The farm parcels consist of property on either side of Vreeland Road, which is currently in agriculture production. Additional properties under the same ownership, adjacent to the farmland parcels, are also being considered for inclusion in the city’s greenbelt program, and the Vreeland Road properties are near other properties already protected as part of the greenbelt – the Meyer Preserve, the Jack R. Smiley Preserve and the Schultz conservation easement. Cherry Hill Nature Preserve is located just north of the property. [.jpg of greenbelt properties as of May 2014]

Here’s a dynamic map of properties outside the city already protected under the city’s greenbelt program. A 30-year open space and parkland preservation millage, which voters approved in 2003, funds both the greenbelt program as well as land acquisition for city parks. The border indicates the area where greenbelt funds can be spent to protect properties.

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

Results on the outcome on many individual agenda items can be found published as separate briefs in the Civic News Ticker section of the website. A summary of the FY 2015 budget deliberations will be available here, when its is published: [link]

The council’s second meeting in May is specified in the city charter as the occasion for the council to adopt the city administrator’s proposed budget with any amendments. If the council does not take action by its second meeting in May, the city administrator’s proposed budget is adopted by default. The Chronicle has previously reported a preview of some possible budget amendments: [here].

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

The council’s May 19 meeting agenda includes more than just the adoption of the budget.

Related to the setting of the annual budget are items like setting fees associated with the public services area (for example, site plan review) and the community services area (for example, farmers market stall fees), as well as rate increases for water, sewer and stormwater utilities.

Also related to the budget – and not just for this next year – is an agenda item that will revise the city’s policies for contributions to the city’s pension system and retiree health care. In broad strokes, those revisions are meant to accelerate contributions during a strong economy and maintain contributions at least at the level of the actuary-recommended amount during weaker economies.

Another budget-related item on the May 19 agenda is one related to the social infrastructure of the community – allocation of general fund money to nonprofits that provide human services. The city approaches this allocation through a process that is coordinated with Washtenaw County, the United Way, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation and other partners. The total amount allocated for the operation of programs is about $4.3 million. The city of Ann Arbor’s general fund contribution is about $1.2 million, which is the same amount that has been contributed for the last several years.

Related to human services support is an agenda item that would accept a $113,154 planning grant from the Michigan Supreme Court to establish a specialized mental health court.

Along with social infrastructure, the council will also be asked to approve an allocation that includes utilities infrastructure, to address the needs that resulted from the harsh winter. The resolution that the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan.

The council will also be asked to approve money for building new physical infrastructure – about $2.6 million for the reconstruction of a segment of Pontiac Trail. The segment stretches north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The street reconstruction project also includes water mains, sanitary sewer, and construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes.

Special assessments to pay for three other sidewalk projects also appear on the council’s agenda in various stages of the special assessment process. Those future projects are located on Barton Drive, Scio Church Road, and Newport Road.

The council will be asked to approve the city’s application for federal funding to support the acquisition of development rights in Superior Township for two pieces of property on either side of Vreeland Road. The properties are near other parcels already protected as part of the city’s greenbelt initiative.

The city council will also vote on the confirmation of two appointments: Katherine Hollins to the city’s environmental commission; and Bob White, as a reappointment to his fourth term on the city’s historic district commission.

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.

Fees and Rates

On the council’s agenda are rate increases for utilities (water, sewer and stormwater) as well as fee increases for the public services and community services area.

Fees and Rates: Water, Sewer, Stormwater

Water rates are proposed to increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons.

Sewer rates would increase from $3.65 to $3.85 per unit. And stormwater fees would increase for all tiers of impervious service. For the middle tier – for more than 2,187 square feet but less than or equal to 4,175 square feet – on a quarterly basis, the increase would be from $24.85 to $26.32.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the recommended rate changes in water, sewer, and stormwater would increase revenues to the water, sewer, and stormwater funds by $765,119, $1,171,931 and $410,235 respectively. The reason given for the rate increases is to cover maintenance and debt payments, and to maintain funding for capital improvement requirements. The city calculates the impact to be an additional $6.25 per quarter or $24.98 per year for an average consumer, which is a net increase of 4.2%.

Water consumption for a typical single family is assumed at 19 units per quarter.

History of city of Ann Arbor water rates. The city converted to a tiered system 10 years ago in 2004, based on usage. The 2015 amount is proposed.

The utility rates are part of a city ordinance. So the council will be considering initial approval at its May 19 meeting, with final approval to come at its first meeting in June – on June 2.

Fees and Rates: Community and Public Services Area

Fee increases in the community services area and the public services area will be considered by the council at its May 19 meeting.

For community services, increases are being proposed for stall fees at the Ann Arbor public market (farmers market). Currently, the basic annual fee for rental of a stall is $300. It’s proposed to be increased to $450 – a 50% increase.

If approved by the council, the fee increase would be projected to generate $26,000 in additional revenue. However, this additional revenue has not been assumed in the proposed FY 2015 budget.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, “market fees were last increased in 2009 and have not kept pace with the overall increase of annual operating costs during this same time period.” A comparative analysis of Ann Arbor’s fees also showed that Ann Arbor’s fees are well below those of comparable markets.

Comparative chart of stall rental rates, including three in other states. Ann Arbor’s current rate is the leftmost blue bar. Ann Arbor’s proposed market stall rental rate is shown in green. The red horizontal line is the average. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Comparative chart of stall rental rates, excluding those in other states. Ann Arbor’s current rate is the leftmost blue bar. Ann Arbor’s proposed market stall rental rate is shown in green. The red horizontal line is the average. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

In the public services area, fees for a variety of services are being considered – for such items as site plan review, soil and sedimentation control. According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, the increases consider labor, material and supplies, equipment, and overhead cost and are aimed at full cost recovery. The increases are generally in the range of 1% to 5%.

Pension and VEBA Funding Policy

The council will be considering policies for making contributions to the pension and retiree health care plan that is supposed to ensure that the plans are eventually fully funded. The policy would set the funding at the higher of two different figures: (1) the Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC) rate; or (2) the existing level of contributions adjusted for the change in general fund revenues. That would have an impact of establishing a minimum increase in funding of 2% per year.

The operative language in the policy is:

If the General Fund revenues are projected to increase less than 2%, the city’s contribution shall increase 2%; thereby establishing a minimum increase of 2% per year.

Social Infrastructure

The council’s agenda includes two items that can be characterized as funding social infrastructure: the annual general fund allocations to nonprofits that provide human services; and the acceptance of a planning grant for the 15th District Court to establish a mental health court.

Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding

The council will be asked at its May 19 meeting to approve funding allocations to nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders.

The city is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners include Washtenaw County, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the city is providing $1,244,629.

FY 15       Funding Source                                        
$1,244,629  City of Ann Arbor General Fund                    
$1,760,708  United Way of Washtenaw County                    
$1,015,000  Washtenaw County's General Fund                   
$  274,907  Washtenaw Urban County CDBG funds                 
$   26,250  Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation senior funds 
========== 
$4,321,494  TOTAL

-

The coordinated funding process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The approach targets six priority areas, and identifies lead agencies for each area: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

In 2012, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended and later authorized by the city council at its Nov. 7, 2013 and by the Washtenaw County board on Nov. 6, 2013. One of those changes is that funding would not necessarily be allocated to the six priority areas based on the proportion of funding allocated in the past. Instead, allocations among the six priority areas would be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized. An additional change would broaden the pre-screening process so that smaller nonprofits could be accommodated.

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process.

The RNR Foundation funding will go toward the planning/coordination and capacity building components of the effort, so their funding is not listed among the items in the program operating component.

Here’s a breakdown of how the program operating component of the city of Ann Arbor’s share will be allocated:

   
   FY 2015  Agency
   $20,000  Barrier Busters 
   $30,000  Peace Neighborhood Center
   $35,069  Ozone House Inc.
   $54,168  Domestic Violence Project Inc. dba SafeHouse Center
   $56,396  UM Regents (Community Dental Center, Housing Bureau for Seniors)
   $85,500  Avalon Housing 
   $90,786  Child Care Network
  $102,156  Food Gatherers
  $115,558  The Salvation Army of Washtenaw County
  $122,095  Washtenaw Community Health Organization
  $160,761  Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
  $164,660  Community Action Network
  $207,480  Legal Services of South Central Michigan
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

That compares with the current fiscal year as follows:

 
  FY 2014   Agency
   $4,561   HIV/AIDS Resource Center     
  $12,772   Washtenaw Association for Community Advocacy     
  $14,282   Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan     
  $17,139   Jewish Family Services of Washtenaw County
  $19,835   Barrier Busters     
  $23,719   UM Regents - Ann Arbor Meals on Wheels     
  $27,369   The Women's Center of Southeastern Michigan     
  $63,419   Home of New Vision
  $91,645   Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County     
  $94,490   Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw     
  $95,171   Food Gatherers     
 $104,944   Community Action Network
 $109,851   Perry Nursery School of Ann Arbor     
 $142,851   Avalon Housing Inc.     
 $177,052   Services of South Central Michigan
 $245,529   Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

The coordinated funding approach sometimes results in the same programs being funded – but by different funders. This year, the city of Ann Arbor is funding a program for Peace Neighborhood Center; last year Washtenaw County provided funding ($19,995) for Peace Neighborhood Center. And last year, the city of Ann Arbor funded a University of Michigan meals-on-wheels program; this year, United Way is funding that program.

Recipients of funds in one year are not guaranteed funding the following year. An example of that is the Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan, which received $27,369 from the city of Ann Arbor last year for a mental health program, but is not receiving funds as part of the coordinated funding program this year.

Social Infrastructure: Mental Health Court

The council is being asked to approve the receipt of a planning grant of $113,154 from the Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) to fund the planning for a mental health court program.

According to the staff memo accompanying the item, mental health courts are problem-solving courts “that focus on therapeutic treatment for offenders with mental illnesses whose crimes are a result of their mental illness.”

The memo continues:

Eligible defendants are diverted into judicially supervised, community-based treatment to address the underlying problems. The program uses a team approach to address the participant’s needs for mental health and/or substance abuse treatment while also linking the participant with ancillary services such as education, housing, job skills or other individualized assistance. The goal is to assist participants in bettering their lives while also benefiting the community by reducing jail time, recidivism rates, and court docket congestion.

The 15th District Court already operates several specialized courts – a sobriety court, a homeless court, veterans court and domestic violence court. The mental health court would be operated in addition to those other specialized courts.

For background on the 15th District Court’s specialized “problem-solving” courts from last year’s Chronicle reporting, see: “Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court.”

Physical Infrastructure

Physical infrastructure appears on the council’s May 19 agenda in several forms: an allocation of money to deal with damage to systems from the harsh winter; a Pontiac Trail street reconstruction project; and several sidewalk projects.

Physical Infrastructure: Winter Damage

The council will be asked to approve an allocation that includes utilities infrastructure, to address the needs that resulted from the severe winter weather.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, compared to last year there was a 36% increase in water main breaks and a 950% increase of broken water services. Compared to the previous two years winters, the 2013-14 winter had 272% more snow and a 450% increase in required plowing. That meant additional use of materials like ice-control salt, sand, cold-patch, pipe, repair clamps and fittings – in addition to higher-than-anticipated work hours and overtime, and increased equipment costs.

The resolution the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan.

The work will include frozen service line repairs, pavement marking, and road surface repair. The work is not anticipated to be completed until well after June 30, 2014 – the end of the current fiscal year.

At a May 12 city council work session, public services area administrator Craig Hupy presented the council with some data on the age of the city’s piping system, saying that for the water pipes, those that were constructed in 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are more problematic than those built before and after that period. Still, he indicated that the city’s breakage rate was considered low for a system that is as old as Ann Arbor’s.

Ann Arbor Sanitary Sewer System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

Ann Arbor Water System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

City of Ann Arbor Water Main Breaks by Year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor Comprehensive Annual Financial Report)

Physical Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail

The council will consider two resolutions in connection with a street reconstruction project on Pontiac Trail.

The first is a $2,605,190 contract with Evergreen Civil LLC for construction of the project. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning north of Skydale Drive to south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The project also includes extending water mains and sewer pipes, as well as construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes. The memo also indicates the project will include stormwater infiltration trenches, edge drains, and the addition of a small section of curb and gutter. The project is expected to begin in June of 2014 and be completed by fall of 2014.

The other contract to be considered by the council in connection with the Pontiac Trail project is $46,879 for Professional Services Industries Inc. for materials testing.

Responding to a query from The Chronicle, city project manager Nick Hutchinson indicated that the council would be presented at its June 16 meeting with the next in a series of resolutions on special assessment to help fund the sidewalk portion of the Pontiac Trail project. The council had voted at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting to direct the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk project. The special assessment process requires the setting of an assessment roll and the holding of a public hearing before a special assessment can be imposed.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks

Three other sidewalk projects that are further along in the special assessment process than Pontiac Trail are also on the council’s May 19 agenda: Barton Road, Scio Church and Newport Road.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Newport Road

A public hearing on the Newport Road sidewalk special assessment, which started on May 5, will continue at the council’s May 19 meeting. For the sidewalk segment on Newport Road, the council had approved at its April 21, 2014 meeting a resolution directing the city assessor to prepare a special assessment roll of properties to be assessed. The council took action to set the public hearing on the Newport Road special assessment for May 5.

The total amount to be special assessed for the Newport Road project is $49,746. But residents of the Newport Creek Site Condominium – who would not ordinarily be assessed, as their property isn’t adjacent to the sidewalk – have volunteered to contribute $10,228 to the project to help offset their neighbors’ assessments. Details of that arrangement are being finalized.

However, several residents spoke at the May 5 public hearing, opposing the special assessment.

Newport Road sidewalk stretch.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church

Again on the city council’s May 19 agenda are resolutions to set the assessment roll and set a public hearing (to be held June 16) for the special assessment of a Scio Church Road sidewalk. Action on the Scio Church sidewalk project special assessment had been postponed at the council’s April 21, 2014 meeting until May 19.

For this 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. It was the size of the total amount of special assessment that led to the postponement. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) argued at the April 21 meeting that the amount to be assessed was not worth the staff time to follow all the bureaucratic procedures involved in implementing the special assessment. He also called for 80% of any sidewalk project to be funded through non-special assessed funds.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

Physical Infrastructure Sidewalks – Barton Road

On the city council’s May 19 agenda are resolutions to set the assessment roll and a public hearing (to be held on June 16) for the special assessment of a Barton Drive sidewalk. The sidewalk to be special assessed was part of an approval given at the council’s April 21 meeting: The council approved $177,100 of city funds for the construction of the Scio Church Road sidewalk and for an additional sidewalk on Barton 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.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

By way of additional background, approval of the design contract for the Barton Drive and Scio Church Road stretches of new sidewalk had been approved by the city council at its March 3, 2014 meeting.

And at its July 15, 2013 meeting, the council had approved $15,000 for preliminary design of a sidewalk along Barton Drive. Even earlier – at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting – the council approved $15,000 for preliminary study of a sidewalk to be constructed along Scio Church, west of Seventh Street. On Nov. 7, 2013, the council approved another $35,000 for Scio Church sidewalk design work. The design contract for the Barton Drive and Scio Church stretches of new sidewalk drew on the previously authorized funding.

The preliminary planning budget of $15,000 for the Newport Road sidewalk gap was approved over a year ago by the council at its Jan. 23, 2013 meeting.

Greenbelt

At its May 19 meeting, the city council will be asked to consider approval of application to the federal Agricultural Land Easement (ALE) program to protect 260 acres of farmland located in Superior Township. The ALE program now includes what was previously known as the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

The farm parcels consist of property on either side of Vreeland Road, which is currently in agriculture production. Additional properties under the same ownership, adjacent to the farmland parcels, are also being considered for inclusion in the city’s greenbelt program, and the Vreeland Road properties are near other properties already protected as part of the greenbelt – the Meyer Preserve, the Jack R. Smiley Preserve and the Schultz conservation easement. Cherry Hill Nature Preserve is located just north of the property. [.jpg of greenbelt properties as of May 2014]

Here’s a dynamic map of properties outside the city already protected under the city’s greenbelt program. A 30-year open space and parkland preservation millage, which voters approved in 2003, funds both the greenbelt program as well as land acquisition for city parks. The border indicates the area where greenbelt funds can be spent to protect properties.

Appointments

The city council will also vote on the confirmation of two appointments: Katherine Hollins to the city’s environmental commission; and Bob White, as a reappointment for his fourth term on the city’s historic district commission.

Hollins is a staffer with the Great Lakes Commission. She’s being appointed because David Stead’s lengthy service on the commission – dating from 2000, when the commission was established – had generated opposition among some councilmembers. Nominations to the environmental commission are made by the council as a whole, not by the mayor. In offering the substitute nomination, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated in an email to other councilmembers that “David Stead has decided that his life is busy enough he cannot do justice to serving on the commission.”

White was appointed to the historic district commission for his first three-year term in 2005.

4:39 p.m. The staff’s written responses to councilmember questions about agenda items are now available: [.pdf of May 19, 2014 agenda responses]

4:55 p.m. The final versions of possible budget amendments are now available. [.pdf of possible amendments to FY 2015 budget]

6:53 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.

6:54 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) have arrived. City administrator Steve Powers is also here.

6:56 p.m. McKinley CEO Al Berriz is in attendance. Ann Arbor SPARK CEO Paul Krutko is also here – as he’s signed up to address the council during public commentary. One possible budget amendment is to eliminate $75,000 of annual funding for SPARK in favor of allocating that sum to human services. Skip Simms from SPARK is also here.

6:57 p.m. Eaton is quizzing high school students who are here to satisfy a class requirement. He lobs a softball: Do we live in a democracy or under a dictatorship?

6:58 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) has now arrived.

6:58 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is also here, talking to people in the audience.

7:02 p.m. Remaining councilmembers are filtering in. Not yet spotted are Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

7:13 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance.

7:13 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:14 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:16 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) wants to move the LDFA budget amendment to the start of the amendment sequence. Teall moves DS-12 after DS-2. DS-12 is the human services allocation.

7:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve its agenda.

7:17 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers notes that on Memorial Day there will be no garbage pickup. That’s also the day the city pools open.

7:17 p.m. INT-1 Volunteer of Month: First Martin. First Martin Corp is being recognized for the work it did on the roundabout garden at Huron Parkway and Nixon. First Martin also maintains Liberty Plaza downtown and Wheeler Park on Depot Street.

7:17 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Eight people are signed up to speak on the issue of the FY 2015 city budget: Ray Gholston, Greg Pratt, Zoltan Jung, James Billingslea, Marc Bleckmann, Diane Kreger, Paul Krutko, and Tim Marshall. Alan Haber is signed up as an alternate to talk about the budget. Kermit Schlansker is signed up to talk about global warming and poverty. And Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about the critical need for increased funding for human services and supporting Mark Schauer’s candidacy for governor of Michigan.

7:20 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a Ward 5 resident and a recent candidate for various public offices. He’s here to talk about the critical need for affordable housing and affordable transportation. The city has come up with a formula for dividing up money for human services, which is very complicated, he says. Overall there’s not a high enough regard for human services, affordable housing and transportation, education or health services for the most vulnerable residents of the city. He tells the council they need to go back and come up with a better formula to support expanded funding for human services.

7:23 p.m. Ray Gholston introduces himself as a local human rights activist. He thanks the council for its concern and consideration of a resolution that would support a warming center. He says the Delonis Center has been doing a good job for over a decade, but they should not have to shoulder the burden alone.

7:26 p.m. Greg Pratt says he’s excited about Amendment 15, which would mean a $75,000 jump in human services funding. He’s supporting that. There’s been a glut of “corporate” welfare, he says. He allows that subsequent speakers might have a different perspective. But it’s important to have a stream of funds that support those who need it. He also supports Amendment 9, which he describes as “seed money.”

7:28 p.m. Zoltan Jung lives on Barton Drive. He’s talking about traffic calming. He puts it in the context of livability. Many residents have seen their livability decrease due to speeders and reckless drivers. He lives on Northside Avenue where kids can’t play on the street, because people use it as a cut-through. Traffic calming isn’t an end unto itself, he says. On Wells Street, the measures aren’t integrated into the Burns Park Elementary situation, he says. If you put a bump somewhere, that can just displace the problem. So traffic calming can’t be done in isolation.

7:31 p.m. James Billingslea is a Ward 1 resident. He’s speaking on behalf of bicyclists and pedestrians, who use his street. Cars have lost control on nine occasions, he says. His neighbor Joyce had nine cars wind up on her yard in a two-month period this winter, he says. At 25 mph, it takes 23 seconds to go down the entire street. They have to be constantly vigilant. Simply deploying more police officers or deploying traffic calming solutions is not going to solve the problem, he says. Cars are currently designed to help cars travel quickly, he says, not for the benefit of the community.

7:34 p.m. Marc Bleckmann lives on Northside Avenue. His kids attend Northside Elementary, which is a 10-minute walk to the school. But unfortunately that walk can be dangerous. He says that commuters “fly down the hypotenuse” of Northside Avenue when they use it as a cut-through. It’s one of many dangerous pedestrian situations, he says. He calls on the council to improve the livability of Ann Arbor by addressing this kind of problem.

7:35 p.m. Diane Kreger hopes it’s not redundant for the council to hear again from a resident of Northside Avenue. But she supports the budget amendment that would put more money toward traffic calming. [The amendment would reduce public art administration from $80,000 to $40,000 and allocate $40,000 to traffic calming.] She calls for effective traffic calming measures.

7:38 p.m. Paul Krutko is CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK. He discourages the council from passing Amendment 1 and Amendment 15. He points to the partnership among various municipalities that supports SPARK. Last year, the council’s support resulted in $21 million worth of projects and created 752 jobs, he says. He points to the re-occupancy of the former Borders building in downtown Ann Arbor, he says. He’s proud of the business development work SPARK has done, he says.

7:39 p.m. Tim Marshall is not here.

7:41 p.m. Kermit Schlansker says that the conservative’s cure for poverty is to ignore it. The liberal’s solution is to get someone else to pay for it, he says. Neither is a good solution. He calls for land to be made available to poor people so that they can grow their own food. He calls for multi-purpose clusters of people. In the fall, city people should go out and help with the harvest, he says. He describes how the poor can eventually pay off their debt and own their own land. Land should belong to people who till it, not those who mow it, he says.

7:45 p.m. Alan Haber says he’s here to provide his usual alternative view. He’s going to be away for much of the summer, so he won’t be here to remind the council about the importance of the community. It’s important to have a human resource, he says. He feels like he’s not been getting through to the council. Haber is talking about the works of Peter Linebaugh. He wants the council to have a conversation about what a community commons is. It’s not just about the money, it’s about the human part, he says.

7:45 p.m. Communications from the council.

7:47 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) thanks the city attorney’s office for issuing cease-and-desist letters to Uber and Lyft. There’s a meeting of the taxicab board this Thursday at 8:30 a.m., he says. He offers his condolences to the family that lost one of their own in a fire on Shady Lane last week.

7:48 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) highlights the fact that there are three vacancies on the environmental commission. She encourages people to apply. She also says that housing and human services advisory board also has some vacancies.

7:48 p.m. MC-1 appointments. The council is being asked to confirm the re-appointment of Bob White to the historic district commission for a fourth three-year term.

7:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm Bob White’s re-appointment to the historic district commission.

7:48 p.m. MC-2 nominations Larry Eiler is being nominated to the Economic Development Corporation, replacing Daniel Blakemore. Andy Baker-White and Amanda Carlisle are being nominated to the housing and human services advisory board. A vote on their confirmations will come at the council’s next meeting.

7:48 p.m. Public Hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Any action on the related items comes later in the meeting. There’s no action item associated with tonight’s only public hearing – on a special assessment to be levied to help pay for the a sidewalk along Newport Road. This public hearing is being continued from the council’s previous meeting, when several property owners spoke against it. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Newport Road above.]

7:50 p.m. PH-1 Newport Road sidewalk special assessment. Eric Preisner is a resident of Ward 1, representing the Riverwood subdivision homeowners association. As a group, they’re in support of the proposal. The affirmative vote was 75% in favor, he says.

7:55 p.m. Thomas Partridge says there should be consideration given to some of the property owners, including a church that will be special assessed, he says. Those who have special hardships or circumstances should not be pressed into a one-size-fits-all special assessment, he says.

7:55 p.m. A resident who spoke last time asks to speak. His question is going to be handled by public services area administrator Craig Hupy away from the podium.

7:55 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 contract for construction materials testing with Professional Services Industries Inc. for the Pontiac Trail improvements project ($46,879). [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail above.]
• CA-2 Street Closing: N. Fourth Avenue and E. Ann Street for the 19th Annual African-American Downtown Festival (Friday, June 6, 2014 to Saturday, June 7, 2014).
• CA-3 Approve April 24, 2014 recommendations of the board of insurance administration.

7:55 p.m. CA-1 Approve contract for construction materials testing with Professional Services Industries Inc. for the Pontiac Trail improvements project ($46,879).

7:56 p.m. Briere says she’s gotten a lot of questions about whether the city monitors the quality of the materials used for street improvement project. This resolution shows that the city does monitor material quality, she says.

7:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has completed its approval of the consent agenda.

7:57 p.m. C-1 Amend Sections 2:63, 2:64, and 2:69 of Chapter 29 (Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Rates). These are the annual rate increases for water, sewer and stormwater. [For background, see Fees and Rates: Water, Sewer, Stormwater above.]

7:59 p.m. Lumm says that the utility rates aren’t something that the council discusses a lot. These increases will increase city revenues by a total of $2.3 million, so it’s worth talking about, she says. There are significant capital needs, she says. She’s comfortable that the increases are needed, she says. Based on her experience on the board of insurance review, it’s clear that the city’s utility infrastructure is aging, she says. This kind of rate increase has been imposed in recent years in an attempt to level out the needed increases, she says.

7:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the increases in utility rates.

7:59 p.m. DC-1 Environmental commission appointment. This resolution would appoint Katherine Hollins to the environmental commission. Hollins is a staffer with the Great Lakes Commission.

8:00 p.m. Briere says she has little to add except that Hollins would begin her service on June 1.

8:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to appoint Hollins to the environmental commission.

8:00 p.m. DC-2 Authorization to join amicus brief in Deboer v Snyder and Schuette. This resolution follows on a resolution approved at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting to ask that Gov. Rick Snyder and attorney general Bill Schuette not appeal the ruling of judge Bernard Friedman on the Deboer et al v Richard Snyder et al case – that the Michigan statute on marriage impermissibly discriminates against same-sex couples in violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. This resolution authorizes adding the city of Ann Arbor to a list of municipalities supporting an amicus brief, as the case now is being heard before the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

8:02 p.m. Taylor reminds the public of the council’s previous resolution urging the dropping of the appeal. He says that it’s not surprising that Snyder and Schuette have gone ahead with the appeal. Even though the city is not a litigant, it’s common that parties who will be affected by a decision will weigh in with an amicus brief, he says.

8:02 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to authorize adding Ann Arbor to a list of municipalities supporting the finding that Michigan’s definition of marriage discriminates impermissibly against same-sex couples.

8:02 p.m. DC-3 Remove funding in CIP for city hall reskin. This resolution would recommend to the planning commission that the six-year capital improvement plan for FY 2017 and FY 2018 be revised to remove the $4.4 million that is included for the city hall re-skinning project. The planning commission is the body that approves the CIP. The council has budgetary discretion to fund projects in the CIP or not.

8:03 p.m. By way of background, the “reskin” would eliminate the stairstepped shape of the Larcom Building by dropping the exterior straight down from the top floor, thereby adding square footage to the lower stories.

8:04 p.m. Lumm is arguing that the reskin “might be nice” but that there are other more pressing capital needs.

8:06 p.m. Petersen characterizes the project as mostly cosmetic, although there are some energy efficiency components. She wants to retain those aspects of the project. Lumm says that the kind of amendment that Petersen is indicating isn’t possible because the amounts aren’t known. Hieftje says that this isn’t timely and that there’s a lot on tonight’s agenda. He thinks it should be postponed.

8:09 p.m. Briere notes that the resolution asks the planning commission to remove funding, which it’s not empowered to do. Teall moves for postponement until June 2.

Lumm is arguing for her proposal to remove the reskinning. Kunselman supports the postponement. He characterizes the CIP as a “wish list” and notes that the council controls the funding. He’s not worried about the fact that the reskinning project is in the CIP. The planning commission is putting the CIP together based on its statutory responsibilities, he says.

8:10 p.m. Kunselman says he’s willing to postpone it, but asking the planning commission to remove it doesn’t really do much.

8:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the item on the city hall reskinning until June 2.

8:10 p.m. Opposition to oil drilling. This resolution would oppose the oil exploration and drilling proposed by West Bay Exploration under MDEQ permit application #AI40053. The drilling would not take place inside the city limits, as the city is empowered by the state to prohibit drilling, which it does through the city code. However, the location in Scio Township is within two miles from the city limits and less than a mile from the Huron River, which is the source of the majority of the city’s drinking water.

The state zoning enabling act, as revised in 2006, deprives townships and counties of the ability to regulate drilling. Opposition to the drilling is grounded in concerns about the impact on the drinking water supply of the city, especially in the context of a 1,4 dioxane plume in the area of the proposed drilling activity.

In addition to expressing opposition to the proposed drilling in the shorter term and in the future, the text of the resolution requests that the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality require an environmental impact assessment, including impacts to surrounding natural resources and public health, before making a decision. Further, the resolution calls on state legislators to revise the state’s zoning enabling act to provide townships and counties with the power to regulate drilling activity.

8:11 p.m. Warpehoski, the resolution’s sponsor, is providing the context of this item. He has consulted with community activists and notes that city administrator Steve Powers has sent a letter to the MDEQ. He’s reviewing the specific content of the resolution.

8:13 p.m. Warpehoski notes that the city has language in its city code prohibiting drilling, but townships don’t have the power to enact such a prohibition. He says he considered putting off the resolution, given the full agenda tonight, but the time constraints of the permitting process were fairly tight, he said. Taylor offers remarks in support of the resolution.

8:13 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted approve the resolution in opposition to drilling.

8:13 p.m. DB-1 Approve grant applications for USDA support for purchase of development rights (PDR). This resolution would approve application to the federal Agricultural Land Easement (ALE) program to protect 260 acres of farmland located in Superior Township. The ALE program now includes what was previously known as the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP). The farm parcels consist of property on either side of Vreeland Road, which is currently in agriculture production. [For background, see Greenbelt above.]

8:15 p.m. Taylor, who serves on the greenbelt advisory commission, is describing the content of the resolution. He says it’s a very useful and important source of funds to help leverage the city’s greenbelt dollars. Lumm asks that a map be provided – which it turns out was added late. Lumm asks if the city anticipates other funding sources besides the federal grant and city greenbelt funds. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl says that Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and Superior Township might contribute funds.

8:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the grant application to the USDA program for purchase of development rights in connection with the city’s greenbelt program and properties in Superior Township.

8:15 p.m. DS-1 Scio Church sidewalk special assessment resolution No. 2 ($1,626.00). This resolution would direct the preparation of the special assessment roll. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church above.]

8:17 p.m. Kunselman says this had been postponed so that the city attorney could provide some clarification on equity issues. He’s willing to support this, but says it’s foolish to be special assessing that small an amount. City attorney Stephen Postema says that that analysis was provided to the council. He says the de minimus issue Kunselman had asked about is not a recognized method of dealing with an exception.

8:20 p.m. Lumm says that even though it’s a small amount, the city needs to be consistent and the rules need to be followed. She doesn’t know what to do about situations where a federal grant is available for some cases and not others. Eaton says that the legal analysis was actually that there’s no case law that’s on point. He says that the houses that haven’t had a sidewalk for some time wouldn’t suffer a detriment. The whole neighborhood is getting a benefit, and the three properties that are being special assessed would not get a special benefit, he says.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct preparation of the assessment roll for the Scio Church sidewalk project, over the lone dissent of Eaton.

8:20 p.m. DS-2 Scio Church sidewalk special assessment resolution No. 3 (set public hearing). This resolution would set the public hearing on the Scio Church sidewalk special assessment for June 16, 2014.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set a public hearing on the Scio Church sidewalk special assessment for June 16, 2014.

8:21 p.m. DS-12 Approve FY 2015 and FY 2016 allocations to non-profit entities for human services ($1,244,629). This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the city is providing $1,244,629. [For background, see Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding above.]

8:23 p.m. Lumm is thanking staff and everyone who worked so hard on this. There’s a very robust and through process in place to ensures that money flows to those in most need. Teall says it’s a very complex process and not everybody will end up happy. Mary Jo Callan and Andrea Plevek – staff with the county’s office of community and economic development – are at the podium to describe the process of coordinated funding.

