Previous Ann Arbor city administrator Roger Fraser often drew criticism for the fact that he did not live in the city he served. [.pdf of October 23, 2006 Ann Arbor News article: "Fraser Again Shuns City Life"]

The Powers’ 1,936-square-foot home, built in 1936, is located on Stadium Boulevard. They paid $290,000 for it in a transaction recorded on March 30, 2012.

Living in Ward 3, they will be represented on the city council by Democrats Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman. On the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, their representative for the current District 11 is Democrat Yousef Rabhi. Their state legislators are also Democrats – Rep. Jeff Irwin, who represents District 53, and Sen. Rebekah Warren, who represents District 18.

At the city council’s June 18, 2012 meeting, among the year-final budget adjustments that were on the agenda was a $30,000 city administrator moving expense that had not been previously included in the budget.

Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city of Ann Arbor, at the Ann Arbor planning commission's Jan. 10, 2012 working session. Behind her are students from Huron High School, who attended the meeting for a class assignment. (Photo by the writer.)

The forecast is used as a planning tool by local governments and regional organizations, and is updated every five years. A preliminary forecast from 2010-2020 has been distributed to communities in southeast Michigan, including Ann Arbor, to get feedback that will be used in making the final forecast through 2040. At a public forum in Ann Arbor last month, SEMCOG staff also presented an overview from its preliminary 2040 forecast for Washtenaw County.

For the county, the initial forecast shows the population growing from 344,791 in 2010 to 352,616 in 2020 – a 2.2% increase. By 2040, the county’s population is expected to reach 384,735, an increase of about 40,000 people from 2010.

The population in Ann Arbor is projected to stay essentially flat, while some of the county’s townships – including the townships of Augusta, Lima, Manchester, Saline and Superior – are expected to see double-digit growth.

Total employment for the county is expected to grow 20.6% through 2040, from 236,677 jobs in 2010 to 285,659 jobs in 2040. About 50% of all jobs in the county are located in Ann Arbor.

The forecast has implications for policy and planning decisions, including decisions related to transportation funding. For example, the forecast will form the basis for SEMCOG’s 2040 long-range transportation plan, which is expected to be released in June of 2013.

The transportation issue was highlighted during Tuesday’s planning commission meeting. And in a follow-up interview with The Chronicle, Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, expressed concerns that the forecast might underestimate population and household figures.

Cooper said he’s trying to ensure that SEMCOG has all the data it needs to inform good decision-making. For example, a list of recent and pending developments that SEMCOG is using doesn’t include some major new residential projects, he said, such as The Varsity Ann Arbor. [.pdf of development list used in SEMCOG draft forecast]

This forecast comes in the context of several major transportation projects that are being discussed within the county. That  includes a possible countywide transportation system and a potential high-capacity transit corridor in Ann Arbor that would run from Plymouth Road at US-23 through downtown Ann Arbor to State Street and southward to I-94.

The discussion at Tuesday’s working session centered primarily on SEMCOG’s draft forecast for Ann Arbor through 2020. The meeting covered other topics, including an update on the planning staff’s 2012 work plan. This report focuses on the SEMCOG forecast.

SEMCOG Forecast

Wendy Rampson, who oversees planning operations at the city, introduced the SEMCOG forecast by saying that it’s a dry subject, but important – especially for transportation planning. The projections are fairly sophisticated, she said, starting at a macro level by making growth assumptions regionally, then sorting down to the jurisdictional level of counties, cities and townships.

At the same time, SEMCOG forecasters gather data from individual communities, such as site plan reviews for new developments, demolitions, tax assessment figures, and other information. For example, SEMCOG has compiled a list of current and proposed developments, including 33 in Ann Arbor. [.pdf of development list used in SEMCOG draft forecast] All of this data is factored into the forecast model, Rampson said, to derive the best possible projections of changes in population, the number of households, and employment. SEMCOG uses UrbanSim software to develop these forecasts.

SEMCOG Forecast: Employment

The new draft forecast reviewed by the planning commission projects that employment in Ann Arbor will grow 4.5% between 2010 and 2020, from 121,289 jobs in 2010 to 126,783 jobs in 2020. That’s a gain of 5,494 jobs.

However, Rampson said SEMCOG has backed off of its employment growth projections made five years ago for Ann Arbor. The previous employment forecast for Ann Arbor – posted on SEMCOG’s website – is for 134,191 jobs by 2020. The draft revision now projects 126,783 jobs by 2020, or 7,408 fewer jobs than previously forecast.

She said this revision seems reasonable, given the economic climate, but that it concerns Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, who felt the previous forecasts were already too conservative. Cooper is working with city staff to make sure SEMCOG has all the relevant data to make an accurate forecast, Rampson said, including potential development at the University of Michigan.

Rampson referred to a Dec. 14 email to city staff from SEMCOG lead planner Jeff Nutting, who outlined more details of how the forecast is developed. Nutting specifically described how UM data factors into the forecast:

Land owned by the University of Michigan is tax exempt, so there is not any building or land data contained in the tax assessment files for parcels they own. We obtained from U-M Planning their information on buildings owned or leased by U-M, including square footage, building activity and mail stops. U-M employment, as for all other establishments in the state, is obtained from the State Unemployment Insurance data that all establishments file on a monthly basis, reporting number of employees by location. These employment numbers were broken out to individual buildings owned or leased by U-M using mail stops, a method suggested by U-M Planning.

Of course, U-M has facilities outside the City of Ann Arbor, so not all jobs end up allocated to buildings in the city. The allocation is of course controlled by the number of jobs U-M is actually reporting. In addition, both the city and university master plans were input into the model in the form of future land use and density constraints. Updates to past announcements, such as U-M no longer moving all jobs in leased buildings into the old Pfizer buildings, were also input.

Planning commissioner Erica Briggs asked how accurate the SEMCOG forecasts have been in the past. Fairly accurate, Rampson said, and the forecasts are improving each cycle – although she noted that the forecasts didn’t predict the recent economic downturn. For example, a previous forecast had projected Ann Arbor employment at 125,340 jobs in 2010. Actual employment that year was 121,289 – 4,051 fewer jobs than projected.

Another employment-related factor in the forecast is how Ann Arbor’s job market is changing with respect to the rest of Washtenaw County, Rampson noted. In 2005, 53% of all jobs in Washtenaw County were located in Ann Arbor. That dropped to 51% in 2010, as a higher percentage of new jobs were located outside of the city. The new draft forecast projects a further drop, estimating that by 2020, only 50% of the county’s jobs will be located in Ann Arbor. It’s a change, but not a dramatic decrease, Rampson said. [.pdf of 2020 draft employment forecast for communities in Washtenaw County]

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola clarified with Rampson that the figures for jobs refer only to the actual positions, not to the number of people who both work and live in the county.

SEMCOG Forecast: Population & Households

The number of households in Ann Arbor is expected to grow 3%  through 2020, from 47,060 to 48,449 – an increase of 1,389 households. [.pdf of 2020 draft forecast of households in Washtenaw County communities]

Rampson pointed out that while the forecast calls for more households, Ann Arbor’s population is expected to remain stable – growing only 0.4% to 114,367 people by 2020. [.pdf of 2020 draft forecast of population in Washtenaw County communities] What this means, she said, is that more housing units are being added and people are dispersing – the forecast indicates that there will be fewer people per household. The forecast likely reflects a demographic change: More older residents with no children at home, for example, as well as more younger, single residents.

