Jane Lumm (Ward 2) made air quotes around the word "approaching" as the council discussed the city's ordinance on crosswalks. (Photos by the writer.)

The current ordinance amendment maintains an existing requirement that motorists accommodate not just pedestrians who are “within” a crosswalk, but also those who are verging on entering a crosswalk. What’s different is the way the concept is expressed. In July 2010, the council chose to describe pedestrians who are about to enter a crosswalk as “approaching” the crosswalk. The version of the ordinance finalized on Dec. 19 requires motorists to accommodate “… a pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk …”

As part of the previous amendments made in 2010, the council also had removed language that specified a half of the roadway where drivers needed to accommodate pedestrians. This time around, the council restored similar language, which reads, “… when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.”

In other crosswalk-related business, the council approved an expenditure of $81,000 to install five rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) on existing pedestrian islands in the city. Four of the locations are along Plymouth Road, at Georgetown, Traver Village, Beal and Bishop. The fifth location is at Seventh and Washington.

Also at the Dec. 19 meeting, the council ended a long process of review by the city and negotiation with neighbors by approving a change to the zoning of the Hoover Mansion property on Washtenaw Avenue, which University Bank uses as its headquarters. The change will allow University Bank to build 13 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building, allowing the bank in accommodate expanded employment.

Towards the end of the council’s meeting, a relatively rare debate unfolded about a mayoral nomination to a city board. At issue was the nomination of a city employee – transportation program manager Eli Cooper – to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. He’s replacing another city employee on the board, public services area administrator Sue McCormick, who left her position with the city in mid-December. In the end, Cooper’s nomination was confirmed with dissent from two councilmembers. A separate vote on a general policy opposing nominations of city employees to boards and commissions received only four votes of support.

The council considered two compensation-related issues – one for its city attorney, Stephen Postema, and another for election workers who staff the polls. After a closed session to discuss Postema’s performance review, the council voted with dissent from one councilmember to award Postema the ability to cash out 250 hours of banked time. The council delayed its vote on pay increases for election workers, on the possibility that their pay could be increased more than what’s proposed, to match the amount specified in the city’s living wage ordinance.

In other business, the council approved a bond re-funding, authorized reimbursement for a broken electromagnet at the materials recovery facility, accepted additional federal money for solar projects, and heard about a possible strategy for addressing vacant and dilapidated properties.

Crosswalks

Two pedestrian-safety-related items were on the Dec. 19 agenda. The first was final consideration of a change to the city’s crosswalk ordinance. The second was authorization of $81,000 for installation of flashing pedestrian crossing beacons at five different locations in the city, four of them on Plymouth Road.

Crosswalks: Ordinance Revision – Background

The section of the crosswalk ordinance given final approval now reads: ”… the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk, when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.”

The council struck from the ordinance an addition to which it had given initial approval on Nov. 10, 2011 that required motorists to stop for pedestrians “without regard to which portion of the roadway the pedestrian is using.”

This recent round of revisions to the ordinance comes after the council modified the pedestrian safety ordinance on July 19, 2010 to include an expansion of the conditions under which motorists must take action to accommodate pedestrians. Specifically, the 2010 amendments required accommodation of pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also “approaching or within a crosswalk.” The modification approved on Dec. 19 was intended to address a perceived ambiguity of the word “approaching.”

Besides the “approaching” phrase, the 2010 amendments also included two other key elements. The 2010 amendments included a requirement that motorists “stop” and not merely “slow as to yield.” And the 2010 amendments also eliminated reference to which half of the roadway is relevant to the responsibility placed on motorists for accommodating pedestrians. That eliminated phrase was restored in the version approved by the council on Dec. 19.

Crosswalks: Public Commentary

Kathy Griswold spoke during general public commentary as well as during the formal public hearing. She described the tremendous engagement of the community and the city council in the discussion of pedestrian safety. Now is the time for the community to come together, she said. She described how Boulder, Colorado’s sight distance ordinance supports pedestrian safety, by regulating vegetation along roadways, not just at intersections. Also, in 2009 Boulder had a full-time employee to make sure utility boxes are not placed to restrict sight distances, she contended. She questioned whether the goal in Ann Arbor is to try to improve safety, or rather to do something else.

During the public hearing, Griswold complained that the word “safety” doesn’t appear anywhere in the brochures the city uses to tout Ann Arbor’s walkability. She contended that passing this ordinance seemed like an attempt to be “cool” – but that’s not how safety works, she said. The local community is good at advocating for pedestrian “rights,” Griswold said, but she suggested that pedestrian “rights” are a different issue from pedestrian safety.

Griswold expressed frustration that the signage the city is using refers only to “within” a crosswalk when the ordinance includes additional conditions for stopping. To get alternate signage, she’d learned from city staff, would require submitting a request to “experiment” with alternate wording. She objected to the idea of experimenting with the lives of young children. She said we should not expect that young people who are not drivers to determine if it’s safe or unsafe to cross. “We can do better than this,” she said, and she hoped the focus could change to improving safety.

Tim Hull said he thought that defining stop conditions on the local level is a bad idea – it will result in an ordinance that is not recommended by the Uniform Traffic Code (UTC). People will see it as a revenue generation scheme, he feared. And pedestrians don’t feel more safe because of the ordinance – they don’t know if cars will stop. At Plymouth and Beal, Hull said he never knows if cars will stop. What’s safest for pedestrians is to use the UTC recommended standard, even if that code is not actually the state law. He suggested lobbying Ann Arbor’s representatives to the state legislature.

At the left is Larry Deck, who spoke about the pedestrian ordinance on behalf of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. He was chatting with the city's transportation program manager, Eli Cooper.

Larry Deck of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition told the council that change has to start somewhere. He agreed it’d be nice to see that change happen statewide. The WBWC supports the wording that the council approved at its first reading, he said. A transitional phase is needed in order to make the cultural change, he said. Of the principles of engineering, education, and enforcement, the initial step should be educational, he said. For the engineering step, the WBWC is starting to have a discussion about crosswalk design guidelines that would include advance stop bars and flashing beacons. On Plymouth Road, the beacons would help clarify the situation, Deck said.

Michael Benson introduced himself as a Ward 2 resident, speaking on behalf of the graduate student body at the University of Michigan. The changes to the crosswalk ordinance are a step in the right direction. Even though it’s not perfect, it’s a good start, he said. The proposed wording still leaves an incongruity between the city of Ann Arbor and the rest of the state. For a student who comes to study at UM from outside the city, what do the flashes mean on the proposed new signs? Benson suggested approving the changes and forming a working group to continue to review the ordinance.

An unidentified man spoke during the public hearing and made remarks couched in a general complaint that the city did not do a very good job of helping people who have problems – he’d spent three years trying to get help with Social Security and said he had called every information number that exists. The city should give serious thought to helping the elderly before coming up with an idea that will risk lives, he concluded.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a disabled senior citizen who had experienced near-accidents as a pedestrian. The city needs an effort involving driver education and a much more full and comprehensive approach to crosswalks and other areas of pedestrian safety, he said.

Stephen Ranzini introduced himself as a resident of downtown Ann Arbor. He drew the council’s attention to a poll that had run on AnnArbor.com about the pedestrian ordinance. He said he’d written a comment suggesting that one of the choices in the poll should have been the repeal of an ordinance that is incompatible with state law. He indicated that his comment had been well-received by other readers of AnnArbor.com.

Crosswalks: Ordinance Revision – Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje led off deliberations by saying that awareness of the issue had been the result of enforcement, not the specific language of the ordinance. As to the idea that the ordinance put young people in danger, Hieftje said that the previous version of the ordinance asked pedestrians to put themselves in danger in order to trigger the condition under which drivers should stop. The negative outcomes the city has experienced would have been the same if tickets had been written for drivers, based on the previously existing traffic code.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) echoed the comments made by Hieftje. Hohnke said it was important to understand the status of the Uniform Traffic Code (UTC), which people sometimes referred to as a state law or recommended ordinance. There is no state law, or a particular recommendation for a local ordinance, he said. Independent of the changes Ann Arbor adopts, he said, there will be a variety of ordinances in place across the state and the country.

Some mild confusion then resulted concerning what Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wanted to propose as an amendment to the language already initially approved on Nov. 10. Compared to the initially-approved language, what was eventually settled on in the way of amendments was as follows [added words in italics, deleted words in strike-through]:

”… the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk, without regard to which portion of the roadway the pedestrian is using. when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.”

Some of the confusion, which was resolved between Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Briere, stemmed from Briere’s initial reluctance to revise the phrasing involving the roadway half. She’d been hesitant because the flashing beacons the city plans to install will alert drivers in both directions, yet the existence of the beacons did not make the crosswalk a signalized crosswalk in terms of the traffic ordinance. She had contemplated just eliminating the “without regard” language addressing the roadway half, and not adding the “half of the roadway” phrasing.

What helped the council settle on the language above as the amendment to consider were remarks from transportation manager Eli Cooper, who indicated there were two reasons why the staff recommended the “half of the roadway” phrasing. As part of the UTC, it would help ensure consistency with other communities, he said. Also, the language is straightforward to understand as far as what constitutes a “stop condition.”

The issue relates to what a driver can readily see – that’s really what is along side of you, said Cooper. It’s not really possible to see what’s happening possibly five lanes away on the other side of the road. It was felt that it’s too onerous on the driver, Cooper said.

Responding to a question from Briere about the impact of leaving out all reference to a part of the roadway, Cooper said he would recommend specificity, because staff can “amplify that specificity.”

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) got confirmation from Cooper that what was proposed is consistent with traffic engineering. Cooper allowed that he is not a licensed engineer, but he said the staff working group is supported by traffic engineers, who supported the proposal.

With the proposed amendment in front of the council, Hohnke observed that he’d been comfortable with folks having to grapple with the word “approaching” in the phrase describing pedestrians who were verging on entering a crosswalk. Now, the word “approaching” has been eliminated in that place, but introduced elsewhere. With some hesitation, he said, he would support the change.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she appreciated the inclusion of the phrase that divides the roadway into halves. Motorists need to focus on the roadway in their immediate view, she said. No amount of education, she believed, would have helped the situation if motorists had been required to stop without regard to which half of the roadway a pedestrian was using.

Outcome on amendment: The council unanimously approved the addition of “curb line” and the re-introduction of roadway halves as pertinent to defining the stop conditions for motorists.

Lumm made a motion to strike language in the ordinance defining stop conditions for motorists as anything except “within a crosswalk.” The motion died for lack of a seconding motion. When the motion died, Lumm mused, “That’s what I thought.”

Left to right: Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2). Briere is demonstrating that councilmembers wait to be recognized before speaking during their meetings – they don't just blurt things out.

Smith felt that previously the problem had been that the council had approved changes to the ordinance, then let it sit. There’d been some education, she allowed, but then the city began with what some might say was “radical enforcement.” That’s what created the turmoil, she said. She asked that the city administrator talk with the police chief to take a softer approach to helping the community learn how to adapt to the ordnance.

Briere offered her own experience with a change in traffic rules – the installation of a new stop sign on Madison Street, when she previously lived in Ward 5. She said it’s a tough adjustment. Drivers are used to driving the way they’re used to driving. Briere advised that the council would continue to hear from people about the ordinance. She said she thinks more people are becoming aware of pedestrians.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got clarification from assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom that ordinance infractions would not result in points on driver’s licenses.

Lumm said she wants to protect pedestrians, but not at the expense of creating traffic hazards. So she said she supported the ordinance amendment, but looks forward to follow-up on appropriate signage to make sure it comports with the ordinance.

Cooper responded to Lumm’s concern about the signs used by the city, saying that they are in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – he emphasized the word “uniform.” The phrase “within a crosswalk” is not the full body of the ordinance, just as the speed limit sign is not the full text of the law, explained Cooper. Briere ventured that the signs “say what they need to say.”

Lumm still wondered how you enforce the ordinance, if the sign doesn’t say the exact same thing. City attorney Stephen Postema explained that the city would move to enforce it, but then then it’s up to a judge.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved changes to the crosswalk ordinance.

Crosswalks: Flashing Beacons – Background

The council was asked to authorize a budget modification, drawing on its major street fund to allow an expenditure of $81,000. The funds would be used to install five rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) on existing pedestrian islands in the city. Four of the locations are along Plymouth Road – at Georgetown, Traver Village, Beal and Bishop. The fifth location is at Seventh and Washington. [.pdf with schematic of intersections and an RRFB] [.pdf of map depicting locations]

The flashing function of an RRFB would not be continuous – it would be activated by a pedestrian pushing a button. The staff memo accompanying the resolution describes an RRFB as “similar in nature to the light bars on the top of emergency vehicles.” The flashing beacons do not count as traffic control signals for the purposes of the city’s pedestrian safety ordinance, which addresses motorist behavior “[w]hen traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation …” Otherwise put, the pedestrian safety ordinance will still apply at those crosswalks where RRFBs are installed.

Annual costs for operation and maintenance of the RRFBs are estimated at $160 per crossing. Installation of the new signs is scheduled to begin in February 2012, and to be completed by April 2012.

Crosswalks: Flashing Beacons – Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations saying that she’d heard concern expressed about the possible triggering of seizures and migraines by the flashing beacons. She explained that the flashes are random, not rhythmic, thus less likely to trigger those problems.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) questioned why the city’s alternative transportation fund was not being tapped instead of its major street fund. The city’s head of project management, Homayoon Pirooz, told Lumm the two funds have the same source of money – the state’s Act 51 appropriation, which is based on gas and vehicle taxes.

Lumm then proposed an amendment to remove from the proposal the two “low volume” crosswalks of the four on Plymouth – near Traver Village and Georgetown Boulevard. She contended that there are signalized intersections near enough to those locations that pedestrians could cross there.

Pirooz responded to Lumm by explaining that typical distances for which pedestrians are willing to walk in order to cross, based on the length of city blocks, are 500-700 feet. Based on that, the crosswalk locations for which the flashing beacons are proposed are in exactly right spots, Pirooz said. It’s not an excessive number, and he would probably recommend more, Pirooz concluded.

Briere clarified with Pirooz that two of the crosswalks where beacons are proposed are adjacent to bus stops. She noted that she’d seen Plymouth Road in action for years and years. The city had made some improvements to signage seven years ago and had used the best technology at the time – there’s better technology now, she said. Responding implicitly to Lumm’s concern about the relatively fewer number of pedestrians at two of the crosswalks, Briere ventured that instead of counting pedestrians, they should count the number of lanes a pedestrian has to cross.