8:24 p.m. Callan is noting that there was a little less funding this year, with a lot more requests for a lot more money.

8:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the human services allocations made through the coordinated funding process.

8:25 p.m. DS-3 Award contract to Evergreen LLC for Pontiac Trail Improvements Project ($2,605,190). According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning north of Skydale Drive to south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The project also includes extending water mains and sewer pipes, as well as construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes. The memo also indicates the project will include stormwater infiltration trenches, edge drains, and the addition of a small section of curb and gutter. The project is expected to begin in June of 2014 and be completed by fall of 2014. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail above.]

8:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to award the contract to Evergreen LLC for the Pontiac Trail improvement project.

8:26 p.m. DS-4 Appropriate funds from major street ($1,700,000), local street ($638,000), and water funds ($666,000) to address severe winter expenses and damage. This resolution would allocate money needed to pay for added expenses resulting from the severe winter. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, compared to last year there was a 36% increase in water main breaks and a 950% increase of broken water services.

Compared to the previous two years winters, the 2013-14 winter had 272% more snow and a 450% increase in required plowing. That meant additional use of materials like ice-control salt, sand, cold-patch, pipe, repair clamps and fittings – in addition to higher-than-anticipated work hours and overtime, and increased equipment costs. The resolution the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure: Winter Damage above.]

8:29 p.m. Briere says that her understanding is that this money comes from fund balance. City administrator Steve Powers tells Briere that over $400,000 came from the state of Michigan through an emergency appropriation. Craig Hupy says that there were more than 100 water main breaks but that still puts Ann Arbor in the better half of municipalities. Lumm says that the council knew this was coming but didn’t know what the price tag would be.

8:31 p.m. Kunselman says he appreciates the description of the water main breaks as “average” but he wants to know about the geographic distribution of those breaks. He wants to know if the breaks were in the areas where the mains were built in the 1950s and 1960s. Hupy says that analysis hasn’t been done. Kunselman says he wants to see the geographic distribution of the breaks.

8:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to allocate the additional funds from various sources to cover the expenses associated with the severe winter.

8:32 p.m. DS-5 Approve mental health court planning grant contract ($113,154). The council is being asked to approve the receipt of a planning grant of $113,154 from the Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) to fund the planning for a mental health court program. According to the staff memo accompanying the item, mental health courts are problem-solving courts “that focus on therapeutic treatment for offenders with mental illnesses whose crimes are a result of their mental illness.” The 15th District Court already operates several specialized courts – a sobriety court, a homeless court, veterans court and domestic violence court. The mental health court would be operated in addition to those other specialized courts.

8:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the planning grant for a mental health court.

8:33 p.m. DS-6 Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment resolution No. 2 ($1,980). This resolution would set the special assessment roll for the Barton Drive sidewalk project. [For background, see Physical Infrastructure Sidewalks – Barton Road above.]

8:37 p.m. Briere wants to note that much of the cost is being borne by the city and federal government, but there’s a small assessment for owners on Barton Drive. This is something that people in the Northside neighborhood have been demanding for a long time, she says. Kunselman says he’s appreciative of the fact that the city and federal funds are covering much of the cost. The resulting amount of the special assessment is very small and it’s just a couple of parcels that are carrying the burden for a greater community benefit, he says. For the next meeting, he’ll be requesting that the city come back and pay for the Barton and the Scio Church special assessments.

8:37 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the setting of the assessment roll for the Barton Drive sidewalk project.

8:37 p.m. DS-7 Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment resolution No. 3 (set a public hearing). This resolution would set the public hearing on the Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment for June 16, 2014.

8:38 p.m. Briere makes two points. She’d like to have a longer discussion about whether it’s rational for the city to special assess individual property owners for a larger community benefit. She also asks that the wording be corrected to fix a copy-paste error.

8:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set a public hearing on the Baron Drive sidewalk special assessment for June 16, 2014.

8:38 p.m. DS-8 Adopt revised funding policies for pension and VEBA. The council will be considering policies for making contributions to the pension and retiree health care plan that are supposed to ensure that the plans are eventually fully funded. The policy would set the funding at the higher of two different figures: (1) the Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC) rate; or (2) the existing level of contributions adjusted for the change in general fund revenues. That would have an impact of establishing a minimum increase in funding of 2% per year.

8:39 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the content of the resolution and how the minimum contribution is 2%. She says she supports this resolution 110%.

8:40 p.m. Kailasapathy notes that there’s about $100 million in unfunded pension liability and about $160 million in unfunded VEBA. So this is an important resolution, she says.

8:40 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt the revised funding policies for the pension and VEBA plans.

8:40 p.m. DS-9 Approve FY 2015 fee adjustments for public services area. These are the fees in the areas of project management, systems planning, field operations and customer service.

8:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the fee adjustments for the public services area.

8:41 p.m. DS-10 Approve FY 2015 fee adjustments for community services area. The proposed increase this year involves raising farmers market fees. [For background, see Fees and Rates: Community and Public Services Area above.]

8:43 p.m. Lumm focuses on the increases for the stall rental at the farmers market. She’s concerned about the impact on vendors. She calls the staff analysis of the comparative rates at other markets very helpful. She says that the process was followed correctly. She’ll support this, but still has some concerns, she says.

8:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the fee adjustments for the community services area.

8:43 p.m. Recess.

8:50 p.m. Here’s a number list of possible amendments the council will consider when the meeting resumes. [.pdf of possible FY 2015 budget amendments]

8:55 p.m. Jane Lumm is passing out Keebler cheese and crackers to colleagues during the break.

8:58 p.m. We’re back.

8:58 p.m. DS-11 Adopt FY 2015 city budget. For background on the budget and possible amendments, see: “Budget Debate Preview: Cops, Leaves.” For final versions of possible amendments to the budget – numbered in a way that councilmembers will likely reference during tonight’s deliberations – see: [.pdf of possible FY 2015 budget amendments]

9:01 p.m. Budget amendment: LDFA, Ann Arbor SPARK. This proposal would eliminate some increases in the budget of the local development finance authority (LDFA) – of $30,000 in incubator operating expense, $20,000 in direct staffing expense, and a $75,000 increase to Ann Arbor SPARK’s marketing plan. So the resolution would decrease the expenditure by $165,379 to the prior year’s level of $1,814,892. The unspent funds would instead be reserved for “future infrastructure improvements.” (Kailasapathy, Eaton, Anglin)

9:03 p.m. Kailasapathy is reviewing how the LDFA funding has increased as a result of the TIF (tax increment finance) capture. She says that SPARK has had a 70% increase in funding from the LDFA in the last few years.

9:04 p.m. For Kailasapathy, government is all about sharing, she says. When there’s additional windfall revenue, that should be shared, she says.

9:05 p.m. The money should be used for community-based development like high-speed telecommunications. She’s only asking that the budget be capped at $1.814 million, with the rest to be used for infrastructure that will benefit the community, including startups. She’s not taking all their money away, she says.

9:07 p.m. Eaton will support this. Setting aside some of the new TIF capture is consistent with the LDFA foundational documents, which highlight the possibility of adding infrastructure – in the form of high-speed fiber connections. If we want downtown to be a high-tech center, he says, it’s something that could be aimed for. This could be a good start, he says.

9:09 p.m. Petersen says she feels like this budget amendment misses the point. The revenue should be going up, if the LDFA is doing its job. The reason why the LDFA is getting more is because they are giving more, she says. With respect to the fund balance, it’s an incremental increase of $415,000, and the LDFA had decided only $165,000 would go to SPARK and the rest would go to the LDFA fund balance. If there’s a specific recommendation the council wants to make, she’d like to see that as a separate resolution.

9:10 p.m. Anglin notes that earlier in the meeting, utility fees went up for residents. The LDFA is being asked to support infrastructure improvements, he says.

9:12 p.m. Taylor says SPARK is an entity we’re fortunate to have, and SPARK does good things for entrepreneurs and growth. He doesn’t believe the proposal is wise and thinks that SPARK should be given as many resources that they can be legally provided to continue their work.

9:14 p.m. Hieftje gets clarification from Petersen that she’d like a resolution from the city council simply recommending that the LDFA pursue a high-speed fiber network. Petersen indicates that the LDFA board has not gotten to that level of granularity. High-speed fiber is one option, she says. She would love to see a resolution from the council directing the use of fund balance for high-speed fiber. [Petersen serves as the council representative to the LDFA board.]

9:15 p.m. Lumm thinks that the direction Petersen is talking about could be incorporated into this amendment. Lumm notes that the economic collaborative task force, which Petersen led, recommends investment in a high-speed fiber network.

9:15 p.m. Lumm is working on a possible revision to the amendment.

9:17 p.m. Eaton says that the language Lumm is trying to add is already in the last resolved clause – so he doesn’t think Lumm’s revision is necessary. Briere asks for someone from the LDFA to come forward.

9:20 p.m. Carrie Leahy, the chair of the LDFA board, and former councilmember Stephen Rapundalo, who’s a member of the LDFA board, are at the podium to field questions. They’re describing how the LDFA relies on SPARK to provide required reporting, that could be driven by the extension of the LDFA (by 5 or 15 years). SPARK had asked for additional marketing funding to market the message of the LDFA to the community.

9:21 p.m. Rapundalo says that the additional money is in response to growing demand. They’ve heard that the message is not getting out enough throughout the entrepreneurial community what the LDFA has to offer.

9:23 p.m. Rapundalo says the LDFA has considered infrastructure needs nearly every year. When the city was applying for the Google Fiber initiative, LDFA had promised $250,000 if the city had been awarded the Google grant. There has not been much demand for the infrastructure, he says, but rather on the programming side.

9:26 p.m. CFO Tom Crawford is clarifying that what the council can do is affect the bottom line of the budget, but not the individual expenditures. Briere ventures that about 60% of the “windfall” is already being reserved in the fund balance. Rapundalo says the board has been judicious over the years. He says that the LDFA has not always acceded to SPARK’s requests.

9:29 p.m. Eaton asks if there have been any infrastructure projects over the years. Rapundalo points to the possibility that the LDFA entertained with the Google Fiber initiative. He also characterizes incubator space as infrastructure, but Eaton appears not to accept that as “infrastructure” in the sense that it’s meant in the LDFA foundational documents.

9:31 p.m. Lumm is returning to the topic of the economic collaborative task force and the inclusion of high-speed fiber in the final report of that group.

9:32 p.m. Hieftje says that the council should follow Petersen’s suggestion to pass a resolution at the next meeting to ask the LDFA to work on a high-speed fiber network.

9:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on the LDFA by a 5-6 vote. Voting for it were Eaton, Kailasapathy, Kunselman, Lumm, and Anglin.

9:35 p.m. Budget amendment: Human Services, SPARK. This proposal would eliminate the city general fund allocation of $75,000 to Ann Arbor SPARK and put that money toward human services. (Kailasapathy, Eaton, Anglin)

9:35 p.m. Eaton is arguing for this amendment, saying that the $75,000 is a pittance compared to the amount SPARK receives from the LDFA. He also points to increased funding SPARK has received from the county – through Act 88.

9:37 p.m. Kailasapathy is contrasting this amendment with a different one on the list that would form a warming center from money drawn from the affordable housing trust fund. She calls Briere’s approach a status quo approach – taking money from a needy population and giving it to a different needy population. So she prefers that this amendment on SPARK pass. She appeals to councilmembers to support this because it’s not a big amount for SPARK but is a big deal for a population that needs to be taken care of.

9:38 p.m. Anglin says that back in 2008, many nonprofits disappeared. SPARK should share some of what they have for those who are less fortunate, he says. Economic development goes with social development, he says.

9:42 p.m. Petersen has invited Tim Marshall – chair of SPARK’s board and CEO of the Bank of Ann Arbor – to the podium to explain the difference between the LDFA funding of SPARK and the city’s funding of SPARK. The difference, he says, is that the LDFA is funded through the state. That’s the entrepreneurial side. The $75,000 goes for attraction and retention, he says. Attraction and retention requires skilled people, he says. You can’t say that SPARK should lose on the general fund contribution because it won on the LDFA side. He claims that the return on the investment is about one job for every $100 of investment.

9:44 p.m. Petersen says that the $75,000 is the only line item in the budget that is solely dedicated to economic development, and given that the council has said that’s a priority, she doesn’t know why the council would eliminate that funding. She’s now reviewing what the scope of services is that SPARK provides.

9:46 p.m. Petersen says that the council has gotten 752 new jobs for its $75,000. SPARK does not just share the wealth, it creates wealth, Petersen says. When SPARK helps to occupy empty buildings, that increases the value of the property and that increases revenue to the city, Petersen says.

9:48 p.m. Prompted by Lumm, Marshall is explaining the difference between the city’s general fund contribution to SPARK and the LDFA funding of SPARK.

9:55 p.m. Kunselman goes back to the $250,000 that comes from the county, which Eaton had mentioned. Marshall acknowledges that contribution and calls it a wonderful private-public collaboration. He says there are about 35-40 private companies, including his own Bank of Ann Arbor, that contribute to SPARK.

SPARK CEO Paul Krutko says that Saline, Dexter, Chelsea, Ypsilanti, Superior Township and Ypsilanti Township all make contributions. Kunselman asks about expansion to other areas – to Livingston County. With all the contributors, how does the city of Ann Arbor know that Ann Arbor is priority one? Marshall says that you have to look at the report card every year. Are there winners and losers every year? Kunselman asks. Krutko says that it’s a regional issue – the boundaries are not important, he says. This region is in competition with the rest of the world, he says.

9:55 p.m. Eaton asks if SPARK has ever had an independent audit of its jobs claims.

9:59 p.m. No, says Krutko. But SPARK has had independent audits of it finances. Eaton says he’s troubled that SPARK only recently provided those financial audits. Why is it so hard to get information from SPARK – on finances or on audited jobs figures? Eaton asks. Krutko says that this region has outperformed every other region in the country.

10:00 p.m. Kailasapathy asks for the amounts that the other municipalities contribute. Krutko doesn’t have that information, but can get it to Kailasapathy later. She comes back with: “We vote today!”

10:04 p.m. Krutko is describing SPARK’s approach as creative – because it combines entrepreneurial support, with retention and attraction, and marketing. Petersen is now describing the activity of the economic development collaborative task force. That task force is done and the next step is to form a policy group, she says.

10:06 p.m. Kunselman suggests reducing the amount to $50,000, so that $25,000 would be available for human services. That’s the amendment that’s on the floor. Kunselman says he’s not an expert on economic development, but he’s a keen observer of his surroundings. He ventures that most of the growth in jobs is simply backfilling existing space. Most of the activity is driven by the University of Michigan, Kunselman says.

10:07 p.m. Kunselman is willing to support SPARK’s retention efforts and recognizes the importance of being a good partner. He appreciates the county’s contribution.

10:11 p.m. Petersen responds to Kunselman’s remark about backfilling commercial properties. When that happens outside the DDA district, that incremental revenue goes to the general fund. Kunselman responds by saying that’s a broad statement. When a commercial building becomes vacant, the taxes are not automatically decreased, he points out. To say that the development that backfills property space adds to taxable value isn’t necessarily true, Kunselman says. He ventures that the real property tax for the Borders property downtown did not decrease when it went vacant.

10:14 p.m. Taylor calls this an unwise proposal. The city needs to make sure that the city is supportive of SPARK. The city should not freeload, he says. To pull money out is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Warpehoski notes that it’s the Red Queen dilemma – the city needs to run as fast as it can just to stay in place. He shares some of Eaton’s concerns about SPARK’s transparency. For the $75,000, Warpehoski feels like it’s a worthwhile investment. So he’ll oppose the amendment.

10:17 p.m. Briere says that this particular amendment is emblematic about why she doesn’t like to defund one thing to fund another thing. She notes that the discussion so far has not focused at all on the need to increase funding for human services – because it’s focused only on SPARK. If human services is a value, that’s what the council should be talking about. She’d spoken to Kailasapathy about the need to have additional money for human services. The way the resolution reads now, she says, is that it would put $25,000 toward a warming center. That would not work, she says.

10:20 p.m. Briere says she can see a lot of positive impacts. She can’t attribute it all to SPARK, but she feels like SPARK plays a role in that. She feels like the human services part was like a poker chip, and that the real intent was to defund SPARK. Teall agrees that it’s all about defunding SPARK and not about human services. She’s frustrated that councilmembers don’t see the connection between the increased economic activity and the ability of the city to fund those things it wants to fund. “A rising tide lifts all boats,” she says. She also has an issue with the idea that Ann Arbor is competing with other communities and ventures that Kunselman has a very strong competitive nature.

10:23 p.m. Hieftje pleads with the council to move to a vote, saying that at this rate we’ll be here until breakfast. Lumm wants another turn. She says no one would be against economic development. Lumm wonders how much of the economic development SPARK is responsible for.

10:25 p.m. Eaton says it’s not an effort to defund SPARK, pointing out that SPARK is going to receive a lot of money. He points out that SPARK will still get the $50,000 from the general fund (as revised by Kunselman) and Ann Arbor residents pay the county’s Act 88 tax as well, he points out.

10:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on SPARK by a 5-6 vote. Voting for it were Eaton, Kailasapathy, Kunselman, Lumm, and Anglin.

10:27 p.m. Budget amendment: Police staffing – decrease. This proposal would increase the number of sworn officers by two officers instead of three, with the savings allocated to human services for the purpose of drug treatment and prevention. (Chuck Warpehoski)

10:29 p.m. Warpehoski is recounting his conversation with Jim Balmer of Dawn Farms on the topic of opiate abuse. He’s relating a vignette about someone he knows who sought treatment and had no resources in the city to which he could appeal.

10:30 p.m. Teall asks for Mary Jo Callan, director of community & economic development for the county and city, to approach the podium. Teall wants Callan to talk about how the funds could be allocated for treatment. Callan indicates there’s definitely a need.

10:35 p.m. Eaton wants to know how many people could be housed with $95,000. Callan says that the money might also be used for staff. The AADL and PORT don’t have the staff to deal with all the people who are in need. So one option would be to have a robust presence at the library. One possibility is temporary housing in the form of hotel rooms as a bridge to something more permanent. Callan allows that $95,000 will not solve the problem. It could pay for some staffing and some treatment, and some hotel nights. It would need to be leveraged with other resources, she says.

10:37 p.m. Briere says that, for example, an additional $20,000 for Catholic Social Services could make a big impact – like it could for any of the human services nonprofits.

10:38 p.m. Lumm tells Callan she has huge respect and admiration for her. But she won’t support this amendment. She’s reviewing what the impact would be.

10:39 p.m. This amendment is 180 degrees opposite of the direction the city should be going, Lumm says.

10:41 p.m. Kunselman asks Callan how many people are seeking heroin addiction treatment voluntarily versus through a court order. Callan doesn’t know, but can get that information. Kunselman says he won’t support this resolution. He says that it’s naive to think that people will seek treatment just because someone is there at the library to do outreach.

10:43 p.m. Petersen says she’s struggling to support this. Substance abuse and mental health issues are important, but she’s reluctant to reduce the number of police officers to fund it.

10:45 p.m. Kailasapathy says there’s $235,000 in the fund balance that can be used for treatment and education. She allows that it’s campaign season again and as she talks to people at doors, they don’t talk about crime. They talk about other issues, like trucks speeding down their streets causing their foundations to rattle.

10:45 p.m. It’s hard to make these kinds of choices, Kailasapathy says. But she won’t support taking money from the “underfunded police.” She’s really sorry, though.

10:47 p.m. Teall says she’s going to address Petersen’s concerns. This amendment is going to help the police, she says. It will fund someone to do outreach work that a police officer can’t do, she says.

10:48 p.m. There’s need for outreach on a level that a beat cop can’t do, Teall says. There’s such a need in the community, she adds, and crime is down.

10:50 p.m. Eaton says his recollection was that police chief Seto’s request for additional police officers was not based on the increase in heroin cases. It was based on a broad community need for various kinds of community engagement, he says.

10:51 p.m. Hieftje pleads that the council move to a vote, saying that no one will say anything new on this topic.

10:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on 2-9 vote. Voting for it were Warpehoski and Teall.

10:53 p.m. The council has suspended its rule on starting closed sessions before 11 p.m.

10:53 p.m. We’re now in recess.

10:58 p.m. Mayor Hieftje has been ill and his voice is not particularly strong tonight.

11:00 p.m. Hieftje is rounding people up.

11:00 p.m. We’re back.

11:01 p.m. Budget amendment: Community-facing climate action programs. Money for “community-facing” climate action programs would come in part from $50,000 allocated for the Ellsworth Road corridor study. (Taylor, Teall, Hieftje, Warpehoski)

11:03 p.m. Taylor says that Ann Arbor has an ambitious long-range climate action plan. It’s a present and immediate necessity. The energy commission has identified this as a need. The city administrator had been queried how much it would take to get things off the ground: about $125,000. We can’t stop climate change with action in Ann Arbor, Taylor says, but the city must do its part. This is a step in that direction, he says.

11:06 p.m. Briere says that she thinks she knows what “community-facing” means, but asks Taylor to explain that. He says that much of the effort to date has been inward facing towards the city itself and its own buildings and vehicles. This would involve talking to residents and business owners, he says. Kunselman ventures that this would involve hiring a contractor. Powers indicates that’s right: It would involve going out for an RFP (request for proposals) to specify deliverables.

Kunselman says he’s not interested in hiring a consultant at this time. Lumm also indicates that she’s not supporting this, either. She indicates that it basically amounts to an additional position of some fashion.

11:07 p.m. Kailasapathy echoes Lumm’s sentiments – that she’ll support a different amendment, to hire an additional forester. She talks about “consultant fatigue.” She allows that global warming is real, and trees are a good solution to reducing greenhouse gases.

11:08 p.m. Anglin also indicates that he’d rather support something that involves trees – in our immediate environment.

11:12 p.m. Eaton also says he’d prefer to support the amendment on adding a forester. Hieftje says that the climate action program would be far more than what a forester would do. He points to the PACE program, which might have an impact on multifamily housing energy efficiency. This amendment could make a big difference, Hieftje says.

11:14 p.m. Briere asks if additional support is anticipated to be needed next year, or if by next fiscal year it would be self-supporting. He figures that nobody expects the forester position to become self-supporting. Powers says the goal of the climate action programs would be that they’d be self-supporting.

11:15 p.m. Eaton asks what this amendment actually does. Taylor says that there’s no reference to the FTE in the resolution. It’s not to hire an FTE. It’s anticipated that it would be a contractor.

11:19 p.m. Eaton asks if the city would start charging fees to make the program self-supporting. Powers says that he doesn’t have that level of detail tonight. Taylor ventures that there would be grant funding. In the future, if the economic climate improves, he hopes to be able to transition from a contractor to an FTE.

11:19 p.m. Hieftje asks that it move to a vote.

11:19 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment on 6-5 vote. Voting for it were Warpehoski, Teall, Petersen, Briere, Taylor and Hieftje.

11:20 p.m. Teall floats the idea of recessing the meeting until Tuesday, splitting the meeting into two parts. Brief discussion ensues but councilmembers decide they’ll push through the rest of the amendments.

11:21 p.m. Budget amendment: Police staffing – increase. This proposal would increase the number of sworn police officers by five officers instead of an increase of three proposed by the city administrator. Funding would come in part from a reduction in the 15th District Court budget. The resolution would also reiterate a previous request made last year that the DDA fund three downtown beat cops. (Lumm, Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin)

11:21 p.m. Lumm is reviewing her reasons for wanting to increase the number of police officers by more than the three that the proposed budget calls for.

11:24 p.m. Lumm is arguing that the 15th District Court has not been as fiscally responsible as other departments. She’s proposing to fund a portion of the increased cost through a reduction in the court’s budget. She’s also anticipating additional money from the state through state shared revenue.

11:24 p.m. Hieftje is commenting on the idea of comparing the size of police departments in the 1980s and 1990s to current levels. He points to the 55 sworn officers that the University of Michigan now employs that did not previously exist.

11:27 p.m. Police departments were built up to respond in the past to increased levels of crime, he says. But now those levels have decreased. When police officer time is measured, Hieftje points out, they do have a lot of time available for proactive policing. He doesn’t want to put the budget under strain based on revenues that have not yet materialized. He returns to the point of decreasing crime numbers. He doesn’t understand why the goal would be to have a police force at the same level that the city did in a previous era.

11:29 p.m. Eaton says the city is fortunate to have police chief John Seto. Seto is not telling the council that the city has a crime problem, Eaton says. Seto has said the additional three officers are a “good start” toward accomplishing what Seto wants to do in terms of traffic enforcement and community engagement. Adding three officers does not take staffing levels back to the levels of the 1990s or even 2009, Eaton says. It’s an incremental step in the right direction.

11:32 p.m. Teall says she didn’t hear Seto say there were more police officers needed, but rather it was true that more could always be done. She won’t support this. Taylor says he won’t support this amendment, either. He’ll support the additional three police officers, but he rejects the idea that failing to support an additional two officers means a lack of priority on public safety. He points out that after pass-throughs, 57% of the city’s general fund goes to public safety.

11:35 p.m. Taylor is referring to an email from chief judge Libby Hines that rejected the idea that the 15th District Court was not a good steward of public money. The court administrator, Shryl Samborn, is at the podium. She’s talking about the ways the 15th District Court has reduced costs. More police officers means more citations, which would require more court clerks, she points out.

11:38 p.m. Lumm is responding to the court’s cost cutting, tracing the 7% and 9% and 4% general fund increases the court has shown. The court had authorized significant pay increases well above what other city employees had received, she says. Responding to the idea that UM officers should be factored into the equation, Lumm says the UM officers don’t see their job as policing the broader community. “They are not our backup,” she says.

11:41 p.m. Kunselman says that as much as he’d like to support it, he won’t support it. It’s important to work within the city administrator’s budget as much as possible. He’s not confident that the recurring revenues will actually be there, so he feels a little “queasy” about adding police officers. He says he had proposed no amendments, because he was very happy with the city administrator’s budget – because Powers had listened to the council about what it wanted to see.

11:44 p.m. Anglin says that there will be more police required as more people use public transportation. Warpehoski tries to move the council to a vote.

11:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on 4-7 vote. Voting for it were Lumm, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

11:48 p.m. Budget amendment: Compost/leaf program – restore. This proposal would restore loose leaf collection in the fall and holiday tree pickup in the winter. This would require roughly $406,000 in capital investment and $319,500 in recurring expenses from the millage-supported solid waste fund. (Lumm, Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin)

11:48 p.m. Lumm notes that she’s brought forward this amendment the last two years and allows that people might be wondering: When will she give up? She says that she’d give up if she did not hear continually from residents that this is a service that they really use and expect the city to provide. She’s reciting the standard arguments in favor.

Petersen says that as much as she’d like to support this, she thinks that the city should not go back to the old way of doing things, because it was too inefficient. That’s not an appropriate way to restore the service. She mentions vacuum trucks as a possibility.

11:49 p.m. Hieftje says that leaves don’t come down on schedule. Cities across the state have moved away from the old way, he says. The current approach using containers is not perfect but it does work ok, he says.

11:53 p.m. Briere won’t support this restoration of fall leaf collection. She’s advocated for year-round composting because she thinks there are some years when leaves need to be set out after the first of December. Briere is recycling familiar arguments.

11:55 p.m. Lumm is arguing environmental points.

11:56 p.m. Lumm is using the Ann Arbor Newshawks in support of her argument for loose collection. She describes following a truck on its collection route.

11:58 p.m. Warpehoski raises a point of order on the length of Lumm’s speaking time.

12:00 a.m. Kunselman says he won’t support this. He’s not sure the solid waste fund reserve won’t be needed in the future. The last thing he wants to see is the solid waste millage go up. He doesn’t want to tinker with the city administrator’s budget.

12:01 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on 4-7 vote. Voting for it were Lumm, Eaton, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

12:01 a.m. Budget amendment: Retirement plan. This proposal directs the city administrator to develop a revised retirement plan design for new hires that “includes a defined contribution element and results in lower costs to the city.” The new plan design would be presented to the council by Dec. 31, 2014, with the intent that the revised plan would be applied to all employees hired after Dec. 31, 2015. (Lumm, Kailasapathy)

12:02 a.m. Lumm is describing what this resolution does. She allows that she’s brought this up previously. But she laments the lack of progress. So she wants the council to give some direction that it supports this approach.

12:04 a.m. Kailasapathy is explaining the problem with defined benefit plans is that demographics have changed – life expectancy has increased.

12:08 a.m. Warpehoski says he’s voting against the resolution, but doesn’t want that vote to be understood as being against defined contribution plans. He says that the right venue for this kind of thing is negotiated at the table as labor contracts are developed. Lumm responds by saying it’s not a collective bargaining strategy. Nothing has happened in two years, she says. She says the council should provide direction as a council.

12:08 a.m. Teall says she doesn’t support this and so she’s not going to vote to it.

12:10 a.m. Warpehoski references a staff memo that supports his contention that this would impede the city’s general labor strategy. Staff had expressed their concerns about this approach. He’s chaffing under the implication from Lumm that he had not read the resolution, noting that he did read it.

12:13 a.m. Petersen and Powers are discussing how the council best should supply direction on this topic. They’re discussing closed sessions versus open sessions. Anglin says this doesn’t even seem like a budget amendment. It’s more like a general direction.

12:13 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on 3-8 vote. Voting for it were Lumm, Eaton, and Kailasapathy.

12:13 a.m. Policy direction: This proposal would not alter the budget but would ask the city administrator to “study alternatives to increase street funding and present to Council by Sept. 30, 2014 a report outlining options, their financial impact, and the pros and cons of each.” (Lumm, Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin)

12:16 a.m. Lumm is reviewing the content of the resolution.

12:16 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment on a unanimous vote. This prompts an “Oh, my god!” from Lumm.

12:16 a.m. Budget amendment: Animal control. The proposal would eliminate funding for an inventory of commercial signs in favor of animal control for the Human Society of Huron Valley and for deer herd management costs. (Petersen, Kailasapathy, Eaton, Anglin)

12:18 a.m. Petersen recites the content of the resolution. Lumm says she’ll support this amendment as a short-term solution. She’s prepared another amendment involving dog licenses that is meant to address the long-term issue.

12:18 a.m. Kunselman is getting clarification about the total amount that would wind up allocated for animal control – about $100,000.

12:22 a.m. Warpehoski says that when the city was dealing with the digital billboard ordinance, having an inventory of signs was noted as something that was important. So he’s torn about this amendment. Powers is explaining that the sign inventory is important and that’s why it’s in the budget. He can’t say exactly how urgent the work might be. Can it be deferred? Yes, says Powers. Warpehoski says he’ll support the amendment this year, but does want to see the inventory done.

Kunselman draws out the fact that the $75,000 would have been spent on a consultant. He’s not interested in supporting consultants.

12:24 a.m. Petersen, Lumm and Kunselman are doing some wordsmithing about what HSHV will be doing.

12:30 a.m. Hieftje wants to move along to a vote.

12:30 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment on a unanimous vote.

12:31 a.m. Budget amendment: Warming center. This proposal would allocate $100,000 from the affordable housing trust fund to provide assistance for a warming center. (Lumm, Briere)

12:33 a.m. Briere says that she can find past uses of the affordable housing fund that are consistent with this one. This does not cover 100% of the anticipated cost, but she wants to bring it forward now instead of waiting until October, because it’s possible to anticipate that there will be a winter.

12:34 a.m. Kunselman asks if the source of the funds is all general fund money. Briere explains that there were general fund transfers as well as proceeds from the sale of the former Y lot.

12:37 a.m. Kunselman says he’s not comfortable using money from an affordable housing fund. He’d support a general fund expenditure for that purpose. But he doesn’t think it’s wise to raid the fund for purposes other than providing affordable housing. Eaton says he’s also voting against it. When the council voted to put the net proceeds of the Y lot into the affordable housing fund, he’d been concerned that there weren’t clear criteria for use of the affordable housing trust fund. He calls for development of guidelines for use of funds from the affordable housing trust fund. He’s voting against this.

12:38 a.m. Hieftje says he’s torn on this. He’s concerned about the demand for warming shelter services for people who are not from Washtenaw County. The city needs to work with its partners to figure out how to continue to provide services to people from Washtenaw County. It’s premature to make a decision tonight, he says, because it should be based on a strategy worked out with partners.

12:39 a.m. Lumm is supporting this, and notes that Briere has worked with Mary Jo Callan and Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County. There’s a need for additional capacity for a warming center.

12:41 a.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support the amendment, but with the same reservations that others have expressed. His understanding, however, is that allocations from the affordable housing trust fund need a recommendation from the housing & human services advisory board (HHSAB). Briere says that it’s legitimate for the council to take this action without the HHSAB recommendation. She believes that HHSAB would support it.