The Dec. 14 email from SEMCOG’s Nutting stated that the new draft forecast of 48,449 Ann Arbor households in 2020 is more households than SEMCOG had previously projected for 2040 in its last forecast. The new forecast indicates more positive assumptions about Ann Arbor’s housing unit growth than SEMCOG analysts had five years ago, he wrote. The city is also expected to have stronger housing growth in the next decade than any other community in Washtenaw County.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona asked whether SEMCOG’s model takes into account zoning changes – the fact that the city now allows for greater density with mixed-use zoning. It’s difficult to project how much residential development will ultimately occur on parcels that have mixed-use zoning, Bona said.

Rampson replied that SEMCOG does consider factors like Ann Arbor’s relatively new A2D2 zoning and its downtown plan. She said she would follow-up with SEMCOG and ask how the forecast handles mixed-use zoning specifically.

Erica Briggs asked if her understanding was correct – that developers’ plans to build more housing factors into SEMCOG projections of household growth. Basically, she said, it sounds like if housing is being built, the assumption in the forecast is that those units will be filled. That’s right, Rampson said. And because the population is projected to grow only slightly, the forecast assumes that over time, there will be fewer people living in each unit.

That approach to the forecast seems questionable, Briggs said. It doesn’t address the fact that at some point, the city might simply have too many housing units. Rampson replied by saying she didn’t think the forecast model includes vacancy rates. However, the model does use historic patterns of population migration into and out of the region to make projections at the macro level. The model then disaggregates those projections to the local communities. ”None of this is predictive,” Rampson cautioned. “It’s just a planning tool for us.”

Bona said it would seem to make more sense to calculate job growth, and from that make projections about population, which would then inform housing needs.

Planning commissioner Kirk Westphal noted that University of Michigan students are a factor in population projections. For UM, a change of 1,000 people “is a rounding error,” he joked. [The university's Ann Arbor campus has an enrollment of about 42,000 students.]

Westphal noted that the number of housing units was projected to increase roughly 3.5 times more than the population. He indicated that he didn’t quite know what to make of that aspect of the forecast.

Rampson ventured that more young singles are staying in town after graduating from UM, and likely moving from group housing – like dorms or fraternities and sororities – into single-unit apartments. Eric Mahler, the commission’s chair, said the trend in housing is away from large McMansions and toward smaller units, which might be driving the increase in the number of households in SEMCOG’s forecast.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods asked about infrastructure for services like municipal sewer and water. As the university grows, there’s less capacity for development elsewhere in the city, she said. Does SEMCOG’s model take that into consideration? Rampson replied that those kind of capacity issues are handled only in a very macro way. For example, the model would factor in whether an area has access to water and sewer, but it would not look at data such as the size of a water main, for example.

A chart showing SEMCOG's draft forecast of the Washtenaw County population change by age between 2010-2020. This information was presented by SEMCOG staff at a December public forum in Ann Arbor. (Links to larger image)

Woods also queried Eleanore Adenekan, a commissioner who’s also a local real estate agent, asking whether SEMCOG’s forecast for households aligns with what Adenekan sees in the market. “Absolutely,” Adenekan said.

But Rampson questioned some of the underlying data that Nutting cited in his email to city staff. Nutting wrote that SEMCOG’s forecasted growth of households is based in part on 2,000 net housing units that have been added in the city since the beginning of 2010. Rampson said that number seemed high to her. “Eli  [Cooper] won’t be happy with me,” she said, “but we’ll have to follow up.”

Briggs noted that SEMCOG’s forecasting model doesn’t seem to jibe with the sustainable community approach that Ann Arbor is trying to create. For example, the most household growth is forecast for the townships, she noted, adding that “it will be interesting to see how that plays out.”

Mahler asked whether data would be available regarding race and age of the city’s population. It would be helpful, for example, to know how many people are in their 20s, or are older than 65, because their needs for services like transportation might differ from the general population. He also wondered if data were available that might predict the size of K-12 school populations.

[A preliminary forecast showing population change by age in Washtenaw County through 2020 was part of a SEMCOG public forum in December, but was not presented at Tuesday's planning commission session. The forecast calls for population gains among all age groups over 55, as well as in age groups from 20-24 years old and 35-39 years old. All other age groups will see population losses, according to the forecast.]

Rampson said she’d follow up with SEMCOG to get more information on how the forecast includes mixed-use development, and whether the forecasting model accommodates the sustainable cities planning concept. She’d also ask for forecast data on school-age population, as well as general age, race and national origin demographics.

SEMCOG Forecast: Transportation

Tony Derezinski, who serves on both the planning commission and city council, had attended an outreach meeting held by SEMCOG in mid-December to discuss the draft forecast. He said that Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, had attended the meeting, too. Ford was extremely interested in the forecast, which has a direct relationship to what AATA is doing, Derezinski said. That’s especially true for population growth in the county’s townships, he said, given that AATA is looking to expand services outside of Ann Arbor.

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, also attended the December SEMCOG meeting, Derezinski continued. Rampson noted that Cooper is looking for transportation funding sources for the future. An area’s employment, population and number of households have implications for federal transportation funding. Rampson said that given the economy, it will take time for growth in these areas to return to previous levels, assuming it ever does.

In a follow-up phone conversation with The Chronicle, Cooper elaborated on his concerns with the forecast. He said his concerns are based on an understanding of how these numbers are used by transportation planning agencies, and that he wants to provide SEMCOG with the best possible data to inform good decision-making.

For example, he noted that the list of residential developments used by SEMCOG doesn’t capture everything that’s being planned in the city. [.pdf of development list used in SEMCOG forecast] The Varsity Ann Arbor – a 13-story building at 425 E. Washington with 181 apartments and a total of 415 bedrooms – was recently approved by Ann Arbor city council and will begin construction soon, but it’s not on the list. Nor is the 618 S. Main development, with a proposed 180 apartments, that’s just now moving through the city’s approval process. A request for site plan approval is on the planning commission’s Jan. 19 meeting agenda.

Cooper also questioned whether the draft forecast takes into account the city’s zoning changes made in recent years – including changes in area, height and placement – that would accommodate more residential growth.

The forecast has implications for how investments are made in transportation infrastructure, Cooper said. For example, if SEMCOG forecasts that 15,000 jobs will be added in Ann Arbor through 2040, but the population forecast remains stable, then the city will expect to see an increase of “in-commuting,” Cooper said. And since most commuters use vehicles, that increase will result in traffic congestion and put pressure on the city’s parking system.

However, if the forecast assumes that a portion of those jobs will be held by people who live in Ann Arbor, he said, and that the population will increase as a result of the added employment, then there might be a stronger argument for investing in the Plymouth-State Street transit corridor, or in more frequent bus service within the city.

Cooper said he thought that SEMCOG analysts were open to additional input. He also noted that the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) has provided SEMCOG with its own forecast through 2040, which will help inform SEMCOG’s projections. [.xls spreadsheet of WATS forecast through 2040]

For background on local transportation issues, see Chronicle coverage: “AATA OKs Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Route Increases” and ”Washtenaw Transit Talk in Flux.”

