feedback about proposed projects and programs that the county intends to implement with federal funding – through community development block grant (CDBG), HOME and emergency shelter grant programs – from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. [.pdf of action plan]

Computer screen: Notes being taken by Brett Lenart of the county’s office of community & economic development during a public hearing on the Urban County action plan.

The Urban County is a consortium of Washtenaw County and 18 local municipalities that receive federal funding for low-income neighborhoods. Members include the cities of Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and Saline, and 15 townships. “Urban County” is a designation of the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), identifying a county with more than 200,000 people. With that designation, individual governments within the Urban County can become members, entitling them to an allotment of funding through a variety of HUD programs. The Urban County is supported by the staff of Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development (OCED).

Two HUD programs – the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership – are the primary funding sources for Urban County projects.

One person – Thomas Partridge – spoke during the public hearing. He said the Urban County organization is isolated, like many county organizations. Meetings are held at locations outside of Ann Arbor and aren’t televised on the Community Television Network, he said. The body should be very prominent, Partridge said, because it gets funding for affordable housing. But that funding is under attack, he noted, and more financing from the private sector is needed. Homelessness can’t be eliminated without more attention to this issue.

Thompson Block Brownfield Public Hearing

The board agenda included a resolution to set a public hearing for input on the brownfield development plan of the Thompson Block redevelopment in Ypsilanti. The street addresses for the block are 400-408 N. River St. and 107 E. Cross St. The hearing will be held at the county boardroom in downtown Ann Arbor, 220 N. Main, during the April 2 meeting, which begins at 6:30 p.m. [.pdf of staff memo]

Outcome: Commissioners voted to set the public hearing, over dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2).

Communications & Commentary

During the March 19 meeting there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Regional Transit Authority

Jim Casha spoke about the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA). He lives in Canada, and noted that Ann Arbor reminds him of Canada – “except for the roads.”

He’d attended the recent Michigan senate transportation committee hearings in Lansing, and listened to the RTA board chair, Paul Hillegonds, ask for more money for that organization. He also attended the transportation appropriations committee meeting and heard Amtrak’s presentation about service between Chicago and Detroit, through Ann Arbor.

From left: Jim Casha and county commissioner Ronnie Peterson.

Casha said he’s still confused about why the RTA board isn’t making a fight for the 163-acre state fairgrounds. He’d just attended the RTA board meeting, and he thought that RTA board members are confused as well. One of the big supporters of the state legislation that created the RTA, state Sen. John Pappageorge, is a “military guy,” Casha said. “He understands that it’s always cheaper to hold what you have than to retake what you’ve lost – and there’s no reason to give up the fairgrounds.” Even if the fairgrounds turns out not to be a great property to own, though Casha said he thought it was, there’s no reason to give it up now. “We should retain it and evaluate it,” he said.

The situation is rather perilous, Casha said. He reported that Hillegonds had been surprised by the lack of knowledge that state legislators had regarding the RTA. Casha found that the same thing was true with the state fairgrounds. They pass legislation in Lansing, but then don’t keep up with its impact, he said.

Casha asked commissioners to talk with the state legislators and with Washtenaw County’s representatives on the RTA board to keep people informed about what’s happening. [The two RTA representatives from Washtenaw County, who were appointed by the county board, are Liz Gerber and Alma Wheeler Smith, the mother of county commissioner Conan Smith.] Legislators are making some serious mistakes that could seriously impact the ability to have a regional transportation system, Casha said.

Later in the meeting Casha spoke again. At the recent transportation appropriations committee meeting, the RTA presented documentation showing that state legislation allows for the RTA to generate revenue from the sale, exchange, mortgage, lease or other disposition of property acquired by the authority, he said. So his question was: Why doesn’t the RTA take advantage of it? One reason is that the RTA has been misled by people in the governor’s office, Casha contended. There was misinformation, he said, and the state fairgrounds was transferred to private individuals. “It’s definitely not a done deal yet,” Casha said. There are ways out of any legal contract, he added.