Queried by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Craig Hupy, the city’s head of systems planning, said the city would likely use a combination of solar-powered and hard-wired beacons. Kunselman sought and received assurance that pedestrians who activated the beacons would not be blinded by them.

Lumm observed that nothing had happened as a result of the motion she’d made to eliminate two of the proposed beacons. She said she thinks the beacons seem like a reasonable solution – because they generate 75-80% compliance from motorists. Her issue, she said, is with the number of the beacons. It’s about balancing the safety of pedestrians and motorists, she said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved $81,000 for flashing beacons.

University Bank, Hoover Mansion Rezoning

Before the council for its consideration was final approval to alter the University Bank PUD (planned unit development) and site plan for the bank’s property at 2015 Washtenaw Ave., known as the Hoover Mansion. The bank wanted to revise the site’s existing PUD – originally approved in 1978 – to allow for an increase in the total number of employees and parking spaces permitted on the parcel. The site serves as the bank’s headquarters.

The change will allow University Bank to build 13 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building – for a total of 52 spaces on the site. The city planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the change at its Oct. 4, 2011 meeting, after the proposal had been submitted to the city at least a year earlier. The council gave its initial approval to the change in the PUD at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting.

The long approval process could in part be attributed to opposition from immediate neighbors to specific elements of the plan, which was to some degree modified in response. A letter of opposition, attached to the council’s Dec. 19 agenda packet, made a more general objection to “the likelihood of further commercialization of the residential neighborhood.” [.pdf of letter of opposition][.jpg of aerial view with parcels]

Because the proposal was a change to the city’s zoning, it was a change to the city’s ordinances – a process that required a second approval by the council at a separate meeting, preceded by a public hearing.

Hoover Mansion: Public Hearing

Two separate public hearings were held – one for the zoning and the other for the site plan.

At the zoning hearing, Thomas Partridge complained that such agenda items are predetermined for approvals by the planning staff. All such items should recognize the need for civil rights, he said. At the public hearing on the site plan, he called for increased access to affordable housing and transportation.

Also speaking at both public hearings was the president of University Bank, Stephen Ranzini, who introduced himself as a downtown resident of Ann Arbor. He sketched the history of the bank now named University Bank, explaining that it was founded in 1890. After he led a investment group that bought the bank 23 years ago, its assets under management have grown from $35 million to $10.3 billion, he said. Today the bank has 280 employees, making it the 11th largest bank with its headquarters in Michigan, he said. In the last 90 days, the bank has hired 60 employees – all but five outside Ann Arbor. [More hires were not made in Ann Arbor, he indicated, because of the limited parking at the Hoover Mansion.] The bank has been a good neighbor, he said, and has won all the major awards a community bank can win.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, in his Milford Track jacket. He compared the difficulty of completing the New Zealand hiking trail to the city of Ann Arbor's approval process.

Ranzini calculated the value of the land on which the Hoover Mansion stands at $3.6 million. The cost of operating the 10,000-square-foot mansion is around $200,000 annually, he said. And its appraised value is only $2 million, due to its high cost of operation. Given the capital tied up in the building and its more than $20 per-square-foot operating cost, office space available elsewhere was actually cheaper, Ranzini said.

On-site parking is currently limited to 39 spaces, he said, and that limits the number of employees – especially because a certain number of the spots have to be set aside for the public. University Bank stepped up and bought the property in 2005, he said. To be sustainable in the long term [regardless of who owns the property], the parking needs to expand to accommodate something in the range of 60 employees. If the value of the building is not increased from $2 million, he warned, some future owner will pursue a different course. He said that if University Bank had not fought an intense legal battle, the mansion would not be standing today.

At the second public hearing, Ranzini laid out a complaint about the length of the approval process with the city, which he contended began 39 months ago, with a request for 28 additional parking spots. The result of that long process, which had included two neighborhood charrettes, would result in perhaps 13 additional spaces. Of the 19 adjacent property owners, 16 had supported the proposal from the very beginning, he said. The remaining three were now on board, he thought. However, he’d heard that two neighbors still have some concerns about lighting. Ranzini expressed some frustration that they would raise these concerns on the last day. In any case, he felt the concerns about lighting were not valid – the proposal met and exceeded lighting requirements. If the neighbors with objections based on lighting were present that night, Ranzini said, he could put their fears to rest.

Ranzini said that University Bank had committed to $150,000 in extra amenities for the site and $50,000 in engineering expenses. The public transportation benefits of the site, which he said his fellow citizen Thomas Partridge could use, included a bus stop in front, a walking path and new bike racks. Due to the delays in getting the plan approved, the bank relocated one of its divisions and eight jobs to Farmington Hills – those jobs will never come back, he said. Ranzini told the council he was wearing his jacket from the Milford Track because he wanted to compare that hike in New Zealand – which he’d enjoyed with his wife on their honeymoon – with the city’s approval process. It made completing the Milford Track seem easy, he said.

Hoover Mansion: Council Deliberations

City planner Chris Chang Cheng took the podium at the request of Tony Derezinski (Ward 2). Cheng responded implicitly to Ranzini’s description of the process as taking 39 months by saying that he’d seen a submission made in December 2009, with revised plans submitted in July 2010. Cheng said that it had been around for approximately two years. About six months had elapsed between submission and revision. The original recommendation of the planning staff would have been to deny the approval, but the staff worked its way through it, and the eventual proposal had a smaller parking area.

The issue of lighting did come up, he said, in meetings with neighbors held over the last two years. University Bank has indicated that there are zero foot candles emitted from the property, he said, and if it turns out that there’s any light spillage, the bank has agreed to shield the lights and reduce the wattage.

Derezinski said that from his recollection seeing the project come before the planning commission, a lot of give-and-take was involved in the project. [Derezinski serves as the city council representative to the city planning commission.] Cheng confirmed for Derezinski that no parking would be allowed on the circular drive. He told Derezinski that he personally attended two meetings with neighbors and that there were other meetings. Cheng confirmed for Derezinski that the result of those meeting was a consensus on proposed solutions.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated that over the weekend she’d fielded some questions about expanded commercial uses in a residential area. But she got clarification from Cheng that future alterations from current use would require approval. Lumm said she was impressed by how people had worked on the issues.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) noted that the Hoover Mansion is a unique property, and that it shows what PUDs are about. His understanding of the purported public benefits to the alteration of the PUD were: (1) expanded employment, (2) an additional walkway to the bicycle parking spaces, and (3) a greater-than-required mitigation of the loss of trees due to creating more parking spaces.

Hohnke wanted to know if there was any contingency related to the first benefit. Cheng allowed that there’s nothing that forces University Bank to hire 10 additional employees. Hohnke got clarification that the walking path and the bicycle parking spots would be used by both employees and visitors. Hohnke wanted to know how the city planning staff evaluated the mitigation of any impact on the tree loss, if the impact wouldn’t have existed without the requested change. Cheng explained that the proposal made the least impact on woodland and natural features as possible.

Derezinski described the process that lasted over the course of a couple of years as the result of good people working on both sides. Obviously, he said, the bank wanted more parking spots and the neighbors wanted fewer. He called it a “grudging consensus.” He felt it was the best possible solution, given the circumstances.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Hoover Mansion PUD and site plan.

Mayoral Appointments of City Employees

The council’s meeting was bookended by discussion of mayoral appointments of various sorts. In Ann Arbor’s council-manager form of government, the mayor is also a member of the city council. One basic difference between the mayor and other city councilmembers is that the mayor is elected on a vote of citywide electors, whereas councilmembers represent just one of five wards.

But another key difference between the mayor and other city councilmembers is this: The mayor has the responsibility of making nominations to boards and commissions. [The other differences include the power of veto, status as the ceremonial head of the city, and responsibility for city management in states of emergency.]

Mayoral Nominations: Meeting Bookends

On the council’s agenda for its consideration were a number of mayoral appointments, as well as a resolution that opposed the appointment of city employees to city boards and commissions. When the agenda was approved at the start of the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) got support from her council colleagues to move a resolution about mayoral appointments to the end of the meeting, to the slot after votes to confirm mayoral nominations from the previous meeting. Briere had co-sponsored the resolution.

So the vote on the general policy was set to come after the vote on the appointment that prompted the policy – city transportation program manager Eli Cooper’s nomination to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Cooper’s nomination was opposed by Tim Hull, who introduced himself as a recent candidate for Ward 2 in the August 2011 Democratic primary. [The primary race was won by incumbent Stephen Rapundalo, who was then defeated in the November general election by Jane Lumm.] Hull also spoke in favor of the resolution that opposed the nomination by the mayor of city employees to serve on boards and commissions.

Hull said such appointments raise questions about conflict of interest, and he failed to see the benefit of adding a “city insider” to the AATA, especially someone who doesn’t live in the city itself. The AATA needs someone who has a stake in the community, Hull said, and the AATA board needs outside voices to ensure that the implementation of the AATA’s transportation master plan (TMP) will succeed. Hull also questioned the “haste” with which the appointment was made. He called for a transparent approach to appointments. Hull noted that he had nothing against Cooper, and that Cooper had helped him with a project when Hull was a student at the University of Michigan school of information.

Related to the general issue of appointments and vacancies on boards, during his communications early in the meeting Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) announced that the taxicab board had met recently and the board had been informed that it’s short one member. So the taxicab board is looking for someone to step up and serve, Kunselman said.

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, after the council deliberated and voted on all specific appointments and the general policy, Michael Benson thanked the council for adjusting its agenda at the start of the meeting to move the item on mayoral appointments. That way all councilmembers could be present. [Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) arrived late.] Benson noted that the city’s online Legistar system lists current vacancies. And earlier in the meeting, it had been announced that there’s a vacancy on the taxicab board, Benson said. But that vacancy is not listed, he noted – the only open spots listed are some for the housing and human services advisory board. Benson requested that vacancies on other boards and commissions be added.

Mayor John Hieftje responded to Benson’s request by venturing that the reason vacancies are not listed is simply because the appointments are made before the terms actually expire, so that the spots don’t ever technically become vacant. Hieftje offered the replacement of Margaret Parker with John Kotarski on the public art commission as an example, contending that her term was up at the end of 2011. Kotarski’s appointment was confirmed by nomination was presented to the council that night.

By way of background, Parker was actually appointed through 2012, so her departure was a year earlier than expected. As for the idea that vacancies are not listed only because the appointments are made before terms expire, it’s not uncommon that a mayoral appointment is made only after a term has expired, without a vacancy ever being listed on Legistar. For example, three vacancies currently exist on the seven-member local officers compensation commission, two of which have persisted for over a year – but those vacancies are not currently listed on Legistar.

Mayoral Nominations: Miscellaneous

Before the controversial AATA board appointment and the resolution on the general policy issue of appointing city employees to boards and commissions, the council handled some somewhat less controversial appointments.

Nominated to replace Margaret Parker on the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC) was John Kotarski. Kotarski has been a media consultant who previously worked for the Mount Clemens Schools.

Parker served for several years on the commission on art in public places (CAPP), the precursor to AAPAC. She was last re-appointed to AAPAC on June 15, 2009 for a three-year term, which would have ended Dec. 31, 2012. Parker served as chair of AAPAC from the enactment of the city’s Percent for Art ordinance in 2007 until the end of 2010. Marsha Chamberlin agreed to assume responsibility as chair in April this year.

Nominated to replace Dave Gregorka on the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) was Ben Carlisle. Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who serves as the city council representative to the ZBA, said she would miss Gregorka, saying he was a ZBA member with some of the most knowledge about that body. She said she was also looking forward to working with Carlisle.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to confirm Kotarski’s nomination to serve on AAPAC and Carlisle’s nomination to serve on the ZBA. The vote on Kostarski’s confirmation is scheduled for the council’s January 9 meeting.

Mayoral Nominations: Economic Development Board

Two nominations to the city’s economic development board touched on the issue that would be discussed in more detail in connection with Eli Cooper’s appointment to the AATA board.

The EDB is a body that is meant to assist the economic development of the city, and it enjoys the ability to issues tax-exempt bonds on behalf of private projects. Such a body is enabled by state statute – Act 338 of 1974. Nominated for the EDB were the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford (a re-appointment), and the city administrator, Steve Powers (to fill the vacancy left by former city administrator Roger Fraser).

The state statute explicitly contemplates the possibility of city employees serving on the EDB, but places a limit on their number at three:

(2) The board of directors of the corporation shall consist of not less than 9 persons, not more than 3 of whom shall be an officer or employee of the municipality. The chief executive officer and any member of the governing body of the municipality may serve on the board of directors. … [.pdf of Act 338 of 1974, Economic Development Corporations Act]

Outcome: The council voted to approve Crawford and Powers as members of the city’s economic development board, with dissent from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Mayoral Nominations: Eli Cooper to AATA Board

The council considered the nomination of the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Cooper is filling the vacancy on the AATA board left by Sue McCormick.

McCormick has left her post at the city of Ann Arbor as public services area administrator to take a job as head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. McCormick’s last day on the job was Dec. 16. City administrator Steve Powers announced at the council’s Dec. 5 meeting that the city’s head of systems planning, Craig Hupy, will fill in for McCormick on an interim basis. Powers reported that Hupy had no interest in the permanent position.

McCormick’s last AATA board meeting was Dec. 15. On that occasion, she was presented the AATA’s traditional token of appreciation for board service: a mailbox marked up to resemble an AATA bus.

Cooper’s city position as transportation program manager falls under the city’s systems planning unit. The council previously appointed Cooper to serve on the AATA board on June 20, 2005. He served through June 2008, and was replaced on the board by current board chair Jesse Bernstein.

When Cooper previously served on the AATA board, his and McCormick’s service prompted an op-ed in The Ann Arbor News criticizing the appointment of city employees to citizen boards. [.pdf of "Let's Stick With Autonomous Appointees for Citizen Boards"]

Mayor John Hiefjte led off deliberations on Cooper’s appointment by noting that it’s preferred that members of city boards and commissions be city residents – but sometimes people have unique expertise, and he cited a member of the city’s energy commission as an example of that.

Hieftje said he believed Cooper fits that additional requirement – he doesn’t know of anybody who has a better understanding of mass transit than Cooper. He said he hoped councilmembers would look on the nomination favorably.