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor planning commission. 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 Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan found that potential renters of Ivanhoe Apartments in Ann Arbor sometimes had different experiences, depending on their race. (Photos by the writer.)

“Channel 7 came in and did a story that had these sound bytes from residents,” says Kisch, executive director of the Fair Housing Center of Southeast Michigan. ”People got on camera and said ‘No, there’s no discrimination here.’

“They might live there,” says Kisch, “but they don’t know.”

By then, Kisch was sure she did know.

Between 2006 and 2009, the Ann Arbor-based Fair Housing Center sent 18 men and women to the Ivanhoe Apartments to present themselves as prospective tenants. Some were African-American; some were white. The very different experiences they described prompted the U.S. Justice Department to file a race discrimination suit.

Although they deny any wrongdoing, the owners and operators of the apartment complex have now agreed to pay $82,500 to settle the case. The details of a settlement were announced this week by the Justice Department. The agreement must still be approved by U.S. District Court Judge Sean F. Cox.

The History of Fair Housing

The federal Fair Housing Act is a product of the 1960s.

Part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, it prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex – and, today, handicap or family status.

What it doesn’t do is provide a mechanism for ensuring compliance. That’s where groups like the Fair Housing Center come in.

Incorporated in 1991, the Fair Housing Center was organized by local NAACP chapters and others involved in civil rights issues. The idea, says Kisch, was to have an organization that actively protects the rights of those facing discrimination in housing.

The center provides community education, advice and advocacy for people who believe they’re victims of discrimination. It also provides legal referrals and – in some cases – investigative services.

Those investigations revolve around what the staffers in the Fair Housing Center’s small office in Kerrytown call “testing.” Testing establishes what one individual’s experience cannot. It provides a basis for comparing the way people are treated by rental or real estate agents, property managers or lenders.

In the case of the Ivanhoe apartments, “testers” who visited the complex within hours of one another reported being given different information about the availability of apartments, different access to the facilities and to materials like applications and brochures.

African-American testers reported being told there were no vacancies or that apartments would not be ready for move-in for extended periods of time.

White testers said they were told about more vacancies, shown more apartments, and more often shown facilities like laundry and storage areas. White testers were also given applications, business cards and other printed material more often than African-American testers.

“We’d heard about this place [Ivanhoe] practically since we opened,” says Kisch. “We finally decided to take a hard look at it and Kristen did a tremendous job.” Kristen Cuhran is coordinator of investigations at the Fair Housing Center.

Ivanhoe Apartments: What the “Testers” Found

Located on Pine Valley Boulevard, off Packard Avenue near the Georgetown Mall, the Ivanhoe Apartments are nestled in the midst of a several blocks of apartment buildings. The street winds beneath shady trees and, this time of year, the terraces that jut from each apartment are filled with flowering plants.

But the hospitable feeling projected from the street belies the evidence in the Fair Housing Center’s files.

For example: In a March 2006 test, two female testers met with apartment manager Laurie Courtney, who would eventually be a defendant in separate suits brought by the government and Fair Housing Center.

Both testers wanted to move into new apartments as quickly as possible. The white tester reported she was told one unit was available. She was given an application and told that, if she wanted to fill it out and return, the manager would be there all day.

The African-American tester arrived 90 minutes later.

Although the white tester had told Courtney she planned to look at other apartments, the African-American tester said she was told that the last available apartment had been rented and she should check back in the summer.

Several of the tests used a three-person strategy.

In one – on April 11, 2008 – the African-American tester reported she was told the earliest vacancy would be July or August. Her request to see an apartment was refused on the basis that the unit was occupied.

Two white testers – visiting separately – each said they were shown an apartment. The first white tester reported she was told one apartment would be available in about a week and that another unit would be open later in the month, on April 23.

The second white tester said she was told about a late April vacancy and another in mid-June. Courtney also volunteered to show the second tester’s husband the apartment over the coming weekend.

In another three-person test on Jan. 30, 2008, one African-American and two white testers visited Ivanhoe expressing interest in one- and two-bedroom apartments.

The African-American tester said she was told there were no apartments available and that there was a waiting list for some that could be open in a month – in late February. Courtney had told other testers that Ivanhoe did not keep waiting lists.

The two white testers reported they were told a one-bedroom unit was available and a two-bedroom would be ready in two to four weeks, by mid- or late February.

A brochure from Ivanhoe Apartments.

Other tests yielded similar results:

• On Feb. 8, 2008, an African-American tester was told that a one-bedroom apartment would be available at the end of the month. She was also advised that it was one of Ivanhoe’s smallest units. In contrast, a white tester was told a one-bedroom would be ready in 10 days and that it had a “view of the courtyard.” Both were shown the same unit. Courtney offered the white tester an application. The African-American tester had to ask for one.
• On Jan. 15, 2009, a white tester seeking a two-bedroom apartment was offered what Courtney described as the complex’s largest unit. An African-American tester was shown a different unit, which was undergoing repairs. As with many of the visits, the African-American tester’s visit was appreciably shorter than the white tester’s visit – 6 compared to 20 minutes.
• In one case, Courtney showed white testers three units while telling an African-American tester there was nothing available.
• Numerous testers reported that Courtney described the Ivanhoe tenant mix as a group with “no undergraduates,” an apparent bias against a class protected under a city of Ann Arbor ordinance. [Chapter 112 of the city code states (emphasis added): "It is the intent of the city that no person be denied to equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights or be discriminated against because of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, condition of pregnancy, marital status, physical or mental limitation, source of income, family responsibilities, educational association, sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV status."]

Courtney remains at the apartments and says she expects to stay. “We’ve been here for 30 years,” she says, referring to her husband with whom she shares responsibilities as “resident managers.” She declined to discuss renting practices, referring questions to the owner.

The owner, Troy attorney David Lebenbom, operates The Ivanhoe Apartments under the corporate name Acme Investments Inc. He could not be reached for comment.

In the settlement agreement, the defendants deny “violating any law or engaging in any wrongful conduct of any type or nature as Plaintiffs allege in their actions.” The agreement further holds that the settlement ”is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an admission by Defendants, each of which expressly deny liability.”

The plaintiffs and defendants “have agreed that in order to avoid protracted and costly litigation, this controversy should be resolved without a trial.”

How the Testing Works

The blind testing employed by the Fair Housing Center, and organizations like it, has itself been tested. In a case that worked it way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982, it was found to be legal.

From the files of the Fair Housing Center: These forms were used to record the experiences of testers sent to the Ivanhoe apartment complex on the same day. (Links to larger image)

Some testers are paid; some are volunteers. When they’re sent into the field, they don’t know the suspected bias being tested: it could be family status, for example, age or marital status.

They are, however, well prepared. Testers are ready to answer questions about where they and any spouse or partner work, how much they earn and their reasons for relocating.

In the Ivanhoe case, any inquiries were limited. But the testers’ individual dossiers are designed so that members of the protected group compare favorably to members of the control group. For instance, the African-American testers earned more and had longer tenure in their respective jobs than the white testers.