12:43 a.m. Taylor says that much of our services go to folks “who are not of us,” which leads to a slippery slope of not being able to serve the “local homeless.”

12:48 a.m. Taylor says that this is an issue that’s more complicated than what can be solved tonight.

12:48 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on a 5-6 vote. Voting for it were Kailasapathy, Briere, Petersen, Lumm, and Warpehoski.

12:48 a.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

12:55 a.m. Teall is sitting in the mayor’s seat. Not clear if she’s going to take over for Hieftje when we resume. She’s fortifying herself with peanut M&Ms.

12:55 a.m. “Come on folks, let’s go!” says Teall.

12:56 a.m. Teall says we’re on schedule to be out by 4:15 a.m.

12:56 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition – pedestrian safety. This proposal would use some of the $300,000 in the general fund budget that’s designated for demolition of the city-owned 415 W. Washington property to fund the pedestrian safety and access task force. (Briere, Warpehoski)

12:59 a.m. Briere says that the pedestrian task force would be funded in two ways – from the $75,000 set aside for a sidewalk gap elimination study and from part of the $300,000 set aside for the 415 W. Washington demolition. Powers confirms that Briere’s description of the way that project management staff are paid is accurate – in that they’re paid by project.

1:00 a.m. Eaton expresses puzzlement, saying he thought this pedestrian safety task force funding had been in front of the council and they’d postponed it, and that staff had identified all the required funding.

1:05 a.m. Craig Hupy, public services area administrator, is at the podium fielding questions from Kailasapathy. The $77,320 in the resolution is for the consultant on the pedestrian safety task force. Warpehoski reviews the history of how the consultant was selected. The task force is eager to have a positive impact on the community, he says. Current staff don’t have capacity to provide the task force support, he says. The task force has participated in the selection of the consultant (The Greenway Collaborative), he says.

1:05 a.m. Lumm is now commenting on the amendment. She’s reviewing how the funding works.

1:06 a.m. Mayor John Hieftje has departed the meeting, and Teall has been presiding over the meeting as mayor pro tem since returning from recess.

1:09 a.m. Kunselman says it seems like the council is picking on the 415 W. Washington demolition funds, when it’s been put of for several years. Powers says that there would need additional preparatory work to make an application to the historic district commission for the demolition.

1:11 a.m. “The building needs to come down,” Kunselman says. “This building is not going to be saved,” because it’s going to cost too much. In the meantime, it’s a blight in the neighborhood, across from the new Y building. It needs to be torn down and the city has been dragging its feet, he says. Now the council is stalling that effort, so he won’t support it.

1:12 a.m. Kailasapathy asks if the amendment can be split into two parts so that the $75,000 portion could be dragged forward from last year’s budget.

1:15 a.m. Briere says that the pedestrian task force was established through a unanimous vote of the council and now there’s an obligation to fund it. She’s continuing to argue by saying it’s important not to just give it lip service.

1:16 a.m. Teall agrees with Briere, saying the council has to support task forces that it establishes.

1:19 a.m. Kailasapathy cautions that she did not vote to sign a blank check when she voted for the establishment of the task force.

1:19 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment. [We are tentatively recording this as a 5-5 vote. Hieftje has left the meeting.]

1:20 a.m. Budget amendment: Compost/leaf program – extend. This proposal would extend the curbside compostables pickup from seasonal to year-round so that food waste could be kept out of the garbage stream year-round, at an increased annual cost of $300,000. (Briere)

1:21 a.m. Briere is arguing for her proposal.

1:25 a.m. Petersen and Lumm question whether a reduction in tipping fees would actually be realized. Lumm says that if the city is going to spend $300,000 a year from the solid waste fund, it should be to pick up loose leaves.

1:25 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on a 3-7 vote. It got support from Taylor, Teall and Briere.

1:25 a.m. Budget amendment: Art administration, traffic calming efforts. The proposal is to reduce the amount allocated in the recommended budget for transitional costs associated with the public art program from $80,000 to $40,000. The $40,000 in savings would be used for traffic calming projects in neighborhoods, including but not limited to speed bumps. (Eaton, Kailasapathy, Anglin)

1:28 a.m. Kailasapathy says she’d like to dedicate all $80,000 to traffic calming, but she acknowledges that some councilmembers wanted to fund a transition for art. She’s hearing from her constituents that they want to see traffic calming but not transitional art administration funding. The art administrator can be hired for $40,000 and put efforts into private fund raising, she says.

1:29 a.m. Briere says that last year when she put forward additional money for traffic calming, she had been able to identify exactly what projects would be funded. This proposal is more conceptual, she says. She’d be more comfortable with it if it were more precise.

1:32 a.m. Briere questions whether this amendment is about adding money to traffic calming or “because it looks good.”

1:32 a.m. Lumm is supporting this.

1:35 a.m. Outcome: The council has rejected this amendment on a 4-6 vote. It got support from Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, and Anglin.

1:35 a.m. Budget amendment: Streets – Alt Transportation. The proposal would, for this year, bump the Act 51 allocation for alternative transportation from 2.5% to 5% – which translates to $180,000. The amendment would ask the city administrator to provide information that would help the council determine the appropriate percentage to allocate to alternative transportation. (Briere)

1:36 a.m. Briere had to be encouraged to bring this forward by Eaton, after she said she thought the council was by now going to split 5-5 on everything else (because Hieftje is no longer here). She summarizes why she wants to increase alternative transportation funding.

1:39 a.m. Lumm says she won’t support this because it draws down the general fund. Other councilmembers correct her.

1:39 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman.

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

1:42 a.m. Kailasapathy says that she had proposed this in response to CFO Tom Crawford’s cautionary remarks from the May 12 work session about the level of the general fund reserves. She says that the money for demolition could be found in the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage, if the property is added to the PROS plan.

1:45 a.m. Briere talks about the amount of process that would need to be engaged in before deciding that it would become a park. She didn’t think it was realistic to demolish the building before the spring of next year. Lumm says this “hits pause” on the demolition of 415 W. Washington to see if alternatives to the general fund can be found to pay for it.

1:48 a.m. Lumm is noting that the open space preservation millage might be a source of funds. Kunselman says he doesn’t support using parks money for a general fund type building. The building needs to come down, he says. It might not come down until next spring, but the money needs to be appropriated at this meeting. The building is an eyesore and is not in any way historic, he says. He won’t support the amendment. He’ll encourage the staff to move ahead in the coming months on getting the building torn down.

1:50 a.m. Anglin is talking about the costs that would be involved in preserving the building. Artists had talked about possibly using it as an art center. It had been studied, he says, and he doesn’t know where the idea came from to demolish the building. The council had not yet heard from the historic district commission, he says.

1:54 a.m. Anglin says there’s an opportunity in this building to make the art community feel welcome. Teall also questions where the idea came from to demolish the building. Briere says that the council had directed the study of the feasibility of preserving the building and the final report had come back. The result of that report was a conclusion that it would take about $3 million to stabilize the building and another $3 million to renovate it. That’s where the notion of demolishing the building came from.

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

1:55 a.m. Budget amendment: Dog licenses. This proposal would encourage educational and enforcement efforts to increase the 7% compliance rate for dog licenses, which currently generates $15,000 in revenue. The resolution states that Ann Arbor is home to 30,000 dogs and that a 50% license compliance rate would result in $105,000 in revenue. But the resolution targets a 30% compliance rate for the shorter term, which would bring in a total of about $63,000. The resolution alters the revenue budget to reflect that amount. The resolution indicates that at least a portion of the additional $48,000 would go toward payment for animal services provided to the city by the Humane Society of Huron Valley.

1:57 a.m. Lumm characterizes this as an effort to identify a recurring source of revenue for animal control. “We have a lot of dogs in Ann Arbor,” she says. It’s thought that Ann Arbor is home to about 30,000 dogs, she says. A 50% compliance rate would generate about $120,000 annually, she says. Currently the compliance rate is only about 7%, she says.

2:01 a.m. Teall asks about increased enforcement and how that would be done. Powers indicated that it would initially be a matter of raising awareness of the requirement. Only about 2,000 dogs are licensed in Ann Arbor. One of the benefits of having a license for your dog is being able to use the city’s dog parks.

2:02 a.m. Briere has no problem with the idea of focusing on enforcement, but is uncomfortable with making it a budget amendment, because it might assume revenues that might not materialize.

2:03 a.m. Briere wonders if it might be possible not to include such a “confident” allocation.

2:05 a.m. Powers says he’ll likely be bringing an agreement between the county and the city that would be the conduit by which HSHV would be paid. Briere says the 30% compliance rate seems ambitious. Petersen asks about a dog census to help compliance. Powers indicates there’s a statutory requirement for a dog census.

2:06 a.m. Warpehoski wants to vote.

2:07 a.m. Lumm reports that she’s talked to the director of the HSHV, and HSHV sees this as a baby step. She says having 23% greater compliance does not set the bar too high. It’s good for pets and pet owners, she says.

2:09 a.m. Taylor says he’d observed that the council was talking about police officers enforcing dog licenses, when previously some councilmembers had objected to the idea of police officers enforcing an outdoor smoking ordinance. Taylor doesn’t object to either kind of enforcement.

2:11 a.m. Kunselman asks police chief Seto if an animal control officer is needed. Kunselman says there’ve been problems in his neighborhood. Seto notes that every police officer is authorized as an animal control officer. That service is probably not provided as well as when there was a dedicated animal control officer, he says. He notes that the city now works with the county on animal control.

2:12 a.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved this amendment.

2:12 a.m. Budget amendment: Parks fairness. This is a standard amendment every year to ensure that the parks budget is increased to match any increase in general fund expenditures in other areas.

2:14 a.m. The parks budget needs to be increased by $23,577 as a result of the budget amendments that were previously approved.

2:15 a.m. Teall says she has reservations about it as a practical matter, but wants to go ahead and vote.

2:15 a.m. Outcome: The council has approved this amendment over the sole dissent from Teall.

2:16 a.m. The council is now on the main question of the FY 2015 budget.

2:17 a.m. Lumm says that she didn’t support last year’s budget because it didn’t make progress toward public safety as an area of priority. But this year’s budget does that with the addition of three police officers, she says. So she’s supporting the budget.

2:17 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to adopt the FY 2015 budget as amended.

2:18 a.m. Clerk’s report of communications, petitions and referrals. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the clerk’s report.

2:18 a.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

2:24 a.m. Seth Best is addressing the council. He thanks Anglin for mentioning Camp Take Notice. He invites people to drop by 3501 Stone School Road to visit. He was disappointed with the outcome on the warming center resolution. He was also troubled about the distinction between county residents and non-county residents with respect to the provision of services. He reminds the council of the inscription from the Statue of Liberty.

2:24 a.m. Kai Petainen says he’s not upset about the SPARK amendments, but he’s kind of annoyed by SPARK. They’d shown up to the meeting without answers to the council’s questions, he says. His complaint is about how SPARK treated the council and the public. They weren’t prepared for tonight’s meeting, he says, and thereby demonstrated arrogance and ignorance. He said he doubted that if SPARK didn’t get the $75,000 it would cause companies to leave town.

2:24 a.m. Closed session. Outcome: The council has voted to go into closed session to consider pending litigation.

2:32 a.m. They’re back in open session.

2:32 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.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the May 19, 2014 meeting agenda.

A preview of some possible budget amendments will be reported separately.

The council’s May 19, 2014 meeting agenda includes more than just the adoption of the budget.

Related to the setting of the annual budget are items like setting fees associated with the public services area (for example, site plan review) and the community services area (for example, farmers market stall fees), as well as rate increases for water, sewer and stormwater utilities.

Also related to the budget – and not just for this next year – is an agenda item that will revise the city’s policies for contributions to the city’s pension system and retiree health care. In broad strokes, those revisions are meant to accelerate contributions during a strong economy and maintain contributions at least at the level of the actuary-recommended amount during weaker economies.

Another budget-related item on the May 19 agenda is one related to the social infrastructure of the community – allocation of general fund money to nonprofits that provide human services. The city approaches this allocation through a process that is coordinated with Washtenaw County, the United Way, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation and other partners. The total amount allocated for operation of programs is about $4.3 million. The city of Ann Arbor’s general fund contribution is about $1.2 million, which is the same amount that has been contributed for the last several years.

Related to human services support is an agenda item that would accept a $113,154 planning grant from the Michigan Supreme Court to establish a specialized mental health court.

Along with social infrastructure, the council will also be asked to approve an allocation that includes utilities infrastructure, to address the needs that resulted from the harsh winter. The resolution the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan.

The council will also be asked to approve money for building new physical infrastructure – about $2.6 million for the reconstruction of a segment of Pontiac Trail. The segment stretches north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The street reconstruction project also includes water mains, sanitary sewer, and construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes.

Special assessments to pay for three other sidewalk projects also appear on the council’s agenda in various stages of the special assessment process. Those future projects are located on Barton Drive, Scio Church Road, and Newport Road.

The council will be asked to approve the city’s application for federal funding to support the acquisition of development rights in Superior Township for two pieces of property on either side of Vreeland Road. The properties are near other parcels already protected as part of the city’s greenbelt initiative.

The city council will also vote on the confirmation of two appointments: Katherine Hollins to the city’s environmental commission; and Bob White, as a reappointment to his fourth term on the city’s historic district commission.

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.

Fees and Rates

On the council’s agenda are rate increases for utilities (water, sewer and stormwater) as well as fee increases for the public services and community services area.

Fees and Rates: Water, Sewer, Stormwater

Water rates are proposed to increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons.

Sewer rates would increase from $3.65 to $3.85 per unit. And stormwater fees would increase for all tiers of impervious service. For the middle tier – for more than 2,187 square feet but less than or equal to 4,175 square feet – on a quarterly basis, the increase would be from $24.85 to $26.32.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the recommended rate changes in water, sewer, and stormwater would increase revenues to the water, sewer, and stormwater funds by $765,119, $1,171,931 and $410,235 respectively. The reason given for the rate increases is to cover maintenance and debt payments, and to maintain funding for capital improvement requirements. The city calculates the impact to be an additional $6.25 per quarter or $24.98 per year for an average consumer, which is a net increase of 4.2%.

Water consumption for a typical single family is assumed at 19 units per quarter.

History of city of Ann Arbor water rates. The city converted to a tiered system 10 years ago in 2004, based on usage. The 2015 amount is proposed.

The utility rates are part of a city ordinance. So the council will be considering initial approval at its May 19 meeting, with final approval to come at its first meeting in June – on June 2.

Fees and Rates: Community and Public Services Area

Fee increases in the community services area and the public services area will be considered by the council at its May 19 meeting.

For community services, increases are being proposed for stall fees at the Ann Arbor public market (farmers market). Currently, the basic annual fee for rental of a stall is $300. It’s proposed to be increased to $450 – a 50% increase.

If approved by the council, the fee increase would be projected to generate $26,000 in additional revenue. However, this additional revenue has not been assumed in the proposed FY 2015 budget.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, “market fees were last increased in 2009 and have not kept pace with the overall increase of annual operating costs during this same time period.” A comparative analysis of Ann Arbor’s fees also showed that Ann Arbor’s fees are well below those of comparable markets.

Comparative chart of stall rental rates, including three in other states. Ann Arbor’s current rate is the leftmost blue bar. Ann Arbor’s proposed market stall rental rate is shown in green. The red horizontal line is the average. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Comparative chart of stall rental rates, excluding those in other states. Ann Arbor’s current rate is the leftmost blue bar. Ann Arbor’s proposed market stall rental rate is shown in green. The red horizontal line is the average. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

In the public services area, fees for a variety of services are being considered – for such items as site plan review, soil and sedimentation control. According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, the increases consider labor, material and supplies, equipment, and overhead cost and are aimed at full cost recovery. The increases are generally in the range of 1% to 5%.

Pension and VEBA Funding Policy

The council will be considering policies for making contributions to the pension and retiree health care plan that is supposed to ensure that the plans are eventually fully funded. The policy would set the funding at the higher of two different figures: (1) the Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC) rate; or (2) the existing level of contributions adjusted for the change in general fund revenues. That would have an impact of establishing a minimum increase in funding of 2% per year.

The operative language in the policy is:

If the General Fund revenues are projected to increase less than 2%, the city’s contribution shall increase 2%; thereby establishing a minimum increase of 2% per year.

Social Infrastructure

The council’s agenda includes two items that can be characterized as funding social infrastructure: the annual general fund allocations to nonprofits that provide human services; and the acceptance of a planning grant for the 15th District Court to establish a mental health court.

Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding

The council will be asked at its May 19 meeting to approve funding allocations to nonprofits as part of a coordinated funding approach for human services, in partnership with several other local funders.

The city is one of the original five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners include Washtenaw County, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010.

This year, 105 applications were submitted by 50 local organizations totaling $8,732,389 in requested funding, according to a staff memo. A review committee recommended that 57 programs receive a total of $4,321,494 in available funding. Of that amount, the city is providing $1,244,629.

FY 15       Funding Source                                        
$1,244,629  City of Ann Arbor General Fund                    
$1,760,708  United Way of Washtenaw County                    
$1,015,000  Washtenaw County's General Fund                   
$  274,907  Washtenaw Urban County CDBG funds                 
$   26,250  Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation senior funds 
========== 
$4,321,494  TOTAL

-

The coordinated funding process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The approach targets six priority areas, and identifies lead agencies for each area: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

In 2012, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended and later authorized by the city council at its Nov. 7, 2013 and by the Washtenaw County board on Nov. 6, 2013. One of those changes is that funding would not necessarily be allocated to the six priority areas based on the proportion of funding allocated in the past. Instead, allocations among the six priority areas would be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized. An additional change would broaden the pre-screening process so that smaller nonprofits could be accommodated.

Funding for this cycle will start on July 1, 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process.

The RNR Foundation funding will go toward the planning/coordination and capacity building components of the effort, so their funding is not listed among the items in the  program operating component.

Here’s a breakdown of how the program operating component of the city of Ann Arbor’s share will be allocated:

   
   FY 2015  Agency
   $20,000  Barrier Busters 
   $30,000  Peace Neighborhood Center
   $35,069  Ozone House Inc.
   $54,168  Domestic Violence Project Inc. dba SafeHouse Center
   $56,396  UM Regents (Community Dental Center, Housing Bureau for Seniors)
   $85,500  Avalon Housing 
   $90,786  Child Care Network
  $102,156  Food Gatherers
  $115,558  The Salvation Army of Washtenaw County
  $122,095  Washtenaw Community Health Organization
  $160,761  Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
  $164,660  Community Action Network
  $207,480  Legal Services of South Central Michigan
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

That compares with the current fiscal year as follows:

 
  FY 2014   Agency
   $4,561   HIV/AIDS Resource Center     
  $12,772   Washtenaw Association for Community Advocacy     
  $14,282   Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan     
  $17,139   Jewish Family Services of Washtenaw County
  $19,835   Barrier Busters     
  $23,719   UM Regents - Ann Arbor Meals on Wheels     
  $27,369   The Women's Center of Southeastern Michigan     
  $63,419   Home of New Vision
  $91,645   Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County     
  $94,490   Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw     
  $95,171   Food Gatherers     
 $104,944   Community Action Network
 $109,851   Perry Nursery School of Ann Arbor     
 $142,851   Avalon Housing Inc.     
 $177,052   Services of South Central Michigan
 $245,529   Shelter Association of Washtenaw County
$1,244,629  Grand Total

-

The coordinated funding approach sometimes results in the same programs being funded – but by different funders. This year, the city of Ann Arbor is funding a program for Peace Neighborhood Center; last year Washtenaw County provided funding ($19,995) for Peace Neighborhood Center. And last year, the city of Ann Arbor funded a University of Michigan meals-on-wheels program; this year, United Way is funding that program.

Recipients of funds in one year are not guaranteed funding the following year. An example of that is the Women’s Center of Southeastern Michigan, which received $27,369 from the city of Ann Arbor last year for a mental health program, but is not receiving funds as part of the coordinated funding program this year.

Social Infrastructure: Mental Health Court

The council is being asked to approve the receipt of a planning grant of $113,154 from the Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) to fund the planning for a mental health court program.

According to the staff memo accompanying the item, mental health courts are problem-solving courts “that focus on therapeutic treatment for offenders with mental illnesses whose crimes are a result of their mental illness.”

The memo continues:

Eligible defendants are diverted into judicially supervised, community-based treatment to address the underlying problems. The program uses a team approach to address the participant’s needs for mental health and/or substance abuse treatment while also linking the participant with ancillary services such as education, housing, job skills or other individualized assistance. The goal is to assist participants in bettering their lives while also benefiting the community by reducing jail time, recidivism rates, and court docket congestion.

The 15th District Court already operates several specialized courts – a sobriety court, a homeless court, veterans court and domestic violence court. The mental health court would be operated in addition to those other specialized courts.

For background on the 15th District Court’s specialized “problem-solving” courts from last year’s Chronicle reporting, see: “Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court.”

Physical Infrastructure

Physical infrastructure appears on the council’s May 19 agenda in several forms: an allocation of money to deal with damage to systems from the harsh winter; a Pontiac Trail street reconstruction project; and several sidewalk projects.

Physical Infrastructure: Winter Damage

The council will be asked to approve an allocation that includes utilities infrastructure, to address the needs that resulted from the severe winter weather.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, compared to last year there was a 36% increase in water main breaks and a 950% increase of broken water services. Compared to the previous two years winters, the 2013-14 winter had 272% more snow and a 450% increase in required plowing. That meant additional use of materials like ice-control salt, sand, cold-patch, pipe, repair clamps and fittings – in addition to higher-than-anticipated work hours and overtime, and increased equipment costs.

The resolution the council will consider would allocate money from the fund balance reserves from three sources: $1.7 million from the major street fund, $638,000 from the local street fund, and $666,000 from the water fund. Those amounts include $461,171 from the state of Michigan.

The work will include frozen service line repairs, pavement marking, and road surface repair. The work is not anticipated to be completed until well after June 30, 2014 – the end of the current fiscal year.

At a May 12 city council work session, public services area administrator Craig Hupy presented the council with some data on the age of the city’s piping system, saying that for the water pipes, those that were constructed in 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are more problematic than those built before and after that period. Still, he indicated that the city’s breakage rate was considered low for a system that is as old as Ann Arbor’s.

Ann Arbor Sanitary Sewer System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

Ann Arbor Water System by Year of Construction. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor, chart by The Chronicle)

City of Ann Arbor Water Main Breaks by Year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor Comprehensive Annual Financial Report)

Physical Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail

The council will consider two resolutions in connection with a street reconstruction project on Pontiac Trail.

The first is a $2,605,190 contract with Evergreen Civil LLC for construction of the project. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning north of Skydale Drive to south of the bridge over M-14/US-23. The project also includes extending water mains and sewer pipes, as well as construction of new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail, and installation of bike lanes. The memo also indicates the project will include stormwater infiltration trenches, edge drains, and the addition of a small section of curb and gutter. The project is expected to begin in June of 2014 and be completed by fall of 2014.

The other contract to be considered by the council in connection with the Pontiac Trail project is $46,879 for Professional Services Industries Inc. for materials testing.

Responding to a query from The Chronicle, city project manager Nick Hutchinson indicated that the council would be presented at its June 16 meeting with the next in a series of resolutions on special assessment to help fund the sidewalk portion of the Pontiac Trail project. The council had voted at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting to direct the city administrator to prepare plans, specifications and a cost estimate for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk project. The special assessment process requires the setting of an assessment roll and the holding of a public hearing before a special assessment can be imposed.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks

Three other sidewalk projects that are further along in the special assessment process than Pontiac Trail are also on the council’s May 19 agenda: Barton Road, Scio Church and Newport Road.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Newport Road

A public hearing on the Newport Road sidewalk special assessment, which started on May 5, will continue at the council’s May 19 meeting. For the sidewalk segment on Newport Road, the council had approved at its April 21, 2014 meeting a resolution directing the city assessor to prepare a special assessment roll of properties to be assessed. The council took action to set the public hearing on the Newport Road special assessment for May 5.

The total amount to be special assessed for the Newport Road project is $49,746. But residents of the Newport Creek Site Condominium – who would not ordinarily be assessed, as their property isn’t adjacent to the sidewalk – have volunteered to contribute $10,228 to the project to help offset their neighbors’ assessments. Details of that arrangement are being finalized.

However, several residents spoke at the May 5 public hearing, opposing the special assessment.

Newport Road sidewalk stretch.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church

Again on the city council’s May 19 agenda are resolutions to set the assessment roll and set a public hearing (to be held June 16) for the special assessment of a Scio Church Road sidewalk. Action on the Scio Church sidewalk project special assessment had been postponed at the council’s April 21, 2014 meeting until May 19.

For this 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. It was the size of the total amount of special assessment that led to the postponement. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) argued at the April 21 meeting that the amount to be assessed was not worth the staff time to follow all the bureaucratic procedures involved in implementing the special assessment. He also called for 80% of any sidewalk project to be funded through non-special assessed funds.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

Physical Infrastructure Sidewalks – Barton Road

On the city council’s May 19 agenda are resolutions to set the assessment roll and a public hearing (to be held on June 16) for the special assessment of a Barton Drive sidewalk. The sidewalk to be special assessed was part of an approval given at the council’s April 21 meeting: The council approved $177,100 of city funds for the construction of the Scio Church Road sidewalk and for an additional sidewalk on Barton 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.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

By way of additional background, approval of the design contract for the Barton Drive and Scio Church Road stretches of new sidewalk had been approved by the city council at its March 3, 2014 meeting.

And at its July 15, 2013 meeting, the council had approved $15,000 for preliminary design of a sidewalk along Barton Drive. Even earlier – at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting – the council approved $15,000 for preliminary study of a sidewalk to be constructed along Scio Church, west of Seventh Street. On Nov. 7, 2013, the council approved another $35,000 for Scio Church sidewalk design work. The design contract for the Barton Drive and Scio Church stretches of new sidewalk drew on the previously authorized funding.

The preliminary planning budget of $15,000 for the Newport Road sidewalk gap was approved over a year ago by the council at its Jan. 23, 2013 meeting.

Greenbelt

At its May 19 meeting, the city council will be asked to consider approval of application to the federal Agricultural Land Easement (ALE) program to protect 260 acres of farmland located in Superior Township. The ALE program now includes what was previously known as the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

The farm parcels consist of property on either side of Vreeland Road, which is currently in agriculture production. Additional properties under the same ownership, adjacent to the farmland parcels, are also being considered for inclusion in the city’s greenbelt program, and the Vreeland Road properties are near other properties already protected as part of the greenbelt – the Meyer Preserve, the Jack R. Smiley Preserve and the Schultz conservation easement. Cherry Hill Nature Preserve is located just north of the property. [.jpg of greenbelt properties as of May 2014]

Here’s a dynamic map of properties outside the city already protected under the city’s greenbelt program. A 30-year open space and parkland preservation millage, which voters approved in 2003, funds both the greenbelt program as well as land acquisition for city parks. The border indicates the area where greenbelt funds can be spent to protect properties.

Appointments

The city council will also vote on the confirmation of two appointments: Katherine Hollins to the city’s environmental commission; and Bob White, as a reappointment for his fourth term on the city’s historic district commission.

Hollins is a staffer with the Great Lakes Commission. She’s being appointed because David Stead’s lengthy service on the commission – dating from 2000, when the commission was established – had generated opposition among some councilmembers. Nominations to the environmental commission are made by the council as a whole, not by the mayor. In offering the substitute nomination, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated in an email to other councilmembers that “David Stead has decided that his life is busy enough he cannot do justice to serving on the commission.”

White was appointed to the historic district commission for his first three-year term in 2005.

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!

The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor, through its greenbelt millage, will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The deal was recommended by the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at its Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

The second greenbelt deal voted on by the Ann Arbor council is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended moving ahead with this deal at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

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

The council’s Feb. 18, 2014 agenda is highlighted by public art policy issues leftover from its previous meeting, as well as several items related to acquiring various pieces of basic equipment – from a garbage truck to a wood chipper.

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

The possible acquisition of land is also on the agenda, in the form of a resolution postponed from an earlier meeting. The resolution would exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street. This process began when the University of Michigan offered to buy the property. An item authorizing the $12.8 million purchase is on the Feb. 20 UM board of regents agenda, based on the assumption that the city won’t exercise its right of first refusal earlier in the week.

In other action, the council will consider an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance for a second and final vote on Feb. 18, having given initial approval to the item on Feb. 3. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment are two competing resolutions that would return money from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. And that point of possible disagreement is reflected in the amounts specified in the two resolutions. A resolution sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) would transfer $819,005 back to the funds of origin.

A resolution added later to the agenda is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Briere’s proposal would eliminate funding for the stalled Argo Cascades art project and would return $957,140 to the funds of origin. Briere’s resolution also directs the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

Either of the two proposed resolutions related to public art funds would require eight votes to pass.

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 agenda is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. It would need eight votes to pass. The result of the Feb. 3 council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid. The contract is supposed to be back on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled.

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda also features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is the repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost. The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. So the council will be asked to approve the purchase of one for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800. The purchase of two vans for a total of $50,320 is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation staff to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 wood chipper.

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations.

In addition to the Edwards Brothers deal, several other real estate matters are on the Feb. 18 agenda. The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the greenbelt millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335.

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

On the consent agenda is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items for the Feb. 18 meeting, which was shifted to Tuesday because of the Presidents Day holiday on Monday. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Tuesday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

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

Public Art

Four items related to public art are expected to be handled at the Feb. 18 council meeting: (1) a final vote on an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance; (2) two resolutions enabled by that change, which would transfer money out of the city’s public art fund back to the funds from which the money was drawn; and (3) a resolution extending by six months the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator and appropriating funds to cover the $18,500 contract extension.

Public Art: Ordinance Amendment

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3, 2014 meeting, the council is considering the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years.

The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

This ordinance revision reprises a previous effort to amend the public art ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin. That unsuccessful effort came eight months ago at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. At that meeting, the council did eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism from the public art ordinance, and also allowed the most recent year’s accumulation of money to be returned to the funds of origin. The council also returned that most recent year’s worth of funding – $326,464.

The former Percent for Art program required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. As a part of the June 3 ordinance change, the council replaced the Percent for Art funding program with a new approach that would allow city staff, working with the public art commission, to identify capital projects suitable for “baking in” art. In addition to city funding of art designed to be an integral part of a specific capital improvement project, the approach envisioned general donations to a public art fund, and public art projects paid for with a combination of public and private funds.

The balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund as of Jan. 14, 2014 is $839,507. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Any actual transfer of money would require separate council action.

Public Art: Resolution on Return to Funds of Origin

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment are two items now on the Feb. 18 agenda. Both are resolutions that would return money from the public art fund to the funds from which the money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. Under the city charter, resolutions like this require eight votes on the 11-member council.

Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. That’s already reflected in the two competing resolutions. The first is sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), joined by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Lumm’s resolution would transfer $819,005, which would leave $20,500 – which is the total amount needed to fund an extension of the public art administrator’s contract and some additional administrative costs. It would also leave funds for three projects in the works at the following locations : East Stadium bridges, Argo Cascades, and the Kingsley & First rain garden.

A breakdown of the amounts that could be returned – and the funds to which that money would be returned – is covered here: [Art budget summary]

A second resolution transferring money from the public art fund to its funds of origin has now been added to the agenda as well. The second resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and escalates the one initiated by Lumm. Briere’s resolution eliminates funding for the Argo Cascades art project – because the committee making the final selection between two artists has not been able to come to a consensus to move forward with either one of them. So Briere’s resolution would return $957,140, compared to the $819,005 called for in the proposal originally put on the agenda by Lumm.

The $138,135 difference in total amounts for the resolutions falls $5,000 short of the $143,134 cost of the Argo Cascades art project. That’s because Briere’s resolution allows $5,000 of funds to remain for a memorial to Coleman Jewett. The public art commission authorized $5,000 in Percent for Art funds for the project roughly five months ago, at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private foundation has committed $5,000 to create a memorial at the market, in the form of a bronze replica of one of Jewett’s Adirondack chairs. The current proposal, at a total cost of $15,000 is to create an artwork that includes  two such chairs. The $5,000 from the city plus the match from a private donor leaves a  $5,000 gap to be covered in private fundraising.

Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to be implemented by staff and the public art commission, and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015. Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the former Percent for Art program.

A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

The need for continued funding for arts administration is based on the new approach to the public art program established by the city council in June 2013. That new approach can include city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, as well as projects funded through a combination of private and public money.

If the issue of the amount to be returned isn’t settled on Feb. 18 and the resolution does not pass in any form, another option would be to take up the question in the context of the annual budget resolution, which is considered at the council’s second meeting in May every year. Under the city charter, the budget resolution as a whole requires seven votes to be approved. But amendments to the budget resolution are subject only to the six-vote majority requirement.