By way of background, the city charter stipulates the residency requirement for all city officers, but allows for the waiver of the requirement with a seven-vote majority on the 11-member city council [emphasis added]:

Eligibility for City Office–General Qualifications
SECTION 12.2. Except as otherwise provided in this charter, a person is eligible to hold a City office if the person has been a registered elector of the City, or of territory annexed to the City or both, and, in the case of a Council Member, a resident of the ward from which elected, for at least one year immediately preceding election or appointment. This requirement may be waived as to appointive officers by resolution concurred in by not less than seven members of the Council.

Though the charter stipulates a seven-vote requirement, it’s commonly believed throughout the city’s organization to be an eight-vote requirement. For example, Hieftje noted that the outcome on Cooper’s vote had satisfied the “eight-vote requirement,” even with two dissenting votes and the early departure from the meeting of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Outcome: The council voted 8-2 for Cooper’s nomination to the AATA board, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) dissenting, and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) absent from the table.

Mayoral Nominations: Opposing City Employee Nominations

The council was asked to consider a resolution opposing the nomination of city employees to serve on boards and commissions. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by saying he wanted to bring forward the resolution as a separate policy issue from Eli Cooper’s nomination to the AATA board. Kunselman offered his perspective as a former township administrator – in Wayne County’s Sumpter Township from 1998 to 2003 – noting that he served as the employee of seven elected officials.

Kunselman noted that the definition of “office” includes the idea of a special duty, charge, or a position conferred for a public purpose. The AATA board appointment, he said, was not just any sort of appointment – members of that board vote on the hiring and firing of the AATA’s CEO.

Kunselman cited a city charter provision that appears to define what an employee is: “The personnel of the City, other than the elective and appointive officers, shall be deemed City employees.” For an employee who is also an appointed official, Kunselman wondered – if he wanted to communicate with that person – whether that person was a political appointee or an employee.

Kunselman said it was important because of an administrative policy signed back in 1993 by then-assistant city administrator Robert Bauman, which addresses the issue of employee contact with elected officials. The point of the policy, Kunselman said, is: “To ensure accountability, consistency and accuracy of information provided to elected officials.” Kunselman read aloud most of the document, which addresses how responses to requests for information from elected officials to city employees should follow the chain of command:

4. Procedure
…
4.4 Requests for policy-related information from elected officials or their staff should be submitted through the City Administrator’s Office.

Kunselman then read the resolution in its entirety. [.pdf of resolution as presented on Dec. 19, 2011]

When Kunselman, as an elected official, wanted to communicate with Eli Cooper, wondered Kunselman, would Kunselman interact with him in Cooper’s guise as a “political appointee” or as a city employee? Kunselman wanted to know if he would need to go through the city administrator in order to talk to Cooper. Kunselman then caught himself, and recalled that he had not wanted to talk about Cooper’s appointment specifically.

Kunselman noted that previously there’d been a city employee [Sue McCormick] who served on the AATA board when six feet of land was purchased from the city by the AATA. He wondered if that employee had recused themselves from the discussion – Kunselman said he didn’t know because he wasn’t there and didn’t know if it was reported on. He wondered if the employee had insider information on the purchase price? [It does not appear that the AATA board actually voted on the land acquisition. The Chronicle has no record of it in its reporting and a vote is not reflected in a search of the AATA website for all board resolutions. The cost of the strip of land was $90,000, which falls under the $100,000 amount that the board is required to vote on.]

At the left is Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager, seated next to Craig Hupy, head of systems planning and interim public services area administrator. Obscured behind the two men is Tom McMurtrie, the city's solid waste manager.

Kunselman acknowledged there are certain positions that allow for staff to be appointed – as with the economic development board. He said he was willing to amend the resolved clause to read, “except where authorized by statute.”

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wanted to know why Kunselman had read aloud the entire resolution. Kunselman explained that he’d read the most recent version – it had been changed since its initial online publication.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who co-sponsored the resolution, expressed the concern that this type of appointment is not sound government practice. The basis of the objection, she said, is similar to the concern that a blue ribbon commission had expressed about the makeup of the city’s pension board. Employee members, the blue ribbon commission had concluded, had undue influence on the pension board. [Ann Arbor voters approved a charter amendment this past November altering the composition of that board in response to the recommendation of the blue ribbon commission made six years ago.]

Lumm allowed that there could be instances where having a staff member with relevant expertise could be beneficial to a board – she wouldn’t be opposed to having such a person as an ex officio non-voting member. But when someone opines on an issue, that’s advocacy, and that poses a potential conflict of interest, she said.

But the bottom line for Lumm was that for every city employee who is appointed to a board or commission, that’s one less citizen who’s engaged. The city should be trying to create more engagement, more independence, a “fresh-eyes” approach. Appointing city employees fosters a like-minded group think, she said.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she couldn’t support the resolution. She couldn’t see the conflict of interest or even an appearance of one. She questioned the last “whereas” clause – “Whereas, Mayoral nominated City of Ann Arbor employees serving as appointive officers are not granted the same rights, privileges, and protections as their co-workers;” – and wondered how the concern could be wrapped in the guise of protecting the employees who might be appointed. She asked Kunselman to explain that, but was emphatic about the fact that she was not relinquishing the floor – rather just allowing Kunselman to comment.

Kunselman explained that elected officials are supposed to work with staff through a chain of command. When an employee is taken out of that chain of command, Kunselman wondered if the employee could be subject to disciplinary action. Kunselman noted the council-manager form of government under which the city is run by a city administrator, not the mayor. Kunselman said he’d been challenged in the past as an elected official – a city councilmember – about whether he was telling a staff member what to do. He contended he had not told a staff member what to do, but wondered if an employee would enjoy protection from the direction of elected officials if they were an appointee to a board or commission. Smith did not seem impressed, telling Kunselman, “That’ll do.” She said she didn’t find Kunselman’s explanation convincing.

Smith also wondered how many such appointments – of city employees to boards – were actually made. Alluding to the appointment of CFO Tom Crawford and city administrator Steve Powers to the economic development board and to Eli Cooper’s appointment to the AATA board, Hieftje said he thought the council had just voted for all three such appointments. From the audience, Craig Hupy – head of systems planning for the city, and interim public services area administrator – noted that he’d sat as treasurer on the board of the Huron River Watershed Council as a mayoral appointment.

Smith noted that the resolution was written to apply to all boards and commissions, so it would in any case need to be modified. There are good opportunities that would otherwise be lost to have expertise added to a board. She didn’t want to lose that opportunity through the resolution. Smith concluded that she couldn’t even begin to think about supporting the resolution.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said the resolution raises some interesting issues. He contended that “conflict of interest” is a loaded phrase – that’s a term of art in the law. The word “office” is also an important term, he said. For the first term, the state has a conflict of interest statute and for the second the state has an incompatibility of public office statute, he noted. Derezinski said he’d like to have an opinion from the city attorney on the question of whether either statute is applicable – the council should comply with state law, he said. [.pdf of conflict of interest statute] [.pdf of incompatible public offices statute]

City attorney Stephen Postema was not able to provide a view on the matter at the meeting, and said he would have to review it further.

Derezinki noted that there are also hundreds of attorney general opinions on the subject, and it would be worth looking at those opinions. He reiterated his view that “conflict of interest” is a loaded term, saying it’s pejorative. For that reason, he said, he wanted to be very careful in using that term, and he couldn’t vote for the resolution.

Kunselman responded to Derezinski by citing a book chapter on the subject written by some local Ann Arbor attorneys. Kunselman ventured that the council would never get a straight answer right now about whether there is a conflict of interest, and he noted that the phrasing of the resolution uses “appearance” of a conflict. Kunselman then read aloud the passage from Chapter 52 of “Michigan Public Employment and Labor Relations Law.”

Public officials and employees are often faced with competing demands for their time and energy. Regardless of the number of directions in which such individuals are pulled, however, it is crucial that they strive to maintain high ethical standards when carrying out the duties of their offices. … Because each situation is unique, however, it is impossible to provide specific guidance for every possible situation that may arise, and it is important to consult with a knowledgeable and experienced attorney if it appears that the potential for a conflict of interest exists. [.pdf of Chapter 52]

Based on his experience working in Wayne County, Kunselman said, what is unethical isn’t always illegal. Kunselman said he’s specifically concerned about appointments to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, because they’re taxing authorities or receive federal funds. [The DDA is not technically a taxing authority, but rather is enabled to capture a portion of the taxes of other taxing authorities. The transportation millage that benefits the AATA is levied by the city of Ann Arbor and is "passed through" to the AATA.]

Kunselman wondered what would happen if there’s a labor disagreement – what if a city employee is a member of the AATA, and there’s a disagreement with the director of the AATA? Will an employee of the city be allowed to vote on the four-party agreement, to which the city and the AATA are both parties? Kunselman said these issues require serious review so that there are no concerns. The best way to have no concerns is to have arms-length nominations, he said. Kunselman said he was risk averse and therefore he opposed city employees as nominees to boards and commissions.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he was supportive of the resolution because of the term “appearance” of a conflict of interest. He noted that he’d voted for Cooper’s appointment, because he knows Cooper personally. If it had been someone else, he said, he may not have voted that way. He observed that he serves on the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) but that his position is non-voting. Still, he said, he thinks he influences people in that ex officio capacity.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she’d previously opposed the appointment of a country transportation planner to the AATA board. [She voted against the appointment of Anya Dale on May 17, 2010.] Briere explained that she’d voted that way because she believed it would be difficult to wear multiple hats – as a member of the AATA board and as a member of the county planning staff. It’s difficult not to want to appoint qualified people, she said, but she concluded that to her it was clear that at least four members of the council [those who'd co-sponsored the resolution] would like the mayor to broaden his scope in selecting nominees.

Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) was visibly annoyed during remarks made by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) about the possible appearance of a conflict of interest.

Lumm again noted that the conflict of interest issue is a concern, but for her it’s about engaging more citizens. During her election campaign, she said, she spent a lot of time knocking on doors and she was asked about the AATA board at a fair number of residences. Lumm said she was not sure that residents know how to apply for boards or commissions.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who had shown outward signs of irritation as his wardmate Kunselman had spoken earlier, then began to deliver some prepared remarks of his own. The best that can be said about the resolution, Taylor contended, is that it’s a solution in search of a problem. The resolution speaks of conflicts of interest, but does not identify any, he said.

Each nomination deserves to be considered on its own merits, Taylor said. There’d been an effort to extricate this policy issue from Cooper’s nomination, but Taylor contended it’s inappropriate to do so. Cooper’s nomination is what puts it into focus, he said, and the effect of the resolution would have meant the loss of Cooper to AATA board and that loss would have been substantial. In the era of government cooperation, someone with subject matter expertise is not just good for AATA, he said, it’s good for the city of Ann Arbor. Cross-pollination, Taylor said, is good.

While all that is the best that can be said about the resolution, continued Taylor, that’s not all that should be said. Taylor claimed there’s a tendency in Ann Arbor to make vague and false assertions of unethical behavior. That discourages participation and cheapens public discourse, he said. It causes us to focus on false issues – on hypothetical failings. Instead, he said, we should focus on our challenges and fulfilling our aspirations. He concluded that it’s a misguided resolution and said he’d be voting no.

Hieftje took exception to Kunselman’s characterization of the appointment to the AATA board as a “political appointment.” Hieftje stated that this is just the way the city charter reads and that the appointment to the AATA is no more a political appointment than an appointment to the ZBA.

Hieftje said he doesn’t see the difference between the appointment of a city employee to the AATA, and other appointments where a statute might explicitly allow an employee to serve. As an example, he noted that the state enabling legislation for downtown development authorities requires the mayor or city administrator to serve on the DDA board. [Hieftje serves on the DDA board.]

At the May 5, 2010 Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board meeting, because of the opinion rendered by DDA legal counsel Jerry Lax, mayor John Hieftje took a seat in the audience between former DDA board member Bob Gillette and Adrian Iraola, of Park Avenue Consulting.

Last spring, Hieftje said, as the city and the DDA went though protracted negotiations, he had voted a couple of times on issues involving the city’s finances as well as the DDA’s. Hieftje then claimed that at no time was he determined by the city attorney or the DDA attorney to have a conflict of interest – because he was required to be on the board by state statute.

By way of background, Hieftje did participate in all the votes in the spring of 2011. However, a year earlier he was recused for one vote – against his own wishes. While Hieftje accurately depicted the opinion of the Ann Arbor city attorney for the votes in 2010, the opinion expressed at the May 5, 2010 DDA board meeting by the DDA’s legal counsel, Jerry Lax, was that for one particular vote, Hieftje needed to recuse himself. And Hiefjte left the board table to sit out that one vote as a member of the audience.

Outcome: The resolution failed, with support only from Lumm, Kunselman, Anglin and Briere.

Pay Increase for Poll Workers

On the agenda was a resolution to increase the pay for election inspectors – those who work at the polls on election day to verify the registration of voters and to handle all other duties associated with ensuring compliance with election laws at each precinct.

The proposed increases are as follows: election inspector from $8 to $9/hour; floater from $8.50 to $9.50/hour; chairperson from $11.25 to $12/hour; and absent voter count board supervisor from $14 to $14.50/hour. According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, prepared by the city clerk’s office, the increase in pay is expected to cost $2,000 in a local election and $8,000 in a presidential election. For the upcoming 2012 presidential election, the increase would total $5,000 – a cost that will be reimbursed by the state.

The justification for the increase in pay for Ann Arbor’s election inspectors was based on comparative pay with other nearby jurisdictions. For example, the raise for election inspectors from $8 to $9 now matches what the city of Ypsilanti pays.

After the raise, however, the proposed compensation for election inspectors would still fall short of the amount set forth in Ann Arbor’s living wage policy, which the city itself is not obliged to follow. By ordinance, the wages paid by city contractors to their workers must meet minimum thresholds that are adjusted each year, based on federal poverty guidelines. In May of 2011, the new living wage minimums were set at $11.83/hour for those employers paying health insurance, and $13.19/hour for those employers not paying health insurance.

When the council deliberated on the issue, the living wage factored into the council’s decision to postpone the election inspectors’ pay raise.

When the council came to the item on its agenda, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wondered why the increase did not go all the way to the level of the living wage? The microphone-less city clerk’s comments in response to Briere weren’t easily audible, but seemed to address the issue of why any increase was being proposed at all – it had been several years since one had been given.