The Fair Housing Center investigates about 140 complaints a year, mostly from African-Americans, people with disabilities and people with children.

It’s helped file more than 60 fair-housing lawsuits with combined settlements of more than $1.4 million. A recent grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has allowed it to expand from Washtenaw, Lenawee, Monroe counties into Ingham, Jackson, and Livingston.

Landlords who stipulate that children can’t share a bedroom or that a ramp can’t be installed to accommodate a disability risk running afoul of the law. There are things that tip you off, says Kisch.

“You’re not likely to hear direct statements about race, but you’ll find that an apartment manager has lost an application, or that he or she is still waiting to get information from a previous landlord, or that there must be something wrong with a Social Security number so they’re not able to do a credit check. Eventually, they just wear an applicant down,” she says.

“It’s not illegal to act tough, but you’ll sometimes find a manager or landlord who’s got a lot rules and tells you you have to abide by them or your stay will be short. It’s OK, if they’re like that with everybody, but not if they’re selective.”

In the Ivanhoe case, the Fair Housing Center contacted the U.S. Justice Department with its findings. Justice staffers did some additional research and filed suit against Ivanhoe’s owner and manager. The Fair Housing Center filed a separate lawsuit. They were combined in federal court and settled together.

Because the settlement was reached before any of the discovery that precedes a trial, it’s not clear whether Courtney was acting on directions from the owner or on her own, says Judith Levy, assistant U.S. Attorney and chief of the civil rights unit for the Eastern District of Michigan.

But it doesn’t matter, says Levy. Owners are liable for an employee as well as any policy of their own.

Details of the Settlement

Under the terms of the agreement, Ivanhoe Apartments must put a nondiscrimination policy in place, post a fair housing sign on premises and include the fair housing logo and/or the words “Equal Housing Opportunity” in all published materials, along with specific language in rental contracts.

When any unit is available for rent, the landlord must post a visible “for rent” or “vacancy” sign in the apartment complex.

In addition, the company must provide training for all employees involved in renting or managing the apartments and keep records about the availability of apartments and prospective tenants’ inquires.

As part of the settlement, the defendants also agreed to periodic testing to identify any discrimination.

The U.S. Attorney’s office must approve the training and a number of other provisions. It’s also responsible for monitoring compliance, Levy says. The Fair Housing Center will also get periodic reports on compliance.

Three individuals discriminated against because of their race will share $35,000 in damages. The settlement also includes $7,500 in a civil penalty; and $40,000 to the Fair Housing Center as damages for its work testing and investigating the apartment complex.

The Fair Housing Center will pay its legal fees from that share and use the balance to further its work, Kisch says.

About the writer: Judy McGovern lives in Ann Arbor. She has worked as a journalist here, in Ohio, New York and several other states.

Championship ring on the hand of a UM men's gymnast at the May 20, 2010 board of regents meeting in Dearborn. (Photos by the writer.)

During the May 20 meeting, regents approved a 3% average rate increase for room and board during the 2010-11 academic year in campus residence halls. A double room will increase from $8,924 to $9,192 – an increase of $268. The most expensive room – a single with a private bath – will cost $12,166, up $354. Rates for the Northwood apartment complex on UM’s north campus were also raised an average of 1%.

Three construction projects – including a $17.7 million expansion to the University Hospital emergency department and a new $2.5 million indoor golf practice facility – were approved, with no discussion.

A large part of the meeting consisted of presentations, including an update on how the university’s health system might be affected by recent national health care reform, and a report on the non-traditional education programs task force, which generated some comments from regents.

Several sporting achievements were highlighted at the start of the meeting, as has been the case in other recent months. Most prominently, the men’s gymnastics team attended and were congratulated for their recent NCAA championship win. The celebration included a cake, and regents were given caps – which some wore during the meeting – commemorating the achievement.

Sports-related news not mentioned during the May 20 meeting was the university’s response to allegations that its football program violated NCAA rules – the university announced that response a few days later.

President’s Opening Remarks

UM president Mary Sue Coleman began by introducing the delegation from the Michigan-China University Leadership Forum, who attended the meeting as part of their two-week visit here – they leave on Saturday, May 29. UM’s relationship with China continues to grow, she said, and is an important partnership.

Xuhong Zhou, leader of the Chinese delegation to the Michigan-China University Leadership Forum, was introduced at the May 20 board of regents meeting on UM's Dearborn campus.

Coleman will be traveling to China in late June and early July, as part of UM’s international initiative with that country. It includes the UM-Shanghai Jiao Tong University Joint Institute, which was established in 2005. [During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, retired UM engineering professor William Kauffman condemned the university's relationship with China, saying that it undermined national security.]

In other remarks, Coleman noted that later in the meeting, the regents would be asked to approve the reappointment of Daniel Little as chancellor of the Dearborn campus, through 2015. He is the longest-serving chancellor in the 50-year history of the campus.

This was the first regents meeting following the May 1 commencement at Michigan Stadium, when President Barack Obama spoke. Coleman said they had received positive feedback about the speech from across the country.

She then introduced UM athletic director David Brandon, who in turn introduced the men’s gymnastics team, describing them as champions in the classroom as well as in athletic competition. He called up head coach Kurt Golder to the podium – when Coleman asked Golder to tell them about the recent NCAA victory, he replied, “Well … we won!” Golder described how Ben Baldus-Strauss had broken his thumb during the competition but had gutted it out. Baldus-Strauss also received the NCAA’s Elite 88 award earlier this year, Golder noted, given for his 3.948 GPA in biochemistry. Members of the team who attended the meeting came to the front of the room with their NCAA trophy, and were given a round of applause.

In noting other UM sports highlights, Coleman remarked on the recent victory by the men’s baseball team against Northwestern, after being down 14 points. “It was the most remarkable performance I have ever seen in baseball!” Coleman said.

Housing Rates Increased

During reports from UM’s executive officers, E. Royster Harper, vice president for student affairs, thanked regents for their “unwavering” support of living/learning environments on campus. She called the proposed 3% average rate increase wise and prudent, saying that 2% would be used for upcoming renovations of Alice Lloyd Hall, with the remaining 1% increase allocated to general operating costs for the housing system.

Later in the meeting, with no discussion, regents approved the following housing rate increases:

Residence Halls           2009-10    2010-11     Increase
Single                    $10,650    $10,970      $320
Double                      8,924      9,192       268
Triple                      7,890      8,126       236
Single (private bath)      11,812     12,166       354
Double (private bath)       9,998     10,298       300
Double (in suite)          10,650     10,970       320
Triple (in suite)           9,998     10,298       300

-

Provided in the meeting packet was comparison data on housing rate increases that occurred for the current academic year at 23 peer institutions, ranked in order of the percentage increase. The packet also contained information about projected rate increases at Big Ten universities for the coming year. Those increases range from a high of 5.4% at Ohio State (projected) to a low of 2.5% at the University of Minnesota (projected). [.pdf of comparative data] Not included was any reference to Eastern Michigan University’s recent decision not to raise room and board, fees or tuition.

In addition, regents approved a 1% average rate increase for family, graduate and undergraduate apartments at the Northwood Community Apartment complex, off of Plymouth Road on UM’s north campus. [.pdf of Northwood housing rates]

Construction Projects: Health, Infrastructure, Sports

Three sizable construction projects were approved by regents during the May 20 meeting with no discussion, totaling $28.9 million.