On Feb. 10, the city released a list of budget requests made by department heads for the next fiscal year. And $80,000 from the general fund has been requested to fund a transition from the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new public art program. The $80,000 would include compensation for a full-time art administrator for a year. In the meantime, the council will likely again consider a six-month extension of the part-time administrator’s contract at its Feb. 18 meeting.

Public Art: Resolution to Extend Public Art Administrator’s Contract

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. The result of the Feb. 3 council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid.

The contract will likely be taken up on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled. The art administrator’s contract was first considered at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, but was postponed in the context of a political horse trade – support for the administrator’s contract being contingent on beginning a process to transfer money accumulated under Percent for Art in previous years, back to the money’s funds of origin.

The conversation between mayor John Hieftje and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table toward the end of the Feb. 3 meeting indicated that Eaton would be bringing the item back for reconsideration on Feb. 18, provided that public art money was returned to its funds of origin. Only someone who voted on the prevailing side on Feb. 3 could bring back the item for reconsideration. Those councilmembers include Eaton, Lumm, Kailasapathy and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Equipment

The Feb. 18 agenda is relatively heavy on items related to acquiring basic equipment: a combination sewer truck, a hydraulic excavator, a garbage truck, two vans, a wood chipper, and a firefighter training unit.

Equipment: Water Main Breaks

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost.

Here’s a sampling of recent water main breaks – from alerts the city of Ann Arbor has sent out:

• Jan. 15: West Madison between Fourth and Fifth
• Jan. 22: Devonshire between Washtenaw and Melrose
• Jan. 28: S. Industrial between Jewett and Eisenhower
• Jan. 28: Yost between Washtenaw and Parkwood
• Jan. 31: Pontiac Trail at Brookside
• Feb. 5: Washtenaw east of Brockman
• Feb. 11: Pauline between Seventh and Stadium

The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break.

City of Ann Arbor water main breaks by year. It’s not unusual to have several water main breaks in a given year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor financial records, chart by The Chronicle)

Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. The council will be asked to approve the purchase of this type of equipment for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

In more detail, according to the memo accompanying the resolution, the combination sewer truck is to be procured from Jack Doheny Supplies Inc. It will replace a 2005 truck with 6,685 hours of use. Over the last two years, the truck had broken down and needed repairs 63 times – taking it out of service anywhere from fours hours to more than two weeks each time.

When that truck is unavailable to do water main break repairs, a similar truck used for stormwater system maintenance is re-tasked for water main breaks. But that poses a challenge to keep up with the scheduled preventive maintenance of the stormwater system. And failure to meet the cleaning schedule puts the system at risk for clogging and backing up into structures.

On the hydraulic excavator, the staff memo explains that the John Deere model 135G hydraulic excavator to be purchased will replace a 2002 mini excavator. The primary use for that excavator is for water main repair.

The new hydraulic excavator will be able to dig down to 19 feet, which is 7 feet deeper than the 2002 mini excavator. So the larger water mains, which are typically deeper and older, will be reachable.

The mini excavator has been in service over 5,350 hours of use and half its total repair costs have accumulated in the last 3.5 years. The old excavator will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Garbage Truck

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800 from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It’s a smaller truck – with a 6-yard capacity. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The new truck will replace a 2002 model with over 14,500 hours of operation. According to the staff memo, in the last three years, 57% of all time spent maintaining the vehicle has been spent on breakdowns while only 14% has been for preventive maintenance. In that three-year period, the cost of breakdown repairs has been more than $78,000, which is more than half of the 13-year lifetime total of $141,480.

Equipment: Vans

The purchase of two vans – from Red Holman GMC in Oakland County, for a total of $50,320 – is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation staff to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. The van purchase was recommended by the park advisory commission at its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting.

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. The van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

Equipment: Wood Chipper

Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. The unit is a whole-tree chipper – it will process up to 21-inch diameter logs.

The chipper to be replaced has been in service for 11 years. It has 4,100 hours of use and 35% of its total repair cost ($74,600) has accrued in the last 2.5 years. The old chipper will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Firefighting Simulator

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit]

Land

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several land and land use items: two greenbelt properties; a green streets policy; a zoning issue; and the possible exercise of the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Mallow property on South State Street.

Land: Greenbelt

The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor, through its greenbelt program, will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The deal was recommended by the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at its Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended moving ahead with this deal at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

Land: Green Streets

On the council’s agenda is a policy item related to land: infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

Land: Hofmann Rezoning

Related to land use, council will be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting.

The two parcels in question – just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor Township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission and the city council. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

During council deliberations on Jan. 21, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he hadn’t been sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. Warpehoski told other councilmembers that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property

A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land, and a resolution to authorize that purchase is on the Feb. 20 agenda of the UM board of regents. A UM staff memo notes that the site is “strategically located next to the Donald R. Shepherd Women’s Gymnastic Center, Varsity Tennis Center, and Bahna Wrestling Center and contiguous to other University of Michigan property…”

The council had on Feb. 3 postponed the item “to our next meeting” – which at that time was scheduled for Feb. 18. But subsequently a special meeting was called for Feb. 10 to consider the question. That special meeting was then cancelled.

The Feb. 18 resolution would approve the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriate necessary funds, and direct the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. The agenda item contained no other background information.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its meeting on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

The pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. The council will still be within the 60-day window when it votes at its Feb. 18 meeting.

The resolution the council will be taking up on Feb. 18 requires an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council – because the resolution changes the city budget and involves a purchase of real estate.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

On the Feb. 18 consent agenda is  a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” Responding to an emailed request from The Chronicle, city engineer Patrick Cawley provided the following accident history for the locations:

• Fuller Road (2) on May 13, 2009 and Feb. 11, 2010.
• S. University (3) on Feb. 7, 2006, Nov. 24, 2007, and Sept. 8, 2008.
• Geddes (1 involving a bicyclist) on Feb. 9, 2008.

Road Salt

Also on the agenda is a resolution to approve purchase of additional ice-control salt. Based on the $47,200 amount to be appropriated, and the $36.23 price per ton, the council will be authorizing the purchase of roughly 1,300 tons of additional salt.

A city staff estimate provided to The Chronicle puts the amount of salt used so far this season – through early February – at about 6,600 tons. That’s roughly at least as much or more than has been used in each of the previous five winter seasons. If the city uses all of the additional salt to be purchased – bringing this season’s total to about 7,900 tons – that would approach the maximum amount of salt used by the city over the last seven seasons. In the 2007-2008 season, the city of Ann Arbor used 8,500 tons of salt on its roads.

Ice-control salt usage in the city of Ann Arbor by year. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle.)

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city’s snowplow equipment uses “electronically calibrated spreader controls” to keep the amount of salt used to the minimum amount that is still consistent with traffic safety. The price the city is paying for the salt to be authorized on Feb. 18 is established through a state of Michigan’s MIDEAL program. According to the staff memo, the cost for purchasing additional material on the open market would be about $140, or nearly four times as much as under the MIDEAL program.

3:37 p.m. City staff responses to city councilmember questions are now available: [Feb. 18, 2014 responses to agenda questions]

4:09 p.m. Additional information on the Edwards Brothers land sale is now available: [Edwards Brothers Chart][Additional Offer for Edwards Brothers 2-18-14][Memo to Council]

4:53 p.m. From the due diligence memo: “The analysis shows that there is a possible negative impact in every scenario, except where the benefit of the taxes to all taxing jurisdictions is taken into account. Also, we note that if the City is unable to recoup the $4.5 million of General Fund balance that is assumed will be used to finance the acquisition of the site, the General Fund balance would fall to the 9% to 10% of expenditure range from the existing 14% to 15% range.” Indications are that the council will have two resolutions to choose from – one waiving the right of first refusal and another exercising it.

6:38 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Chambers are relatively quiet. Four members of the audience have arrived. No councilmembers or staff are in chambers.

7:04 p.m. Nearly everyone is here. We’re settling in.

7:09 Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers except for Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. Jack Eaton wants DC-2 (the return of Percent for Art funds and timeline, sponsored by Sabra Briere) to be heard before DC-1 (return uncommitted public art funds, sponsored by Eaton, Jane Lumm, Sumi Kailasapathy and Mike Anglin). Briere wants DC-3 (a resolution to recommend the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s request for an allocation from the Ann Arbor Affordable Housing Trust Fund) until just after the consent agenda.

7:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved its agenda as amended.

7:12 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers is highlighting the street closures on the consent agenda that are signs of spring – street closures for art fair and the Ann Arbor marathon.

7:13 p.m. Powers encourages people to help clear out storm drains as the snow melts. The frost is down to about four feet, he says. A hard rain would be problematic. The city released a map of all catch basin locations today.

7:13 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.]

Tonight’s lineup for reserved time speaking includes four people speaking on public art topics: Margaret Parker (former Ann Arbor public art commission chair), Bob Miller (current AAPAC chair), Dave Olson and Mary Underwood.

Rita Loch-Caruso is signed up to talk about the green streets policy. And Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about a more racially and politically just Michigan.

7:17 p.m. Margaret Parker is now at the podium. She introduces herself as co-owner of Downtown Home & Garden. She recalls her longtime service on the public art commission. The set-aside from sanitary sewer and stormwater funds was originally meant to convey the city’s pride in those systems. She refers to “negative city councilmembers” who say no to everything. To some councilmembers that say they’re for public art, she asks, “Who can believe you?” She tells the councilmembers that as an “act of good faith” the funds should be left in place. She ventures that transferring the money out would allow Ann Arbor to grab the headlines as a “reactionary art-phobic city” that destroyed its public art program.

7:19 p.m. Bob Miller introduces himself as the current chair of the public art commission. “We represent your goals and direction,” he says. Two projects are jeopardized by the process, he says: Canoe Imagine Art and the Coleman Jewett memorial chair. Both projects now have matching funds that are at risk, Miller says. Those projects are important to AAPAC, he says. He says that he’s proud of the work done at the wastewater treatment plant. Those who work at those various facilities are proud of their work and public art can celebrate their work, he says.

7:23 p.m. Dave Olson tells the council he lives in Water Hill near Fountain Street. He’s reading aloud from a statement that has been circulated in the arts community. It describes people as “alarmed” at council’s recent actions. Failing to fund a transition is one significant criticism in the statement. He and others are advocating for a real sustainable art program. The statement is signed by roughly 25 people, all of whom support the statement, he says. He tells the council their actions have alienated the arts community. He doesn’t want to miss the opportunity to work together.

7:26 p.m. Rita Loch-Caruso is addressing the council as a member of the water committee of the environmental commission. She’s supporting the green streets policy that’s on the agenda. The policy will improve water quality as well as help control runoff, she says. Why focus on streets? She tells the council that streets make up 26% of total impervious surface area in the city, but contribute 54% of stormwater runoff. The requirements in the policy are consistent with the city’s stormwater permit as well as with new county rules that are pending. She calls it a forward-thinking policy. She thanks the other members of the committee and various city staff.

7:29 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for various public offices. He calls on the council to create a more racially and politically just society in Michigan. He calls for expanding affordable housing in the city. Partridge says the public art issue should be postponed to give time for cooler heads to come forward to solve this problem.

7:33 p.m. Mary Underwood says that she’s a member of the arts community, but asks that some of the money be returned to the funds of origin. She points to the reduction in city staff levels and the resulting reduction in services. She recalls in a earlier era getting excellent service regarding a dying maple tree. She laments the loss of other employees over the years in the context of the part-time public art administrator’s position.

7:35 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of three 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.

7:36 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is talking about an article published in The Ann Arbor Observer. He’s reading aloud a paragraph from the original article about the filing of TIF (tax increment financing) reports by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Kunselman then reads the correction to the December 2013 article. But Kunselman is contending that the correction is also mistaken. So Kunselman wrote an email to city administrator Steve Powers about the issue. [Kunselman is pointing out the history that the DDA did not submit some TIF annual reports before 2011. He is referring at least in part to the DDA annual reports for 2003, 2008, 2009 recorded in Legistar as filed in 2011. Kunselman asks that Powers correct the public record. Powers says that he'd be happy to share his statement with anyone who'd like it.

7:39 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is announcing a neighborhood meeting for the Barton Drive sidewalk and Northside traffic calming project. It's on Feb. 25 at 6:30 p.m. at Northside Elementary School, 912 Barton Drive. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says she has good news to share: a $250,000 contribution from the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor to fund a universal access playground at Gallup Park.

7:41 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is raising the issue of special assessments for construction of sidewalks, to help low-income residents. It's something we should think about as a community, he says.

7:43 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is talking about the number of broken water mains. She relates how Kunselman was out walking his dog and had seen a water main break; Kunselman had called 911, she says. She asks what people are supposed to do.

7:46 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers calls public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium: 994-2840 is the number to call for a water main issues, he says. It's hard to tell sometimes the difference between puddling and an actual leak, he says. But if there's water spurting up, then that's probably a break.

7:46 p.m. Eaton says that on Feb. 14, the city attorney had circulated a confidential memo on property assessments, which Eaton would be asking the council to waive privilege on at its next meeting. Following up on Hupy's information, Eaton mentions that ArborWiki has a handy page with all the emergency numbers.

7:46 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje calls for the city to come together to clear the walks as the weather thaws.

7:47 p.m. Nominations. Being nominated by mayor John Hieftje tonight to serve on the local officers compensation commission (LOCC) is Jason Morgan. For background on this group, see: "What Do We Pay Ann Arbor's Mayor?" The council will vote on the confirmation at its next meeting. Morgan is director of government relations at Washtenaw Community College.

7:49 p.m. Kunselman raised his hand on this, but wasn't called on. Now he's called on. He's asking about the start of the term on the LOCC appointment, which is October 2014. Hieftje allows that it's odd. But it's a matter of getting all the appointments back to their proper timing, he says.

7:49 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. Two public hearings are on the agenda: (1) the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street; and (2) the amendment of the public art ordinance.

The zoning item would give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. [For additional background, see Land: Hofmann Rezoning above.] The public art ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

7:49 p.m. PH-1 Hofmann zoning. Thomas Partridge is calling for rezoning to be approved only if access is provided to all members of the community to the property.

7:52 p.m. That’s all for this public hearing.

7:55 p.m. PH-2 Amend public art ordinance. Thomas Partridge notes that the public art issue has been coming before the council repeatedly and has been a divisive topic. Why? he asks. Public art is a treasure. Why can’t the mayor and council initiate a “cease fire,” a “detente” by postponing the question tonight. That would allow cooler heads to prevail, he says. Why does there have to be an art commission just for Ann Arbor? Why isn’t there a Washtenaw County or region-wide public art commission?

7:56 p.m. And that’s it for this public hearing.

7:56 p.m. Minutes. Outcome: The council has approved the minutes from its previous meeting.

7:56 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 Transfer responsibility for billing of water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater service from the public services area to the city treasurer. The city code explicitly allows for this: “Billing for water service, sanitary sewer service, and stormwater service shall be the responsibility of the Public Services Area of the City, but the Council may, by resolution, transfer such responsibility to the City Treasurer.”
• CA-2 Approve a purchase order for AutoDesk engineering design and drafting software licensing status upgrade ($24,431). This is an update. From the staff memo: “Environmental and infrastructure management planning issues and the upkeep of critical City infrastructure is improved through use of engineering design and drafting software.”
• CA-3 Revise and approve board of review guidelines for poverty exemptions. From the staff memo, maximum income levels range from $19,500 for one person to $54,500 for eight people.
• CA-4 Approve street closings for Ann Arbor Marathon. The marathon takes place March 30, 2014. The map of street closings is here: [.pdf of map of street closings]
• CA-5 Approve street closings for 2014 Ann Arbor art fairs. The fairs take place from July 15 through July 20. The map of street closures is here: [.pdf of map of art fairs street closings]
• CA-6 Approve purchase of one 6-yard rear loading garbage truck ($93,800). The 6-yard capacity truck would be purchased from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution. [For additional background, see Equipment: Garbage Truck above.]
• CA-7 Approve purchase of a wood chipper ($83,208). The chipper is a Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. [For additional background, see Equipment: Wood Chipper above.]
• CA-8 Approve purchase of two 15-passenger vans ($50,320). The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. [For additional background, see Equipment: Vans above.]
• CA-9 Approve agreement with the MDOT for installation of rectangular rapid flashing beacons ($47,971). This is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179. Part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” [For additional background, see Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons above.]

7:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the consent agenda, without pulling out any of them for separate consideration.

7:57 p.m. DC-3 Recommend Ann Arbor Housing Commission request. Background to this resolution includes a city council decision made on Dec. 16, 2003 to allocate the full net proceeds of the pending sale of the former Y lot to the affordable housing trust fund. That amount is almost $1.4 million. Background also includes an Ann Arbor housing conversion initiative to convert its properties to ownership through a private-public partnership – with a goal of putting those properties on a financially stable foundation for the longer term.

For the shorter term, that AAHC initiative requires investment in capital repairs. The AAHC has asked the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to contribute $600,000 each to the shorter-term effort. At a meeting of the DDA partnerships committee on Feb. 12, the request was reportedly met with a somewhat lukewarm reception, as DDA board members were interested in possibly making a contribution in installments. The DDA is also keen to see its contribution matched by the city. The resolution on the council agenda directs the city administrator to prepare a budget amendment for the allocation of $600,000 from the affordable housing trust fund for the first phase of the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan and to place that resolution on the agenda when the city receives the proceeds of the old Y lot sale.

7:59 p.m. Briere is reviewing the content of the resolution, which comes as a result of an Ann Arbor housing & human services advisory board resolution approved last week. It does not change the budget, but directs the city administrator to prepare a budget amendment when the old Y lot is sold. Briere says that AAHAC does not need the money in their hands but needs to know that the money can be in their hands by the end of March.

8:01 p.m. Briere notes that it’s a notional approval.

8:01 p.m. Eaton moves for postponement. Lumm offers her take on the result of the HHSAB meeting. She’s concerned about the process. She and Briere both attended the HHSAB meeting. She felt the HHSAB board’s consensus was that it wasn’t essential that the item be on the council’s agenda tonight.

8:03 p.m. Lumm also objects to the fact that the item was placed on the agenda after close of business on Friday. Margie Teall (Ward 4) says she sees no reason why the item has to be postponed. If the council moves ahead on this, that will ensure that the DDA also moves ahead, she says.

8:06 p.m. Hieftje asks Teall as liaison to the AAHAC about the RAD conversion. It’s an urgent project, he says. Hieftje says that the agenda item was actually in on time. Lumm disputes that. Hieftje notes that it’s actually possible to add an item at any time. He says it doesn’t actually do anything but is still important. Lumm says that everything that Hieftje wants to happen can happen at the next meeting, on March 3. Lumm appeals to the notion of good behavior by councilmembers towards each other.

8:07 p.m. Briere says that she and Lumm had a different understanding of the outcome of the HHSAB meeting. She says that Lumm had missed the fact that Briere had indicated she was going to bring the resolution forward. Briere reviews the exact timing of her submission of the item. She allows that Lumm is correct that it isn’t an emergency. She notes that the council had a long three-day weekend to review it.

8:08 p.m. Eaton calls it a simple request for courtesy. It would establish the respect that councilmembers talked about earlier in the year.

8:11 p.m. Teall calls the mission of the AAHAC is much more important than the fact that someone got their toes stepped on. Kunselman recalls that he had thought he submitted an item by 5 p.m. on the Fuller Road MOU (memorandum of understanding) but hadn’t and so he had agreed to postpone out of courtesy. Kunselman raises the question of whether the council is posturing for the DDA. He’s concerned that the DDA will only be able to contribute to Miller Manor and Baker Commons. So that might be a reason for the DDA to vote first on the issue. Is the DDA going to wait for the council? asks Kunselman.

8:13 p.m. Powers tells Kunselman that the DDA as a whole board does not yet have a position. Kunselman ventures that Powers could get clarification about what the DDA’s position is – because Powers sits on the DDA board. He asks Powers to convey to the other DDA board members that he doesn’t think it’s suitable for the DDA to hold the AAHC hostage.

8:14 p.m. Briere reviews how the whole DDA board doesn’t meet until March 5. The council meets on March 3. Briere reviews how she’d asked Lumm to co-sponsor this resolution.

8:16 p.m. Warpehoski asks Jennifer Hall, executive director of the AAHC, to the podium. She tells Warpehoski that he’s put her in the middle of a ping pong match. She stresses that she’s focused on getting the rehabilitation project done. She reviews Phase 1. About $1 million from the federal Home Loan Bank that AAHC had hoped to get did not materialize, she says. They were placed on an alternate list. About the DDA and the city, she says, “I don’t really care who goes first.”

8:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted postpone the item. Voting for postponement were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Lumm, Kunselman, Eaton, and Anglin.

8:18 p.m. B-1 Hofmann zoning. This change would zone two parcels totaling 0.6 acres from an unzoned status to C1 (local business district). The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting. The C1 zoning does not include any restriction that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site. And that’s something the owners of Biercamp had tried to achieve with a previous zoning request that had ultimately been denied by the council.

8:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the zoning of the Hofmann property as C1.

8:18 p.m. B-2 Amend public art ordinance. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

8:19 p.m. Lumm reviews the content of the ordinance. She stresses that the ordinance change does not actually return any funds. A separate action will be required, she notes.

8:22 p.m. Kunselman says, “Boy this is a tough one.” Back on June 3, 2013, he had voted against changing the ordinance. At this point he’s willing to amend the ordinance. But he cautions that he’ll probably be voting against both of the other resolutions about returning funds. He feels that the discussion should probably happen in the context of the annual budget resolution in May. He won’t vote for either resolution, he says.

8:24 p.m. Eaton says that at an earlier meeting he’d proposed a compromise involving the art administrator: If public art money is returned, and the mayor assures he won’t veto the ordinance, then he’d bring back the art administrator’s contract for reconsideration. Otherwise not. He doesn’t want to surprise anyone, he says.

8:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to give final approval to the public art ordinance amendment, allowing the return of Percent for Art money to its funds of origin.

8:25 p.m. DC-2 Return $957,140 from public art fund to funds of origin and establish timeline. This resolution would cancel the art project at Argo Cascades, resulting in a return of a total of $957,140 from the public art fund to the funds of origin. This resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

As a part of the council’s elimination of the Percent for Art funding mechanism last year, it established a new approach to funding public art, based on integrating public art into some selected city capital projects and pursuing a mix of private-public funding for other projects. Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to the new program – to be implemented by staff and the public art commission and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015.

Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the Percent for Art program. A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

8:26 p.m. Note that the council flipped the two resolutions on the agenda. Briere is now describing the rationale for her resolution.

8:28 p.m. Returning funds without committing to funding administration of the new public art program amounted to a “pocket veto,” Briere says, which she did not want to pursue. She felt that the Argo Cascades would not be able to be finished in the timeframe of the transition – given that it has stalled. That’s why her resolution does not leave funds for that project. If the council is going to move forward with a new art program, then the council needs a plan to move forward.

8:29 p.m. Petersen says that not returning the funds is a barrier to creating the kind of public art program that the community wants. She now proposes two amendments.

8:31 p.m. Petersen suggests that the report on the plan be due on Oct. 6, 2014 instead of March 2, 2015. Six months is a reasonable amount of time, she says. Briere and Kailasapathy are OK with that. Petersen’s amendment is accepted as friendly.

8:32 p.m. Petersen also wants to fund the Canoe Imagine Art project, which means that the total amount to be returned is $936,140. That’s also accepted as friendly.

8:34 p.m. Hupy is explaining the cost of the Canoe Imagine Art project – at the request of Warpehoski. There’s a $21,000 match requirement, Hupy says. The original plan was to raise $11,000 of that through fundraising. But the full amount could be provided by the city, Hupy says, if that’s what the council wants. Briere wants the city contribution to be just $10,000.

8:35 p.m. Hieftje calls it a worthy project. He doesn’t want to risk the match and wants to leave it as $21,000. Petersen also wants to leave it at $21,000.

8:36 p.m. Lumm allows that it’s unusual to have two competing resolutions. She supports the elements that overlap between the two resolutions. But she has a problem with establishing a budget for FY 2015 and 2016. It’s too vague. Where would the money come from? she asks.

8:38 p.m. Lumm says it’s clear that the council has different views on which projects should continue. “Keeping it simple is a good principle,” she says. Briere’s resolution is trying to do too much at once, Lumm says, offering a little something for everyone.

8:39 p.m. Kailasapathy identifies her problem with the resolution: establishing a budget for public art administration for FY 2015 and 2016. She has not come to terms with the nature of the priority for public art, she says. There are other competing needs for public services. She calls the resolution “open ended.” She says there’s a “public art fatigue” in the community.

8:41 p.m. Anglin alludes to private collaboration. He won’t support this resolution.

8:42 p.m. Warpehoski reviews the two points of Eaton’s bargain: return of the money and the funding of the part-time public art administrator. A third item on Warpehoski’s agenda is a good transition to the new public art program. He wants all three parts as part of a compromise.

8:44 p.m. During the public hearing on the ordinance, Warpehoski says that Partridge observed that public art has divided the community. Warpehoski notes that the regular annual budget process requires only six votes for amendment.

8:45 p.m. Petersen says that the ordinance revision approved in 2013 calls out a 2-3 year transition. Yes, the transition will take money, she says. Approval of the funds isn’t being requested, only a plan, Petersen adds.

8:47 p.m. Lumm says she doesn’t support the concept of a full-time public art administrator. She says she really doesn’t know what it means to establish a budget for FY 2015 and 2016. How much? Where will it come from? she asks. It’s way too vague, she says, with way too many unknowns. Drip by drip by drip, money is being spent, Lumm says. So she doesn’t want to wait until the regular budget process.

8:50 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t vote for either resolution. The issue can be left to the city administrator to put in the budget proposal for FY 2015, he indicates. The resolution directs Powers to do something that he needs to do anyway. As far as the money in the public art fund, FY 2014 is already appropriated, Kunselman notes. If there’s an emergency, then the council now has the ability to transfer money. He says it’s difficult to maintain the commitment to the transition when he’s being badgered by the members of the public art community. They say they don’t trust the council, Kunselman adds, but he doesn’t trust some of them. Still, it’s important to stay committed to the transition, he says. He points out that it will be difficult without a staff person between now and July when the new fiscal year begins.

8:52 p.m. Briere says she felt it was a logical step to discuss how to create a plan and a funding strategy for that plan at the same time that funds are being returned. She wants the city administrator to tell the council how much the transition is going to cost. Responding to Kunselman’s characterization of her resolution as micromanaging, Briere says she saw it as “reaffirming.”

8:53 p.m. Briere appreciates Kunselman’s view that it’s really a budget process discussion. But her concern is that the council is once again leaving AAPAC with uncertainly about what the city council is doing. Giving clear guidance is what the council is supposed to, she says.

8:54 p.m. Hieftje floats the idea of postponement. That motion is on the floor now.

8:55 p.m. Lumm doesn’t want to postpone. Hieftje reiterates that he wants to review the work of the council’s committee on public art from last year. It doesn’t do any harm to postpone, he says.

8:57 p.m. Eaton says the harm is that it puts the compromise in jeopardy, regarding the contract extension for the public art administrator. Eaton says he doesn’t think this resolution has the votes to pass. Hieftje says that the other one doesn’t have the votes to pass, either. Hieftje says that he can’t imagine public art in Ann Arbor without a public art administrator.

9:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone this resolution. Teall hesitated for several seconds before casting the final and deciding vote in the roll call. Voting for it besides Teall were Briere, Petersen, Kunselman, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

9:01 p.m. DC-1 Return $819,005 from public art fund to funds of origin. This resolution would return $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. This resolution is sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). It requires eight votes on the 11-member council t pass. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

9:02 p.m. Lumm is now reviewing the details of her resolution. The rationale for returning the funds is compelling, she says. She wants a “clean break.” It’s especially true when significant dollars are at stake, she says.

9:04 p.m. Eaton says that in addition to Lumm’s points, this approach sends an important message to the public art commission. It recognizes that the three projects have been approved. He doesn’t want AAPAC to get the message (as they would with Briere’s resolution) that if they don’t spend the money, then they lose it. He wants AAPAC to be “selective.”

9:07 p.m. Briere says that over a year ago, she and Lumm had come with different proposals about what to do if the public art millage failed. Lumm’s had been defeated, and Briere had withdrawn hers, she says. Instead, a council committee had been established. So she wants to postpone this. She ventures that it doesn’t have eight votes to pass. In an ideal world, she and Eaton and Kailasapathy and Lumm would iron out some differences. She hopes that some agreement could be reached before the next meeting.

9:08 p.m. Lumm says, “My breath is taken away.” She refers to Briere’s comments as a “lecture about an ideal world.” Lumm tells Briere a lot can be accomplished if people work together and that she wishes Briere had taken the opportunity to do that.

9:11 p.m. Kunselman is reviewing the specific ordinance language. He wants to make sure the city administrator could set up the FY 2105 budget with the money moved back to the funds of origin. City attorney Stephen Postema isn’t sure of the answer to Kunselman’s question. Kunselman says he supports postponement.

9:13 p.m. Hieftje is asking Hupy about the matching grant that the Canoe Imagine Art needs. The state seems to need a commitment from the city on that sooner rather than later.

9:16 p.m. Hieftje seems to be floating the idea of funding the Canoe Imagine Art from the money earmarked for the Argo Cascades project. He asks for a friendly amendment that would fund the Canoe Imagine Art project. Briere also wants $5,000 for the Coleman Jewett memorial chair.

9:16 p.m. Eaton says there’s no time pressure on the Jewett project.

9:19 p.m. Kunselman says: “I’m getting really confused.” If the council does nothing, then the money is there available to AAPAC. They might not have a public administrator to assist them, yet they’d have some assistance. Some back and forth between Hieftje and Kunselman ensues. Hieftje says he’s trying to save the part-time administrator’s contract as a part of the compromise.

9:19 p.m. Lumm says that she’ll support the $5,000 for the Jewett memorial.

9:20 p.m. Briere says she’s not sure there’s enough affirmative votes to pass it. Her own bias it to “postpone the thing” and work out the details. She won’t withdraw the motion to postpone.

9:21 p.m. Kunselman says if it’s postponed and a single resolution comes back, then he’d reconsider his position and possibly vote to support it.

9:23 p.m. Eaton tells Hieftje that if this is postponed, then he’ll move for reconsideration, as long as no one yells “Shame on you!” at him. This was an allusion to Warpehoski’s outburst at the Feb. 3 meeting, following the council’s rejection of a contract extension for the public art administrator.

9:23 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone this resolution as well.

9:24 p.m. Recess. We are now in recess.

9:39 p.m. Here’s the email to Kunselman from Powers, backing Kunselman’s position that the DDA didn’t file its TIF annual reports in a timely way: [.pdf of Feb. 17, 2014 Powers email] We’re still in recess. Several conversational pods. WEMU is interviewing everyone in sight.

9:41 p.m. We’re back.

9:41 p.m. DB-1 Adopt Green Streets stormwater guidelines. This resolution sets infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

9:43 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) says he’s glad to see this on the agenda. He’s complimentary of the work the environmental commission and its water committee did. The council had provided general policy guidance, he says, but the commission and its committee had done the work that lets the council takes this step.

9:46 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asks Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She asks for construction cost premiums. Hupy indicates the policy is to look at each site and to look at the toolbox of options that are available. It may or may not be expensive, he says.

9:48 p.m. Hupy clarifies that the city is moving away from using porous pavement. Given 400 miles of standard pavement, he ventured that it was unlikely that a few blocks of porous pavement would be treated with its particular maintenance needs. The strategy is now to put a rock bed under the roadway. The expectation is for the water to drain through it. Briere asks how deep. They’re about 10-12 feet comes the answer from Jen Lawson in the audience. Lawson is the city’s water resources manager.

9:50 p.m. Kunselman ventures that this policy reflects what the city has already been doing. Hupy confirms that. Kunselman asks if the policy will allow the city to qualify for grants. Hupy says the city has received grants before having a policy. The grant availability, however, is diminishing, just as the city is adopting a formal policy.

9:51 p.m. Anglin says thank you to the staff. People have worked on this for at least 10 years, he says. He cites the Carusos specifically. It’s about flood control, he says. Anglin says he’s supportive of buying land to detain water.

9:52 p.m. Hupy invites Jen Lawson to stand up to be acknowledged. She gets a quick round of applause.

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt Green Streets guidelines.

[Ed. note: In the original live update file, the descriptions of DB-2 and DB-3 below were erroneously flipped.] 

9:52 p.m. DB-2 Development rights on the White property. This resolution would approve expenditure of money from the city’s greenbelt program to help acquire development rights on a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, in Scio Township. For this deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335, with the township contributing the remainder. [For additional background, see Land: Greenbelt above.]

9:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve expenditure of greenbelt funds to acquire development rights on the Moore White property.

9:53 p.m. DB-3 Development rights on Moore property. This resolution would approve expenditure of money from the city’s greenbelt program to help acquire development rights on a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. [For additional background, see Land: Greenbelt above.]

9:54 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support this. Scio Township is paying 70% of the price. She says that this is consistent with the greenbelt guidelines, so she’ll support it.

9:55 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t support this. It’s isolated from other greenbelt properties, he says. It’s just providing open space for people who live in Loch Alpine.

9:56 p.m. Outcome: Outcome: The council has voted 8-2 to approve expenditure of greenbelt funds to acquire development rights on the White Moore property. Dissenting were Kunselman and Kailasapathy.

9:56 p.m. DS-1 Approve Blue Cross Blue Shield renewal contracts. This resolution renews the city’s contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for the current calendar year, from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 to provide health care coverage to city employees, their eligible dependents, retirees, and their eligible dependents. The amount indicated in the resolution is $1,437,042.

9:56 p.m. Lumm says the city has a good strategy on stop-loss.

9:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract extension with Blue Cross Blue Shield.

9:56 p.m. DS-2 Apply for firefighter training facility grant. This resolution would approve a $334,140 grant application to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit] [For additional background, see Equipment: Firefighting Simulator above.]

9:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the grant application to purchase a mobile firefighter training facility.

9:57 p.m. DS-3 Purchase road salt. The resolution would authorize the purchase of an additional $47,200 worth of road salt.

9:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the road salt purchase.

9:58 p.m. DS-4 Purchase sewer truck. The council is being asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. [For additional background, see Equipment: Water Main Breaks above.]

10:01 p.m. “This is really exciting because this is a big piece of equipment!” says Kunselman. Hupy says that his wife describes the truck as looking “like an elephant going down the road.” Kunselman says this is the kind of truck that was used to repair a water main break in his neighborhood. The equipment provides for worker safety, Kunselman says. “Vactors make the best pumps out there,” Hupy says.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of a sewer truck.

10:01 p.m. DS-5 Approve purchase of hydraulic excavator. The council is being asked to approve the purchase a hydraulic excavator for $176,472. The equipment is used for repairing water main breaks. [For additional background, see Equipment: Water Main Breaks above.]

10:03 p.m. Lumm wants to know if it’s worth $68,000 more. Hupy says it speeds up being able to do the repair when the water main is deep. If you’re one of the folks doing the work, it might have a different value, he says.

10:04 p.m. Briere asks if the city is retaining an excavator that digs shallower. Yes, explains Hupy.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of a hydraulic excavator.

10:05 p.m. DS-6 Right of first refusal on Edwards Brothers property. This resolution was postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting. It would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land. [For additional background, see Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property above.]

10:06 p.m. Lumm makes a motion to go into closed session under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The council votes to do so, over dissent from Kunselman.

10:06 p.m. Closed session. We’re in closed session under the OMA exception for land acquisition.

10:21 p.m. Only seven in the audience here in chambers. Planning manager Wendy Rampson is chatting with community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl.

10:29 p.m. We’re back.

10:31 p.m. The council is now in open session again.

10:31 p.m. Lumm moves to postpone the Edwards Brothers item until a special session on Feb. 24 at 7 p.m.

10:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the vote on the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property until a special session on Feb. 24

10:34 p.m. Communications from council. Kunselman is talking about Mary Beth Doyle Park. He’s happy that the asphalt paths will have snow cleared. He appreciates city staff’s work with the Washtenaw County water resources office to ensure that the paths can be treated.

10:36 p.m. Kunselman also announces his intent to bring forward a repeal to the contribution in lieu (CIL) ordinance for parking requirements. [That allows developers to satisfy on-site parking requirements by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system.] And he says he’ll bring forward an amendment to the city’s crosswalk ordinance to make it consistent with the wording of mayor John Hieftje’s veto. [That involves insertion of a requirement for motorists to stop, if they "can do so safely."] He calls the Edwards Brothers question “speculative development.” He ventures that it would be prudent for the council to engage in a conversation about that regarding the Library Lane site. He’s trying to do his part by learning more about the Build America Bonds used to construct the Library Lane underground parking garage. He wants to review the “as built” documents for the structure. He says that he wants to handle the property above the Library Lane structure in a way that’s similar to the way the council handled the old Y lot – by hiring a broker and putting the air rights up for sale.

10:40 p.m. Reconsideration of public art administrator’s contract. Eaton moves to re-open the agenda. The council approves the agenda amendment to include the resolution on the public art administrator’s contract that was defeated on Feb. 3. Eaton moves the resolution’s reconsideration. The council then agrees to postpone.

10:41 p.m. Outcome: The council postpones this until March 3, 2014.

10:42 p.m. Communications from the city attorney. City attorney Stephen Postema gets clarification about whether the council wants a closed session to be part of the Feb. 24 special meeting agenda. That is what the council wants.

10:43 p.m. Clerk’s report. Kailasapathy asks about a note from the state tax commission about tribunals. CFO Tom Crawford says there will be follow-up from the city administrator.

10:43 p.m. Public commentary general time. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:45 p.m. Thomas Partridge says he was up almost all night last night due to a landscaping company’s snow removal activity. Snow removal is important, he says, but it’s not being done responsibly. Giant piles of salt-laden snow and ice are at the shopping centers, he says. Partridge wants the council to establish an ordinance regulating snow removal.

10:46 p.m. Kai Petainen is now at the podium, and he says “I’m not here to complain.” He’s from Sault Ste. Marie he says, and the city has done a great job with snow removal.

10:48 p.m. Ed Vielmetti tells the council he attended the last building board of appeals meeting and says it’s good to see progress, even if it’s slow. He also raises issues about late filing of meeting minutes from various boards and commissions. He says he doesn’t know what reasonable expectations might be for meeting minutes, but thinks it’d be useful for the city administrator to set appropriate expectations.

10:50 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) is responding to Partridge’s complaint about noise during snow removal. She allows it’s a problem. She mentions the noise ordinance and suggests that a call to the police desk would result in action.

10:50 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Feb. 18, 2014 meeting agenda.

The possible acquisition of land is also on the agenda, in the form of a resolution postponed from an earlier meeting. The resolution would exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street.

The meeting is shifted to Tuesday because of the Presidents Day holiday on Monday.

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3 meeting, the council will consider the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment is a resolution that would return $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. That kind of  resolution is typically analyzed as needing an eight-vote majority to pass, but it’s not yet indicated as an “eight-voter” on the online agenda. [Updated 1 p.m. Friday: It's now recorded as needing eight votes.] Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money.

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 agenda is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. It would need eight votes to pass.  The result of that council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid. The contract is supposed be back  on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled.

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda also features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is the repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost. The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. So the council will be asked to approve the purchase of one for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800. The purchase of two vans for a total of $50,320 is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 wood chipper.

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations.

In real estate matters, the council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the greenbelt millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335.

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

A bit south of Biercamp on State Street is the topic of the most significant land acquisition matter on the Feb. 18 agenda. A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land.

On the consent agenda is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

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 Tuesday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

Public Art

Three items related to public art are expected to be handled at the Feb. 18, 2014 council meeting: (1) a final vote on an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance; (2) a resolution enabled by that change, which would transfer money out of the city’s public art fund back to the funds from which the money was drawn; and (3) a resolution extending by six months the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator and appropriating funds to cover the $18,500 contract extension.

Public Art: Ordinance Amendment

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3, 2014 meeting, the council will consider the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years.

The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

This ordinance revision reprises a previous effort to amend the public art ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin. That unsuccessful effort came eight months ago at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. At that meeting, the council did eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism from the public art ordinance, and also allowed the most recent year’s accumulation of money to be returned to the funds of origin. The council also returned that most recent year’s worth of funding – $326,464.

The demised Percent for Art program required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. As a part of the June 3  ordinance change, the council replaced the Percent for Art funding program with a new approach that would allow city staff, working with the public art commission, to identify capital projects suitable for “baking in” art. In addition to city funding of art designed to be an integral part of a specific capital improvement project, the approach envisioned  general donations to a public art fund, and public art projects paid for with a combination of public and private funds.

The current balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund as of Jan. 14, 2014 is $839,507. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Any actual transfer of money would require separate council action.

Public Art: Resolution on Return to Funds of Origin

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment is an item that’s on the Feb. 18 agenda – a resolution that would return about $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which it was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. That kind of resolution is typically analyzed as meeting a charter requirement for an eight-vote majority to pass. However, as of mid-morning on Feb. 14, the item was not flagged in the online agenda as an “eight-voter.” Responding to an inquiry from The Chronicle, the city clerk’s office was checking into the question of how many votes are required. [Updated 1 p.m. Friday: The online agenda has been updated to reflect the eight-vote requirement.]

Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. Returning $819,005 in funding would leave $20,500 – which is the total amount needed to fund an extension of the public art administrator’s contract and some additional administrative costs.

A breakdown of the amounts that could be returned – and the funds to which that money would be returned – is covered here: [Art budget summary]

If the issue of the amount to be returned isn’t settled on Feb. 18 and the resolution does not pass in any form, another option would be to take up the question in the context of the annual budget resolution, which is considered at the council’s second meeting in May every year. Under the city charter, the budget resolution as a whole requires seven votes to be approved. But amendments to the budget resolution are subject only to the six-vote majority requirement.

On Feb. 10, the city released a list  of budget requests made by department heads for the next fiscal year. And  $80,000 from the general fund has been requested to fund a transition  from the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new public art program. The $80,000 would include compensation for a full-time art administrator for a year. In the meantime the council will likely again consider a six-month extension of the part-time administrator’s contract at its Feb. 18 meeting.

Updated 9 p.m. Friday: The wrangling over the amount of public art money to be returned has already begun. A second resolution transferring money from the public art fund to its funds of origin has now been added to the agenda. The second resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and escalates the one sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Briere’s resolution eliminates funding for the Argo Cascades art project – because the committee making the final selection between two artists has not been able to come to a consensus to move forward with one of them. So Briere’s resolution would return $957,140, compared to the $819,005 called for in the proposal originally put on the agenda by Lumm.

Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to be implemented by staff and the public art commission and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015. Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the Percent for Art program.

A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

The need for continued funding for arts administration is based on the new approach to the public art program established by the city council in June 2013. That new approach can include city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, as well as projects funded through a combination of private and public money.

Public Art: Resolution to Extend Public Art Administrator’s Contract

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. The result of that council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid.

The contract will likely be taken up on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled. The art administrator’s contract was first considered at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, but was postponed in the context of a political horse trade – support for the administrator’s contract being contingent on beginning a process to transfer money accumulated under Percent for Art in previous years, back to the money’s funds of origin.

The conversation between mayor John Hieftje and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table toward the end of the Feb. 3 meeting indicated that Eaton would be bringing the item back for reconsideration on Feb. 18, provided that public art money was returned to its funds of origin.

Equipment

The Feb. 18 agenda is relatively heavy on items related to acquiring basic equipment: a combination sewer truck, a hydraulic excavator, a garbage truck, two vans, a wood chipper, and a firefighter training unit.

Equipment: Water Main Breaks

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost.

Here’s a sampling of recent water main breaks – from alerts the city of Ann Arbor has sent out:

• Jan. 15: West Madison between Fourth and Fifth
• Jan. 22: Devonshire between Washtenaw and Melrose
• Jan. 28: S. Industrial between Jewett and Eisenhower
• Jan. 28: Yost between Washtenaw and Parkwood
• Jan. 31: Pontiac Trail at Brookside
• Feb. 5: Washtenaw east of Brockman
• Feb. 11: Pauline between Seventh and Stadium

The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break.

City of Ann Arbor water main breaks by year. It’s not unusual to have several water main breaks in a given year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor financial records, chart by The Chronicle)

Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. The council will be asked to approve the purchase of this type of equipment for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

In more detail, according to the memo accompanying the resolution, the combination sewer truck is to be procured from Jack Doheny Supplies Inc. It will replace a 2005 truck with 6,685 hours of use. Over the last two years, the truck had broken down and needed repairs 63 times – taking it out of service anywhere from fours hours to more than two weeks each time.

When that truck is unavailable do to water main break repairs, a similar truck used for stormwater system maintenance is re-tasked for water main breaks. But that poses a challenge to keep up with the scheduled preventive maintenance of the stormwater system. And failure to meet the cleaning schedule puts the system at risk for clogging and backing up into structures.

On the hydraulic excavator, the staff memo explains that the John Deere model 135G hydraulic excavator to be purchased will replace a 2002 mini excavator. The primary use for that excavator is for water main repair.

The new hydraulic excavator will be able to dig down to 19 feet, which is 7 feet deeper than the 2002 mini excavator. So the larger water mains, which are typically deeper and older, will be reachable.

The mini excavator has been in service over 5,350 hours of use and half its total repair costs have accumulated in the last 3.5 years. The old excavator will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Garbage Truck

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800 from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It’s a smaller truck – with a 6-yard capacity. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The new truck will replace a 2002 model with over 14,500 hours of operation. According to the staff memo, in the last three years, 57% of all time spent maintaining the vehicle has been spent on breakdowns while only 14% has been for preventive maintenance. In that three-year period, the cost of breakdown repairs has been more than $78,000, which is more than half of the 13-year lifetime total of $141,480.

Equipment: Vans

The purchase of two vans – from Red Holman GMC in Oakland County, for a total of $50,320 – is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. The van purchase was recommended by the park advisory commission at its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting.

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. The van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

Equipment: Wood Chipper

Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. The unit is a whole-tree chipper – it will process up to 21-inch diameter logs.

The chipper to be replaced has been in service for 11 years. It has 4,100 hours of use and 35% of its total repair cost ($74,600) has accrued in the last 2.5 years. The old chipper will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Firefighting Simulator

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit]

Land

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several land and land use items: two greenbelt properties; a green streets policy; a zoning issue; and the possible exercise of the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Mallow property on South State Street.

Land: Greenbelt

The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor, through its greenbelt program, will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The deal was recommended by the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at its Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended moving ahead with this deal at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

Land: Green Streets

On the council’s agenda is a policy item related to land: infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

Land: Hofmann Rezoning

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting.

The two parcels in question – just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission and the city council. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

During deliberations on Jan. 21, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he hadn’t been sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. Warpehoski told other councilmembers that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property

A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land.

The council had on Feb. 3 postponed the item “to our next meeting” – which was scheduled for Feb. 18. But subsequently a special meeting was called for Feb. 10 to consider the question. That special meeting was then cancelled.

The resolution would approve the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriate necessary funds, and direct the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. The agenda item contained no other background information.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its following meeting, on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

The pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. The council will still be within the 60-day window when it votes at its Feb. 18 meeting.

The resolution the council will be taking up again on Feb. 18 requires an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council – because the resolution changes the city budget and involves a purchase of real estate.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

On the Feb. 18 consent agenda is  a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” Responding to an emailed request from The Chronicle, city engineer Patrick Cawley provided the following accident history for the locations:

• Fuller Road (2) on May 13, 2009 and Feb. 11, 2010.
• S. University (3) on Feb. 7, 2006, Nov. 24, 2007, and Sept. 8, 2008.
• Geddes (1 involving a bicyclist) on Feb. 9, 2008.

Road Salt

Also on the agenda is a resolution to approve purchase of additional ice-control salt. Based on the $47,200 amount to be appropriated, and the $36.23 price per ton, the council will be authorizing the purchase of roughly 1,300 tons of additional salt.

A city staff estimate provided to The Chronicle puts the amount of salt used so far this season – through early February – at about 6,600 tons. That’s roughly at least as much or more than has been used in each of the previous five winter seasons. If the city uses all of the additional salt to be purchased – bringing this season’s total to about 7,900 tons – that would approach the maximum amount of salt used by the city over the last seven seasons. In the 2007-2008 season, the city of Ann Arbor used 8,500 tons of salt on its roads.

Ice-control salt usage in the city of Ann Arbor by year. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle.)

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city’s snowplow equipment uses “electronically calibrated spreader controls” to keep the amount of salt used to the minimum amount that is still consistent with traffic safety. The price the city is paying for the salt to be authorized on Feb. 18 is established through a state of Michigan’s MIDEAL program. According to the staff memo, the cost for purchasing additional material on the open market would be about $140, or nearly four times as much as under the MIDEAL program.

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!

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Despite Ann Arbor’s reputation, on this occasion councilmembers appeared to be leaning to the right. The meeting featured public commentary that recalled a standard political joke about Ann Arbor during football season: “Fake left, run right.” (Photos by the writer.)

Both issues also had been postponed from previous meetings. However, the committees that were supposed to have provided more specific recommendations to the full council prior to Sept. 3 did not accomplish that work.

After the Sept. 3 council meeting, both of the relevant committees subsequently met. An update on their work is included in this council meeting report.

The DDA ordinance revisions have already been given initial approval by the council and are awaiting a final vote. The amendments to Chapter 7 include various changes to governance, including term limits for board members, as well as clarifications to the existing language on TIF capture. The amendments would enforce the existing language of the ordinance in a way that has an impact on the DDA’s TIF revenue that would roughly match the DDA’s projected revenues in its 10-year planning document.

However, since that 10-year document was last updated, the amount of new construction in the DDA district has resulted in significant increases in the taxable value on which TIF is computed. About $1 million a year is at stake – which would be distributed to the other jurisdictions whose taxes the DDA captures, instead of being collected by the DDA. The joint committee of DDA board members and city council members met on Sept. 10, and the group appeared to be ready to recommend that the council table the initially-approved ordinance changes and start from scratch, likely shedding the proposed changes to governance.

The approach the committee is now taking would remove the current Chapter 7 language expressing restrictions on the DDA’s TIF revenue, and replace it with a “cap” that would have a built-in annual increase. Among the scenarios the committee is weighing would be a cap set at a high-enough level that it would likely have no impact on the amount of the DDA’s TIF revenue, compared to the amount the DDA is receiving under its own current interpretation of the ordinance, which is disputed.

While the Sept. 3 postponement of the DDA-related ordinance was dispatched quickly, later in the meeting the council engaged in a substantial debate on an appointment to the DDA board – that of Al McWilliams. With only nine councilmembers present and his confirmation dubious – because it needed six votes on the 11-member council – mayor John Hieftje withdrew the nomination.

The council’s rules committee also met on Sept. 10 and reviewed revisions that had previously been recommended. Basing its work on a debate that the entire council had on July 15, 2013, the committee decided that none of the council rules on the length of speaking turns (for the public or for councilmembers) or for reserving time to speak at the start of meetings would be changed from the current rules. Among the proposed changes that survived committee discussion included: (1) adding public commentary at work sessions, (2) re-ordering the agenda to place nominations and appointments near the start of the meeting, and (3) prohibiting use of personal electronic communications devices while at the council table.

The council will take up the DDA ordinance as well as the internal rules issue at its next meeting on Sept. 16.

Other business handled by the council on Sept. 3 included passage of a resolution calling for work on better cleanup standards for 1,4-dioxane – which came only after lengthy debate about possibly postponing it in order to strengthen the language and seek the advice of additional stakeholders.

The council also passed a resolution recommended by the city’s energy commission, to direct city staff to develop a pilot program with DTE for a “community solar” project. Another resolution recommended by the energy commission failed to win council approval, however. It would have directed the city’s employment retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies.

In land-related business, the council approved the city’s participation in two deals related to the city’s greenbelt program. Councilmembers also gave approval to a Hampton Inn project on Jackson Road and initial approval to a drive-thru to be constructed at a Shell/Tim Hortons at Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline Road.

As part of city administrator Steve Powers’ report to the council, he mentioned that a memo on the review of the city’s crosswalk ordinance would be forthcoming. That memo was subsequently released.

Downtown Development Authority Ordinance

On the council’s Sept. 3 agenda was a final vote on revisions to the Ann Arbor city code regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance (TIF). At stake is around $1 million or more a year in tax revenue.

DDA Ordinance: Background

A joint council-DDA committee was appointed on July 1, 2013 with a charge to begin meeting immediately to work out a recommendation on possible legislation that would clarify the ordinance.

Ann Arbor DDA TIF revenue projections. The vertical line indicates the year when the clarified calculations would be implemented. The red line is the amount of TIF revenue assumed by the DDA in its FY 2014 and FY 2015 budgets, and in its 10-year planning document. The blue line is the estimated TIF revenue under the proposed clarified ordinance calculations. The yellow line is the estimated TIF revenue that the DDA would receive if the DDA continued to interpret the city’s ordinance in its own way. (Numbers from the city of Ann Arbor and DDA. Chart by The Chronicle.)

However, that committee did not convene until eight weeks later, on Aug. 26. The committee met on just that one occasion before the Sept. 3 council meeting. The postponement until Sept. 3 had come at the council’s May 6, 2013 meeting.

The council had given initial approval of an ordinance change at its April 1, 2013 meeting. The change would clarify the existing language in the ordinance – which outlines how the DDA is supposed to return excess TIF revenue to other taxing jurisdictions – to the extent that the revenue exceeds projections in the DDA’s TIF plan.

Until two years ago, the existing limitation expressed in the ordinance had never been applied. But in May 2011, the city treasurer called the issue to the DDA’s attention, characterizing it as a roughly $2 million issue, dating back to 2003. However, when the DDA retroactively calculated its revenue, as well as rebates to other taxing jurisdictions, it applied a methodology chosen to minimize the amount of “rebate” owed to other taxing jurisdictions, reducing the amount to roughly $1.1 million.

When challenged on its method of calculation, the DDA subsequently changed its position, claiming that the money it had already paid back to other taxing jurisdictions was a mistake. The DDA’s new position was to claim an interpretation of a clause in Chapter 7 as providing an override to limits on TIF revenue – if the DDA has debt obligations, which it does. So in 2012 and 2013, the DDA did not return any of its TIF capture to other taxing authorities. In addition to the city, those taxing authorities are the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County, and Washtenaw Community College.

The proposal as approved at first reading by the council on April 1, 2013 would essentially enforce the language that is already in the ordinance, but disallow the DDA’s interpretation of the “debt override” clause. Compared to the DDA’s own 10-year planning document, revenue to the DDA under the ordinance change would be roughly similar. The minimal impact compared to the planning document depends on the enactment of the ordinance to apply beginning with fiscal year 2015. However, the 10-year planning document in question did not include a large amount of new construction in the downtown area, which has already generated higher TIF revenue than estimated in the 10-year plan.

The ordinance revision as approved at first reading also includes term limits for DDA board members, and would make the appointment of the mayor to the board of the DDA contingent on a majority vote of the council. Without majority support, the mayor’s spot on the board would go to the city administrator.

Serving on the joint council-DDA committee for the council are: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Representing the DDA are Sandi Smith, Joan Lowenstein, Bob Guenzel, and Roger Hewitt.

The Aug. 26 committee meeting was dominated by political squabbling. The only substantive concept that was batted around briefly at that meeting was the idea of defining some kind of fixed cap on TIF revenue. This approach would replace the existing ordinance language, which calibrates the DDA’s TIF capture with projections in the TIF plan. But the discussion never went as far as to include dollar amounts for the fixed cap.

DDA Ordinance: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time on Sept. 3, Jim Mogensen began by saying that municipal finance is “broken” particularly as it relates to cities. In the context of the spirited conversation that’s going on about the DDA, he wanted to comment on the topic of municipal finance. He categorized Michigan cities in different ways. As Category A he described cities like Pontiac, Benton Harbor and Detroit, which have their own concerns related to municipal finance. In Category B, he said, there are cities like Lansing, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – because they have lots of governmental non-taxable land and that creates its own set of issues. In Category C, he put, Northville, Birmingham, and Gross Pointe.

Mogensen noted that Ypsilanti is in Category B, but has sprinkles of Category A as part of its challenges. Ann Arbor, Mogensen continued, is in Category B, but has sprinkles of Category C. Oftentimes, he said, Ann Arbor tries, as does the general public, to deny these challenges exist, Mogensen said, when it comes to setting the budgets and making things work. Some people say, “Well, you know, it must be those liberals – they’re always making us spend money on things that we shouldn’t be spending money on!” He alluded to the old quip about Ann Arbor, particularly during the football season: “Fake left, run right.” The reality is that there’s not much of that kind of spending in the budget, he said.

When people look at the city, they overemphasize perceived mismanagement, and underestimate those structural problems, Mogensen said. So when people think about the DDA, people overestimate and overemphasize perceived management prowess, Mogensen said, and they underestimate the tremendous set of conditions the DDA has, which include: limited scope of responsibility, very high density, and the ability to capture taxes. When you look at all that, he said, it’s obvious why some things happen. Coming out of this conversation, there should be a way to make sure the city can function well. There should be a way of making that happen without discrediting people who are a part of different organizations, he said.

DDA Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off the deliberations, recalling the history of the proposal, and mentioning the meeting of the committee on Aug. 26. Not enough information was available to the committee when it met, he said. Staff had been directed to come up with draft language, he said. Kunselman told the council that he wanted to postpone action again, so the committee could meet again and bring back a recommendation that had more substance.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

The initial inclination was to postpone action until Oct. 7. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) reacted to that date, saying she might be out of town at that meeting. Kunselman asked city administrator Steve Powers if draft language could be ready as soon as the Sept. 16 council meeting. The joint council-DDA work session on Sept. 9, 2013 was floated as a possibility when the issue could be addressed. But Powers indicated that the Sept. 9 work session would be focused on the topic of the parking agreement – between the city and the DDA, under which the DDA manages the public parking system. He ventured it could be a challenge to schedule that many people to meet on an additional occasion. Mayor John Hieftje suggested postponing action until the next meeting, on Sept. 16, and assessing how things stand at that time.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), who’s a member of the council’s audit committee, noted that she’d requested that a review of Chapter 7 compliance be included in the city’s annual audit. [The DDA is a component unit of the city.] The answer that had come back from the auditor, Kailasapathy said, was that the ordinance language was unclear.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked if the DDA needed to be able to vote on something before the council acted. [The DDA board meets on the first Wednesday of the month, with its next regular meeting scheduled for Oct. 2.] Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board, indicated that he didn’t think the DDA would necessarily need to vote on anything before the council acted.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the DDA ordinance until its next meeting, on Sept. 16.

DDA Ordinance: Joint Committee Meeting – Sept. 10, 2013

The meeting of the council and DDA board joint committee – held the week after the council’s Sept. 3 session – was not attended by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) on the side of the council or by Bob Guenzel for the DDA. [Lumm was out of town due to a death in her family.]

The Sept. 10 meeting was different in tone from the Aug. 26 meeting, which featured bickering back and forth between councilmembers and DDA board members. The Sept. 10 session focused on a specific alternative to the current Chapter 7 language, which currently reads [emphasis added]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units. Only after approval of the governmental units may these restrictions be removed.

The last sentence of that section indicates that removal of those restrictions on TIF revenue to the DDA would require approval of the other taxing jurisdictions. However, the committee did not discuss that aspect of the current law, and appeared comfortable with the idea that the language could simply be replaced with a different conceptual approach – without approval or consultation with the other taxing jurisdictions.

The different conceptual approach would establish a basis level for the maximum captured taxable value in the DDA district and then set some clearly defined annual increase, keyed to a specific percentage or some variant of a consumer price index (CPI).

For example, the current taxable value on which the DDA captures taxes is roughly $137,000,000. That yielded roughly $3.76 million in TIF revenue to the DDA in fiscal year 2013, which ended on June 30. If that $137,000,000 were used as a basis for the cap, then a 3% increase applied annually would give the DDA a maximum of $5.063 million in 2023. In any given year, the DDA would receive the lesser of two values: (i) the unconstrained TIF captured on the taxable value; or (ii) the value of the cap.

The working document used by the committee showed two basic scenarios, one with a basis of $137,000,000 in taxable value for FY 2013, and a second one starting a basis of $167,000,000 for the following year, in FY 2014. The second one received more interest from the committee:

2. The maximum captured taxable value shall be fixed 
at a base value of $167,000,000 for tax year 2014. Each tax 
year thereafter, the maximum captured taxable value shall be 
increased by (CPI, 3%, 5%) per annum.

DDA TIF Capture Cap.
TIF value in millions with $167 million 
taxable value basis in FY 2014.
Columns correspond to yearly value of cap
assuming the increase indicated in the 
column header.
===================================
FY    CPI         3%     5%    10%
___________________________________
2013  $3.767  $3.767  $3.767 $3.767 (Actual)
2014   4.500   4.500   4.500  4.500
2015  tbd      4.635   4.725  4.950
2016  tbd      4.774   4.961  5.445
2017  tbd      4.917   5.209  5.990
2018  tbd      5.065   5.470  6.588
2019  tbd      5.217   5.743  7.247
2020  tbd      5.373   6.030  7.972
2021  tbd      5.534   6.332  8.769
2022  tbd      5.700   6.649  9.646
2023  tbd      5.871   6.981  10.611

-

The DDA would be projected to capture around $4.5 million in TIF this fiscal year (FY 2014), even on the Chapter 7 amendments given initial approval by the council. But under those amendments, the DDA’s TIF capture in FY 2015 would be $3.68 million, which compares to $3.75 million in the DDA’s 10-year planning document from earlier this year.

At the Sept. 10 committee meeting, not much interest was shown in defining the escalator in terms of a CPI. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) ventured that it might be appropriate to use 2.2% as an escalator – as that’s the figure used for the DDA’s 10-year planning document. DDA board treasurer Roger Hewitt objected that this was a fairly conservative number. Board chair Sandi Smith argued that any choice of a percentage would be “random” and that the choice of the escalator should be considered in the context of its implications for the DDA’s ability to complete projects described in a draft list of projects the DDA has recently assembled.

The development of the draft list came partly in response to pressure from the city council – dating back to April of this year – asking the DDA to explain what projects would not be undertaken if the DDA didn’t continue to receive TIF revenue based on its preferred interpretation of the city’s ordinance. An ordinance amendment included in the revisions given initial approval by the council would require closer integration of the DDA’s projects with the city’s capital improvements plan. The amendment was put forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

The authority shall submit their capital budgets to incorporate them into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The authority shall at the time they submit their budget for Council approval identify that portion of the budget which is operating and that which is capital projects.

The project list was introduced at the Sept. 4, 2013 DDA board meeting. [.pdf of draft five-year plan]

Based on the committee conversation, the next step for the DDA appears to be comparing the different definitions for the escalator to its 10-year planning document and to the draft five-year project list. And based on that analysis, the DDA would come back with a recommendation for how the escalator should be defined.

For the council, the consensus appeared to be that the council will delay again at its Sept. 16 meeting – either by postponing or tabling a vote. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated a willingness to start with a fresh draft of ordinance changes, which would allow the council to shed the changes in the original proposal that would affect DDA board governance, including term limits. That would reset the requirement that the council approve the ordinance revisions at a first reading and then again at a second reading at a subsequent council meeting.

There’s an outside chance that a fresh first reading of the ordinance changes could be brought to the council for its consideration by Oct. 7, the first meeting in October. Even if a fresh first reading is not ready until Oct. 21, the second council meeting in October, an approval then would set up the council to give final approval on Nov. 7. That follows the Nov. 5 election, but the current composition of the council would still be at the table, no matter the general election outcome. So even if independent incumbent Jane Lumm were not to prevail in the Ward 2 race – which is also contested by Democrat Kirk Westphal and independent Conrad Brown – she would still be able to vote on Nov. 7.

Appointments to Boards, Commissions

At its Sept. 3 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council was asked to confirm just three of the four nominations made at the council’s previous meeting on Aug. 19.

One nomination that had been made on Aug. 19 – for Leigh Greden’s reappointment to the Ann Arbor housing commission – was withdrawn prior to the start of the Sept. 3 meeting.

Two nominations from Aug. 19 were confirmed: Devon Akmon’s appointment to fill a vacancy on the public art commission; and Logan Casey to fill a vacancy on the human rights commission. Akmon is an Ann Arbor resident and the new director of the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn. Casey is a graduate student at the University of Michigan.

Considered separately was the nomination of Al McWilliams’ appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor DDA.

Appointments: Background

The nomination of former city councilmember Leigh Greden to the Ann Arbor housing commission had been withdrawn before the Sept. 3 meeting, around 2:30 p.m. that same day.

Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje.

No conversation took place at the Sept. 3 meeting about Greden’s nomination. His initial appointment to the AAHC board in January 2011, replacing Jayne Miller, had been unanimous.

Earlier this year, at the council’s April 1 meeting, Nickolas Buonodono had been nominated to replace Greden on the AAHC board, after Greden had reached the end of his first term. Buonodono is an attorney, and a member of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party executive committee. However, that nomination was not on the council’s April 15 meeting agenda for confirmation. According to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall, who spoke to The Chronicle in a telephone interview in mid-April, Greden was going to seek reappointment for a second term if he could accommodate his schedule to the meeting times. The housing commission is undergoing a major transition to a project-based voucher system, which the council authorized at its June 3, 2013 meeting on a unanimous vote.