Briere first suggested that the resolution be altered to reflect the living wage. At mayor John Hieftje’s suggestion, she agreed to change her motion to a postponement. The council will receive a budget impact calculation for the additional increase to the living wage level before it votes.

Outcome: The council unanimously postponed the vote on the increase in poll worker compensation.

City Attorney Performance Review, Contract Amendment

In a closed session held toward the end of the meeting, the council reviewed the purchase of land and conducted a performance review for 2011 for the city attorney, Stephen Postema.

From the left: Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) chats with city attorney Stephen Postema.

Personnel evaluations and the purchase of land are each permissible reasons for a closed session under under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The position of city attorney is one of two positions that report directly to the council – the other is the city administrator. Under Michigan’s OMA, reviews of personnel are allowed to be conducted in a closed session on request from the employee, but are not required to be. However, Postema’s contract contains a clause specifying that: “The results of the evaluation shall be in writing and shall be discussed with the Employee in closed session.”

Around 10 minutes into the closed session, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) emerged from the council workroom adjoining the chambers where the council holds such sessions, and took her seat at the council table. Asked by The Chronicle if the session was done, she indicated that she was done, but the other councilmembers were not – she had felt “blindsided” by what she was asked to consider and did not choose to participate in the closed session discussion.

When the rest of the councilmembers eventually emerged from the closed session, Margie Teall (Ward 4) read a resolution amending the city’s contract with Postema, which allows him to cash-in up to 250 hours of accrued banked time before June 30, 2012.

Briere asked how the resolution differed from the one approved by the council just two months previously, when the council also held a closed session to review Postema’s performance. The explanation offered to Briere was that the performance review conducted at the Oct. 24, 2011 meeting had been just for 2009-10. That review also did not result in any adjustment to Postema’s base salary, but also allowed him to cash-in up to 250 hours of accrued banked time before the end of 2011.

Briere then questioned whether the council’s administration committee had provided other councilmembers with an opportunity to offer feedback on Postema’s performance since the Oct. 24 review. [The council's administration committee, which by custom reviews the input of other councilmembers on personnel evaluations, met earlier that day. The committee consists of Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), mayor John Hieftje, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) sat alone at the council table as her colleagues conducted a closed session on the review of the city attorney's performance. The door to the workroom where the council conducts its closed sessions is visible behind her.

Briere noted that councilmembers not on the administration committee had been given an opportunity to provide their view on Postema’s performance before the Oct. 24 review, but that review had specifically been just through 2010. And Briere did not recall being given an opportunity to provide additional feedback since October for the current review – which included 2011. When Briere asked if she had simply not seen the solicitation for feedback, none of the members of the council’s administration committee could point to an occasion when feedback had been solicited during that time period. Hieftje offered that sometimes all the forms are confusing.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wondered whether she should participate in the vote, given that she was newly elected to the council in November – she had not been a part of the council for much of the period of Postema’s review. Postema told her that the vote was on his contract going forward. Lumm participated in the vote.

Outcome: The council voted, with dissent from Briere, to approve the contract amendment for Postema, which allows him to cash in 250 hours of banked leave time before June 30, 2012.

Drop-Off Recycling Contract

The council was asked to consider approval of a contract with Recycle Ann Arbor to continue the operation of the drop-off recycling center on the city-owned property at 2950 E. Ellsworth Road, with no financial support from the city.

Previously, the drop-off station was supported by three municipalities: the city of Ann Arbor ($30,000), Washtenaw County ($50,000) and Pittsfield Township ($7,500).

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, when Washtenaw County withdrew its support in 2009, Recycle Ann Arbor declined support from the other governmental units – because it would have required tracking where users lived in order to determine the appropriate use charge. Roughly 60% of the users of the facility live outside Ann Arbor. Recycle Ann Arbor now charges a $3 entry fee, in addition to the specific drop-off charges for specific kinds of items. For example, the charge for dropping off a car tire is $5 – with the $3 entry fee, it would total $8.

The previous contract with Recycle Ann Arbor to operate the drop-off facility expired nearly two years ago, on Jan. 1, 2010. The new contract is retroactive to that date.

The staff memo for the agenda item notes some significant sinking of the southeast corner of the building at the facility, but indicates there is no immediate danger. Still, building repairs are recommended.

During the brief council deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said the contract sounds fine, but contended that the city is subsidizing other municipalities. She asked for cost estimates for the recommended building repair – less than $10,000, said Tom McMurtrie, the city’s solid waste manager. McMurtrie said he was not aware of any other needed capital repair expenses associated with the drop-off station.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the contract with Recycle Ann Arbor to operate the drop-off station.

Solar Money

The council was asked to vote on a resolution accepting an additional $20,000 in federal funds from the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). Of that amount, $17,500 will be applied to a contract with the Clean Energy Coalition for its XSeed Energy community solar program. The remaining $2,500 will go to the city of Ann Arbor to cover grant administration and oversight costs.

The original grant from the USDOE, as part of the Solar America Cities Project, was made in July 2007 for $200,000. According to a staff memo, Ann Arbor has secured commitments from 11 local organizations for various matching funds for an additional $355,008.

The city’s energy coordinator, Andrew Brix, was invited to the podium to give a brief overview. He highlighted the solar panels on top of city hall and the justice center, as well as the solar thermal hot water units, which he said a lot of people are not aware of.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the acceptance of the additional grant money.

Reimbursement for MRF Magnet

Before the council for its consideration was authorization of a reimbursement of $94,788 to the company that operates its materials recovery facility (MRF) for costs of replacing an electromagnet that failed back in February 2011.

RRS Inc. made the request for reimbursement in September. The electromagnet is used to separate metal from other material. The reimbursement will be made from the city’s MRF capitalized renewal and replacement account.

During deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) got clarification from the city’s solid waste manager, Tom McMurtrie, that of the $230,000 in the MRF capital fund, the city had contributed $22,000 and RRS had put in $207,000. He explained that the contributions are based on a per-ton basis for material brought into the center. The city contributes $2/ton for its material, and RRS puts in $4/ton for the non-city material that it brings in.

Lumm wanted to know if the $230,000 will be sufficient for the coming year. Yes, said McMurtrie. Lumm said she applauds trying to save money by using the old magnet in the new single-stream system. McMurtrie said that when the switch was made to the single-stream system, extensive testing of the magnet had been done, but it developed a leak from a weld that was not visible during testing. Once the magnet was installed, it was expensive to get it out of the building – it had to be lifted through the roof with a crane, McMurtrie said.

Bond Re-Funding

The council was asked to consider approval of issuance by the city of re-funding bonds in the amount of $2,400,000 in order to refinancing the $2,230,000 outstanding principal amount on bonds issued to pay for the Fourth and William parking structure project. The refinancing is estimated to yield a savings of approximately $195,000 over the next 10 years.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that she’d support the resolution but asked that the word “refund” be spelled with a hyphen.

City treasurer Matt Horning explained that the reason the resolution had to come quickly was that municipal bond interest rates had fallen, and the city needed to initiate the 45-day referendum period. The process was compared to refinancing a mortgage on a house.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) confirmed with Horning that the city is not extending the maturities of the bonds. Said Horning, “That’s against the law.” Lumm thanked Horning for identifying the opportunity to save the city some money.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the re-funding of the bonds.

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: Vacant Properties

Mayor John Hieftje reported that he’d had a meeting with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and they’d be bringing legislation forward in January to address some of the frustration with abandoned and boarded-up properties. One problem is that the city needs a funding source, in order to take action. In October of 2012, Hieftje said, it was expected that a fund could be established as a result of the resolution of the Michigan Inn situation. Hieftje said he expected to bring a resolution to front load a fund to take care of dilapidated properties, and then pay the general fund back in October. Hieftje said he expected it would be enough to deal with 8-10 problem properties.

Comm/Comm: Property Tax

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she wanted to plant the seed of changing the requirement of when residents must pay their property taxes. In other communities, there’s usually an option to do it at the end of a year or early the following year. City treasurer Matt Horning and the city’s CFO Tom Crawford discovered that there’s really no downside for the city to allow people to pay their taxes early in the following year – the only loser on this is the IRS, Lumm said. However, she said it would require a charter amendment to change the requirement. Nevertheless, she said, she’d be pursuing it.

City administrator Steve Powers, left, and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) shared a light moment before the Dec. 19 meeting started.

During his communications, city administrator Steve Powers noted that this year, because Dec. 31 falls on a Saturday, the deadline for winter taxes is Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2012.

Comm/Comm: Immigration

Lourdes Salazar Bautista appeared before the council to thank councilmembers for their support in her fight to stay in the U.S. She had faced deportation on Dec. 27. She reported that on Dec. 13 she’d received word that her deportation had been delayed for one year. Laura Sanders of the Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights (WICIR) also spoke in to the council on the issue.

Sanders told the council that it was not clear what action had been persuasive enough to achieve the delay, but so many pancakes were thrown against the wall that one finally stuck, she said. Sanders said she was pleased that Bautista’s case has spurred further action to oppose trumped-up immigration charges. Ann Arbor’s close proximity to Canada means that the immigrant population is vulnerable, she said. However, she ventured that “we can be a very sticky syrupy pancake and throw ourselves against the wall of injustice.” Ann Arbor can repeatedly send Washington D.C. the message that it opposes excessive enforcement. She asked the council over the holidays to look at a draft of a resolution that they’ll be asked to support related to this issue.

Mary Anne Perrone introduced herself as a longtime resident of Ann Arbor. She noted that she’d addressed the council before opposing Arizona’s immigration law. As a member of her worshiping community, she thanked the council for its support. She attributed the problem not to any failure to secure U.S borders, but to an insatiable demand for drugs in the U.S.

Comm/Comm: Spirit of Christmas

Thomas Partridge told the council to let the spirit of Christmas give rise to responsive government. There are too many residents without housing, transportation, healthcare and jobs – the things that make life rewarding and give it purpose. He called on everyone to put forward good will and eradicate discrimination.

At the end of the meeting, Partridge returned to the podium to deliver a general rebuke of the council, saying there is the appearance of corruption and evil.

Comm/Comm: Coordinated Funding

Lily Au introduced herself as an Ann Arbor resident. She asked the council two questions: (1) Is government a business or a mission? (2) Do we live only for ourselves or do we also give back? Au said that it is possible to do more than we are. She criticized the coordinated funding approach for human services that the city uses, saying that Washtenaw County, which is a partner in coordinated funding, shortchanges the city.

During her communications time, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the council had heard a number of times from Au about coordinated funding and Au’s contention that the city might be getting the short end. Smith said she’d worked with Margie Teall (Ward 4) on the coordinated funding process. Smith said it’s allowed the strongest nonprofits to do capacity-building and she characterized it as a “wild success.”

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Jan. 9, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. 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 change will allow University Bank to build 13 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building – for a total of 52 spaces on the site. The city planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the change at its Oct. 4, 2011 meeting, after the proposal had been submitted to the city at least a year earlier. The council gave its initial approval to the change in the PUD at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting.

The long approval process could in part be attributed to opposition from immediate neighbors to specific elements of the plan, which was to some degree modified in response. A letter of opposition, attached to the council’s Dec. 19 agenda packet, made a more general objection to “the likelihood of further commercialization of the residential neighborhood.” [.pdf of letter of opposition][.jpg of aerial view with parcels]

Because the proposal was a change to the city’s zoning, it was a change to the city’s ordinances – a process that required a second approval by the council at a separate meeting, preceded by a public hearing.

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]

Before the Nov. 21 meeting, former councilmember Leslie Morris (left) might be reminding Jane Lumm (Ward 2) which ward Lumm represents on the Ann Arbor city council. (Photos by the writer.)

In the end, the council gave initial approval to an ordinance amendment that would temporarily reduce the required allocation to public art from city capital improvement projects – from 1% to 0.5% for a period of three years. After three years, the percentage would automatically revert to 1%. Of the various amendments to the ordinance, the percentage of the required allocation was the focus of the most controversy during council deliberations. A bid by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to lower the percentage further to 0.25% gained little support.

Other art ordinance amendments given the council’s initial approval include a requirement that public art money be returned to its fund of origin after three years, if not encumbered by a specific art project. The amendment also included a definitional change that effectively excludes sidewalk repair from the public art ordinance. The amendments also addressed the general fund, making explicit the exclusion of general fund projects from the public art ordinance.

During deliberations, city staff confirmed that at least a portion of the public art allocation required from the new municipal building (aka the police/courts building) could be associated with the general fund – about $50,000 out of the $250,000. [This is for art in the interior of the building, and is separate from the outdoor fountain designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl.]

As part of her Ward 2 election campaign, Jane Lumm had argued that general fund dollars were connected to supporting public art at the new municipal building – an idea that had been, until Monday’s meeting, poo-pooed by some councilmembers, including mayor John Hieftje, who had said no general fund money had been used for the public art program.

Lumm was active in her first council meeting since serving in the 1990s. During deliberations on a revision to the ordinance on the city’s greenbelt boundaries, she prompted extended discussion on the part of the revision dealing with the boundary expansion. A less controversial part of the proposed revision involved allowing parcels adjacent to the boundary to be eligible for protection. In the end, the council gave initial approval to both parts of the greenbelt boundary change.

Also related to land use were two site plans on the agenda. The council gave initial approval to altering the University Bank site plan for its property at 2015 Washtenaw Ave., known as the Hoover Mansion. And the council signed off on the site plan, as well as the brownfield plan, for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw.

Because the content of a proposed revision to the city’s littering and handbill law was not available to the public until late in the day Monday, just before the council met, the council postponed its consideration of that item. The ordinance amendment would allow residents to prevent delivery of unwanted newspapers to their homes by posting a notice on their front doors.

In other business, the council expressed its opposition to a bill pending in the Michigan legislature that would nullify an Ann Arbor ordinance on non-discrimination against people based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or student status. At the meeting, the council also authorized acceptance of several grants for the 15th District Court for programs on domestic violence and substance abuse.

In routine business for the first council meeting after newly elected councilmembers take office, the council elected Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) as mayor pro tem. Committee appointments and rule changes were postponed until Dec. 5.

Public Art Ordinance Amendment

The council was asked to give initial approval to a revision to the city’s public art ordinance that temporarily reduces the amount allocated from all capital project budgets to public art from 1% to 0.5%. Currently, the city has a law –enacted in 2007 – that requires 1% of all capital project budgets to include 1% for public art, with a limit of $250,000 per project.