ER Expansion

Regents approved a $17.7 million expansion of the University Hospital’s emergency department, aimed at reducing overcrowding and patient wait times. In 2009, the hospital’s ER had over 77,000 patient visits.

The project will be done in phases, starting with the renovation of 6,400 square feet of space on level 2 of the Medical Inn Building, which will eventually house the hospital’s dentistry department. On level B1 of the hospital, roughly 22,500 square feet will be renovated to create 26 treatment bays, six enclosed triage rooms, two family consultation rooms, and expanded patient reception areas for the emergency department. In addition, space will be renovated and expanded adjacent to the ER to house the psychiatry emergency service.

The Ann Arbor architecture firm Hobbs + Black Associates will design the project, which is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2012.

Expansion of North Campus Chiller Plant

An $8.7 million project to expand the North Campus chiller plant was approved by regents without discussion. The original plant was built in 2005 and provides chilled water to that part of campus. Compared to having individual building chillers, the university saved an estimated $200,000 in energy costs last year, according to a cover memo on the project. The project would expand the system by 8,500 square feet and add two 1,300-ton chillers.

It will be paid for by funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – federal stimulus dollars. The project will be designed by the UM Department of Architecture, Engineering and Construction, working with the architectural and engineering firms of C2AE and S3 Architecture, with construction completed by the fall of 2011.

A map of the proposed UM golf practice facility – its location is indicated by the yellow oval.

Golf Practice Facility

Regents approved a $2.5 million, 10,000-square-foot indoor golf practice facility, to be located at the end of the UM Golf Course driving range (near the intersection of South Main and Ann Arbor-Saline Road).

The building will include a putting and chipping area, driving bays for the existing driving range, a team gathering space, coaches offices, locker rooms, a conference room, and storage. The project will be designed by Ann Arbor Architects Collaborative.

UM Health System and Health Care Reform

Matt Davis, an associate professor of pediatrics, internal medicine and public policy, briefed regents on how recent health care legislation might affect the university, and specifically the UM Health System (UMHS). He began by showing a photo of President Obama signing the bill into law, surrounded by legislators – including Rep. John Dingell. He noted that the Democrats looked happy – but that there were many Republicans who weren’t so happy. He said complete repeal was unlikely, though there will probably be incremental changes made to the law over time.

Describing it as a massive reform, Davis said that many aspects are unknown. However, there are some key elements that are clear, he said, and they can be summarized like this: “Coverage, coverage, coverage, coverage.”

Two examples of expanded coverage are taking effect this year: 1) extending eligibility for dependents through age 26, and 2) prohibiting insurance companies from setting lifetime limits on coverage and from establishing high-risk pools.

Two other areas of coverage will take effect in 2014, Davis said: 1) expanding Medicaid to cover people with income levels at 133% of the federal poverty line – it’s currently set at 50% in Michigan; and 2) providing subsidies for the purchase of health care plans via health insurance “exchanges.”

Davis highlighted four areas of emphasis as the university’s health system prepares for upcoming changes in 2014.

• All health insurance exchanges will have an “essential benefits plan,” or EBP. It’s not yet clear what the EBP will entail – the U.S. health and human services secretary will convene an expert group to help define the EBP, and university officials might be a part of that. What would UMHS like to see included in the plan? Is there research that the university could conduct on the issue?
• Medicaid reimbursements are still determined by states, and in most cases, reimbursements don’t cover costs. The university can work with Michigan legislators to come up with innovative way to restructure reimbursements, Davis said. He also cited another opportunity at the state level – helping develop a new health care provider assessment, which is likely to be passed into law.
• The U.S. medical profession tends to emphasize subspecialty care, Davis said, and wider health care coverage will likely exacerbate a shortage of primary care providers. UMHS has the opportunity to “widen the door” through outreach, inviting newly covered patients into the system.
• Davis described the concept of a “value proposition” – the amount of quality care that can be delivered for a specific cost. UMHS researchers are doing innovative work in this area, Davis said, citing research by Mark Fendrick, co-director of UM’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design.

Chart showing potential financial impact of national health care reform on the UM Health System, in general terms. (Links to larger image.)

Davis also outlined the possible financial impact of other aspects in the reform package. Negative impacts could come from adjustments to Medicare payment rates, excise taxes on medical devices, drugs and some health plans, and a decrease in charitable care payments from the federal government. UMHS could see benefits from pilot programs and experiments with new care and patient models, and increased funding for preventive care, workforce initiatives and other programs.

Davis also discussed the issue of cost containment, saying there might be opportunities for UMHS to be a model for increasing the quality of care while keeping costs contained.

Davis concluded by noting the complexity of the reform. While challenging, he said the university is well-positioned to take advantage of opportunities that the changes might present.

Health Care Reform: Questions from Regents

Andy Richner asked whether a Medicaid provider assessment was desirable – was it something they really wanted? Davis replied that there might be some financial drain initially, but depending on how it was structured, there might be opportunity to draw down higher reimbursements in the long term.

Saying it sounds like there’s a lot of work to do by 2014, Andrea Fischer Newman asked if there was an organized effort in the state to tackle some of these issues. Davis said that every state will be different, and that in Michigan, the Michigan Health & Hospital Association has been very active.

Newman then asked Cynthia Wilbanks, UM’s vice president for government relations, whether Wilbanks had sufficient resources. [Wilbanks and her staff are the main advocates for UM interests in Lansing.] Wilbanks said she wasn’t prepared to answer that question at this point.

Non-Traditional Education Programs

Derek Collins, associate dean of Literature, Science, & the Arts, gave an update on the Non-traditional Education Programs at UM (NEPU) task force, which he chairs. The group, under the auspices of the provost’s office, was charged with assessing the university’s resources – buildings and other property, as well as people, including alumni and emeriti faculty. The task force was also asked to compile revenue-generating ideas that take advantage of those resources.

Collins said several areas looked promising – his presentation looked in detail at one of those areas: Continuing education. There are over 100 units at UM that offer professional development or enrichment programs, lifelong learning classes or other for-credit or non-credit courses, he said. Examples include executive education at the Ross School of Business, the College of Engineering’s Center for Professional Development, and the Medical School’s continuing education programs.

UM regent Kathy White, left, and provost Teresa Sullivan at the May 20, 2010 board of regents meeting on the Dearborn campus. The provost's office is overseeing a report on generating revenue via the university's non-traditional education resources.

But there’s no centralized location to get information about these programs, Collins said – UM is one of the only major universities, public or private, that doesn’t have a comprehensive gateway for continuing education. Centralizing this information isn’t just low-hanging fruit, he said, “it’s fruit that’s rotting on the ground.” In addition to making the information easier for people to find – and, presumably, sign up for – it would also make it easier for units within the university to share information and best practices, Collins added. Increased participation in these programs means increased revenue, he noted – with the potential to double the revenue currently brought in by continuing education programs within five years.

In general, over 530 ideas were submitted to the task force, Collins said – 62% of them related to continuing education. Other categories of ideas related to using under-utilized space at the university better – holding concerts in Michigan Stadium, for example – or adding new programs, like Elderhostels.