The nomination of Al McWilliams to the Ann Arbor DDA also came forward from mayor John Hieftje with a wrinkle. Before he was nominated at the council’s Aug. 19 meeting, McWilliams’ name had appeared on an early version of the list of nominees for the council’s Aug. 8 meeting. The final version for that meeting, however, did not include his name.

McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Appointments: Council Deliberations – DDA

Mayor John Hieftje led off the conversation by noting that there are currently some openings on the DDA board. He asked for the council’s support on Al McWilliams’ nomination. Hieftje said he had wanted to find someone representing the Main Street business district and the entrepreneurial community, and he thought that McWilliams fit that description.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated that she’d asked for a list of those who’d applied for the appointment to the DDA. She’d been told that the person in charge of the list was on vacation, but the list would be provided next week.

The second issue, she continued, was that McWilliams’ company, Quack!Media, is a vendor for the AAATA. The DDA grants money to the AAATA, she said, calling that a conflict of interest.

Hieftje told Kailasapathy that his assistant was out of town, and he had not had time to “rustle up those files” of applications. [Former DDA board member and local developer Ed Shaffran has indicated a willingness in serving again on the DDA board.]

Hieftje reviewed the fact that the process calls for him, as mayor, to make nominations. And he’d wanted to nominate McWilliams after reviewing the applications on file. Hieftje noted that there is an additional seat open on the DDA board, and that he’d be looking forward to bringing a nomination to fill that additional seat to the council’s next meeting. [The two seats that currently need to be filled are those of Newcombe Clark, who made an employment-related move to Chicago after serving out a four-year term on the board, and Nader Nassif, who resigned from the board this summer after being arrested for sexual assault.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that she’d asked the city attorney about the conflict-of-interest question. Briere indicated that she didn’t think it was clear that a conflict of interest arose out of the situation that Kailasapathy had described. Briere asked city attorney Stephen Postema to comment on the question.

Postema essentially indicated that he didn’t think there’s an inherent conflict for McWilliams in serving on the DDA board, but if any conflict-of-interest issue arose while serving on the board, it could be dealt with when it came up.

Postema stressed that if there are two public entities involved, it’s not considered to be a conflict under the statute. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said that even though the state doesn’t define it as a conflict, the council has rules on the question. She didn’t think the state law is stringent enough. She ventured that McWilliams would need to recuse himself quite frequently, possibly including votes on the DDA budget.

Responding to Petersen, Postema indicated that the state statue is not as stringent as many people would like it to be. Postema noted that while Petersen might perceive a conflict, he was looking at it as a matter of state law.

By way of background, one state statute on conflicts of interest for a public official is Act 317 of 1968 “Contracts of Public Servants with Public Entities.” It’s the state statute to which DDA legal counsel Jerry Lax had appealed at the DDA board’s meeting three and a half years ago – on May 5, 2010. It involved a question about whether mayor John Hieftje and then-councilmember Sandi Smith should participate in a vote to allocate $2 million to the city of Ann Arbor, given the fact that they’re paid salaries as elected officials by the city of Ann Arbor.

The statute prohibits the public servants from soliciting contracts with entities by whom they are employed:

(2) Except as provided in section 3, a public servant shall not directly or indirectly solicit any contract between the public entity of which he or she is an officer or employee and any of the following: (a) Him or herself. (b) Any firm, meaning a co-partnership or other unincorporated association, of which he or she is a partner, member, or employee. [...]

In analyzing the situation for Hieftje and Smith in 2010, Lax pointed out that there was a specific exemption for contracts between two public entities [emphasis added]:

15.324 Public servants; contracts excepted; violation as felony. Sec. 4. (1) The prohibitions of section 2 shall not apply to any of the following: (a) Contracts between public entities.

Under that statute, Lax concluded it was not a problem for Hieftje and Smith to participate in the deliberations and vote on the resolution that the DDA board was considering.

Later in the May 5, 2010 meeting, however, the resolution considered by the DDA was proposed to be altered so that the $2 million payment was not described as part of any contract – because at that point the existing parking agreement between the city and the DDA had expired, and no money was owed under that contract. At that point, Lax indicated that the state statute did not provide an exemption – because the DDA was contemplating a grant. So Lax expressed his view that Hieftje and Smith should sit out the vote on amending the resolution, which they did. The attempted amendment failed, however, and the two subsequently returned to the table to vote on the resolution.

So in considering whether Al McWilliams would be able to participate in a vote to allocate money for getDowntown, for example – given that AAATA is a client of his company – it’s not obvious at first glance that Act 317 of 1968 would apply. If the money allocated to the AAATA’s getDowntown program takes place outside of a contractual agreement, then the inapplicability of the statute could be based on the same reasoning Lax used in the May 5, 2010 vote involving Hieftje and Smith.

However, based on the annual signed agreements that AAATA provided to The Chronicle in response to a request under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, some basic getDowntown program funding is granted to AAATA by the DDA under that annual signed contractual agreement. Funding for getDowntown’s go!pass program, which was $479,000, does not appear to be covered by that annual contract. [.pdf of 2013 getDowntown agreement]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

During the council’s Sept. 3 deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) contended that there’s no conflict at all for McWilliams. As an example, Taylor cited employees of the University of Michigan who serve on the council. [Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is currently an employee, as is Hieftje. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was previously, but is no longer a UM employee.] Using the same standard would require the recusal of these councilmembers on any UM-related matter, Taylor contended.

If there were an actual conflict on a particular occasion, then it’s well established that someone can simply stand down for a particular vote, Taylor said. [Taylor has himself on occasion asked that councilmembers vote to excuse him from votes the council has taken, for example, when a bar that is a client of his law firm – Hooper Hathaway – had requested a special event street closure that required council approval.]

At that point in the deliberations, Kunselman asked if the other nominations to be considered that night could be separated out. Hieftje proposed voting on the confirmations of Devon Akmon and Logan Casey separately, which the council did.

Outcome: The council voted to confirm Akmon to the public art commission and Casey to the human rights commission.

Kunselman said he appreciated the fact that the issue had been raised about the appearance of a conflict, even if there’s not a legal conflict. However, Kunselman asserted that he had the prerogative to vote as he liked. So Kunselman was interested in confirming the appointment to the DDA board of someone who might be able to accept some “reform” of the DDA. And Kunselman didn’t think that McWilliams, as a DDA supporter, would be open-minded with respect to following city ordinances. So Kunselman stated that he would vote against the appointment of McWilliams.

Hieftje asked Kunselman if he’d met with McWilliams. No, Kunselman replied, but he’d read McWilliams’ public statements.

Briere said she has not met with McWilliams, but she’d talked with Maura Thomson, director of the Main Street Area Association, who was very enthusiastic about McWilliams being appointed. Briere then talked about the issue of perceived conflict of interest. Briere said she’s heard that she could have a conflict due to her spousal relationship. [Briere is married to local attorney David Cahill.] She’d heard that she’d had a conflict when she worked for a nonprofit that received city funding. If the council gets interested in the question of whether someone is even just “dimly friendly” with someone, then that will shrink the pool of those who are eligible to serve, Briere said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Briere noted that there were two former mayors who were UM faculty. She was surprised that people are considering this kind of thing to be a conflict. If a councilmember feels a nominee falls short of the mark, then they should be voted against based on the merits, she said.

Taylor added that if one of the goals is to have people who are involved in local business to be involved in civic life, then this level of relationship can’t be a prohibitive factor. The council’s conversation that night was already doing damage to the possibility that others will want to step forward, Taylor ventured.

By way of background, by state statute a 12-member DDA board must include either the mayor or the city administrator, and at least seven members having an interest in property located in the DDA district or be an officer, member, or trustee, principal, or employee of a legal entity having an interest in property located in the downtown district. And at least one of the DDA board members is required to be a resident of the downtown district. Three at-large members fill out the other seats.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) stated there are three questions to consider: qualifications, perspective, and conflict. He was not upset that the council was discussing any of these questions. Warpehoski reported that he’d met McWilliams only once. Based on that interaction, he said McWilliams has a sharp mind. So Warpehoski concluded McWilliams is qualified. Warpehoski wasn’t familiar with McWilliams’ perspective on the DDA, except for what Kunselman had reported earlier during deliberations.

On the question of conflict, Warpehoski stated that McWilliams should not vote on contracts that his company would service – but he didn’t think there would be that many votes fitting that description. He thought that the question of conflict is still a fair one to ask.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was supportive of McWilliams’ nomination. Responding to Kunselman’s point about McWilliams’ attitude toward the DDA, Teall said that it’s natural that someone who wants to serve on the DDA would be supportive of the DDA.

Kailasapathy was skeptical that there would be only a few votes from which McWilliams would need to refrain. She stated that she thought there was a direct conflict of interest.

Hieftje asked for the ability to withdraw the nomination, so that some of the issues that had been raised could be explored.

Outcome: The council did not vote on McWilliams’ nomination because Hieftje withdrew it. The council’s vote looked like it might have failed on a 5-4 vote with Kunselman, Petersen, Kailasapathy, and Anglin possibly voting against it.

Council Rules Changes

The council’s Sept. 3 agenda included an item related to changes to its internal rules. This revision to the set of council rules was first presented to the council on June 17, 2013. However, a vote was postponed at that meeting.

The revisions were prompted by a desire to allow for public commentary at council work sessions – to eliminate any question about whether councilmembers were engaged in deliberative interactions at those sessions. By allowing for public commentary at work sessions, the council would ensure compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The council’s rules committee also recommended additional changes, including a shortening of the individual speaking turns for public comment as well as shortening of time for councilmembers. Those additional changes were included in the June 17 version of the rules.

After again postponing a vote at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council used its following meeting, on July 15, 2013, to eliminate one of the proposed rule changes – the shortening of public speaking turns. But the council postponed further revisions and a vote until Sept. 3.

The council’s rules committee – consisting of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje – was supposed to meet before the Sept. 3 meeting to consolidate input from other councilmembers and perhaps present a clean slate of proposed revisions. However, in the interim, the rules committee did not meet.

Among the other changes that were part of the proposed revisions was the addition of a rule to disallow the use of mobile electronic communication devices at the council table. Another possible change would affect the council’s standard agenda template by moving nominations and appointments to boards and commissions to a slot earlier in the meeting, instead of near the end.

Council Rules Changes: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a 2010 Michigan senate candidate and 2012 candidate for the Michigan house of representatives, who’s now a write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council this year. He spoke as an advocate supporting Martin Luther King Jr.’s agenda. Partridge called for emphasis on affordable housing, public transportation, and fair access to public meetings. He called for 3- to 5-minute public participation time. There should be no reductions in the amount of time offered to the public, he said. A forward-looking city council would look for new ways to increase public participation time, not to constrain it, he concluded.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Partridge called on the council to be aware of the need for greater public participation. He complained that there’s been scant information on a recent murder of a UM student.

Mark Koroi reminded councilmembers that he’d spoken to the council previously on the topic of public commentary at working sessions. He said he wants to see the issue taken care of. He noted that Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was not in attendance at that night’s council meeting and referred to her a “the invisible woman.” More public commentary means that the council will hear more from Thomas Partridge and Blaine Coleman, Koroi allowed, adding that the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Open Meetings Act should be upheld.

Council Rules Changes: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) recited the history of the proposal, but observed that time is the enemy of all and so the committee had not met. He reported that the rules committee was committed to meeting in a swift fashion. He suggested postponing the vote.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that part of the rationale offered for postponing until that night’s meeting – instead of waiting until Sept. 16 – was to change the rules to require public commentary at work sessions in time for the Sept. 9 work session. Warpehoski asked if postponement would preclude allowing public commentary at the Sept. 9 meeting.

City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that public commentary wouldn’t be precluded. From Postema’s remarks on Sept. 3 [emphasis added]:

You could just simply direct that public notice be given that there will be public commentary, if you wanted to put that as a part of the motion with a further direction I suppose to, in setting the agenda that public commentary will be listed. There’s certainly no prohibition of adding public commentary. Without it, I think what you’re focusing on, without it, the council rule says nothing about work session, and on the other hand the issue really is what’s going to be done at that meeting.”

Warpehoski asked that a postponement include direction to notice the public that public commentary will be provided and that it be added to the work session agenda.

By way of background, the actual wording of the current council rules contradicts Postema’s assertion that the council rule on agenda setting says nothing about work sessions. The rule actually sets forth an order of business for the council’s meetings and work sessions [emphasis added]:

RULE 3 – Agenda
3A – Preparation of the Agenda
The agenda for each Regular Council meeting and Council Work Session shall be prepared by the City Administrator. A resolution approving a contract shall only be included on the agenda if the City Attorney has reviewed the contract and the result of that review is included or with the proposed resolution.
The agenda will be prepared in accordance with the following order of business:

Moment of Silence
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call of Council
Approval of the Agenda
Introductions
Public Commentary – Reserved Time
Communications from Council
Public Hearings
Communications from Council
Approval of Council Minutes
Consent Agenda
Ordinances – Second Reading
Ordinances – First Reading
Motions and Resolutions
Council Business
Boards and Commissions
Staff
Communications from the Mayor
Communications from Council
Communications from the City Administrator
Communications from the City Attorney
Clerk’s Report of Communications, Petitions and Referrals
Public Commentary – General
Adjournment

Specification of an order of business – as opposed to required elements of any agenda – makes the listing as suitable for either work sessions or regular meetings.

As deliberations continued, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked if signing up would be required to speak at the work session. Postema indicated that he imagined it would simply be general time.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the change to council rules, but indicated it would allow public commentary at its next work session on Sept. 9. At that session, Thomas Partridge and Jim Mogensen addressed the council during public commentary time.

Council Rules Changes: Committee Meeting – Sept. 10

The rules committee met on Sept. 10. Mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) attended the meeting. Hieftje reported that the committee chair, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), had texted him that she would not be able to attend.

In reviewing the proposed changes, the committee determined that based on the July 15 full council deliberations, some rules proposed initially to be changed should be left intact. At the July 15 meeting, the council had voted explicitly to leave the duration of all types of public commentary speaking turns (public hearings, reserved time, general time) at three minutes.

And at the Sept. 10 committee meeting, the view of committee members was that the general sentiment of the council on July 15 indicated little enthusiasm for changing speaking times for councilmembers, or for changing the way that public speaking time is reserved.

Among the substantive changes that will likely be presented by the committee to the council at its Sept. 16 meeting will be: adding public commentary to work sessions; changing the order of the agenda to move nominations and appointments to earlier in the meeting; prohibiting the use of personal electronic communications devices while at the council table.

Pall-Gelman Plume

The council considered a resolution directing staff to explore actions available to the city on the issue of cleanup standards for an existing 1,4-dioxane plume on the city’s west side. Those options include meeting with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and petitioning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to help set cleanup criteria for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane in Michigan.

Map of Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume, by Washtenaw County. Black arrow added to indicate baseball field at West Park. The yellow region is the estimated plume area where the 1,4-dioxane concentration is greater than 1 ppb (parts per billion). That area encroaches well into the city of Ann Arbor and extends outside the well prohibition zone (red border).

The actions to be undertaken by staff can be related to the Pall-Gelman plume or also site specific criteria for the Pall-Gelman plume. The goal would be to improve the cleanup standard for 1,4-dioxane. [.pdf of resolution as amended and approved] The resolution was sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje.

The history of Gelman Sciences, which caused the 1,4-dioxane contamination, goes back 40 years. The company was based in Scio Township and later acquired by Pall Corp. The MDEQ’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But an EPA criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb.

The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and according to the council’s resolution, is anticipated to miss a new deadline set for a year later in December 2013.

Pall-Gelman Plume: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Roger Rayle introduced himself as chair of Scio Residents for Safe Water. He spoke in support of the resolution on the agenda calling on the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality to tighten up the standards for the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane cleanup. When the standards were loosened back in 1985, he said, it happened overnight. Implicitly addressing the potential criticism that the resolution might not be strong enough, Rayle noted that this doesn’t have to be the last resolution on this topic.

Rayle was glad that the council’s attention is back on this topic, he said. Ann Arbor’s water system could eventually be threatened, he observed, noting that a “new hit” was recorded on a well where nobody expected it. He described his work with GoogleEarth to show how the plume has spread. He called on Gov. Rick Snyder to get involved and to get the MDEQ straightened out, as well as the state attorney general’s office.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, after the council had acted on the issue, Kai Petainen thanked the council for passing the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane resolution. But he called it insulting that some councilmembers weren’t previously aware of the issue, asking them where they’ve been. He complimented the city for its disclosure of a raw sewage spill recently.

Pall-Gelman Plume: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the deliberations by describing the chemical properties of 1,4-dioxane. She also described the long history of the problem. Briere noted that some people had voiced concern that the people who have been involved in advocacy should have been involved in the drafting of the resolution – specifically, the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD). Briere agreed with that sentiment. So she said she had a substitute resolution she wanted the council to consider. She described the changes as minor, but noted that they included an added “whereas” clause.

That added clause was as follows:

Whereas, Thousands of residents of The City of Ann Arbor and neighboring municipalities including Scio Township, Ann Arbor Township, have been working for over 20 years for the protection of the surface and ground waters of the State from the continuing threat and actual contamination from 1, 4-dioxane contamination originating at the Pall/Gelman Sciences, Inc. (“PGSI”) Wagner Road facility, and for effective containment and proper treatment of waters already impacted by the contamination; [.txt of original resolution] [.txt of modified resolution]

Briere described the MDEQ as eager to talk to the city about the issue and as welcoming the resolution.

Mayor John Hieftje, who’d co-sponsored the resolution with Briere and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), indicated that the city’s lobbyist, Kirk Profit, has been working hard to keep the issue in front of the state. Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked Briere and Warpehoski for their work on the resolution. Teall said she was glad there might be some movement on the part of the MDEQ.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) complained that the resolution came to the council only late last week. She characterized the resolved clauses as not having “enough teeth.” The language could be strengthened by defining specific cleanup criteria, defining, goals and consulting the expertise of CARD members, Petersen said. So she wanted the resolution postponed.

Briere asked assistant city attorney Abigail Elias to explain the “teeth” of the resolution. Elias described the settlement between the city and Pall-Gelman related to the northwest supply well. Elias was not sure what might be added to strengthen the resolution any further.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said she didn’t want to bring up the issue, but as long as Petersen had done so, she was going to pursue it – that of involving those who’ve been advocating on the issue for a long time. She described herself as a social-scientist-turned-CPA, and thus valued the input of more people. She had mixed feelings about the process used to develop the resolution.

Petersen indicated she wanted to move to postpone the resolution. Hieftje asked city environmental coordinator Matt Naud to approach the podium.

Hieftje ventured that the resolution was about as strong as it could be made at this time. Naud responded by describing the Pall situation as very complicated. CARD has worked hard on the issue and there’s a long list of things they’d like done, Naud said. What’s clearly expressed in this resolution, Naud said, is that the federal government, the EPA, now thinks 1,4-dioxane is more cancer-causing than the EPA previously thought. The state of Michigan’s job is to take that and promulgate it under the Clean Water Act, but that hasn’t been done, Naud said.

Environmental coordinator Matt Naud answered questions from the podium.

Naud said the resolution is a message to the MDEQ. Changing the standard would radically change the attention being paid to the Pall-Gelman site, he said. Michigan has had an 85 ppb standard for a very long time, when everyone else has had a much lower [that is, more demanding or stronger] standard, Naud says.

Petersen asked what the risk would be in using the resolution language to identify a specific standard for cleanup as a goal. Naud explained that he wasn’t sure what number would come out of the state of Michigan’s algorithm. Naud went on to describe part of the problem as getting access to data, and noted that some of Rayle’s work has included hand-entering data from paper copies. Petersen wanted to postpone a vote on the resolution, in order to add CARD’s “wish list” to the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Naud why the state is dragging its feet. Naud indicated that it’s a broader problem than just the 1,4-dioxane issue.

Kunselman asked what the city is doing in the way of contingency planning – in the event that a 1,4-dioxane plume reaches Barton Pond, which is the source of most of the city’s drinking water. That’s the question that needs to be addressed, Kunselman said. “What would we do?” Would the city have to filter out the 1,4-dioxane before pumping drinking water to residents? He had no problem postponing or voting on the resolution that night. But he wanted the city to think about what it’s doing itself, as opposed to asking others to do something.

From left: Ward 5 councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) characterized the problem as one of court decisions, saying that the courts are generally going to find in favor of Pall-Gelman. He said that when he started serving on the council, he attended some CARD meetings and it was very confusing. Anglin said he wanted the city council to hold a work session on the topic of the 1,4-dioxane plume. He pointed out that the issue had arisen in connection with the City Apartments project: Who would be responsible if the 1,4-dioxane contamination were to penetrate to that site? Anglin indicated he was in favor of postponement, because of the magnitude of the issue. But he thanked Briere and Warpehoski for their effort.

Briere characterized the issue as “not a new emergency,” saying that it’s an ongoing problem. The first step seems to be to get MDEQ to act, Briere ventured. Naud indicated some agreement with that idea. The change at the federal level should have trickled through to the state level, Naud said. But it hasn’t and so Pall-Gelman says that currently they don’t have to worry about areas that have concentrations below 85 ppb.

Briere said she had assumed that other councilmembers were already up to speed on the issue, and she thought that the opportunity to achieve something should be seized. Naud said there’s no question that the state should have acted in some way, and that’s why the resolution focuses on that.

Petersen asked if the purpose of the resolution was just to put MDEQ on notice. Naud indicated basic agreement with that characterization. Petersen ventured that a delay of two more weeks shouldn’t be a problem, saying she wanted to hear from CARD on the question, to see if the language can be strengthened. She then formally moved for postponement.

Hieftje said he didn’t think that the resolution could be strengthened and characterized it as providing a start to a conversation. The resolution would give the city’s lobbyist something to work with, Hieftje said. He was impressed that Roger Rayle had been consulted and had spoken in favor of the resolution during public commentary. So Hieftje indicated he’d vote against postponement.

Kunselman expressed concern that the city is “going it alone.” Briere says she’s talked to other elected representatives – county commissioners, Scio Township representatives, and members of the state legislature. She said it’s not Ann Arbor going it alone, but rather Ann Arbor taking the first step. Taking that first step, she says, seems to be vital. She’d attended a briefing with Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, and the message at that briefing was that the first step is for MDEQ to change the 85 ppb number. [Based on remarks made at the most recent meeting of the Washtenaw board of commissioners, the board will be considering a similar resolution on 1,4-dioxane at its Sept. 18, 2013 meeting.]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked for a basic status report on how things stand with respect to the city’s water supply. Naud indicated that when 1,4-dioxane was detected in the city’s northwest supply well in 2003, the city stopped using that well.

Naud described various locations where the city tests for 1,4-dioxane. Taylor described himself as delighted the proposers had brought the resolution forward, saying that a revised version might be a “scootch” more detailed. He indicated that he didn’t think that a delay of two weeks would matter.

Teall asked about the testing locations. Naud described how there are a couple hundred monitoring wells. Anglin asked about the city’s conversations with the EPA.

Warpehoski indicated he was going to violate the council rules by sending the media Briere’s revisions to the resolution via email. [Because Warpehoski did that, The Chronicle was able to include the revised resolution in its brief on the resolution filed from the meeting.]

Warpehoski supported the approach that Briere had taken as “more surgical” than to try to hang a bunch of wish-list items on it, as if the resolution were a Christmas tree. He summarized the intent of the resolution as saying to the MDEQ: “Do your job!” Warpehoski indicated that Briere had done a lot of heavy lifting on the resolution.

Outcome on postponement: On a 4-5 vote, the motion to postpone failed. Voting against postponement were Teall, Warpehoski, Anglin, Hieftje and Briere. Voting for postponement were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Taylor and Kunselman. Lumm and Higgins were absent.

The council continued with deliberations on the resolution. Kunselman indicated he’d support it. He ventured that if the city’s water system were compromised, then Ann Arbor would connect to the Detroit system. But responding to a question from Briere, Naud indicated that he wasn’t sure that connecting to Detroit would be the city’s first option. Kunselman noted that it’s important to hear what the contingency plan is.

Kunselman asked what the criteria would be for shutting down Barton Pond as a water source. City administrator Steve Powers indicated he’d follow up on that. Hieftje stated that shutting down Barton Pond is not imminent. Briere asked Naud if there’s any imminent risk. Naud replied that the geology in this area is complicated. There’s a lot of science and research that would need to be done to determine if the plume could get to Barton Pond and if so, how fast, Naud said. He allowed that 1,4-dioxane has shown up in places where it was not expected.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct city staff to take action related to helping set cleanup standards for 1,4-dioxane.

Energy Commission Recommendations

Two resolutions sponsored by the city’s energy commission were considered by the council on Sept. 3. The first called on the city’s employee retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies. The second directed city staff to work with DTE to create a community solar pilot project.

Energy Commission Recommendations: Fossil Fuels

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

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

Energy Commission Recs: Fossil Fuels – Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Mike Shriberg spoke on behalf of the city’s energy commission, asking the council to support the community solar resolution and the fossil fuel divestment resolution. He mentioned Seattle, San Francisco, State College and Boulder as examples of cities that have divested from fossil fuel companies. He described the increased financial risk as minimal.

From left: Ward 3 councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman. Visible in the audience is Jeff Hayner.

Monica Patel also spoke in support the resolutions on community solar and fossil fuel divestment – on behalf of the Ecology Center. She delivered the council petitions signed by Ann Arbor residents in support of the resolutions.

During public commentary reserved time, Jeff Hayner – who’s running as an independent for city council in Ward 1 against incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere – talked about the balance between vision and common sense. He spoke in support of the community solar resolution. He also spoke in support of the divestment of fossil fuels companies, but urged caution and warned of possible financial losses. Is social gain worth the financial risk? he asked. Hayner thanked Roger Rayle for speaking during public commentary about the 1,4-dioxane resolution, saying that it’s a complex problem that is not going away.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Kai Petainen said it doesn’t make sense to divest from an entire sector of the economy – a reference to the fossil fuel divestment resolution. [.pdf of statement from Kai Petainen emailed to The Chronicle following the Sept. 3 meeting]

Energy Commission Recs: Fossil Fuels – Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje led things off by saying, as a member of the energy commission, he could say that the issue had been thoroughly reviewed and researched. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) referred to Jeff Hayner’s public commentary, which indicated that there could be a financial impact. Have there been any other examples of divestment along these lines? Briere asked.

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the last time it came up was in connection with South Africa. So it was a long time ago, Briere concluded. Briere asked Nancy Walker, executive director of the retirement system, to come to the podium and comment. Briere wanted to know if Walker would be concerned if the council were to approve the resolution.

Walker said the board had been made aware of the resolution and had some discussion at its meeting just that afternoon. The board had not taken a position, she said, but would certainly consider a council resolution. She indicated that there would be some financial implications. Right now, the trustees have made a conscious effort over the last several years to shift the investments away from separately managed accounts, to either co-mingled funds or mutual funds – particularly indexed funds. That’s a very low-cost way to invest the money, she said. For example, 25% of the fund is invested in domestic large cap equity, and on that, the blended rate is about 2.5 basis points – on more than $100 million.

On initial investigation, Walker said, there really aren’t any indexed funds that exclude fossil fuel companies. If the city were to pull more money out of an indexed fund and put it into a separately managed fund, there would probably be a fee of 20-30 times the fees for an indexed fund.

There are really three separate considerations, Walker explained: fiduciary duty (beneficiaries are the primary concern); cost impact; and consideration of other options. Some of the other options included environmentally-friendly, socially-responsible, corporate-governance type funds. There are not a lot of such funds out there, Walker said, based on initial investigation.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wanted to know what the differential would be of an indexed fund compared to a socially-responsible fund. Walker indicated that they had not gotten to that point of being able to say. But assuming that the return was equal, Walker said, you could anticipate a 30-40 basis point differential on the return, just due to the increased cost of fees.

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

Energy Commission Recommendations: Community Solar

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

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

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

Outcome: The council voted to direct staff to work with DTE to develop a community solar pilot program.

Ann Arbor Greenbelt

The council considered two deals adding land to the city’s greenbelt program. The program is funded by the voter-approved open space and parkland preservation millage.

The Sheldon and Wolf property is indicated in red. The green highlighted area denotes area already protected as a part of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. The heavy green line is the boundary encompassing eligible properties. This is the northwest corner of the boundary area.

The first deal – the Sheldon and Wolf property – involved 20 acres in Webster Township. It’s located on Zeeb Road, next to active farmland and other property that has already been protected by the city’s greenbelt program.

The purchase price, after deducting a $6,500 landowner donation, is $47,500. Webster Township is contributing $2,000 and Cherry Republic is contributing another $2,300, leaving the city’s share of the purchase price at $43,200. Due diligence, closing costs and a contribution to the endowment brings the city’s total contribution to $82,067.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the acquisition of development rights on the Sheldon and Wolf property.

The second deal involved participation in the acquisition of two pieces of land owned by DF (Domino’s Farms) Land Development LLC. The appraised value of the land is $322,000, of which the city would contribute up to $32,200. The lead agency on the deal is the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, which voted to approve the purchase of the two parcels at its Aug. 13, 2013 meeting. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended the city’s participation at its July 11, 2013 meeting.

According to the city administrator’s report from the Sept. 3 meeting, there will be a motor coach tour of the city’s greenbelt program’s protected properties on Saturday, Sept. 21 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. The cost is $10. People can register by calling 734.794.6000 ext. 42798.

Outcome: The council voted to authorize the city’s participation in the acquisition of the DF Land Development property.

Hampton Inn on Jackson Road

The council considered a proposal to build a new Hampton Inn at 2910 Jackson Ave., across the street from Weber’s Inn.

A drawing of the proposed Hampton Inn on Jackson Avenue – next to the larger existing Clarion Inn – was shown to planning commissioners at their July 2 meeting. The design includes improved pedestrian features.

The four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, will include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet. A 163-room Clarion Hotel stands on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel.

The planning commission gave this “planned project” a recommendation of approval at its July 2, 2013 meeting.

Planning commissioners had discussed the proposal at length during their June 18, 2013 meeting. Ultimately, they unanimously voted to postpone action on that occasion, instead asking the developer to address concerns over pedestrian access within the site.

The planned project status was sought so that the existing foundation can be used. In 2008, an earlier site plan had been approved, but nothing beyond the foundation was built. At the time, no maximum front setback had been required. Now, however, a maximum front setback of 50 feet is required on at least one of the site’s three front property lines. A planned project status would allow that requirement to be waived.

Hampton Inn: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge told the council that he is wary of the planning commission’s approval of the project. We don’t want more pedestrian casualties or deaths, he said. Many people use this stretch of Jackson Road to deliberately speed, he contended.

Andy Wakeland with Giffels-Webster Engineers of Washington Township, Mich. – the civil engineer for the Hampton Inn project – addressed the council. He discussed the pedestrian issues, calling it a pedestrian-friendly site and said, “We’re pretty proud of it.”

The architect for the project – Jeff Ryntz of Victor Saroki and Associates – also addressed the council. He recalled how the project was started several years ago, and the foundations had been completed. In the interim, the city had changed its area, height and placement zoning ordinance, and those concerns had to be addressed. He noted the planning commission voted 8-0 to recommend approval.

Hampton Inn: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to answer questions. He asked if there’s any plan to install signalization of crosswalks like HAWK or rapid flashing beacons. No, she answered. He asked for some explanation of the traffic analysis. Rampson reported that city planner Jill Thacher and traffic engineer Pat Cawley had visited the site. The location of the crossing was the best one available, Rampson explained.

Warpehoski ventured that of the bad options, he can see how this could be the best one. But as consultations with MDOT continue and as the project goes through the building permit phase, he wanted attention paid to the issue, and urged that every appropriate analysis and protection is put in.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the planning commission [on which she serves as the city council representative] delayed the project, asking for additional pedestrian amenities within the site. However, the crosswalk had been a part of the initial proposal, she says.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) suggested that he and Warpehoski could meet with Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority staff about the bus stop.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the stormwater detention pond. He ventured that the overflow discharge goes to the expressway. Yes, and that will need to be approved by MDOT, explained a representative of the developer. Kunselman asked if MDOT would dictate the signage on the crosswalk. Rampson was not sure if the signs would be different from the other signs next to crosswalks in the city.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor has the highest hotel occupancy rate in the state.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Hampton Inn planned project.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru

The council was asked to give initial approval to a drive-thru at the Shell station and Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway.

The requested changes to the PUD (planned unit development) regulations would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The businesses are located on a 1.44-acre site.