The reduction in the allocation would apply for the next three years, from 2012-2015. The three-year timeframe is also a key part of a sunsetting amendment to funds accumulated under the proposed public art ordinance, which was also given initial approval on Monday night. That amendment requires that future funds reserved for public art under the ordinance must be allocated within three years. Money that is unspent or unallocated after three years must be returned to its fund of origin. However, an amendment offered from the floor and approved at Monday’s meeting makes it possible for the council to extend the deadline for successive periods, each extension for no more than six months.

The sunsetting clause comes in response to criticism about the pace at which public art has been acquired. More than $500,000 has accumulated for public art over the last five years, just from projects funded with the street repair tax – money that has yet to be spent on the acquisition of public art. Critics of the program also point to legal issues connected with the use of dedicated millage funds or fee-based utility funds for public art.

In addition to the temporary reduction from 1% to 0.5% and the sunsetting clause, the set of amendments before the council included a definition of capital improvement projects that excludes sidewalk repair from the ordinance requirement. Voters on Nov. 8 approved a new 0.125 mill tax that is supposed to allow the city to take over responsibility for the repair of sidewalks. Previously, sidewalk repair was paid for by adjacent property owners.

The amendments also excluded the ordinance from applying to any capital projects funded out of the general fund. Such projects are in any case rare.

As with all changes to city ordinances, the amendments to the public art ordinance will need a second approval from the council, following a public hearing. [Additional Chronicle coverage: "Council Preview: Public Art Ordinance"]

Art: Public Commentary

Brenda Oelbaum introduced herself as vice president of the Midwest Region of the Women’s Caucus for Art. She lives in Ward 2. Since moving to Ann Arbor 16 years ago, she contended that she’s seen a drop in support for the arts – except for 2007, when the percent for art ordinance was passed. She contended that the Ann Arbor Art Center has shrunk and that the annual art fairs are turning into dusty wastelands. Fairy doors, pig skins, and bike racks are not really public art, she said, while she’s heard that FestiFools is not going to be funded by the University of Michigan in the future. She stated that the city’s public art ordinance is the only way we can incorporate art into our lives.

Oelbaum told councilmembers they are being shortsighted by reducing the funding and requiring that the money be spent within a certain period of time. Art takes time, money and consideration. She described the Women’s Caucus for Art as a 40-year-old organization with 1,700 members. A group from that organization had recently taken a day-long tour of art in Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis. On the trip, she said, some of the women were lying on the ground taking rubbings of manhole covers. Art does a lot for the city’s standing in the state and the United States, she said. All you have to do is look at the Grand Rapids ArtPrize competition, she said.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, and a Democratic candidate for the state senate in 2010. He spoke to his usual themes of ending illegal forms of discrimination and providing affordable housing, transportation and education. He called on the council to stop funding unnecessary projects and called the Dreiseitl sculpture, funded with public art money, a “junkyard object.”

During the time set aside for public commentary at the end of the meeting, Partridge criticized the council for taking so much time to discuss public art, instead of giving priority to issues affecting seniors and disabled people.

Margaret Erickson introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor. She told the council she partakes in a variety of cultural events. One reason she chose to live in Ann Arbor 20 years ago was Ann Arbor’s accessible, rich cultural life. Works of public art provide a vital social fabric, she said, which allows us to see ourselves as a diverse culture. She told the council it’s easy to eliminate things that seem trivial, but Ann Arbor’s public art is a way of making the town beautiful. It also reinforces Ann Arbor’s connected community.

Margaret Parker said she’d served on Ann Arbor’s public art commission since 2004. [Although the public art ordinance was enacted in 2007, the city had a Commission on Art in Public Places (CAPP) before that time. The advisory group is now called the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission (AAPAC).]

Parker thanked the council for its support in the past. She recounted how $80,000 in private donations had been raised for public art for the parking structure at Washington & Fourth. The money had been raised by one volunteer. For the painted water tower on Plymouth Road, she said, $30,000 in private donations had been raised – by her. She had made the rounds to the same people who had donated to the parking structure and she’d heard the question: Why didn’t the city water fund pay for the water tower art?

Potential donors saw a disconnect between private funding and public benefit, she said. The city of Ann Arbor doesn’t have a revolving door of fresh donors like the University of Michigan does for the kind of art it has installed on its north campus. Funding for public art doesn’t raise the cost of any project, she contended. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has adopted the percent for art program, as has the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, she stated. She contended that the program is accepted as legal and has been used across the United States. She pointed to the one completed major project [the Dreiseitl water sculpture] and a smaller one in West Park. Six  more projects are in the works, she said. The commission also has plans to improve its procedures.

Wiltrud Simbuerger told the council that since she became a member of AAPAC this year, the feedback from the community has been positive. The desire and support for public art is there, she said. Criticism is based on the unspent money and speed at which art is created. She told the council that she is now responsible for the mural program. [Jeff Meyers, who had initiated the project, resigned from AAPAC in part due to frustration about the obstacles he encountered internal to the city in getting the project implemented.] She described the timeframe for creating a mural, which includes selecting possible sites and meeting with constituents in the neighborhood, she said. A letter of invitation has been sent out to mural artists and AAPAC will now select from a pool of artists.

Simbuerger allowed that the process could be improved structurally and there might be a point for some of the ordinance revisions the council was considering. But she encouraged the council to balance those changes with the needs of the program. She asked the council to increase city staff support for AAPAC and to empower the staff. It needs to be a staff-driven process, she said. Public art requires long-term commitment and persistence, so the focus should not just be on cutting the budget, but on making structural improvements to the process.

Connie Brown introduced herself as a long-time resident, business owner and AAPAC commissioner. She said she’s seen the positive role that public art can play in the community. She highlighted some of the things that AAPAC is doing. Currently, the commission is working on an interior piece for the lobby of the new municipal building. Proposals will be reviewed in December, she said. A statement of qualifications (SOQ) is ready for the Fuller Road Station project, but is not yet issued. When the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor are ready to move ahead with that project, it will be sent out. Several projects are in the phase of task force work, she said – notably, public art for the bypass around Argo Dam and the East Stadium bridge reconstruction project.

Jan Barney Newman told the council she’d spoken to them once before when they were considering the ordinance. She’d addressed the council after she had been to Toledo to see an outdoor art exhibit – many people drove down from Ann Arbor just to see it. She noted that for the municipal center plaza, the city didn’t purchase “off the shelf” by buying an existing sculpture, but commissioned a thematically appropriate work. She drew a laugh from the audience as she struggled with the pronunciation of Dreiseitl, the name of the German artist who designed the fountain, rendering it as something that sounded frozen: drei-cicle.

Mark Tucker was dressed in a colorful outfit and said he was there to represent “art itself.” [Later in the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the discussion by saying that the issue was not art itself, but rather the funding mechanism for public art.]

Margaret Parker and Mark Tucker before the Nov. 21 city council meeting started.

Tucker quoted the founder of the Heidelberg Project, Tyree Guyton, who responded when asked why he painted large polka dots on houses, “Why do you paint your house beige?” The conversation about public art always goes in the direction of cut, cut, cut, he said. Tucker does not think 1% for art is enough, and suggested the council think about 2%. He indicated that a “Miss 2%” would be appearing to show them what 2% for art looked like and asked that someone open the side door to the council chambers. When no one appeared, he said that he, for one, had wanted to see what 2% for art looked like.

Saying he was willing to demonstrate what 0.5% would look like, Tucker untied his necktie, indicating the demonstration would entail partially disrobing. He said it would be embarrassing for him and not pleasant for councilmembers. He asked councilmembers to consider what 0.25% or 0.125% would look like – saying that they all knew what zero percent looks like. He concluded that 1% percent is not too much to ask, to keep ourselves from being beige.

Elaine Sims, another AAPAC member, told the council she was glad didn’t have to follow anything that may have happened with Tucker’s demonstration. She said that in her day job, she also worked with art, as director of the University of Michigan Health System’s Gifts of Art program. She characterized the University of Michigan as a “small town” itself. She said she continuously gets calls from health care organizations across the country about the UM program.

Sims assured the council that the program did not happen overnight – it’s 25 years old. But it began as 3-year pilot program, she said. She gave the council some perspective on how long it takes to complete a commissioned piece of art, noting that she is a full-time staff member and that she has staff who report to her. Even with that level of staff support, she said, it takes a minimum of two years, more often than not three years from start to finish. She said that commissioners on AAPAC serve a staff function and that only recently has Aaron Seagraves been brought on board as public art administrator.

[At the city council's Nov. 14 working session, councilmembers heard a recommendation from public services area administrator Sue McCormick that would increase the value of the contract for the city’s public art administrator – by $35,000. The position is not held by a city employee. Currently that contract is with Aaron Seagraves, who took the job in May 2011. Previously, the part-time position had been vacant for almost a year, after Katherine Talcott, who was hired in early 2009, took the job of art project manager for the city. Seagraves currently has a one-year contract for 20 hours per week. At the Nov. 14 work session, McCormick characterized the proposed $35,000 increase to the contract as bringing it to essentially a full-time position.]

Art: Council Deliberations – Introduction

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by noting that the council would see a different proposal from what they considered in September, but then postponed at the Sept. 19, 2011 meeting. Briere summarized the key features of the Nov. 21 proposal:

1. Routine repair of sidewalks would not be considered capital improvements, thus not trigger the requirement that 1% of those project budgets be set aside for public art.
2. The percentage required to be allocated to public art would be dropped from 1% to 0.5% for the next three years; after that time it would automatically revert to 1%.
3. After July 1, 2012, general fund money would no longer be eligible for inclusion in public art.
4. Funds that are pooled for public art would have three years to be allocated (not necessarily spent), otherwise that money would revert to the fund of origin.

By way of background, the key difference between the Nov. 21 proposal as compared to the Sept. 19 proposal was a political horse trade: a prohibition against using the street millage fund for public art was removed, in exchange for a reduction in the percentage from 1% to 0.5%.

Briere then implicitly refuted remarks made by Mark Tucker during public commentary, during which he stated that he was there to represent art itself. Briere said she wanted to make certain the council’s discussion separated out the funding issue from the love of art or public art. The discussion is about an effort to fund art, not public art itself, she said. She went on to say that public art is something many people embrace and endorse, but believe there are different ways to fund it. The city’s percent for art ordinance is a specific mechanism, she said.

Over the last four years, Briere said, enthusiasm for the program has lessened. A large number of capital improvement projects have been undertaken, she said, and people are a little surprised at the amount of dollars that has accumulated. Working with such large amounts is amazingly difficult for people to contemplate. AAPAC has had a difficult time getting organized, and has a lot on its plate, Briere said, and it took a long time for bylaws and policies and procedures to get developed.

Art: Council Deliberations – Lumm’s 0.25%

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reiterated Briere’s point that the issue is not about public art. She took a different view of the trajectory of support for art in the community [from one of the public speakers]. She said she’d spent 10 years on the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair board and a number of years hanging out at the Ann Arbor Art Center. If it were not for community support, it would struggle. Alluding to Mark Tucker’s remarks during public commentary, Lumm said that an Ann Arbor art fair had actually brought some works from the Heidelberg Project works to Ann Arbor.

Lumm said it’s about the funding of art – private or public. She allowed that 1% doesn’t sound like a lot, but so far, over $2 million has been set aside for public art. Reducing the percentage from 1% to 0.25% would reduce the dollar amount per year set aside for art from around $450,000 to around $100,000. She said she still did not not agree with the idea of earmarking capital dollars for public art, but that $100,000 would be acceptable.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) responded to Lumm by saying: “You can’t have it both ways.” People say they want to have something but then don’t want to fund it, he said. He drew an analogy to the U.S. wars in Iraq or Vietnam. Derezinski noted that it’s the third time the council has wrestled with the issue. The community has been through some tough times, but “We’ve hung in there with 1%,” he said. He characterized the views that the council had heard as an “outpouring” of support for the public art program from the community. He said he could not go along with the idea of people saying they are for something but against funding it. Tough times, he said, bring out what the community is about. Ann Arbor is known for public art, he contended, so he was not in favor of decreasing the amount to 0.25% or to 0.5%.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed Derezinski’s remarks, saying that it’s disingenuous to say you support something, but then not pay for it. If the council tempered its support, Teall said, it would send a message to private funders. She said she would not support a reduction to 0.25% or to 0.5%.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) took on the rhetorical gambit of Derezinski and Teall criticizing those who say they support something but won’t pay for it, by asking: “How often have my colleagues said, ‘We support public safety!’ but yet we’ve cut it?” The remark elicited a few cheers from the audience. Kunselman pointed to the $2.2 million that’s been transfered to public art and noted that much of it is still sitting there. He noted the council has made changes in other programs and services.

Kunselman pointed out that even though there was support from the public commentary podium for the public art ordinance, four of those who spoke are AAPAC commissioners. So, taking Teall’s label of “disingenuous,” Kunselman said it’s disingenuous to call that an outpouring of community support, as Derezinski had. Kunselman said during tough economic times, there’s too much money spent on art. He also questioned the legality of taking millage money that hasn’t been sanctioned at the state level or by the courts. He noted the absence of a written opinion from the city attorney’s office on the legal basis of the city’s ordinance. So he said he’d support the amendment.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he’d heard the concerns about the amount of money the ordinance was generating. He agreed with Kunselman’s position that the council needed a written legal opinion from the city attorney. He said he was eager for a written opinion and said that the council should take a vote on that very soon. [Kunselman has taken the position that it should be up to the supporters of the public art ordinance to bring forward a resolution to direct the city attorney to produce an opinion.]

Anglin spoke about the role of art in defining what Ann Arbor is, saying that Ann Arbor is a unique little town. He noted that the discussion had centered on the visual arts, not the performing arts. He ventured that public art funding could eventually be expanded to include performing arts. He said he wanted to keep the 1%. People had been “shaken” by the process for creating the Dreiseitl sculpture, Anglin said. He found the whole procedure “jarring” – apparently because of the selection of a German artist for the commission. He seemed to indicate that the selection of Michigan workers for fabrication who could do good “metal work” was not entirely satisfactory.

In her next speaking turn, Teall picked up on Anglin’s reference to metal work, in order to clarify that the Dreiseitl piece is not simply a metal sculpture, saying that Herbert Dreiseitl is a “water and sculpture engineer.” She described the fountain as part of the stormwater system of the building, and said that it was fabricated using Michigan workers. It was not totally farmed out, she said.