Casha noted that the Michigan Land Bank has a new director, “and maybe she has a different opinion of what the land bank’s done so far with this land.” The state owes it to the people in the four-county RTA district to look after their interests in this matter.

Communications & Commentary: Roads in Manchester

Allison Tucker of Manchester, who had spoken to the board at its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting about the GED (general education diploma), began by reporting that the Washtenaw Community College’s adult transitions program recently secured $3,000 in funding. It reinstated her faith that one person can make a difference. But she was there that night to talk about the condition of roads in Manchester. She had hoped to address commissioner Alicia Ping (R-District 3), whose district includes Manchester, but noted that Ping was absent. There are a lot of potholes, and many of them are deep, Tucker said. The situation could kill someone, she said. For smaller communities, it’s difficult to have funding for plowing and salting the roads, she noted. Tucker hoped that the county could help, so that someone like her who travels to class wouldn’t face that problem.

Communications & Commentary: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge addressed the board during both opportunities for public commentary. He urged commissioners to come up with a fundamentally sustainable agenda for county government, with top priorities of eliminating homelessness, funding affordable housing and countywide public transportation, and supporting human rights. He said Washtenaw County has a programmed way of doing business that leaves out a substantial number of residents in making decisions about these issues.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Alicia Ping

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Council OKs Annual Contracts: SPARK, Lobbyist

Chronicle Staff — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 04:56:55 +0000

The Ann Arbor city council approved two annual contracts for services at its June 17, 2013 meeting. One was a $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. (GCSI) for lobbying services with the state legislature. The council also approved a $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for business support services.

The two items appeared on the council’s consent agenda and were approved as a part of it. Items on the consent agenda are considered routine, and include contracts for less than $100,000.

The contact with the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK is one that has been renewed annually since the Washtenaw Development Council and Ann Arbor SPARK merged in 2006. Previously, Ann Arbor had contracted with the WDC for the business support services for which it now contracts with SPARK. On June 20, 2005, the city council authorized that one-year contract with WDC for $40,000. The resolution authorizing the $75,000 contract with SPARK again this year describes the organization’s focus as “building our innovation-focused community through continual proactive support of entrepreneurs, regional businesses, university tech transfer offices, and networking organizations.”

Ann Arbor SPARK is also the contractor hired by the city’s local development finance authority (LDFA), to operate a business accelerator for the city’s SmartZone, one of 11 such districts established in the early 2000s by the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC). The SmartZone is funded by a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism, for a TIF district consisting of the union of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts.

Revenue is generated only in Ann Arbor’s district, and the LDFA is a component unit of the city’s budget. In the FY 2014 budget, the LDFA is expected to receive $1,655,647 in revenue. The specific taxes on which the increment since 2002 is captured are the school operating and state education taxes, which would otherwise be sent to the state and then redistributed back to local school districts.

GCSI’s Kirk Profit, a former member of the state House of Representatives, typically makes an annual presentation to the council with an update on state-level legislative issues relevant to the city’s budget situation. Written updates to councilmembers on legislative activity are sent on a weekly or daily basis.

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]

Ann Arbor Renews Contract with Lobbyist

Chronicle Staff — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:52:00 +0000

At its June 18, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved a $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc., a Lansing-based lobbying firm. It’s a one-year contract for fiscal year 2013, which starts July 1, 2012. The funds were approved as part of the city administrator’s office budget, in the FY 2013 budget approved on May 22, 2012. The contract is the same amount as last year.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “GCSI has provided excellent work in the areas of legislation monitoring along with advocating fire protection grants and comprehensive corridor planning.”

GCSI’s Kirk Profit, a former member of the state House of Representatives representing the eastern part of Washtenaw County, typically makes an annual presentation to the council with an update on state-level legislative issues relevant to the city’s budget situation. Written updates to councilmembers on legislative activity are sent on a weekly or daily basis.

GCSI also has a contract with Washtenaw County and several other local units of government.

The GCSI contract was included on the city council’s consent agenda, which are items involving less than $100,000. Consent agenda items are considered routine, and are voted on as a set. No one pulled out the item for separate discussion.

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]