The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. Access to the drive-thru lane would be off of the site’s existing entrance from Ann Arbor-Saline Road. A PUD had previously been approved by the council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, but without plans for a drive-thru restaurant. The city planning commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request for a revision at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

Tim Hortons: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) led off deliberations by asking for a representative of the project to come forward. He noted that the area plan doesn’t support a car wash. But possible use of a car wash was left in the PUD description, so Warpehoski said he wanted it removed. The developer’s representative did not have any objection. Warpehoski also wanted to strike the language that described the ability for someone to get food and beverage without leaving their vehicle as a public benefit.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

One of the requirements of the rezoning allowed on a discretionary basis by the city council under a planned unit development (PUD) is that the project have some public benefit. Warpehoski objected to inclusion of the drive-thru as a public benefit: “To say that somebody now doesn’t have to spend the 10 extra calories between getting out their car to get their salt-sugar-fat fix?! I don’t see that as a public benefit and I don’t want us to list that as some big thing that we’re modifying our zoning for in our ordinance.”

Warpehoski also didn’t like the idea of describing the drive-thru as a “gateway.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4) followed Warpehoski’s turn with questions of the developer’s representative. She ventured that the adherence to architectural design standards would ensure appropriate development of the “gateway site.” All that was being requested at this point, the developer said, was a small drive-thru window, which amounted to 109 square feet of space. Teall wanted to make sure the design of the window fit the architecture. The developer indicated that he proud of the building’s appearance.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled the planning commission discussion. [She serves as the council's representative on the commission.] She asked for an explanation of why the proposed seating area is an appropriate place for such an area.

The developer indicated that the location can be a welcoming symbol or a “gateway.” At the citizens participation meeting, they were told there was quite a bit of pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area – so the seating area was thought to be a good amenity. Briere asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to comment on the number of residents in the area. Rampson indicated that there are a lot of people who cross through the area. So there’s a lot of pedestrian travel, in addition to the auto travel, Rampson said.

Briere ventured that confusion results from the fact that there’s a list of eight items of benefit, and it’s not clear if each item is a discrete benefit. So she had no problem removing an item from the list. Briere asked Rampson to explain how it’s determined what counts as a public benefit for the purpose of evaluating a PUD.

“It’s fairly unusual to have a gas station PUD,” Rampson replied. The property was originally owned by the school district, she reported. She said that the planning commission felt that as a whole, the items were felt to be a benefit. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the previous iterations of the PUD. Did more public benefits get added to the list each time? Kunselman questioned whether an amendment to a PUD really requires an additional benefit above and beyond the original public benefit.

Kunselman stated that if the word “gateway” were removed, he’d be fine with everything else. Rampson reported that the owners of the project have expressed concern about making a substantive change, which would require an additional reading and approval by the city council. City attorney Stephen Postema ventured that the proposed change by Warpehoski wouldn’t be substantial enough to require additional council approvals.

From left: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Briere said that the advantage of putting items in the PUD language is that the developer can be held accountable for those items.

Teall appreciated Briere’s remarks about accountability. She didn’t have a problem with stating more benefits or with the word “gateway.” She appreciated the attention to detail the developer was giving the project. She said she wouldn’t support Warpehoski’s proposed amendments to the language. [The property is located in Ward 4, which Teall represents.]

Mayor John Hieftje said he didn’t think the change was substantial. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) thought it was important to consider the gas station as a gateway based on its entry location. She also pointed out that Tim Hortons has healthy choices on its menu. Anything that helps beautify the corridor should be supported, Petersen said.

Warpehoski suggested separating his proposed amendment into the part about the car wash and the part about the public benefits.

Outcome on amending the public benefits language: The council approved that amendment over dissent from Teall, Anglin, and Petersen.

Outcome on amending out “car wash”: The council approved eliminating the word “car wash.”

Outcome on changes in the Tim Hortons/Shell PUD: The council voted to give initial approval to the PUD changes. The council will need to vote again at a subsequent meeting, after a public hearing, to give the changes final approval.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Crosswalk Ordinance

During council communications time, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) reported that she’s been working with city staff on getting a report from a professional traffic engineer regarding a recommendation for the city’s crosswalk ordinance.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

She indicated that she might bring forward a resolution at the next meeting calling for an independent review of the crosswalk ordinance and the associated infrastructure.

During his report to the council, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that he’ll be providing an update to the council on the review of the new crosswalk ordinance, and of the sanitary sewer overflow in the Arboretum that had taken place at the start of the weekend.

That memo was released subsequent to the meeting. [.pdf of crosswalk memo] [.pdf of WMU study mentioned in memo]

Comm/Comm: Regional Transit Authority

During communications time toward the end of the evening, mayor John Hieftje noted that an October city council work session [likely to be set for Oct. 14] will include representatives from the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA).

Comm/Comm: Fuller Road Station

During council communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) alerted his council colleagues that he’d be bringing forward a resolution that would rescind the memorandum of understanding between the city and the University of Michigan in connection with the Fuller Road Station. [Rescinding the memorandum of understanding is something that Kunselman talked about during his Democratic primary re-election campaign, at a June 8, 2013 candidate forum. Kunselman prevailed in the Aug. 6 primary over challenger Julie Grand.]

Comm/Comm: North Main Huron River Corridor Task Force

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave an update on the work of the North Main Huron River Corridor task force. Their final report has been submitted. [It's now on the Sept. 16 council agenda as a resolution that would formally accept the report.]

The report includes some before-after photos depicting possible improvements, like a pedestrian bridge across the Huron River connecting the Argo berm to the DTE-MichCon property. The task force was established at the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting, and a report had been due at the end of July. But Briere had apprised the council at previous meetings of the slight delay.

Briere apologized for the delay in the delivery of the report. She hoped there would be a presentation at the next council meeting on Sept. 16.

Comm/Comm: D1 Zoning Review

During her council communications, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that the D1 zoning review could be delayed. More public meetings have been added than were originally planned.

Comm/Comm: Sensory Garden

During council communications, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) announced that on Sept. 15 at 1 p.m. a Sensory Garden will be dedicated at Liberty Plaza – the downtown park at Division and Liberty. It’s a project of the Ann Arbor commission on disability issues, in collaboration with the city’s adopt-a-park program and the University of Michigan Matthaei Botanical Gardens. A ceremony will be held to honor former commissioner Pamela Baker-Trostle.

Comm/Comm: Anti-Israel Protests

During public commentary reserved time, Henry Herskovitz cited two news articles about the protests in front the Beth Israel Congregation on Washtenaw Avenue, in which he regularly participates. He noted that at the previous council meeting [on Aug. 19, 2013], the council had been asked to express its displeasure about the protests. He objected to comments made by mayor John Hieftje and other councilmembers. Herskovitz noted that Hieftje had indicated that the city had tried all legal methods to stop the protests, which Herskovitz feared could be interpreted by some to mean that now illegal methods should be used. He reported that three days earlier, someone had spat on a protestor. A police officer had come out to investigate and to view video of the incident, Herskovitz said.

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

Absent: Jane Lumm, Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: Sept. 16, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

The Sheldon and Wolf property is indicated in red. The green highlighted area denotes area already protected as a part of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. The heavy green line is the boundary encompassing eligible properties. This is the northwest corner of the boundary area.

The first deal involved a 20-acre property located in Webster Township. It’s further described in the staff memo accompanying the resolution as located on Zeeb Road, next to active farmland and other property that has already been protected by the city’s greenbelt program. The purchase price, after deducting a $6,500 landowner donation, is $47,500. Webster Township is contributing $2,000 and Cherry Republic is contributing another $2,300, leaving the city’s share of the purchase price at $43,200. Due diligence, closing costs and a contribution to the endowment brings the city’s total contribution to $82,067.

The second deal approved by the city council at its Sept. 3 meeting was participation in the acquisition of two pieces of land owned by DF (Domino’s Farms) Land Development LLC. The appraised value of the land is $322,000, of which the city would contribute up to $32,200. The lead agency on the deal is the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, which voted to approve the purchase of the two parcels at its Aug. 13, 2013 meeting. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended the city’s participation at its July 11, 2013 meeting.

According to the city administrator’s report from the Sept. 3 meeting, there will be a motor coach tour of the city’s greenbelt program’s protected properties on Saturday, Sept. 21 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. The cost is $10. People can register by Friday, Sept. 13, by calling 734.794.6000 ext. 42798.

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 greenbelt properties. The map shows properties currently protected through Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program (smaller green areas) in the context of the greenbelt boundary (larger squarish region). Lodi Township covers the southwest corner of the greenbelt boundary area. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor mapped by The Chronicle on Aug. 3, 2013 with geocommons.com)

The award of FRPP money came in the context of the city’s greenbelt program, supported by a 0.5 mill tax approved by voters to acquire development rights on land to preserve open space.

At its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting, the council had approved an application to the FRPP for the purchase of development rights on two properties in Lodi Township – the 78-acre Donald Drake Farm on Waters Road, and for a 90-acre property owned by Carol Schumacher on Pleasant Lake Road. The city of Ann Arbor was notified recently that for the two properties, a total of $202,370 in matching dollars had been approved to fund the purchase of development rights – $50,960 for the Drake property and $151,410 for the Schumacher land.

In other greenbelt-related action taken by the council on Aug. 8, the appointment of John Ramsburgh to the city’s greenbelt advisory commission (GAC) was confirmed. The item had been postponed from the council’s July 15 meeting, which is customary for appointments to GAC. It’s one of the few boards or commissions whose members are nominated by the city council not the mayor. The usual two-step process associated with appointments – nomination at one council meeting followed by confirmation at the subsequent meeting – is mirrored for GAC appointments by postponing action on a resolution appointing a representative until the following meeting.

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

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

The architecture of councilmember snacks at the Feb. 19, 2013 meeting provided a nutritional buffer against zoning out during the meeting: a stacked configuration of units for fruit and nuts. (Photos by the writer.)

The item drawing that interest was a proposed six-month moratorium on site plan review by the city for projects in the D1 (downtown core) zoning district. After holding a nearly one-hour closed session to review written legal advice from the city attorney’s office, the council decided to postpone the issue until March 4, its next regular meeting.

Exceptions to the proposed moratorium are provided for projects that have already received a recommendation of approval from the city’s planning commission. While that exception applies to a large residential project at 624 Church St., it does not exempt a larger project at 413 E. Huron. Planning staff had concluded that the East Huron project meets all the zoning requirements. But the planning commission’s vote on 413 E. Huron was only 5-3 in favor of recommending approval – one vote short of the six it needed. Ordinarily developers can, on their own initiative, bring a site plan to the city council for action, even without the planning commission’s recommendation.

If the resolution is enacted, then during the period of the moratorium, the planning commission would be directed to review the D1 zoning standards against site plans submitted since 2009, when new zoning regulations were established. The commission would be asked to make recommendations by June 4, its first meeting in June. The postponed resolution states that the council is supposed to take any action by Aug. 19, its second meeting in August.

Legal counsel for the 413 E. Huron developer addressed the council, intimating that if a moratorium were enacted, then a lawsuit would be filed against the city. Attorney Susan Friedlaender expressed skepticism about a provision in the postponed resolution that provided a way for an aggrieved party to have a hearing before the council. The council will take up the moratorium again on March 4.

Also postponed was a related resolution to reconvene the design guidelines task force, which would be asked to recommend improvements in the design review process. That resolution also will be taken up on March 4.

In another item related to downtown land development, the council completed an accounting step – establishing a project budget – in connection with roughly $9 million of bonds recently sold by the city. Those bonds are funding the public parking deck portion of the private City Apartments project now under construction at First and Washington. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority will be making the bond payments.

Another land use issue postponed by the council was the proposed purchase of a parcel immediately adjacent to the Bluffs Nature Area. The postponement was based on council questions about the need for additional access from the west side of the nature area, and the price to be paid out of the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. Related to that same millage, the council approved applying to the USDA Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) for matching funds to acquire development rights on two farms as part of the city’s greenbelt program.

In other land zoning issues, the council gave final approval to the owner-requested rezoning of some residential properties in the Arbor Hills neighborhood. The council also gave initial approval to a rezoning that would allow a retail project called The Shoppes to be built near the junction of Plymouth and US-23.

The council took action related to city-owned land at 721 N. Main, approving a $30,000 physical study of the main building on that former maintenance yard, to see if it can be re-used. At least part of that site is slated to become part of an Allen Creek greenway.

Across the street from 721 N. Main stands a collection of vacant houses that were supposed to be demolished to make way for the Near North affordable housing project. With that project now defunct, the city is moving to demolish the houses as nuisances. The council’s action on Feb. 19 was to accept about $96,000 in additional federal funds through a community development block grant, which can be used only for demolition of houses on the former Near North site.

In other action, the council formally adopted a sustainability framework that now will be part of the city’s master plan. And related to sustainability, the city council authorized the issuance of up to $1 million in bonds for the property assessed clean energy program (PACE). The PACE program provides low-interest loans for owners of commercial properties to invest in energy saving improvements.

Changes to the city’s living wage ordinance also were on the Feb. 19 agenda. The council had previously contemplated but ultimately postponed those changes. This time around, they were tabled. That means the issue will not come back, unless the council proactively decides to take up the proposal again in the next six months.

Also as a result of council action on Feb. 19, the municipal airport will get new fencing.

Moratorium on Downtown Site Plans

The council considered a six-month moratorium on the acceptance of new site plans for developments in downtown Ann Arbor.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and mayor John Hieftje.

Councilmembers also considered a resolution that called for reconvening the downtown design guidelines task force to consider and make recommendations regarding improvements to the design review process. Currently, developers must follow a mandatory process of review for downtown projects, but are not required to comply with the review board’s recommendations. The resolution was added to the agenda about an hour before the meeting started. Members of the task force mentioned in the resolution are: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4 city council), Tamara Burns (architect), Dick Mitchell (architect), Bill Kinley (construction contractor), Norm Tyler (architect), Kirk Westphal (planning commission chair), and Doug Kelbaugh (University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning).

Under the proposed moratorium, a controversial project at 413 E. Huron would not be allowed to move forward, because its site plan did not receive a recommendation of approval from the city’s planning commission. However, the wording of the resolution provides for exemptions for site plans that have already received the planning commission’s recommendation of approval.

Specifically, the wording in the resolution means that the moratorium would not apply to the 624 Church St. project, which received a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission on Jan. 15, 2013. That project is expected to be considered by the city council at its March 4 meeting. The 14-story 624 Church St. project would offer 75 apartments with a total of about 175 bedrooms. Local attorney Scott Munzel, who represents the developer of the project, attended the council’s Sunday night caucus to get clarification on that point.

The moratorium also would not impact Kerrytown Place, a proposed development on North Main – the site of the former Greek Orthodox church – because it’s not in a D1-zoned area. It’s currently in a PUD area, but would meet D2 (interface) zoning requirements. Kerrytown Place consists of three 3-4 story buildings with a total of 19 units. The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on Feb. 20.

Architect Norm Tyler attended the Feb. 19 meeting but did not address the council.

But based on the wording in the resolution, the moratorium would apply to the 413 E. Huron project, which recently failed to gain a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission, and could be on a city council agenda as early as mid-March. That project is located on a site zoned D1, the highest density allowed in the city. It would be a 14-story, 271,855-square-foot apartment building with 533 bedrooms, marketed primarily to university students.

But even without a planning commission recommendation, a developer ordinarily has the option of bringing a site plan proposal to the city council for consideration, which the 413 E. Huron developer intends to do. The developer is Greenfield Partners, a Connecticut-based firm doing business here as Ann Arbor Green Property Owner LLC. The real estate development firm Carter – based in Atlanta, Georgia – is a lead partner in the project.

The council’s resolution, if enacted, also would direct the planning commission to use part of the period of the moratorium to review recently approved and recommended site plans in the D1-zoned areas. The point of the review would be to determine if zoning standards provide appropriate guidance on form and use, and if the zoning conforms to the city’s master plan, downtown plan and character district overlays. The resolution states that the planning commission is to complete its work by June 4 (its first meeting in June) and the council is supposed to take any action by Aug. 19 (its second meeting in August).

The memo accompanying the resolution notes that an initial review of the relatively new A2D2 zoning, enacted in 2009, was supposed to take place after one year. But in that first year no projects had been proposed – because of the economic downturn. Since then, however, the memo points to four projects that have been proposed in D1 areas: Zaragon West (built), The Varsity (under construction), 624 Church St. (proposed) and 413 E. Huron (proposed).

Feb. 19 was the first council meeting after the city planning commission took action on the site plan for 413 E. Huron. The determination of the planning staff was that the project met the D1 zoning requirements, which in that part of the city includes a height limit of 150 feet. However, the outcome of the planning commission’s vote on Feb. 4, 2013 was not a recommendation for approval, because the 5-3 tally in favor did not give the project the required six-vote majority.

The planning commission vote came after long and harsh criticism during the public hearing on the 413 E. Huron site plan – at the two meetings when the planning commission deliberated on the proposal. Some residents called for a rezoning of the parcel, saying it was inappropriate for that area. The D1 zoning had been part of the A2D2 rezoning package for the downtown, which the council approved at its Nov. 16, 2009 meeting.

The resolution to establish a moratorium was brought forward by Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere and was co-sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Briere sits on the city planning commission as the council’s representative, and voted as a planning commissioner against the 413 E. Huron project. Joining her in that three-vote dissent were commissioners Wendy Woods and Ken Clein.

The council’s dilemma with respect to 413 E. Huron relates to the parcel’s zoning, which many residents contend was inappropriately zoned as D1. Opponents of the project argue that the site should have been zoned D2 (interface), in order to provide a buffer between densely developed areas and neighboring residential areas.

Last year, on April 16, 2012, the city council was asked to contemplate the reverse scenario, when a developer asked for conditional rezoning of a parcel at 1320 S. University – to change its 2009 designation of D2 to D1. The requested D1 zoning would have allowed for a much denser project, which would have exceeded the 60-foot D2 height limit by 85 feet. The council rejected that request. On that occasion, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) argued that the community conversation about the South University area – which had led to the D2 designation – had been significant and warranted the council’s respect.

Moratorium: Public Commentary

Peter Nagourney told the council he supported the resolution to review conformance of site plans with zoning and the rest of the city’s planning documents. He told the council that his interest in the topic went back to his participation in the citizens committee that had worked on the design guidelines as part of the Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown (A2D2) process. He was speaking on behalf of eight different neighborhood organizations, he said. In the downtown area, he said, except for properties that are bounded by University of Michigan properties, all parcels zoned D1 step down to D2 zoning before they meet residential areas. That principle is true except for two blocks on the north side of Huron Street, he said. It had been originally zoned D2, but he said that “at the last minute” it had been changed to D1.

Sketch of “worst-case scenario” created four years ago in March 2009 during the debate on A2D2 zoning.

When the D1 zoning was proposed for that part of East Huron, neighbors who live on North Division Street had sketched out the worst possible potential impact of the zoning – which did not comply with any of the city’s planning documents, and which require step-down buffers to adjacent residential areas. [Chronicle coverage from March 24, 2009 – "A2D2 Zoning in the Home Stretch" – included the same sketch Nagourney showed the council on Feb. 19, almost four years later.]

The unanimously adopted design guidelines were intended to help developers in the city generate new projects that conform to appropriate design and planning documents, Nagourney said – including character overlay districts and historic district guidelines. The original goal was to have design guidelines integrated into the city zoning ordinances, and to evaluate the zoning and design guidelines to determine how well they had met their goals.

Nagourney told the council that the 2009 sketch of the worst possible potential impact of D1 zoning turns out to be conservative – because the 413 E. Huron project has been designed to occupy every square inch of the parcel. The proposed building has no step-down to the adjacent residential area, and casts the historic district to the north in shadow much of the year, while threatening landmark trees that predate the city’s founding. In addition, he continued, as it’s now written the inappropriate zoning will allow a 180-foot tall building to be constructed on the lot adjacent to city hall (to the east) with no setbacks or buffer.

If Ann Arbor’s legal or financial records were threatened by an oversight in security or procedures, the city would act as quickly as possible to close that loophole, he said. Today, he contended, the city’s zoning code has a loophole in the A2D2 process – but in this case, the consequence is not a temporary loss of data, but a permanent alteration of the city’s character. The council should act now to stop and review these problems while it can, and preserve the character districts and historic districts that were intended to create a city to serve multiple generations over many years.

Steve Kaplan told the council that he was a lifelong resident of Ann Arbor – born here, bred here, educated here, and now he works here. He works for a company that has been here for 50 years, he said. As an independent small business person, he continued, he welcomed density and development in most cases – because it helps his business. It helps the bottom line. However, in certain specific cases, he felt that it might do more harm than good.

Kaplan said he’d participated in many of the meetings that were held as part of the A2D2 process, and in this one particular area, on the north side of East Huron, he recalled it being a tricky part of the equation. He said he was not alone in being surprised that the proposed zoning had been changed at the “11th hour” from D2 to D1 zoning. He characterized a decision as possibly being driven by the “loud threatening calls of a few people” with specific interests. As the city contemplates reviewing the process as it should have done a year ago, Kaplan said, he worried that the same loud and specific calls of the few would outweigh the benefits and the needs of the many. So he asked the council to remember that as they deliberated on the issue. He cautioned the council to be very careful before they took permanent steps.

Jeffrey Crockett introduced himself as a resident of East Kingsley. He told the council that several landmark trees in the Old Fourth Ward historic district were being threatened by the current D1/D2 zoning law on the north side of Huron. He described two bur oaks with 40- and 50-inch diameters, as well as a hickory tree with a 24-inch diameter. The estimated age of the larger oak tree, he said, is about 250 years. He read aloud a substantial portion of a letter from Christopher Graham, a landscape architect who previously served on the planning commission and is currently chair of the natural features committee on the environmental commission. Graham’s letter states in part:

It is area of the grove of trees under which Indians camped and managed the landscape into a spectacular, open, old tree canopied setting. A few of those old trees still exist, and the one immediately nearby may be one of them. … is counter to the grain of the spirit and work and intent of all those who have so carefully crafted our historic districts, including this most special one, the one that is original Ann Arbor, the one named for a grove of trees and a couple of founders wives’ first names. [.pdf of Graham's letter] [.pdf of a second letter from Graham]

Crockett described the mitigation provided by the zoning ordinance for damage to trees as inadequate. Replacement of a landmark tree with smaller substitute trees, he said, is designed for the benefit and convenience of the developer. That can’t compensate the community for the loss of a 250-year-old tree that inspired the name of Ann Arbor. He pointed out that the historic district ordinance for the city does protect landmark trees.

He quoted section 5:138 of the zoning ordinance, which reads “no approval of any plan, plat or division pursuant to this chapter shall be construed as authorizing any improvement or action not in compliance with all – not some – provisions of this code.” He called on the council to ensure the protection of landmark trees by ensuring that the historic district ordinance is upheld, which he said allows for protection of landmark trees. He described how the construction of the proposed 413 E. Huron could impact the nearby oak tree’s critical root zone and told the council that it might not happen immediately but within five years, the tree would be dead.

When the developers of tall buildings have cashed out their investment and left town, Crockett continued, it will be Ann Arbor’s citizens and their children and grandchildren who will be left to wonder why we didn’t do more to save the landmark trees in “tree town.” He urged the council to vote for the moratorium.

Attorney Susan Friedlaender introduced herself as a representative of the owner of the 413 E. Huron property. She began by quoting the political philosopher Jeremy Bentham:

With respect to property, security consists in no shock or derangement being given to the expectation which has been founded on the laws, of enjoying a certain portion of good. The legislator owes the greatest respect to these expectations to which he has given birth: when he does not interfere with them, he does all that is essential to the happiness of society; when he injures them, he always produces a proportionate sum of evil.

The result of the A2D2 zoning process, Friedlaender said, gave birth to the reasonable expectation that those new zoning laws would have some measure of stability. The city knew, or should have known, that the new laws would encourage significant investment in Ann Arbor. The council had drafted those laws specifically to encourage that investment, she said, observing: “Well, it came.” Her clients had reasonable expectation, she continued, that if investment was made in the city, that the rug would not be pulled out from under them. She noted that her clients had constitutionally protected property rights, which the moratorium was designed to take away. The last-minute addition of an appeal procedure, she said, would be completely futile – because if the council were to grant that appeal, it would destroy the whole purpose of the moratorium. She urged the council to vote against the resolution, which she characterized as “ill-advised.” It’s difficult and dangerous to try to legislate taste, she said.

Carl Hueter began with an allusion to the fact that his name had been rendered as “Carol” on the meeting agenda, joking that it’d been the first time he’d undergone a gender change. He told the council that he had been born in Ann Arbor sometime in the middle of the last half century, and he’s been a practicing architect in the city for the last 40 years. He had seen a great deal of change in his 60 years of life in the city, he continued.

Hueter described the site plan approval in the 1970s and 1980s as a relatively easy and uncontentious affair. But moving into the 1990s, more and more neighborhood groups got involved in the site plan approval process. More and more requirements were placed on the site plans, he said. It became harder and more difficult and more financially challenging to develop site plans in the city of Ann Arbor. As we moved through the 1990s and into the early 2000s, he continued, there were some very contentious projects. As an offshoot of that, the A2D2 process was established. The hope was that by re-looking at the city’s zoning ordinances, citizens would have a fair and adequate way to participate, and also to allow developers to see a clear path – if they followed through the course of the zoning ordinance, it would give them some certainty that they would receive approval.

The moratorium resolution the council is considering, Hueter said, was a “thinly veiled attempt to deny one specific project its due process.” He allowed that the D1/D2 zoning ordinance needs to be re-evaluated – and it was written into the code that it needed to be reviewed within a year after being enacted. But there were not a sufficient number of projects brought forward in that first year on which to base such a review, he said. And so far seven such projects have been proposed, he said. He described the opposition to the project as a “very well-organized minority of a small neighborhood in the city who have failed technically to deny the project moving forward.” So now the group is acting politically, he said.

Hueter allowed that the zoning needs to be reviewed, but asked the council not to deny this specific development – which was proposed by developers, who months ago had entered into a process with the trust that they would receive due process, review and consideration of their project.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald touches base with Ward 2 councilmembers Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm.

Pat Lennon introduced himself as an attorney with the Honigman law firm, representing the developer of 413 E. Huron. He’s chairperson of Honigman’s land use and zoning group, and is also a chairperson of the West Michigan Program’s committee of the Urban Land Institute – so he has an opportunity to review a lot of zoning and land use matters. He said he had the pleasure of appearing before bodies like the Ann Arbor city council all over the state. He was there because he and his client felt that it was “a pretty extreme situation.” In his view, his client had been put in an unprecedented situation. He was there to urge the council to vote down the moratorium. If the motion were to pass, then his client would be reviewing his legal rights and protecting his legal position, Lennon said. “Our client was stunned to learn about this proposed moratorium,” he told the council.

The proposal came virtually on the eve, he said, of his client’s opportunity to have his project considered by the city council. In addition to the issues raised by Friedlaender, he saw additional legal questions that a moratorium would raise. Based on the circumstances, the moratorium appears to be directed at one applicant and one project – his client’s. If that’s not in fact the case, he said, he would urge the city council to exempt pending applications from the moratorium.

Second, he questioned the circumstances under which the matter has been put before the council. There had been no mention of a moratorium before his clients started the application process, which had already been going on for months. No review had been mentioned previously for the D1 category. “We are understandably frustrated by this turn of events,” he told the council. His client would review whether the moratorium followed the proper path on its way to counsel, and he will be ensuring that his client’s rights had not been violated along the way.

Finally, Lennon said, the timing of the moratorium is dubious. A measure that’s as impactful and far-reaching as the one the council is considering had come up with short notice and apparently little discussion before it came before the council. It appeared to him that the moratorium and the potential changes to the ordinance can be seen as a last effort to avoid making a final decision on his clients “by right” project. In his view, any such use of the moratorium process would be improper, and if it were put in place, it would entitle his clients to their legal rights. Putting aside the question of legal rights, he said, he asked the council to consider what is best for the city of Ann Arbor. Imposing such a moratorium in this manner at this time, he told the council, would be to discard the A2D2 process, and would override the city’s interest in developing its tax base and the redevelopment of the downtown core areas.

Stuart Gordon introduced himself as a member of the committee for the ice rink next to the downtown library. A moratorium, he told the council, would give the ice rink initiative the chance to flower and grow. It could possibly show the alternatives that might be explored with city-owned properties. He told the council that there is continuing community support for the ice rink and that businesses in the downtown area were continuing to come on board with the project. Similar projects were being undertaken in several cities in Michigan, he told the council. The committee would be soon generating a short report and financial analysis. He asked the council to guide the Ann Arbor DDA to sit down with the ice rink committee and to take it seriously.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Alan Haber also spoke in support of establishing an ice rink on top of the Library Lane parking structure, next to the library.

Doug Kelbaugh, professor of architecture and urban planning at the University Michigan, told the council that he was a long-term and outspoken proponent of greater density downtown. He was addressing the city council in that context. The zoning code is very clear about its intent to have a buffer, or an interface zone, between D1 and residential zones – in order to avoid an abrupt, rude, and awkward adjacency. “It’s just plain good zoning,” he said.

Ann Arbor zoning. Darker red areas are zoned D1. Lighter brownish areas are zoned D2. A more limited core area is outlined in white, reflecting a suggestion by University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning Doug Kelbaugh.

There usually is such a transition, Kelbaugh continued, as D2 zoning or the university campus abuts D1 areas. The one major exception, he noted, had already been discussed that night – the north side of East Huron Street. It’s a troubling exception, he said, and a glaring one. He told the council that he wanted to focus on the edges of downtown.

Ann Arbor has an opportunity to have a well-defined downtown core, with crisp edges, rather than the usual loose checkerboard of most American downtowns, Kelbaugh told the council. If the D1 zone were limited to the “true inner core,” it would lend a distinctive character to the city’s center. He suggested specifically that the city institute a moratorium to reconsider the extent of the D1 zone. Personally and professionally, he said, he felt the city should consider containing the 180-foot high area within Maynard and William at one corner, and Ashley or First at Huron at the other corner. That would make for a very “legible core,” with existing and new tall buildings limited to the inside of it.

The existing code would allow for a 180-foot tall building right across the street from Hill Auditorium, across from the Ann Arbor Hands-on Museum, and right next to Nickels Arcade. That’s a pretty abrupt transition, he said. Instead of that, he said, the core area could be limited to 17 square blocks. That would allow the shaping of the city as a compact 24/7 core with more permanent residents of all ages, ethnicities, classes, income groups, and household sizes. That cluster would decrease the ecological footprint of the city, and add downtown vitality to attract the next generation of knowledge workers, who seem to want urban lifestyles, he said. Kelbaugh concluded by calling for surrounding the core completely with an interface to reinforce legibility and the normal build-up from leafy neighborhoods to vibrant downtowns.

Moratorium: Council Deliberations

The council held a closed session under the Michigan Open Meetings Act exemption that allows for material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute, which presumably was attorney work product in connection with anticipated litigation in the event a moratorium was imposed.

Subsequent council deliberations were scant. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) moved for postponement based on the desire of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) to be part of the deliberations. [Higgins was not able to attend the meeting due to a professional commitment.] Deliberations on a separate resolution, to reconvene the design guidelines task force, were similarly brief.

Outcome on moratorium: The council voted unanimously to postpone consideration of the moratorium until March 4, 2013.

Outcome on reconvening design guidelines task force: The council voted unanimously to postpone consideration of the resolution to reconvene the design guidelines task force until March 4, 2013.

City Apartments Parking Deck

The council was asked to approve a step necessary for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to satisfy its commitment to support the construction of the parking deck within Village Green’s City Apartments project. The residential project is currently under construction at the southeast corner of First and Washington.

The step the council was asked to take was to create a project budget for the proceeds of bonds sold by the city on Jan. 22, 2013 – $8,666,075 total, of which $4,079,743 were taxable and $4,586,332 were non-taxable. The authorization to issue the bonds had come at the council’s Oct. 4, 2010 meeting.

The DDA is committed to covering payments on the roughly $9 million of bonds to support construction of the bottom two floors of the building – which will hold about 240 parking spaces. Of those, 95 will be available for public use. The remainder of the spaces will be used by residents of the 146-unit project, when construction is completed. Before then, the deck will be handed over to the city and the DDA after a certificate of occupancy for the parking deck is received.

City Apartments project under construction in early February at First and Washington.

As of early February, the construction was on a pace that would result in a certificate of occupancy for the parking deck by March 15. The construction of the entire building is expected to be complete by the end of the summer.

City Apartments Parking Deck: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know if the bonds would show up on the DDA’s annual TIF (tax increment finance) report as part of the DDA’s indebtedness. CFO Tom Crawford indicated that the city issues the debt and the DDA repays the city. So it won’t show on the DDA’s books as debt. It’ll show up as a commitment to repay.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to establish the project budget.