In support of his position, Derezinski followed up with a description of an editorial that had been published in the Detroit Free Press [The column mentioned by Derezinski was by Ron Dzwonkowski: "Forget Taxes and Regulations, Michigan Must Build It so They'll Come"] Derezinski noted that Dzwonkowski’s column highlighted a book, “The Economics of Place,” which was published by the Ann Arbor-based Michigan Municipal League. From the column:

The book lays out eight assets that are critical to quality of place today, some reflecting a generational shift away from suburban living – suburbs are today the fastest-aging segment of the American demographic – and others reflect the relentless advance of technology.

They are walkability, green initiatives, a healthy arts/culture scene, a climate for entrepreneurs, multiculturalism, constant connectivity, effective public transit and educational institutions that serve as community anchors.

So is it any wonder that Ann Arbor weathered the Great Recession better than the rest of Michigan? Doesn’t it make sense that Grand Rapids has embraced the annual ArtPrize competition? Isn’t there a lot of promise in Detroit’s burgeoning Midtown?

[In contrast to Ann Arbor's public art program, Grand Rapids' ArtPrize competition is funded through private support. It's now a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization. See Chronicle coverage of the first year of ArtPrize: "In Search of Ann Arbor Artists: A Sojourn"]

Briere sought to steer the conversation back to Lumm’s proposed amendment from 0.5% down to 0.25%. Briere said it’s hard to say how much is enough support for art. She noted that she didn’t vote for the original ordinance, because she wasn’t on the city council at the time. She would have voted for it, she said. She had voted to reduce the percentage when the council considered its budget this year. She’d also supported the reduction when Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had brought forward a proposal in 2009 to reduce the percentage. There’s clearly an interest among some councilmembers to reduce the percentage, Briere said.

Briere said when she looked at other communities to learn more about how public art was funded, she learned that other communities restrict how you spend it, and where it comes from. Aside from the percentage, Ann Arbor’s ordinance doesn’t provide guidance that is helpful, she said. She’d asked to receive AAPAC’s guidelines and bylaws, but still hasn’t seen them. It would be helpful to see that information before the second vote on the ordinance, she said.

Alluding to Lumm’s estimate of how much the 0.25% would generate a year, Briere said she didn’t think that $100,000 a year is enough to buy art. She didn’t think you can acquire qualified, healthy, significant art for that much, so she wouldn’t support a further reduction to 0.25%.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) found themselves voting together as a two-person block on more than one occasion at the Nov. 21 meeting.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) began by noting sarcastically that he’d spent a lot of time reviewing all the 0.25% for art programs in the country – it didn’t take a lot of time because there weren’t that many. He said there’s a strong consensus for support for public art and some funding at some amount. In thinking about the appropriate amount that should be set aside for art, he cited a 1927 Department of the Post Office building in Washington D.C. for which 2% was set aside for art, and a National Archives building with a construction budget that allocated 4% for art. He continued by citing a federal general services administration policy in the 1950s of setting aside 1.5% for art, followed by city ordinances enacted in Philadelphia, then by the states of Hawaii and Washington in the early 1970s.

The 1% number offers a simple way to understand it, he said, that is sufficient to drive a large enough scale. He invited people to engage in a thought experiment. If your house burned down and the budget for rebuilding it is $100,000, the corresponding art budget of $250 (corresponding to Lumm’s 0.25%) doesn’t seem like a lot. Hohnke said that to him, 1% feels closer to the right amount, so he would not support a further reduction to 0.25%.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that she had twice before supported a reduction in funding. She said she thought it would be prudent to do that now – when things are financially tight. Using Hohnke’s analogy of a house, she said when she needed a new roof, she’s not looking to put a new carpet down too. She said that deciding the amount is a little premature, before deciding whether the program even continues. She said she would not support the reduction from 1% to 0.5%, because it’s muddying the waters.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The council rejected the amendment to drop funding to 0.25%, on the proposal cutting public art funding from 1% to 0.5% – only Lumm and Kunselman supported the amendment.

Art: Council Deliberations – Lumm’s Conscious Restoration

A second amendment to the proposal the council was considering also came from Jane Lumm (Ward 2). As proposed by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the ordinance revision would automatically revert the percentage to 1% after three years. Lumm wanted to tweak that so that a conscious action of the council would be required in order to bring the percentage back up to 1%.

Mayor John Hieftje said he had been reassured by the provision of an automatic return to 1%. He was willing to advance the proposal to a second reading if the 1% were restored after three years. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) called the automatic restoration of the 1% level a useful tool for legislation like this.

Briere said that in her mind, the restoration of the funding level to 1% after three years went hand-in-hand with the other provision that would revert money to its fund of origin if it was not spent after three years. It’s easy to forget that something is going to happen. If in three years, funds have to be reverted to their funds of origin, she said, the council would hear from AAPAC about it. “That’s our trigger,” she said. Restoring the funding automatically after three years, Briere said, made sense to her.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) expressed agreement with Briere, adding that one reason it’s hard to keep track of things regarding the public art program is that there is not a full-time city staff member to keep track of it.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he was looking forward to the discussion about what level of funding is appropriate. He said he would feel more comfortable with the reduction to 0.5% if there were the “backstop” of automatic restoration – although he was clear that he felt 1% is the right amount of funding for public art.

Outcome on Lumm’s proposed elimination of automatic restoration after three years: The council rejected the amendment on the proposal that made any restoration of funding from 0.5% back to 1% contingent on city council action. Only Lumm and Kunselman supported it.

Art: Council Deliberations – General Fund

Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) contrasted the fact of the deep importance of art to the community and the fact that money is tight. AAPAC has done yeoman’s work with insufficient resources, he said. But he pointed to the art fund as “flush” – there’s more money in it than AAPAC can process, given their resources, he said.

Taylor felt the situation calls for a practical, not a pure solution. There’s more money than we know what to do with – so the practical solution is to be in favor of the reduction to 0.5%, he said. This would reduce the pipeline, but also increase the outflow, and he anticipated the time at which the “pig in the python” comes through. Taylor allowed that he was borrowing a metaphor from another debate. [The allusion was to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority's expected bond payments on the underground parking garage.] Taylor said he would support the proposed temporary reduction on its first reading, stressing it’s particularly important that the council address the issue in measured fashion.

In his remarks, Taylor alluded to the position that some councilmembers have taken on the possible connection between public art and public safety, which essentially is this: The absence of the general fund in any of the city’s accounting for public art translates to a factual matter that the city’s public safety services, paid for from the general fund, are not impacted by the public art ordinance.

Mayor John Hieftje picked up on Taylor’s remarks about the general fund, saying that none of the data presented to the council had ever shown general fund money spent on public art.

Later during deliberations, Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked public services area administrator Sue McCormick to approach the podium to lay out in more detail what the connection of the general fund money is, as well as other funds, to public art. Teall was prompted to ask McCormick to the podium, when Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reiterated the piece of her successful election campaign that asserted a specific connection between the general fund and the funding of a particular art project – the interior pieces that are being commissioned for the new municipal center.

Lumm said noted that there’s a $250,000 contribution from the municipal building fund, which itself was created out of general fund dollars. Based on that, she said, “I see general fund dollars in this.”

Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying that he’d asked CFO Tom Crawford to look at the situation.

It was at that point that Teall asked McCormick to give some clarity to the general fund issue, and also asked her to explain why spending public art money is tied to its fund of origin. McCormick took the second part of Teall’s question first. She explained that it’s because there’s a restriction on uses of those funds – they have to be used for the benefit of the fund’s purpose, or serve the purpose of the fund. Included in the qualifying uses, said McCormick, are those that serve the educational purpose of the fund. It has to be a capital project, she said, with an expected lifetime of at least a year, and must cost at least $5,000.

As for the general fund, said McCormick, on its face, no general fund dollars are used for public art. But she said Crawford had been asked how the municipal building fund was set up. Before continuing, she clarified that once the money goes into a fund like that, there’s not continued monitoring of the relationship between the dollars as they’re spent and where they came from. The municipal building fund had hit the $250,000 public art ordinance cap, so in order to connect that $250,000 to some fund of origin, it would need to be apportioned out – which is not an analysis the city would ordinarily do, she said.

But McCormick concluded by saying that $50,000 out of the $250,000 could be associated with the general fund. She concluded that it was possible to construe that relationship to the general fund. Currently, she said, $40,000 out of the $250,000 has been spent, and the project for the lobby is expected to cost $160,000, for a total of $200,000.

Hieftje called McCormick’s description “reasonable.”

Art: Council Deliberations – Teall’s Shortened Time Period

Margie Teall (Ward 4) offered an amendment to the proposal before the council. Teall’s amendment would shorten the period of the temporary reduction (from 1% to 0.5%) to just two years. After two years, it could be reviewed to see where the need is, she said. She rejected the phrasing of Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) earlier in the deliberations to the effect that AAPAC has more money than it knows what to do with – she said she thinks the public art commission knows what to do with it. Commissioners’ challenge is to go through all the steps without administrative support. A reduction of two years is “fairer,” she said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) described Teall’s amendment as making something that is bad less bad. This kind of reduction sends a signal about the stability of the funding. He agreed with returning the funding amount in a quicker time.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) reiterated the same objection she’d made to an earlier amendment, saying that to her, the amendment muddies the waters. She said that before the second reading of the ordinance, she wanted to see the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) for two years and three years, and at different percentages. Then it would be possible to know what real dollars they’re talking about, she said. Right now, Smith added, “We’re shooting in the dark.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) agreed with Smith’s suggestion to get additional information, but noted that currently the ordinance is yielding $450,000 a year, and to date only around $860,000 has been spent. There’s quite a bit of capital sitting there, she said. A reduction for three years is not unreasonable, she said.

Outcome on Teall’s amendment shortening the period of reduced funding: The council rejected the amendment, which would have shortened the period of reduced funding from three years to two years. Voting for it were Derezinski, Teall and Hohnke.

Art: Council Deliberations – Council Extension of Deadline

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) proposed an amendment that dealt with the proposal to require that unallocated money set aside for public art be returned to its fund of origin, if not assigned to some specific art project after three years. Derezinski wanted to allow for the city council to extend past the three-year deadline for up to two years on a case-by-case basis.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she was not in favor of Derezinski’s proposed amendment. Some back-and-forth unfolded between Higgins and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) about the status of funds that have already accumulated in the public art fund. Briere said that her proposal had been “clumsily drafted,” and was intended to be forward-looking not backward. That is to say, the three-year sunset would not apply to existing funds that had already accumulated.

After a recess of the council meeting, Briere came back with revised language to make the timing clear, as well as the status of the funds – they didn’t need to be spent, just “encumbered.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) questioned the intent of the language. Briere told her the idea was to look forward, not back.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) questioned the need for language giving the council the authority to extend the timeframe by two years. Can’t the council simply grant the extension, if that’s its desire? Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias clarified that the council can’t change an ordinance by resolution. So the ordinance language itself provides the option for the council to extend the deadline by passing a resolution.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated a preference for a series of 6-12 month extensions instead of two years. Councilmembers seemed concerned about dealing with a situation where a project was in the works, but delayed, so that the public art money would not be spent within three years, as required under the proposal. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she would support Derezinski’s amendment if it were restricted to up to two years. Derezinski indicated this was, in fact, his intent. Hieftje chimed in that his own method wouldn’t have put a maximum timeframe.

Higgins drew an analogy to the purchase option agreement made with Village Green for the First and Washington parcel – the purchase option was extended by the council several times. She said she was in favor of allowing up to two years, then at the two-year mark, an extension should be considered in six-month increments.

Briere declared that she was confused: If a public art project were proposed and in the works, that would encumber the money. And the sunset clause makes explicit reference to that. If a project is ongoing but delayed, it doesn’t need to come back to the council, because the project is ongoing and has encumbered the funds, she said.

Higgins wanted to know what would happen if funds were encumbered for three years, but then the project fell through. Elias characterized it more as a finance issue. She ventured that she could take a look at the accounting.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wanted some clarity on how funds might come to be encumbered – is that a legal or a financial question? He suggested that the encumbrance comes close to the end when contractors come into the picture and exact costs are calculated.

After some back and forth, councilmembers then settled on a series of six-month extensions that the council would be able to grant. In relevant part, the revised ordinance as eventually given initial approval by the council read:

(4) Funds for public art that are placed in a pooled public art fund after July 1, 2012 that have not been disbursed or encumbered for an art project for three (3) full fiscal years shall be returned to the fund of origination, provided that Council may extend the foregoing period by resolution for successive periods, each not to exceed six (6) months.

Outcome on Derezinski’s amendment to allow city council extension of the time period by which funds must be encumbered: The council approved the amendment, with dissent from Lumm and Kunselman.

Art: Council Deliberations – Eliminate Reduction

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) allowed that many of the changes in the proposal to amend the percent for art ordinance were helpful. He wanted, however, to have a discussion on the percent. He proposed an amendment to the proposal that would eliminate the reduction from 1% to 0.5%.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) before the Nov. 21 council meeting started.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wouldn’t support that. He acknowledged that there was some desire to support art, but noted that it’s not the “one percent for art fund,” but rather it’s the “percent for art fund.”

Spending the funds will be hard, Kunselman said, because there’s no guidance. You have to go back to the city attorney’s office to find out if a specific project can be funded – he noted he’d brought this issue up many times. The city can’t have a program run on verbal assertions, he said. He wondered what the public art fund could be used for: Performance art? Pavement decorations? Manhole covers? He’d like to see decorative art light fixtures installed up in the Oxford neighborhood, where students have expressed concerns about safety.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) stated that he assumed Ann Arbor wants to be an art center for the state of Michigan. So it’s important to keep the public art program healthy. There’s a lot of subjectivity in art, but AAPAC has some very devoted people. He said he’d attended three meetings since being appointed to the commission. The commission has come up with good recommendations for improving their own procedures, he said. The program is just about to flower, he added, so the council shouldn’t nip it in the bud.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she agreed with Hohnke and Derezinski. She described the percent for art program as just getting off the ground, and to reduce its funding would mean cutting it off at its knees. Responding to Kunselman’s call for decorative street lights, she said nothing prevents the city from using public art funds in that way. What’s holding the commission back is a lack of administrative staff support. She noted that the commission is a volunteer organization. The way to make public art happen is to support it with one percent, she said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he believes that AAPAC was given an unfair and unachievable task – commissioners have done important and valuable work. In the future, that work should be given more staff support. But the fund is currently flush, he noted, and they’ll be able to use the already aggregated money and use the additional 0.5% allocation. He said you prune a lilac bush to prevent it from getting too leggy. The temporary reduction would allow the public art program to be a fuller, more efficient program.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she liked Taylor’s metaphor, adding her own version: You prune a bush to make it bloom better.