The task force is recommending that the ideas be categorized according to academic units, then shared with the leaders of those units, Collins said. They believe program development should be stimulated from the ground up, rather than top down from the administration.

Non-Traditional Education: Comments, Questions from Regents

Denise Ilitch asked that regents be given a copy of the inventory of suggestions, saying that it was important to look at ways to generate more revenue, and joking that occasionally regents came up with good ideas, too.

Andrea Fischer Newman said that anything the university can do to centralize information would be very helpful. She pointed out that deans were generally academics, not entrepreneurs – that wasn’t their priority. She asked where the report would go from here. Collins replied that Newman was right, and they should pair deans with people who have business experience. He said the task force is suggesting three phases over the next several years to work toward moving these ideas forward.

Mary Sue Coleman clarified that the provost’s office would be responsible for what happens next. Teresa Sullivan, the current provost who’ll be leaving this summer to become president of the University of Virginia, said there’s a modest amount of money in the upcoming budget that will be used to follow-up on some of the task force recommendations.

Regent Olivia Maynard urged the staff to move ahead – the university can’t afford to have a report sit on the shelf, she said. Collins replied that he shared her urgency and enthusiasm.

Regent Martin Taylor suggested bringing another update to the regents in six months. Unless someone is driving the effort, they risk losing it, he said.

Michigan Student Assembly Report

Chris Armstrong gave his first report as president of the Michigan Student Assembly – he was elected in March, and had been introduced at the April regents meeting in Grand Rapids.

Among the items in his report, Armstrong said that MSA would be focusing on preparing for fall voter registration on campus. They’ll have voter registration boxes across campus, and are working on a website where students can register online. Thousands of students were registered during the 2008 election, he said, and they hope to surpass those numbers.

Armstrong noted that he would be in Washington D.C. this summer for an internship, so he wouldn’t be able to attend the regents’ June meeting. As they prepare to set tuition rates, he urged regents to keep accessibility in mind. If there is a tuition increase, he said, there should also be an increase in available financial aid.

Public Commentary

Six people spoke during public commentary at the end of the meeting.

Douglas Smith addressed the regents about a situation involving the UM Department of Public Safety and Andrei Borisov, saying it “illustrates not only that shared governance by the faculty has been subverted by the UM administration, but that they are not shy about using their private police force to punish whistleblowers and suppress dissent.” Smith has spoken at previous board meetings – most recently in September and November of 2009 – expressing similar concerns stemming from a chain of events that led to Borisov’s dismissal as a research assistant professor in the university’s pediatrics department, and a subsequent confrontation with DPS officers. [A recent post on Insider Higher Education and an article in the Michigan Daily describe these issues in greater detail.]

William Kauffman, a retired UM engineering professor, told the regents that UM’s College of Engineering has declined significantly in its ability to educate students. He noted that the last astronaut from the university had graduated in 1964. He described it as a “cesspool of corruption,” with widespread fraud, plagiarism and falsification of records. Kauffman also expressed serious concerns about UM’s relationship with China, saying that the power and industry grab by the Chinese was threatening U.S. national security. He also noted that people from Iran had studied at UM, and now that country had nuclear capabilities. Kauffman passed out a packet of material that included a copy of an email in which he recommended that UM not be re-accredited.

Cardi DeMonaco Jr., a student at UM-Dearborn, addressed the topic of tuition increases. He said he understood that tuition will likely increase again this year. At UM-Dearborn, he said, tuition increases had risen on average 8.2% over the past five years. He wondered why Eastern Michigan University could afford to freeze its tuition, but UM couldn’t, and he urged regents to follow EMU’s lead. Education is a right, DeMonaco said, but soon only the rich will be able to afford it. He also noted that books at the university bookstore are more expensive than they need to be, citing an example of a used textbook for a matrix algebra class costing $125 at the bookstore, but available online for $19.

After DeMonaco’s remarks, regent Denise Ilitch thanked him, saying she had heard everything he’d said. The board would continue to be very focused and concerned about rising tuition, she said.

Bonnie Halloran, president of the Lecturers' Employees Organization (LEO), spoke to regents during public commentary.

Bonnie Halloran, a lecturer at the UM-Dearborn campus and president of the Lecturers Employee Organization, discussed the issue of contract negotiations between the administration and LEO. She asked the regents to make the lecturers whole in terms of benefits, and to support a move toward more equitable pay for lecturers. She noted that lecturers play a critical role in the classroom. Halloran also raised the issue of the recent non-reappointment of Kirsten Herold, the union’s vice president who has taught in the English department for 18 years. Calling it intimidation, Halloran urged the regents to intervene on behalf of Herold’s reinstatement. [At the regents April meeting, LEO's lead negotiator, Elizabeth Axelson, had raised similar concerns.]

Responding to Halloran, regent Martin Taylor said they understood the importance of lecturers, but that it was inappropriate to ask them to intervene regarding Herold. The correct avenue is to file a grievance, he said. Taylor also said he hoped that LEO could “step up the pace” of negotiations. Halloran replied that they are in the process of filing a grievance, and that they’re working very hard at the bargaining table.

Donald Anderson, a professor emeritus of political science and president of the UM-Dearborn Academy of Retired Faculty and Staff, spoke about health benefits being evaluated by the university’s committee on retiree health benefits. The committee will present its recommendations to the regents in June. Anderson urged regents to phase in changes over time, taking into account initial contract commitments, length of service and hardships that might result from sudden changes to benefits. Regents should be sensitive to the fragile financial situation of many retirees, he said. He questioned the goal of the committee, which is to bring down retiree health costs to the average or slightly above average of UM’s peer institutions. Was this really a goal worthy of the university? The better question is this, he said: What’s a fair, equitable way to contain retiree health care costs while recognizing the contributions of retirees who loyally served the university.

Saying she was speaking at the UM-Dearborn meeting because she’d been banned from the Ann Arbor campus, Linda Martinson said she’d been forced to take action against the university because of her wrongful expulsion as a student of the School of Nursing. Following her expulsion, Martinson was issued a no-trespass order – a packet that Martinson provided to regents included a copy of the order issued to her in 2008, which stated that her behavior had been perceived as “threatening and disruptive.” Martinson told regents that UM is seriously lacking institutional integrity. [Martinson had filed three lawsuits against the university in state circuit court – those cases were dismissed by agreement of both parties after she filed a separate federal lawsuit in September 2009. She's asking that the university void her expulsion, and is also seeking damages and attorney fees.]

Martinson continued speaking after the allotted three-minute period for her public commentary ended. After Mary Sue Coleman asked her to wrap up her remarks several times, a member of the university’s security staff came to the front of the room. Martinson continued for a couple more minutes before concluding her statement, and the meeting was adjourned.

Present: Mary Sue Coleman (ex officio), Julia Darlow, Denise Ilitch, Olivia Maynard, Andrea Fischer Newman, Andy Richner, Martin Taylor, Kathy White.

Absent: Larry Deitch

Next board meeting: Thursday, June 17, 2010 at 3 p.m. in the Fleming Administration Building, 503 Thompson St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

In Part 2, we wrap up other topics of the meeting. One common theme was capital investments in the community’s physical infrastructure of various kinds.