Open Space Millage (Greenbelt) Issues

The council had two items on its Feb. 19 agenda related to spending proceeds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage.

For one of the items, the council was asked to approve applying for federal matching funds to help acquire development rights on two pieces of farmland outside the city. For another item, the council was asked to authorize the purchase of a parcel inside the city near the Bluffs Nature Area.

Open Space Millage: Farmland

For the two parcels outside the city, council was asked to approve applications for matching federal funds to purchase development rights – for the 72-acre Donald Drake Farm on Waters Road in Lodi Township, and for a 100-acre property owned by Carol Schumacher on Pleasant Lake Road in Lodi Township. The federal match is only up to $5,000 per acre.

At its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council had given approval for the acquisition of development rights for the southern part of the Drake farm. On that occasion, the requested expenditure from millage funds amounted to $483,450. Of that amount, $23,867 went to cover costs related to closing, due diligence and a contribution to the greenbelt endowment. The total purchase price of the land was $549,478, with the city of Ann Arbor’s share supplemented by $109,895 from Washtenaw County parks & recreation and $1,000 from Lodi Township.

What the council approved on Feb. 19 for the Drake Farm was an application to the USDA Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) for matching funds to acquire development rights to the northern part of the farm. When the city failed to win an FRPP award for the farm as a whole last year, it divided the property – because the northern part is very suitable for agricultural production, and the city felt its chances were very good for winning an FRPP grant for just that portion of the farm. The Drake property had been mentioned recently at the Feb. 7, 2013 meeting of the city’s greenbelt advisory commission.

If the city wins the FRPP matching grants, the item will likely come before the city council in June.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council approved the FRPP grant applications.

Open Space Millage: Adjoining Bluffs Parcel

Inside the city, the council was asked to approve the $115,000 purchase of a roughly 0.357-acre piece of vacant land located at 1240 Orkney, with a current SEV (state equalized value) of $49,200. [SEV is based on 50% of market value.]

Map showing a parcel on Orkney proposed for acquisition by the city – the narrow parcel that’s highlighted in yellow.

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

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

The proposed Orkney parcel acquisition is similar to one made last year for a parcel on Hampstead Lane immediately adjacent to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area. Like the Bluffs, Kuebler Langford is located in the northern part of the city. [.jpg of area showing cluster of nature areas in the city's north side] [.jpg image of map showing city-acquired parcel adjoining Kuebler Langford Nature Area]

The roughly 0.91-acre Hampstead Lane parcel was determined to have a fair market value of $110,000, with an additional $13,000 accounted for through closing costs and due diligence. The council authorized the acquisition of the Hampstead Lane parcel at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting.

Open Space Millage: Adjoining Bluffs – Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) objected to the purchase price, saying he didn’t think the assessment factored in the roughly $40,000 in utility connection charges that would apply to the parcel as developable land. If those charges were added in, Kunselman said, the total cost of the land would work out to $155,000 – which he did not believe reflected an amount a buyer would be willing to pay. So he thought the $115,000 purchase price was too high. [The council had debated the utility connection charges just recently, at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting.]

Kunselman felt that the property was simply too expensive to acquire just to provide additional access. He wouldn’t support the city’s purchase of the property unless it came down in price to accommodate the utility improvement charges. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked if the park advisory commission’s land acquisition committee had looked at it. Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who serves as one of two city council liaisons to PAC, indicated that it had, in fact, been considered.

With respect to better access to the area, mayor John Hieftje said his concern is that access to the Bluffs Nature Area through the parcel wouldn’t be used except by people in that neighborhood. Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, confirmed that there’s no parking available, and that visitors to the nature area who’d get access through the parcel would need to park along the street.

Left to right: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and local attorney Scott Munzel.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that entrances already exist on three sides of the area, and some citizens have questioned the need for a fourth one – especially given the high cost. She asked Bahl to help her work through the rationale. Lumm said she’d heard from neighbors that they hadn’t been notified about the pending purchase. She felt that notification of neighbors would have been a normal step. Bahl told Lumm that the city doesn’t normally notify neighbors about pending land acquisition. [Land acquisition is a topic that can be discussed in closed session under Michigan's Open Meetings Act.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she remembered when the city was looking for ways to access the Bluffs other than from the Main Street side, the Orkney lot was identified, because it’s been used as informal access for years. She said that $115,000 is comparable in price to other unimproved lots in the area. The price itself didn’t bother her, but she found herself thinking about how useful it really is to have a small entrance to the nature area from a limited neighborhood. She wanted to understand why this is value. She described getting to the Bluffs Nature Area as “difficult and obscure.” But the city’s ownership of this parcel doesn’t help that, she felt. Why did PAC’s land acquisition committee feel the city ought to acquire this parcel as an entrance? Bahl indicated he had not been a part of all of LAC’s discussion, but that having access from all sides of the area had been a long-time goal.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) inquired if there’s a possibility of using the parcel as a parking area. Bahl said that could be considered. Teall ventured that she’d like to see the matter postponed.

Kunselman reiterated his objection based on the cost, and asked that the council be provided a copy of the appraisal. Hieftje indicated his view that a professional appraiser would have factored in the cost of utility connections. He went on to say that he was familiar with the neighborhood, and ventured that the value of property was legitimately high.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the vote on the Orkney property until March 4.

Plymouth Retail Zoning

The council was asked to give initial approval for the rezoning of land that would allow a proposed retail development at 3600 Plymouth Road, just west of US-23.

The change would rezone the parcel from R5 (motel-hotel district) to C3 (fringe commercial district). That followed a recommendation of approval given at the Jan. 15, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission. The project – called The Shoppes at 3600 – had been postponed by the commission on Nov. 7, 2012.

Aerial view of a proposed retail development on Plymouth Road west of US-23 – The Shoppes at 3600. The site is in the complex where the Holiday Inn North Campus is located, visible on the right side of this image.

But on Jan. 15, commissioners recommended that the city council approve the project’s zoning, as well as the original site plan. At its Feb. 19 meeting, the city council did not have the site plan on its agenda – only the rezoning request.

The site is located in the same complex as the Holiday Inn North Campus. Responding to some commissioner concerns voiced at the November 2012 meeting, the developer had provided planning commissioners an alternative site plan that they reviewed on Jan. 15. But the developer sought approval for the original layout. The owner is listed as Ann Arbor Farms Hotel Corp., with property being developed by Diverse Development in Holland, Ohio.

The developer hopes to build 9,490-square foot, one-story retail building, to be constructed in what’s now the parking lot and front yard for the hotel, at an estimated cost of $1 million. The building would have space for several businesses, including a restaurant with a one-lane drive-through window and outdoor seating. An existing shared driveway off of Plymouth Road would be used to access the site. The original site plan calls for 33 parking spots and four covered bike parking spots near the entrance.

The planning commission’s recommendation of site plan approval was contingent on four conditions: (1) approval of a land division, to divide off a 1.15 acre parcel from the parking lot and front yard of the 10.85-acre hotel site where the Holiday Inn North Campus is located; (2) approval of an administrative amendment to the parent site plan to change the parking for the hotel, because some spaces will be removed to allow for the new building; (3) recording an ingress/egress easement along the existing drive from Plymouth Road, so that a new curb cut would not be needed; and (4) recording stormwater and cross-parking easements between the hotel and the new building.

The site plan will be considered by the council at a later date.

Plymouth Retail Zoning: Council Deliberations

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked about the turning pattern within the combined parking lot contiguous with the development, saying she was worried about how the new development would impact congestion within the parking lot. City planning manager Wendy Rampson told Petersen that the city doesn’t have standards related to interior drives, but when the city reviews site plans, the planning staff looks for continuity, pedestrian connections and the like. The city’s traffic engineer had taken a look at the traffic study. The petitioner had proposed adding signs, so that as someone exits the small shopping center, if a motorist wanted to go westbound on Plymouth, the sign would indicate that motorists should head toward Green Road – northbound Green could be used to turn left onto westbound Plymouth.

Left to right: Ward 2 councilmembers Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about possible congestion at Green and Plymouth roads. Rampson replied that the traffic study indicated an additional four-second delay associated with the new retail development and that congestion would be limited. Lumm confirmed with Rampson that the city’s SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique) traffic signal system can adjust to help traffic flow. Rampson indicated that if you wanted to eliminate congestion at the intersection entirely, it would be necessary to add turn lanes.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed with Rampson that there’s a drive-through lane that goes behind the buildings. Given the parking in front of the buildings, Kunselman wanted to know where deliveries would take place. Rampson reported that deliveries would be made by small panel trucks, and they’d arrive early in the morning, and would park in the parking lot.

Kunselman felt the development seemed “very constrained.” It looked very difficult, he said. Rampson replied that the planning commission had similar concerns, and had asked for an alternate site plan that rotated the stores so that they fronted on the freeway ramp. A number of problems arose with that alternative, she said. In the end, based on the developer’s concern, the proposal that’s moving forward is the original one.

Responding to a question from Kunselman, Rampson explained that if the council approves the rezoning, then the owner would create a separate parcel within the lot. Kunselman concluded that the owner could come up with an alternate configuration. So he stated he would not support the rezoning.

Petersen asked about a berm that exists now. Rampson explained that it would be regraded for the proposed development. Rampson explained that there would be a net loss of parking in that area.

Outcome: The council gave initial approval to the rezoning. Voting against the rezoning on the initial vote was Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The rezoning will require a second and final vote by the council to be enacted.

Ann Arbor Hills Zoning Tweak

The council was asked to give final approval to the rezoning of six parcels in the northeast Ann Arbor Hills neighborhood.

The sites were rezoned from R1B to R1C. Both are types of single-family dwelling districts. The locations are 2014 Geddes Ave.; 2024 Geddes Ave.; 520 Onondaga St.; 2025 Seneca Ave.; 2023 Seneca Ave.; and 2019 Seneca Ave. [.jpg aerial view of parcels] These are six parcels in a block of 10 sites – the other four sites are already zoned R1C.

The rezoning would potentially allow three of the parcels – each lot size currently about 17,500 square feet – to be divided in the future, if other city code requirements are met.

Initial approval had been given by the council on Jan. 22, 2013. Prior to that, the city’s planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its Nov. 20, 2012 meeting. The planning commission had considered the item after the city council directed the planning staff to study the issue of rezoning the parcels. That direction came at the council’s Sept. 17, 2012 meeting.

According to a staff memo, the direction on the rezoning came from city council at the request of property owners: Raymond Maturo and Ann Mulhern; Joseph and Suzanne Upton; Rishindra and Gwendolyn Reddy; Shahrzad Vazirzadeh and Chad Patterson; Vassilios Lambropoulos and Artemis Leontis; and the Clan Crawford Jr. Trust.

R1B zoning requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 70 feet. Three of the parcels don’t conform with that zoning. Under the new R1C zoning, all parcels conform with required lot size and width.

Ann Arbor Hills Zoning: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent candidate for the Michigan state senate and house of representatives, and an advocate for the most vulnerable residents. He asked that the council reconsider the rezoning proposal and amend it – along with all other similar rezoning or annexation proposals – to require that for every acre of land that gains rezoning approval, if it enhances the property value of the lot, then an equal amount of land be dedicated to affordable housing.

Outcome: Without further discussion, the council unanimously approved the rezoning request.

721 N. Main Building: $30K Study

The council was asked to authorize $30,000 for a physical study of the building at the city-owed 721 N. Main property. The money is to be drawn from the city’s general fund balance.

A task force established by the city council on May 7, 2012 has been working to develop recommendations for a much broader area than 721 N. Main, including the North Main corridor and extending to the Huron River. The task force is supposed to provide recommendations for the area by July 31, 2013.

A map showing recommendations for the city-owned property at 721 N. Main St.

But the task force has been asked to provide recommendations on the 721 N. Main property even earlier than that – because of application deadlines for grants that the city is interested in seeking. The two grants would be from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, which has an early April deadline, and the Connecting Communities grant from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission. The city’s $300,000 proposal to Connecting Communities – for trails to be constructed through the 721 N. Main property – was mentioned at the Feb. 12, 2013 meeting of the county’s parks & recreation commission. The Connecting Communities application had a deadline in December 2012, which the city met.

The task force submitted its initial recommendation on the 721 N. Main property to the city council in December, and based on that, the council approved making the two grant applications at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

And at the council’s Jan. 7, 2013 meeting, two members of the North Main and Huron River Corridor task force – David Santacroce and Darren McKinnon – gave a presentation to the council summarizing the group’s work to date. The task force recommendations were divided into the floodway portion and the non-floodway portion of the site. For the floodway portion, there was not a lot to decide – because a city council resolution from Aug. 15, 2005 calls for the floodway area of the 721 N. Main site to be included within a planned Allen Creek greenway.

For the roughly 2.5 acre non-floodway portion, the task force is recommending that it be developed to include non-motorized paths to connect from Felch Street to North Main and West Summit streets.

Santacroce and McKinnon told the council during their January presentation that the task force thought the main building had potential for reuse, but that it would need about $30,000 of physical testing to make that determination. It was that $30,000 of testing that the council was asked to authorize at its Feb. 19 meeting. The physical testing is supposed to be completed by May 31, which gives the task force two months of lead time before their final recommendations are due.

At the council’s Jan. 7 meeting, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had expressed a lack of enthusiasm for salvaging the building.

The city is undertaking similar physical testing on buildings that stand on another potential city-owned greenway property, at 415 W. Washington. At the council’s Dec. 17, 2012 meeting, an additional $32,583 for the study of 415 W. Washington property was allocated. The council had previously authorized $50,000 for physical testing of the property. That vote had come at the council’s July 16, 2012 meeting.

The 415 W. Washington property, with its three buildings, was previously used by the city as a vehicle maintenance facility, before the construction of the Wheeler Service Center south of town on Stone School Road.

721 N. Main: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the property at 721 N. Main was previously part of the city maintenance yard, where trucks would pull in and out. There’s no way to know what it might cost to refurbish the building there, Briere said. But it’s known that there’s asbestos. Later, mayor John Hieftje added that the asbestos is visible. Briere reported that the task force believes that before demolishing the building, it’s worth exploring what it would cost to make the building usable again. Briere indicated it’s similar to the approach the city is taking at 415 W. Washington.

Hieftje said he appreciated the work done by the task force. He’d toured the building and described it as not fit for habitation. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked Briere for her leadership on the topic. He described the work as reflective of a long-term desire on the part of the community to see the property become a greenway.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the $30,000 allocation for the physical testing of the building at 721 N. Main.

Former Near North Demolition

The council was asked to receive formally an additional $96,000 through federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocations, which the city will put toward demolishing six houses on North Main Street.

The houses are on the site of the former Near North affordable housing project. That project, on which the nonprofit Avalon Housing had partnered, ultimately did not go forward. The city must complete the demolition by March 15, 2013.

The additional $96,000 can only be used for the demolition of structures at 700-724 N. Main.

Council deliberations were brief. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she felt that many in the neighborhood were eager to see the demolition occur. She thanked the staff for an innovative solution to pay for it. Mayor John Hieftje added that he had been pushing to get those houses down for a long time, but he didn’t feel as bad about the wait, now that the grant has been received. It would preserve some of the city’s funds that were reserved for the specific purpose of demolishing nuisance properties.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the receipt of the additional $96,000 in grant funding.

Sustainability Framework

The council was asked to adopt a sustainability framework that had previously been adopted by the city planning commission, making it a part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission had taken action at its Jan. 3, 2013 meeting. The vote by the planning commissioners was unanimous.

The item had originally been on the planning commission’s Dec. 4, 2012 agenda. Action was postponed at that time, after some commissioners raised concerns regarding a goal for high-performance buildings.

The city has been developing this framework for nearly two years. In June of 2012, the planning commission had recommended approval of the 16 overarching sustainability goals, which are organized into four categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. In September, commissioners voted to disseminate the framework to neighboring jurisdictions, which was a necessary step on the path toward including it in the city’s master plan.

Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” “Sustaining Ann Arbor’s Environmental Quality,” “Land Use, Transit Factor Into Sustainability,” and “Final Forum: What Sustains Community?”

The sustainability framework is the seventh element of the city’s master plan. Other elements are: (1) land use; (2) downtown plan; (3) transportation plan; (4) non-motorized plan; (5) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan; and (6) natural features master plan.

Sustainability Framework: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge called on the council to redefine environmentalism and sustainability and told them the top priority has to be ending homelessness. He called for socially integrated housing.

When no one else rose to speak during the public hearing, Alan Haber came out of the audience to say that he felt more than one person should speak at a public hearing on a topic this important. He said he was glad the proposal was coming forward – especially in the context of climate change. He called “sustainable development” a bit of an oxymoron, saying that development has to be done in such a way that does not increase the land value so much that the people who live and work here now can’t continue to live and work here. Things have to remain “inviting” to those who are here already, he said. He also called for a gathering place in the center of town, which he said would add to the sustainability of the city.

Sustainability Framework: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about a language revision on the definition of sustainable buildings and respecting human contexts. She wanted to know if there were any other major themes that surfaced in the public hearings. Planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that there were few comments at the public hearings, because it had been such a robust process that had led up to that point. Mayor John Hieftje clarified that a public hearing had been held, but nobody appeared from the public to speak. Rampson quipped that everyone was ready to move on to the action plan.

Lumm also confirmed that no comments had been received from adjoining communities. Rampson ventured that if other communities begin adopting similar frameworks, then it would be clear that they wanted to imitate it.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the sustainability framework.

Clean Energy Bonds (PACE)

The council was asked to approve the issuance of bonds that will assist owners of commercial property in making improvements designed to help save energy under the city’s property assessed clean energy (PACE) program. The item had been postponed by the council on Feb. 4, 2013. That initial decision to postpone stemmed from the fact that the item had not been added to the agenda until the day of the Feb. 4 meeting.

The sale of up to $1 million in bonds will support energy improvements to be undertaken by five property owners. In broad strokes, the PACE program is enabled by state legislation – the Property Assessed Clean Energy Act 270 of 2010. Property owners take out loans to make energy improvements to be repaid through regular installments as part of their taxes. Municipalities like the city of Ann Arbor administer the program. More than a year ago, on Jan. 9, 2012, the city council set the fees for participation in the program. Prior to that, on March 7, 2011, the city set up a loan loss fund with about $430,000 granted by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Properties for which owners have applied for improvements under Ann Arbor’s PACE program include: (1) Arrowwood (2566 Arrowwood Trail) for new HVAC equipment, insulation, occupancy sensors and lighting upgrade for the clubhouse; exterior lighting upgrade to LED; and solar shingles on one apartment building; (2) Big Boy (3611 Plymouth Road) for HVAC upgrade, lighting upgrade, cooking equipment replacement with energy efficient equipment, and controls; (3) Bivouac (330-336 S. State) for interior lighting upgrade; (4) Goodyear Building (118-124 S. Main) for HVAC replacement (boilers and A/C units), and lighting upgrade; and (5) Kerrytown Market & Shoppes (403 N. Fifth Ave.) for lighting upgrades in tenant areas and common areas.

PACE: Council Deliberations

Referring to the couple of years leading up to the enabling legislation by the state, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) described the city as hopeful that PACE funding would be available for single-family homes, in addition to commercial properties. While the city waits for legislation that would make it possible for single-family homes, she was pleased that the city could offer a program for commercial properties. It’s potentially one of the most effective ways to decrease the city’s energy footprint, she said, without costing property owners an incredible amount of money to get started.

Mayor John Hieftje characterized the council’s action as another step in a very long process. He described how the window of opportunity for the city’s stop loss load fund was set to expire next month, so it was important the council act. Hieftje picked up on Briere’s point about single-family homes, attributing the problem to the fact that Fannie Mae lenders didn’t want to be second in line if there were to be a foreclosure. He pointed out that PACE does apply to multi-family housing units.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved issuing the PACE bonds.

Living Wage Ordinance Changes

Consideration of several amendments to Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance was back on the council’s agenda, because at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting the council had specified Feb. 19 as the date to which it would postpone consideration of the ordinance changes.

The main proposed changes to the local law – which sets a minimum wage of $12.17/hour for those employers providing health insurance and $13.57/hour for those not providing health insurance – would exempt nonprofits that receive funding from the city for human services work. The changes would mean that such nonprofits would not need to meet the minimum wage requirements.

Following the council’s Nov. 19 postponement, consideration of the changes had been referred to the city’s Housing and Human Services Advisory Board (HHSAB) for more study. [For coverage of the HHSAB's Dec. 18, 2012 meeting, see: "Human Services Group Ponders Living Wage"] The HHSAB is taking a bit longer with its recommendations in part because those recommendations will be informed by work done by a class of University of Michigan students. The class is being taught in the winter 2013 term by Ian Robinson, a lecturer in the department of sociology. Robinson attended the Dec. 18 meeting of the HHSAB, and sketched out the range of work he thought his students might be able to do to assist the board.

The current law applies to organizations that have contracts with the city for more than $10,000 in a given calendar year, and that employ five or more people (10 or more for nonprofits). The current law also provides an exemption for organizations funded from the city’s community events budget – an exemption put in place to accommodate the Ann Arbor Summer Festival’s practice of paying its temporary employees less than the living wage and the city’s desire to fund the festival at a higher level.

Among the other contemplated amendments to the living wage ordinance was an increase from $10,000 to $25,000 for the amount of a contract triggering the application of the ordinance. The timeframe would also change from a calendar year to one fiscal year. Also included in the proposed amendments was one that would allow the city administrator to grant a waiver from compliance with the ordinance, instead of requiring the approval of the city council.

At its meeting on Nov. 8, 2012, the council had granted such a waiver to the nonprofit Community Action Network, which receives funding from the city to do human services work.

Living Wage Ordinance Changes: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who serves as one of two city council liaisons to the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB), led off discussion on the item. [Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is the other council liaison to HHSAB.]

Lumm said there’s not a consensus on HHSAB about whether the amendments should move forward along the lines currently proposed, so she thought it should be tabled. [A tabling motion is different from a motion to postpone to a date certain. If a matter is tabled, then it can be considered at any time in the future with a motion to take up the matter off the table – but it need not be taken up again. If a matter is postponed to a date certain, then it is automatically taken up on the date specified. A motion to table, according to Robert's Rules, is properly invoked when some other matter "of immediate urgency" has arisen, so that the other matter can be handled first. A motion to take the tabled matter up off the table can then come during the same session. If it's the desire of the body to kill the matter, without voting it up or down, then the proper motion is to postpone it indefinitely. A motion to table is also not supposed to be subject to debate.]

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked if this was a motion to postpone the matter indefinitely. City attorney Stephen Postema indicated his view that a tabling motion would have the effect of indefinite postponement.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that a matter that’s tabled has a finite period during which it can be taken up off the table, and after that it’s considered demised. Mayor John Hieftje stated the finite time period was one year. [According to the council's rules, the period specified for the demise of resolutions or for an ordinance approved at first reading is six months. The living wage ordinance before the council was being considered for its first reading.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if there was an expectation that HHSAB would make some kind of recommendation – because he was interested in seeing at least a few procedural changes made to the living wage ordinance. Lumm told Kunselman that HHSAB might make some recommendations. But she ventured that the changes to the ordinance that HHSAB might eventually recommend would be a 180-degree change in direction – broadening the ordinance’s application instead of limiting it.

Lumm said she was not willing to bring to the council the kind of amendments that HHSAB is contemplating now. Anything that she would support would at least resemble the amendments that were in front of the council that night. Lumm ventured that maybe Briere would introduce a different recommendation from HHSAB – but knowing what HHSAB is contemplating, Lumm herself would not bring it forward.

Kunselman said he would hate to see it “die in committee.” He didn’t know if there’s a fire under HHSAB to make a recommendation. Kunselman expressed his view that he’d like to see a change in the ordinance so that a waiver can be given to a nonprofit organization by the city administrator, instead of requiring city council approval.

Briere told Kunselman that HHSAB was focused on the opportunity to undertake a broader study of nonprofits – those that receive funding from the city as well as those that don’t. She ventured that some members of HHSAB were concerned that the living wage ordinance should actually be the purview of the human rights commission. Briere characterized the last meeting of the HSSAB, in January, as lively and not unanimous. But she ventured that there was “gentle agreement” that the study of the effects of living wage on nonprofits was important. Briere said it should be complete by the end of April.

Kunselman, felt that any revision to the living wage ordinance should be something that’s ready to go by the time the council adopts the budget [by the second meeting in May]. He wondered if a resolution of direction to the HHSAB would help that. He stated that he’s willing to help, but said he’s not familiar with what’s going on at HHSAB.

Lumm told Kunselman that there was strong sentiment expressed by HHSAB members to study other aspects of the ordinance outside of HHSAB’s purview and more in line with the purview of the human rights commission. Lumm ventured that the majority of HHSAB members expressed some interest in revisiting the policy and requiring that the city pay a living wage to its own part-time and seasonal workers, as well as eliminating the exemption for those organizations that are funded from the community events fund [like the Summer Festival].

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to table the living wage ordinance revision.

Ann Arbor Airport Fencing

The council was asked to consider two items related to fencing at the Ann Arbor municipal airport. The first item consisted of a grant approval, which totaled $157,895. Of that amount, $150,000 is federal money, $3,947 comes from the state of Michigan, and $3,948 comes from the city airport’s operating budget.

The fencing is meant to improve safety. According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, three incursions (someone getting in a restricted area of the airfield) took place in 2012. Before those three incursions, none had taken place since 2009.

The second vote was on a $32,000 contract with URS Corp. for engineering services related to the gate and fencing project. Funding for the contract is covered in the grant that was also on the Feb. 19 council agenda. The scope of the project includes installation of two new gate locations, the replacement of two existing gates, the upgrade of an existing gate location, upgrade of existing security fencing and the installation of new security fencing in the three hangar areas of the airport.

Ann Arbor Airport Fencing: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) got clarification from fleet and facilities manger Matt Kulhanek that there was no eight-vote majority needed on the items because they did not reflect a budget adjustment. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if there was no fencing currently. Kulhanek explained that two new gates would be installed in the northeast area of the airport. Three existing gates would be replaced. Kunselman wanted to know how that would prevent incursions.

Kulhanek described on incursion where an elderly woman was heading north on State Street, looking for Costco. And instead of turning on Ellsworth, she turned onto the airport property. She drove through the northeast hangar area, followed a vehicle through another gate and ended up pulling out onto an active taxiway.

Kulhanek characterized the city’s share as 2.5% of the total project. Kulhanek confirmed that the federal money comes from fees paid on airline tickets, not general tax dollars.

About the contract for the fencing installation, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) quipped: “It’s always good to get money and spend it immediately.”

Outcome: The council’s votes on the grant and the contract related to airport fencing were unanimous.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Public Art Ordinance Revision

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave the council an update on the work of a city council task force that was assigned to review and make recommendations on the city’s public art ordinance. [Besides Briere, the group consists of councilmembers Sally Petersen (Ward 2) Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). They'd been appointed at the city council's Dec. 3, 2012 meeting, when the council also voted to halt the spending of funds accumulated through Ann Arbor's Percent for Art program – except for projects that are already underway. The moratorium on spending lasts until April 1, 2013.]

The council’s resolution had not included a date in writing by which the task force was supposed to complete its work. But in making the appointments to the task force, mayor John Hieftje had indicated a date of Feb. 15. Briere reported that a draft resolution was now in the hands of the city attorney’s office. The task force would be meeting again on March 1, Briere said. [For the most recent Chronicle update on the activity of the task force, see the Jan. 23, 2013 meeting report of the public art commission.]

Briere characterized the issues addressed by the task force as including how and where public art should be placed, as well as changes to the funding mechanism. The task force is looking at ways to fund art that could include temporary art, publicly selected art, art the public helps to pay for, or performance art. The task force is working with language that would eliminate the “percent for art” funding mechanism, but would still allow capital improvement projects to have public art associated with the project as a “baked-in” ingredient.

Briere indicated that she hoped an ordinance change would be in front of the council by the end of March. [The council's second of two meetings that month falls on March 18.] She also indicated that a resolution separate from the ordinance change would also be brought forward, which she said would include additional guidance.

Comm/Comm: DDA Ordinance Amendments

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) announced that he now has a draft version of the ordinance amendments he’d mentioned at the council’s Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, regarding the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

He asked that the city clerk add the draft to the city’s online Legistar system for the Feb. 19 meeting. He’d be looking for co-sponsors, he said.

Among the revisions to the DDA ordinance Kunselman reflected in the draft are changes to the DDA governance, which would include term limits on board members, and a prohibition against elected officials serving on the board. But more significantly, Kunselman is proposing to change the way that the tax increment finance (TIF) capture by the DDA is calculated. The draft language leaves the issue still somewhat unclear. [.pdf of draft amendment to the DDA ordinance]

Comm/Comm: Housing Commission, CIP

During communications time, Kunselman conveyed his desire to see the properties of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) included in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). That came in the context of a presentation the council had recently received from AAHC executive director Jennifer L. Hall, who’s proposing a private-public partnership to address capital improvement needs for AAHC properties. Kunselman has expressed opposition to Hall’s proposal. [For background on the AAHC's efforts, see: "Housing Commission Selects Co-Developer."]

Comm/Comm: Taxicabs

Kunselman indicated that the Feb. 28 meeting of the city’s taxicab board – which he chairs – would include an update to the public about increased enforcement of the taxicab ordinance. He’s looking to see if any other changes can be made to the taxicab ordinance to make the taxi industry more responsive to the needs of the community. [For recent coverage of the taxicab board, see: "Ann Arbor Taxicab Board Grants Appeal."]

Comm/Comm: Former Y Lot

Kunselman also indicated that he’d be requesting brokerage services for the sale of the former Y lot at Fifth and William. Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he wanted to look at what could be included as an offer, but leave the property as unencumbered as possible.

Comm/Comm: Human Rights Commission

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) noted that the city’s human rights commission is looking for additional members.

Comm/Comm: Anglin, WALLY

During communications from council, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that his name has been mentioned as someone who is a supporter of the WALLY north-south commuter rail project. [The project currently has a funded study for station location design]. Anglin said information was being publicly distributed to the effect that he’s a supporter of WALLY and that people should contact him about it. Anglin indicated he did not support WALLY, but was very much in favor of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s bus system, saying that rail was “foolhardy at this time.” He wanted to stop discussion of funding rail transportation until people accept the public transportation that already exists.

Comm/Comm: Ward 2 Website

During communications time, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) alerted people that she and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had created a website for Ann Arbor’s Ward 2. Anyone is welcome to visit it, she said, and there’s a link to a Ward 2 resident satisfaction survey. She encouraged people to take the survey, especially residents of Ward 2.

Comm/Comm: Aging Conference

During communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she’d placed a flyer on her council colleagues’ seats about the AARP’s Age Friendly Communities Conference, which takes place on Feb. 28 in Ann Arbor.

Comm/Comm: Israel/Palestine

Henry Herskovitz responded to some remarks that Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) made at the council’s Jan. 22, 2013 meeting. Warpehoski had indicated he wouldn’t be contemplating a resolution on Palestinian rights as long as demonstrations continue outside Beth Israel on Saturdays during worship services. Herskovitz asked whether Warpehoski’s remarks contained elements of a “friendly offer” or a possible quid pro quo from Herskovitz’s group – Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends – to cease their demonstrations at Beth Israel. He contended that Warpehoski’s comment contains an “odd element” – because it recognizes that a problem exists in Palestine, which Warpehoski could, or would, act on as an elected official. So Herskovitz concluded that Warpehoski was not saying that the city shouldn’t divest from Israel, or that there are no grounds for divestment – only that Warpehoski is conditioning his action on the actions of Herskovitz’s group.

Herskovitz drew an analogy to the abolitionist movement in the 1800s, as John Brown conducted violent raids against pro-slavery interests. Some in the abolitionist movement decried Brown’s tactics, but they did not allow Brown’s actions to distract them from their goal of abolishing slavery, Herskovitz said. The situation in Palestine cries out for moral intervention, he said. But based on Warpehoski’s remarks, it appears that intervention will not take place until Herskovitz’s group stops expressing its point of view – in a manner that is protected by the First Amendment. Herskovitz allowed that it’s difficult for Warpehoski to accept his group’s tactics. But allowing the actions of another to determine one’s own actions, Herskovitz said, raises doubts about that person’s reasoning and commitment to resolving the issue.

Comm/Comm: General Criticism

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Washtenaw County and Ann Arbor’s Ward 5. He noted that he been a recent candidate for the Michigan senate and house of representatives. He called for ending discrimination and corruption in the Ann Arbor city government.

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

Present: Marcia Higgins, Christopher Taylor.

Next council meeting: Monday, March 4, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle listings to confirm date.]

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