Mayor John Hieftje said a lot of people talk about the tradition of art, and contended that when you read about the history of public art, it’s about economic development. Ann Arbor lives on the fact that it has a high quality of life, he said. He talked about the speech he gave at the dedication ceremony of the Dreiseitl sculpture, in which he’d quoted from an article in Forbes magazine that called public art economically viable.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Briere for bringing the proposal forward. She said she would support the 0.5%, not Hohnke’s attempt to eliminate the temporary reduction. On the whole question of earmarking capital dollars for art, she said she would feel differently if it had been put to a vote of the residents.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) observed that the existence of the program enjoyed overwhelming support at the podium and in emails she received. And she noted that the proposed revision would preserve the program.

Hohnke concluded that the council’s discussion had been really useful. He said the proposal included a lot of improvements, excepting the reduction from 1% to 0.5%. He saw a lot of signposts that point towards 1% as the right amount.

Outcome on the elimination of the reduction to 0.5%: The amendment that would have eliminated the reduction from 1% to 0.5% failed, with support only from Derezinski, Teall, Hohnke and Anglin.

Art: Council Deliberations – Finale

Mayor John Hieftje said he would support the measure for its initial vote and looked forward to its second reading before the council.

By way of background, councilmembers are not required to vote the same way on issues at their first and second readings. During deliberations on Nov. 21, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) voted for the ordinance revision on first reading, even though he argued against its main feature and attempted to amend it out – the temporary reduction from 1% to 0.5%. In the past, Hohnke, as well as other councilmembers, have made it clear that their votes for a measure on first reading are in the spirit of moving the proposal along to a second reading, when a public hearing is also held.

At the council’s Dec. 21, 2009 meeting, enough councilmembers flipped their votes between the first and second reading that a proposed reduction to the percentage public art allocation ultimately failed, after having won initial approval.

Outcome: The council voted to give initial approval to the temporary reduction (for three years) of the percentage specified in the public art ordinance – from 1% to 0.5%, with an automatic reversion to the 1% level after three years, as well as other changes to the ordinance. The changes would not take effect until after a public hearing and a successful second vote by the council. Dissenting were Derezinski, Teall and Anglin.

Greenbelt Boundary Expansion

On the agenda for consideration was a resolution to change the boundaries for the city’s greenbelt program – an open space preservation effort funded by a 30-year, 0.5 mill tax approved by voters in 2003.

Greenbelt Boundary: Background

During a presentation to the city council at the start of the meeting, Dan Ezekiel, chair of the greenbelt advisory council, gave the council an overview of the program and the proposal they would be considering later in their meeting.

The area in and around Ann Arbor that’s eligible for land preservation under the greenbelt program is defined in Chapter 42 of the Ann Arbor city code. The council has expanded the boundaries once before, in 2007. The current proposal is essentially to square-off the area by adding a mile to the southwest in Lodi Township, and one mile to the northeast in Salem Township. [.jpg of map by The Chronicle showing original boundaries, the 2007 expansion and the currently proposed expansion]

The brightest green region of the map is the original 2003 boundary area for properties eligible for protection using greenbelt millage funds. Next brightest is the area added in 2007. The dimmest green (in the southwest and northeast part of the map) is the area now proposed to be added. (Image links to higher resolution .jpg)

Also before the council as part of the amendment to Chapter 42, the council was asked to give initial approval to a change that allows a parcel of land adjacent to the greenbelt boundary to be eligible for protection, if it is also adjacent to a parcel under the same ownership within the greenbelt boundary. The greenbelt advisory commission had voted to recommend the ordinance changes at its Sept. 14, 2011 meeting.

Since the start of the greenbelt program, roughly $18 million has been invested by the city of Ann Arbor in protecting open space. That has been matched by roughly $19 million from other sources, including the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, surrounding townships, Washtenaw County and landowner donations. That funding has protected roughly 3,200 acres in 27 separate transactions.

Also before the council for its approval at the Nov. 21 meeting was the appointment of Shannon Brines to the greenbelt advisory commission. The current commission had recommended his appointment at its Oct. 12, 2011 meeting.

Greenbelt Boundary: Public Comment

Keri Hardy introduced herself as the manager of Cherry Republic’s Ann Arbor store on Main Street, and said she was there on behalf of the owner. Cherry Republic exclusively sells cherries and has chosen to have a store in Ann Arbor, because Ann Arbor matches Cherry Republic’s commitment to supporting Michigan and Michigan farming, she said. She presented a $2,500 donation from Cherry Republic to the Ann Arbor greenbelt program.

Greenbelt Boundary: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who serves as the city council appointee on the greenbelt advisory commission, put forward the boundary expansion resolution. He described the proposed changes as smoothing out the boundaries that had been enacted as part of the 2007 change. The boundary changes are proposed to take advantage of opportunities for land protection in the expanded area.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off debate by making a motion to divide the question, noting that there were two items incorporated in the proposal before the council – one was an expansion of the boundaries, and the other involved allowing properties adjacent to the boundary to be eligible under certain conditions. She said she supported the adjacency condition, but did not support expanding the boundary.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated that “dividing the question” was a procedure with which he was not familiar.

By way of background, dividing the question is a standard parliamentary procedure that allows for separate votes to be taken on parts of a proposal. In response to a motion like Lumm’s to divide the question, the presiding officer at the meeting is supposed to ask for a seconding motion, and if there is one, to call for a vote, without debate on dividing the question. Once approved by a majority vote, the question is treated part-by-part as two separate questions before the council.

That’s not what happened in response to Lumm’s motion. Besides Taylor’s interjection about his lack of familiarity with dividing the question, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) complained that the text of the original ordinance was not included in the council’s meeting information packet, and that led to additional uncertainty.

Higgins wondered if a postponement might be in order.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) expressed concern about the possible continued expansion of the greenbelt boundaries. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) is seated to her left.

Ginny Trocchio – a staff member of the Conservation Fund, which is the consultant the city uses to help manage the millage proceeds – was called to the podium to comment on any negative impact that might arise from a postponement.

Trocchio and Dan Ezekiel indicated to the council that with the uncertainty in the federal budget, the next round of funding – in February 2012 – might be the last one for the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program. For properties that would be eligible for FRPP grants only as a result of the ordinance change, it would leave a short timeline to apply.

Mayor John Hieftje expressed some apparent confusion, wondering what Lumm wanted to amend. She explained that she just meant to be dividing the question. Hieftje indicated he wanted Lumm to take the approach of offering an amendment instead, saying that it was “neater” to do it that way. Lumm complied by amending the proposal to strike the boundary expansion.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he was initially opposed to expanding the boundaries, but after talking to Ezekiel, he felt it boiled down to the intent of the voters, which he felt was generally to create a greenbelt around the city.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) got clarification that Ann Arbor might get greater cooperation from Salem and Lodi townships as a result of the boundary change. Hohnke described how the boundary change in 2007 did not include Salem and Lodi townships because up to that point there had been little collaboration offered by those townships – but that has changed, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) called the greenbelt a successful program and said the proposed expansion is a mark of that. Adding 10 square miles is an open door to more opportunities. Hohnke noted that the expanded area would make up about 6% of the total greenbelt area. Since 2003, he said, the cost per acre of protecting land has come down by half.

Higgins said she struggled with the expansion. One of the things presented to voters in 2003 was a map, she said. When voters saw that, they didn’t necessarily think the area would continue to expand. Back in 2003, she said, Ann Arbor was ahead of the curve. But now other organizations have come forward, and Ann Arbor is not the only player in the game. So she said she had some issues expanding again.

Higgins noted that Lodi Township was very excited about the prospect of the boundary expansion – but she attributed that excitement to the fact that Lodi makes only a token contribution. Ann Arbor will be the bigger contributor, she said.

Lumm said that at the time of the millage vote, a robust discussion had established the boundaries, and the community had talked about how the millage proceeds would be spent. She noted that the proposal now is the second expansion – she realized it was not a huge expansion, and thanked Hohnke for coming forward with a smaller expansion than others might have wanted. She questioned, though, whether the city is being driven by the desire to spend all the money in the program or to spend it wisely.

She characterized the money spent to date as having been spent wisely. But she noted the current fund balance is around $10 million – it’s hard not to say it’s flush with cash. It made her wonder if the city is spending it because it’s there. She stated she would not support the expansion at the first reading.

Higgins asked Ezekiel to the podium again and asked if it was possible to “lock in” the boundaries so that they would remain in place for some number of years. Ezekiel told her that the city council can choose to lock in whatever they choose – GAC is an advisory commission. He clarified for Higgins – who had complained that perhaps townships had not contributed much to some of the deals – that it has never been the case that the city is the only contributor. It’s required, he said, to have at least 20% from other sources. Higgins countered that the 20% isn’t necessarily from other local entities, which Ezekiel confirmed. He confirmed for Higgins that the city has done deals where the city of Ann Arbor has been the only local participant. Overall, however, Ezekiel said the city does better than a dollar-for-dollar match.

Higgins concluded by saying that if it were possible to say that the city would stick to these boundaries (as expanded), that would make her more comfortable in supporting the expansion.

Taylor mentioned that while the city has challenges in its parks system, the greenbelt millage can’t be used for maintenance of city facilities. Greenbelt millage money is just for land and the purchase of development rights. He said he would support the expansion of the boundaries.

Hieftje said he didn’t think there was ever a strict boundary presented to voters – it was always to be decided by the city council through an ordinance.

Outcome on the elimination of the boundary expansion from the proposal: The council rejected Lumm’s amendment. It had support only from Lumm and Higgins.

Higgins indicated she would like to think about stipulating a 5-year time period during which the boundaries could not expand again. Taylor made a side comment that the current council can’t tell future councils what they can do. Briere observed that since passage of the millage in 2003, it’s turned out to be 4-year increments for review. Hohnke characterized the 2007 change as an expansion with a couple of corners left out – it’s one expansion over the course of eight years, he said.

Outcome: Over a lone dissent from Lumm, the council gave initial approval to the boundary expansion and the provision for including certain properties adjacent to the boundary as eligible. Later in the meeting, the council also gave final approval to the appointment of Shannon Brines to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Hoover Mansion (University Bank) Rezoning

The council was asked to consider initial approval for altering the University Bank site plan for its property at 2015 Washtenaw Ave., known as the Hoover Mansion.

Stephen Ranzini, president of University Bank, checks his tablet during the city council's Nov. 21 meeting. Seated in a row behind Ranzini is Stuart Berry, who this year was an unsuccessful candidate for city council, running as a Republican in Ward 5.

The bank asked to revise the existing planned unit development (PUD) for the site (originally approved in 1978), allowing an increase in the total number of employees and parking spaces permitted on the parcel. The site serves as the bank’s headquarters.

The proposal includes a request to build 14 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building – for a total of 53 spaces on the site. The city planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the change at its Oct. 4, 2011 meeting, after the proposal had been initially submitted to the city about a year earlier.

Because the proposal is a change to the city’s zoning, it’s a change to the city’s ordinances – a process that requires a second approval by the council at a separate meeting, preceded by a public hearing.

Outcome: After brief comment from Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), the council’s representative to the city planning commission, the council voted unanimously to give the PUD revision initial approval.

Arbor Hills Crossing Site Plan, Brownfield

On the agenda was a resolution for approval of the site plan for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw.

The project involves tearing down three vacant commercial structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site would include 310 parking spaces.

Also before the council was the brownfield plan for the project, which includes $6.7 million in tax increment financing to be paid back over a 19-year period. The Washtenaw County board of commissioners will still need to sign off on the brownfield plan. County commissioners scheduled a public hearing on the brownfield plan to be held at their meeting on Jan. 18, 2012.

The city’s planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the site plan at its Oct. 18, 2011 meeting. Action had been postponed at the commission’s June 7, 2011 meeting so that the developer – Campus Realty – could address some outstanding issues with the plan.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that the brownfield committee had met and agreed the plan is appropriate. It was thoroughly vetted, she said, and would next be reviewed by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), the council’s representative to the city planning commission, said the proposal had been reviewed by the planning commission in some detail. The developer and the attorney for the project were present at the meeting in case there are any questions, he said. The plan takes a piece of land across from Whole Foods and makes it attractive for the area, he said. It comports with the themes of the Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue initiative. He noted that the developer had to locate the bus stop on the other side of the street so that patrons of the county recreation facility could take advantage of it.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) echoed his enthusiasm for the project, saying that the area had long been underutilized. It would be a great benefit for the neighborhood and he looked forward to its arrival, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reported that he’d attended the citizens participation meeting on the project and described it as very welcoming, appropriate and useful. He noted that the site had a previous plan that didn’t go anywhere – he hoped this one receives ample financing.

Outcome: On separate votes, the council unanimously approved the Arbor Hills Crossing site plan and brownfield plan.

Handbills, Newspapers

The council was asked to consider a revision to its ordinance on the distribution of handbills and newspapers that, among other things, would give residents the ability to prevent delivery of any undesired newspaper onto their porches by posting a notice expressly forbidding the delivery of a specific paper.

The ordinance revision reads, in part:

No corporation, limited liability company, or partnership and no corporate officer or director, managing member, partner, or other person shall cause to be placed any newspaper upon private property where there is a notice posted on the front door of the structure on the property that the occupant forbids the delivery of that specific newspaper. [.pdf of marked up version of ordinance]

Handbills, Newspapers: Council Postponement

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the proposed ordinance, saying that its quality of life is one of Ann Arbor’s charms. Currently, he said, it’s not permitted for a person to deposit handbills in various public places. The ordinance revision clearly extends the prohibition to the advertisers who cause the handbills to be created. Taylor went on to say that there are a good number of newspapers and newspaper-like publications that show up sometimes in people’s driveways. The ordinance revision, he said, gives residents tools to deal with that.

Noting that the text of the ordinance revision had not been available to the public in a timely way before the council’s meeting, Taylor asked his colleagues to postpone the vote.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone its initial vote on the littering and handbill ordinance revision.