Michael Nearing, city of Ann Arbor engineer, was available for any city council questions on the East Stadium bridge project. (Photo by the writer.)

The council allocated a total of $313,000 for three different permanent affordable housing projects in Ann Arbor.

The city’s East Stadium bridge replacement project received discussion in the form of a resolution that authorized the city to go after state funding for the third time in the last three years. The anticipated construction start for fall of this year has been postponed until spring 2011 – the earlier date had been tied to the city’s application for federal funding, which was rejected this February.

The ongoing construction of the police/courts building, directly adjacent to city hall (the Larcom Building), received some tangential discussion in the form of an explanation from Roger Fraser about the recent closure of city hall due to elevated carbon monoxide levels. The police/courts building was also the subject of public commentary that prompted some extended remarks from the mayor – which were covered in Part 1 of this report.

Another construction project that will likely factor into the upcoming primary election campaigns is Fuller Road Station. The city-university collaboration to build a combined parking deck and bus station, which might eventually serve as a commuter rail station, was taken up during the council’s communications time. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje both responded to some cautionary remarks made by Mike Anglin (Ward 5), which he made based on a recent park advisory commission meeting.

In business related to ethics and rules, the council voted on two occasions to excuse the participation of Taylor in a vote, because of a conflict of interest posed by his employment with the law firm Butzel Long. They also satisfied the requirement of a recent lawsuit settlement that they formally consider a rule about their use of government email accounts – by voting to remand consideration of the issue to council’s rules committee.

Housing

The issue of affordable housing was addressed during public commentary as well as in specific items of council business. One item considered by the council bundled $313,000 of support for three different initiatives: support for the recently re-organized Ann Arbor Housing Commission ($138,000); one to support the efforts of the nonprofit Avalon Housing in connection with its merger with the Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corp. ($50,000); and a foreclosure prevention initiative involving the county treasurer’s office, the Michigan State University Extension, Housing Bureau for Seniors, and Legal Services of South Central Michigan ($125,000).

The council also voted to swap out a previously approved allocation for emergency shelter that had been drawn from an inappropriate fund.

In its final item of business related to housing, the council appointed a resident member of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC). That comes the wake of the council’s recent decision to replace the entire commission.

Housing: Public Commentary

Speaking as a member of the city’s housing and human services advisory board, Barbara Eichmuller asked the council to pass their resolution that allocated $313,000 to maintain existing affordable housing in Ann Arbor, as well as to prevent tax foreclosures. It’s costly and time consuming to replace units, she said. She urged the council to support the Ann Arbor Housing Commission as it transitions to a new business model. As a Realtor, she said, she sees every day how painful foreclosure can be. She concluded that it was a wise use of the money.

The vice chair of the housing and human services board, David Blanchard, also addressed the council on the issue of the $313,000 proposed as a housing trust fund expenditure. He described the programs as really important and salient. The funds need to be released now, he said. The AAHC has come and asked for the money – it’s essential for them to be able to retool. Avalon had come and explained that the Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corp. merger has produced a real strain on them.

Preserving basic housing stock is part of a basic strategy, Blanchard said, and foreclosure prevention needs to take place now. The county’s blueprint to end homelessness has been around for years, and looking back, there hasn’t been an increase in actual affordable units, he cautioned. What we have, he said, is “a band-aid” – there’s no other way to get around it. He spoke of the need to weather this crisis and cautioned that there won’t be a great explosion in funding in the next few years.

By way of background, Blanchard recently served as legal counsel for the case of Caleb Poirier, a resident of Camp Take Notice, a self-governed encampment of homeless people. Poirier was charged with trespassing as a result of the tent encampment’s location. The charges were eventually dropped. Poirier was in the city council audience Monday night to hear Blanchard and Lily Au – who’s an advocate for the camp – deliver their remarks to the council.

Delivering a monologue during public commentary, with herself in the role of a homeless person, Lily Au began: “I’m homeless, I have a mental illness.” In that role she described how a volunteer had driven her to Ypsilanti, she had little money left on her Bridge card, and the Delonis center serves only one meal on Saturdays and Sundays. The contents of her backpack, she said, included a Bible, which she read to sustain herself, plus her medication. She reported that Camp Take Notice had accumulated $200, but it can’t be spent, because that’s money set aside for moving, in case the Michigan State Police raid the camp. The camp is located near the interchange at I-94 and Ann Arbor-Saline Road. Referring to the parking issues on the council’s agenda, Au said that she would like to become a car, because at least then she’d have a good parking structure to live in.

By way of historical background, the rhetorical device relying on the idea that Ann Arbor has better housing for cars than for people can be traced back at least as far as Tim Colenback’s public comments at the council’s Sept. 21, 2009 meeting:

Colenback went on to enumerate some of the city’s parking structures, saying how pleased he was to have so many great places in the city where he could “house his car.” He asked that the city think of making the same commitment to housing people as it does to housing cars.

Housing: Funding Allocation

The item before the council bundled $313,000 of support for three different initiatives. At a January 2010 meeting devoted to the subject, the city council council was made aware that they’d possibly be asked to support a re-organization of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) with an allocation of up to $138,000, which they approved on Monday night. From Chronicle coverage of the Jan. 11 meeting: “Housing Commission Reorganizes“]:

The options for addressing the $138,163 difference, [consultant Kerry] Laycock said, included using AAHC reserves, looking at funds held by affiliated nonprofits, using in-kind services from the city of Ann Arbor, and the sale/lease of maintenance vehicles as a part of the outsourcing contract. But Laycock gave city councilmembers a heads-up on Monday night that the AAHC could be asking them for money from the Ann Arbor general fund as well.

The second item bundled into Monday’s council resolution went to support the efforts of Avalon Housing in merging with the Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corp. – that support was a housing trust fund allocation of $50,000. The merger of Avalon with WAHC was planned originally to take place during 2008-2009, but as the staff cover memo to the resolution describes, one of the major players’ support, which had been assumed, has not materialized:

[...] Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA), which was a key partner in the commencement of this merger, has taken increasingly conservative underwriting standards and is unwilling to invest in projects that they previously would have funded.

The 114 units of affordable housing maintained by WAHC, and now absorbed by Avalon, are distributed among three locations: Gateway Apartments – a 43-unit complex located on West Michigan Avenue in Ypsilanti – and two Ann Arbor locations, at 1500 Pauline and 701 Miller.

Although the Washtenaw Urban County has continued to support other Avalon-administered properties, at a recent meeting the Urban County executive committee reallocated $740,000 in funds previously designated for Gateway – moving $640,000 to Habitat for Humanity of Huron Valley for housing purchases and rehabilitation, and $100,000 to the Ypsilanti Housing Commission for Parkview Apartments, a 144-unit complex. [Chronicle coverage: "Urban County Allocates Housing Funds"]

The third program bundled into the city council’s resolution was $125,000 of support for a foreclosure prevention initiative involving the county treasurer’s office, the MSU Extension, Housing Bureau for Seniors, and Legal Services of South Central Michigan. According to the cover memo accompanying the resolution, the city’s contribution of $160,000 to the program in FY 2009 served 410 mortgage and tax foreclosure clients for a cost of an average $390 per household. Preventing foreclosure is analyzed as more cost effective than providing housing and human services to people after they are forced to leave foreclosed properties.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who sponsored the resolution, pointed out that the trust fund was being tapped to support permanent housing, not for human services. The money was all going to maintain currently existing permanent affordable housing, she said, urging her colleagues on the city council to support it.