Handbills, Newspapers: First Amendment Issues

Though not discussed by the council, the attempt to curb delivery of unwanted newspapers poses some interesting First Amendment issues. From the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

According to David Hudson, adjunct faculty with Vanderbilt Law School and a scholar at the First Amendment Center, it’s conceivable to craft an ordinance preventing delivery of unwanted newspapers that doesn’t violate the First Amendment. Reached by phone, Hudson told The Chronicle that the lower courts have not necessarily been uniform in their rulings and many of the cases on such ordinances have been settled not based on the larger First Amendment issues. Hudson didn’t comment on Ann Arbor’s proposed ordinance, not having seen it.

One of the pitfalls of any such ordinance, Hudson cautioned, is the creation of content-based exclusions. Hudson explained that in First Amendment law, content-based laws are subject to strict scrutiny, which is the highest level of judicial review. And Hudson said he teaches his students the concept in part with a quote from Justice David Souter: “Strict scrutiny leaves few survivors.”

One example of a case in which a court found a law similar (but not identical) to Ann Arbor’s to be content-based, and therefore unconstitutional, came before a California court of appeals. From the opinion, which includes a description of the ordinances:

In this appeal we are asked to decide whether the City of Fresno’s municipal ordinance which restricts the door-to-door distribution of certain categories of written materials is constitutional. We are concerned with two parts of the ordinance. First, the ordinance prohibits-door-to-door distribution of advertisements and unauthorized newspapers when the owner or occupant of a residence or business has posted a sign prohibiting such distribution. Second, the ordinance prohibits door-to-door distribution of campaign materials, advertisements and unauthorized newspapers when it is reasonably apparent the previous day’s distribution has not been removed or the property is vacant. We hold both [31 Cal.App.4th 37] parts of the ordinance restrict the distribution of certain categories of protected speech and the press to the exclusion of other categories, and the City of Fresno failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a content-neutral justification for the disparate treatment. [.pdf of City of Fresno v. Press Communications, Inc. (1994)]

However, Hudson told The Chronicle that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the basic notion that residents have the right to control, at least to some degree, the extent to which they must contend with printed matter delivered to their homes. In a 1970 case, the court ruled that citizens have the right to stop delivery via the U.S. Postal Service of material from specific senders:

But the right of every person ‘to be let alone’ must be placed in the scales with the right of others to communicate. In today’s complex society we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes, but a sufficient measure of individual autonomy must survive to permit every householder to exercise control over unwanted mail.
…
To hold less would tend to license a form of trespass and would make hardly more sense than to say that a radio or television viewer may not twist the dial to cut off an offensive or boring communication and thus bar its entering his home. Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit; we see no basis for according the printed word or pictures a different or more preferred status because they are sent by mail. The ancient concept that ‘a man’s home is his castle’ into which ‘not even the king may enter’ has lost none of its vitality, and none of the recognized exceptions includes any right to communicate offensively with another. [.pdf of Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)]

And in a New York State Supreme Court decision, the court held that “neither a publisher nor a distributor has any constitutional right to continue to throw a newspaper onto the property of an unwilling recipient after having been notified not to do so.” [.pdf of Kenneth Tillman v. Distribution Systems of America]

House Bill on Discrimination

On the agenda was a resolution expressing the council’s opposition to a proposed Michigan state house bill from Tom McMillin, a Republican representing District 45, which includes Rochester. McMillin’s bill would amend Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act by declaring null and void legislation enacted by local units that expands the set of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act. [.pdf of Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act] [.pdf of McMillin's proposed bill (HB 5039)]

The protected classes enumerated in the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act include categories based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status. The city of Ann Arbor’s non-discrimination ordinance adds sexual orientation, gender identity, or student status as classes of people against whom discrimination is prohibited. [.pdf of Ann Arbor's Chapter 112 non-discrimination ordinance]

So McMillin’s bill, if eventually signed into law, would nullify Ann Arbor’s Chapter 112 of the city code. The Ann Arbor city council’s resolution cites Michigan’s Constitution, which provides that ”Each such city and village shall have power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns, property and government, subject to the constitution and law.” [.pdf of Section 22 of Michigan Constitution]

The bill has been referred to the state House judiciary committee. The 17-member judiciary committee for the state House includes 10 Republicans and seven Democrats, one of whom is Jeff Irwin (D-53), who represents a district that includes most of Ann Arbor.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) introduced the resolution, saying that she generally liked to present items that are positive. But sadly, she said, the resolution she was bringing was necessary to give a message to Lansing. She said that some in the state legislature treated the Michigan State Constitution as if it’s something they can bend at their will. Specifically, she said, the McMillin bill challenged the right of a city to establish laws of its own. It would roll back protections to groups prescribed in the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act. She added a clause at the council table that sent a copy of the resolution to Gov. Rick Snyder.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated her understanding that the issue dealt with who could receive financial benefits. Smith clarified that this resolution was different from the resolution the council had approved on Sept. 19, 2011 expressing its opposition to House Bill 4770, which would limit benefits to same-sex partners. With that clarification, Briere said the resolution had her complete support.

Mayor John Hieftje contended that in fact there is a financial aspect to McMillin’s proposed legislation – it would take further steps to drive certain people away from the state, he said, who could otherwise contribute to Michigan’s economic recovery. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked for Smith and Briere for bringing the resolution forward.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution opposing House Bill 5039.

Organization of New Council

According to the city charter, the city council must elect from its members a mayor pro tem “at its first meeting after the newly elected members have taken office following each regular city election …” That meeting was Nov. 21, which was the first meeting after Nov. 14, when councilmembers who won their elections on Nov. 8 took office.

Councilmembers were given a ceremonial swearing-in at the start of the Nov. 21 meeting by city clerk Jackie Beaudry (back to camera). From left to right: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

So at the start of the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) were given a ceremonial swearing-in by the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) moved the resolution nominating Higgins as mayor pro tem, along with the order of succession to the mayor.

Chris Easthope finished his service on the Ann Arbor city council as mayor pro tem. After Easthope left the council in 2008, going on to serve as judge on the 15th District Court, Higgins has been elected mayor pro tem each year.

The mayor pro tem acts as mayor when the elected mayor is unable to do so. When acting as the mayor, the mayor pro tem enjoys all duties and responsibilities of mayor, except that of the power of veto. With respect to other duties and responsibilities of the mayor as compared with other councilmembers, they consist largely of serving as emergency manager, making nominations to boards and commissions, presiding over meetings, and fulfilling a ceremonial function.

The mayor pro tem’s annual salary is the same as other councilmembers: $15,913. [The mayor earns more: $42,436.] Although the local officers compensation commission recommended in 2007 that the mayor pro tem be given additional compensation, the city council that year rejected that part of the commission’s recommendation.

Other than Taylor’s remark that the order of succession was seniority-based, but within that sorting “regrettably alphabetical,” the council did not engage in deliberations on the vote. Taylor’s comment likely related to the fact that he is alphabetically last among the four councilmembers who were elected for the first time in 2008 – Derezinski, Hohnke, Smith and Taylor.

The complete order of succession after Higgins is: Margie Teall (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution electing Marcia Higgins as mayor pro tem and approving the order of succession to the mayor.

Also on the agenda were council committee appointments for the coming year and ratification of the council rules. The committee appointments were not prepared in time for the meeting and an amendment to the rules discussed by the council rules committee just before the council meeting was not added to the agenda until just before the council meeting.

That amendment relates to the rule requiring that emails received by councilmembers on government email accounts during council meetings be produced by the city, subject to redaction under provisions of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, and attached to the meeting minutes.

The proposed amended version of the rule would read:

Electronic communication sent and received by a member during a Council meeting shall be included in the minutes of such meeting, provided that the minutes shall not include electronic communication received by a member that clearly does not relate to the subject matter of the meeting.

During the rules committee meeting that preceded the council’s Nov. 21 meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) told other committee members that he was proposing the rule because the existing rule had resulted in the inclusion in the meeting minutes of one neighbor’s nasty comments about another neighbor, which did not serve the purpose of the rule.

That purpose, said Taylor, was to provide a complete record of the kind of input the council was receiving during its council meetings. [The rule was enacted in September 2009, after requests made under the Freedom of Information Act showed that councilmembers were using their email accounts to communicate with each other – on topics that ranged from juvenile horseplay to the subject matter of the meeting, to their political campaigns. For more background, see The Chronicle column: "When's an Open Meeting Open?"]

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the rules committee, reported at the committee’s meeting that she’d received a suggestion from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to amend the rule on agenda setting:

Council members may add items to the agenda at any time, but will use best efforts to do so prior to the Friday before the next Council meeting.

Higgins indicated that for this iteration of rule changes, she was not inclined to consider Lumm’s suggestion, which involved a requirement of a 3/4 majority vote in order to make late additions to the agenda. Higgins indicated the possibility of giving Lumm’s suggestion further review by the rules committee. She allowed that there were some agenda-setting issues that need to be addressed. She mentioned the fact that the second reading of the pedestrian ordinance was not supposed to be placed on the agenda for that night, yet had been put on the agenda, which had required its subsequent deletion.

Also during the rules committee meeting, Higgins indicated that the slate of committee appointments, which she is preparing, was not ready for perusal, because not everyone had submitted their preferences.

Council appointments will need to fill the slots that Stephen Rapundalo previously held, having lost the Nov. 8 Ward 2 election to Jane Lumm. Those include the following council committees: audit committee, budget committee, administration and labor committee, and liquor control committee. Rapundalo also served as the city council representative to the housing and human services board (HHSB) and the local development finance authority (LDFA) board.

At the Nov. 21 council meeting, Higgins announced her intent at the council’s next meeting to nominate Rapundalo to fill a different (non-council) slot on the LDFA board, which is an existing vacancy.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone ratification of council rules and committee appointments until Dec. 5.

Chilled Water

On the agenda was an item that provided permission to the University of Michigan to install chilled water facilities under Tappan Street. The long-term mechanism used to grant the permission is an “occupancy agreement.” The university and the city disagree on the question of whether the agreement grants the university an “interest in land.”

As a result, a memo from the city attorney’s office – which accompanied the resolution that the city council was asked to approve – states:

The University has insisted that the occupancy agreement be processed as a document that grants it an interest in land, even if it doesn’t. The City does not believe that the occupancy agreement grants to the University any interest in land. As drafted, it grants to the University an interest in land only to the extent it grants the University, by its terms, an interest in land. Nevertheless, in accordance with the University’s request, but with agreeing that the agreement grants an interest in land, the document is being submitted to City Council for approval with a requirement of 8 votes as if it granted an interest in land.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned what this actually meant. Briefly put, assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained that the city council was being asked to give the agreement its approval as if it were granting an interest in land to the university, even though the city did not believe it was doing that. [The Nov. 21 agenda indicated the eight-vote majority city charter requirement, which is triggered by transactions involving an interest in land.]

Part of the context for the discussion with UM on the issue, explained Elias, was other similar arrangements, including some related to the East Stadium bridges reconstruction project.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to grant permission to the University of Michigan to install chilled water facilities under Tappan Street. 

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Warming Center

Signed up as an alternate for one of the 10 reserved spots for public commentary at the start of the meeting was Orian Zakai. Priority is given to those who wish to address the council on an agenda topic, and eight people had signed up to speak about the public art ordinance, which was an agenda item, as well as two others who addressed agenda items.

Zakai and another student stayed until the end of the meeting towards midnight, when there’s another opportunity for the public to address the council. Zakai introduced herself as a PhD student at the University of Michigan, speaking on behalf of students who want to establish a 24-hour warming center. The Delonis Center, she said, has diminished capacity. [At its Oct. 17, 2011 meeting, the council allocated $25,000 of the city's general fund reserve to keep the shelter's warming center open. It's open only during evening and nighttime hours.]

Zakai described how the goal of the group is to establish a 24-hour center, so that also during the day people have a place to go to stay warm.

She said that her group already has 25 volunteers and a petition signed by 516 community members. There will be an organizational meeting on Nov. 28, she said. [The meeting starts at 8 p.m. at Cafe Ambrosia, 326 Maynard.] Her group is trying to locate a site for the warming center by December, she said, and they are looking at a property at the corner of East Huron and Division. She asked the council to support the effort.

Comm/Comm: Sustainable Community

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) reported that Washtenaw County had received $3 million for a Sustainable Communities project. He said the grant resulted in large part from the Reimagining Washtenaw Avenue corridor study that involved collaboration with four different communities – Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, and Pittsfield Township. The key for winning the grant was the collaboration and the consideration of this area as a “region,” Derezinski said.

Comm/Comm: Stadium Bridges

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was pleased to be at the site of the groundbreaking for the East Stadium bridge reconstruction project, along with others. Details on detours can be found at annarborbridges.org, she said. She noted that Congressman John Dingell was there, as well as some federal luminaries.

Mayor John Hieftje said it was sobering to hear at that ceremony that there are bridges in worse condition than the Stadium Boulevard bridge – 14,000 in the U.S. are as bad or worse, he noted. He said that the infrastructure of the nation is in peril.

Comm/Comm: 618 S. Main

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) called everyone’s attention to a second public participation meeting at 618 S. Main, the site of the old Fox Tent and Awning facility and encouraged people to attend. [It took place on Nov. 22. For Chronicle coverage of the first meeting, on Nov. 11, see "Public Gets View of 618 S. Main Proposal"]

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported she’d attended a presentation on Michigan’s medical marijuana law, given by Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette. [Briere is a member of the city's medical marijuana licensing board.]

Comm/Comm: Jane Lumm

Jane Lumm – who won the Nov. 8 election in Ward 2, displacing Stephen Rapundalo on the council – said she just wanted to say thanks for the nice welcome people had given her. Everyone has made her feel welcome, she said.

Comm/Comm: Sue McCormick

City administrator Steve Powers publicly congratulated the city’s public services area administrator, Sue McCormick, on her selection as the head of the Detroit water and sewerage department. He selection, he said, speaks to McCormick’s talents and abilities. Her last day, he said, would be on Dec. 16. An interim public services area administrator will be in place for Dec. 17, he said, and he would keep the council apprised of the process for a permanent replacement.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Dec. 5, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. 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 proposal includes a request to build 14 new parking spaces on the east side – behind the main building – for a total of 53 spaces on the site. The city planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the change at its Oct. 4, 2011 meeting, after the proposal had been initially submitted to the city about a year earlier.

Because the proposal is a change to the city’s zoning, it’s a change to the city’s ordinances – a process that requires a second approval by the council at a separate meeting, preceded by a public hearing.

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]