An attempt by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) to separate out the three projects for separate votes got no traction from his council colleagues. His motion to amend the resolution in a way that would separate them out failed, because no one seconded the motion.

Kunselman indicated that he thought it was the first time the city council had ever given support to Avalon for its merger activities with WAHC. Mary Jo Callan, who heads the joint city/county office of community development, clarified that 18 month ago when the merger began, the council had authorized $195,000 for merger activities. That evening’s resolution brought the total to $245,000, she said. Kunselman asked if this was all that would be expected. Callan indicated that for these particular activities, yes.

Kunselman observed that the council was making an investment in low-income housing where Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) had not been willing to re-invest and that it was past the date when they thought it would be wrapped up. Kunselman noted that according to a staff report, there would be $95,000 of unobligated funds in the housing trust fund. He wanted to know if that projection for the unobligated portion included the interest-only payment from the purchase on the YMCA lot. If so, Kunselman wondered if at some point the interest-only payment would come from the city’s general fund.

Kunselman allowed that the Burton Road project, which had previously been forecast to eat up a lot of the housing trust fund, will probably be unobligated. But Kunselman said it still made him “queasy,” because the general fund is supporting it. He expressed concern that there seemed to be no long-term plan and that the city was filling in gaps where the “heavy-hitters” are backing off. [By "heavy-hitters," he was referring to MSHDA]. Kunselman said that he was not sure he saw this as a good plan. He also wondered about the $130,000 for the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, indicating to city administrator Roger Fraser that he thought Fraser planned to put the amount into the budget. Fraser responded by saying he’d have to look at the issue.

Outcome: The resolution to allocate $313,000 to the three affordable housing initiatives was unanimously approved.

Housing: Funding Allocation Swap

An item that received no discussion – but served as a reminder of the allocation for emergency shelter that the council had approved at its Nov. 6, 2009 meeting – amounted to a book-keeping adjustment. The city council had appropriated a total of $159,500 in Ann Arbor Housing Trust Funds (AAHTF) for that purpose. However, a city attorney review determined that provision of an emergency rotating shelter is not an eligible AAHTF activity.

So the part of those funds designated for that purpose – a $30,500 contract with the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County – was swapped out Monday night for Ann Arbor city general funds.

Outcome: The re-allocation of the funds for the rotating shelter was unanimously approved.

Housing: Appointment of Housing Commissioner

As part of the city council’s decision on March 15, 2010 to replace the city’s housing commission board, the council restored two of the commissioners to the five-member body, one of whom was the commissioner who satisfied the legal requirement that one member be a resident of the housing stock administered by the commission – Deborah Gibson. However, Gibson, who’d been re-appointed to the board for only a one-month term, resigned in light of the council’s action, which forced the city to find a replacement for her on an accelerated schedule.

Mayor John Hieftje said at Monday’s meeting that 1,500 letters had been sent out, and that they’d received 18 applications. After winnowing through them, Sasha Wombley Womble had been nominated. Ordinarily, appointments are made in a two-step process, with the first step being the nomination, and the second step the confirmation at a subsequent meeting. Hieftje asked that the council confirm Womble’s appointment in a one-step process, because the housing commission board was to meet on that Wednesday.

Outcome: The council confirmed Sasha Wombley’s appointment to the housing commission board in a one-step process.

Construction Projects

The city council entertained discussion of a major construction project by approving a third attempt to secure funding from the state of Michigan for replacing the East Stadium bridges. The bridges span the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks and South State Street. Another planned major construction project – Fuller Road Station – received some discussion during council communications, hinting that the primary election campaign season could be starting to warm up. Reduction of warming was a benefit touted during public comment in support of porous pavement to be used in a Sylvan Avenue project. And the council received awards for two construction projects already completed.

Construction: East Stadium Bridges

The item before the council was an authorization to apply for funding from the state of Michigan’s local bridge program, administered by the local bridge advisory board (LBAB). The application is based on the understanding that the LBAB may have up to $6 million to award for FY 2013 for projects across the state. The city intends to apply for $3 million to support the East Stadium bridge replacement project, which carries a price tag of $23 million.

A timeline overview of some of the bridge’s history:

• 1917: Bridge is built.
• 1973: Voters approve a millage to fund a bond to repair the East Stadium bridge. The proposed bond sale on the ballot included $800,000 for creation of a citywide bicycle system using existing streets and new pathways, and $360,000 designated for repair of the Stadium bridges. At the time the debate centered on whether the new bridge design should accommodate a wider roadway for State Street. On the same ballot was a transit millage, which passed as well – the same millage that supports today’s AATA.
• 2006: City of Ann Arbor is awarded $766,000 from Michigan’s local bridge program, but the city allowed the award to expire a year later, because the amount did not go far enough towards funding the project – the alternative to expiration would have been to spend the MLBP money towards bridge reconstruction.
• 2006: The city pays $1,249,467 to Northwest Consultants Inc. (NCI) for preliminary design engineering for the comprehensive bridge project that included bridge replacement, a transmission water main, storm sewer, and a South Main non-motorized path.
• 2007: After a biannual inspection of the bridge, weight limits were reduced on the span. The limits were set as follows: 31 tons (reduced from 38 tons) for one-unit trucks (e.g., school or AATA buses); 39 tons (reduced from 48 tons) for two-unit trucks (e.g., a single-trailer semi); 44 tons (reduced from 54 tons) for three-unit trucks (e.g., a semi with two trailers)
• 2007: On Sept. 18, 2007 and Oct. 2, 2007 at Pioneer High School’s cafeteria, informational workshops are held on a comprehensive project to address replacement of the span over State Street as well as the one over the railroad, including non-motorized improvements (i.e., sidewalks) extending along Stadium Boulevard to Main Street and south along Main to Scio Church road. Those workshops  are well attended, especially by members of the Ann Arbor Golf and Outing Club, which is located near the bridges.
• 2007: On Dec. 29, 2007 there are reports of “medium-sized pieces of concrete” falling off one of the 16 pre-stressed concrete box beams supporting the roadway.
• 2008: Early January re-inspection by city staff and bridge engineering consultants leads to the short-term recommendation of a traffic control order further reducing weight limits: 19 tons for one-unit trucks (e.g., school or AATA buses); 24 tons for two-unit trucks (e.g., a single-trailer semi); 26 tons for three-unit trucks (e.g., a semi with two trailers).
• 2008: In March, the vision for a comprehensive renovation of the bridges meets with a funding setback. The Michigan Department of Transportation awards only $760,000 for the project, though the total cost was estimated at that time at around $35 million.
• 2008: On Oct. 22, 2008 Northwest Consultants Inc. performs biennial inspection.
• 2009: In early February, the engineering consultant for the bridge, Northwest Consultants Inc., is called back to re-examine the bridge. A 7/8 inch deflection of the beam is found. [Chronicle coverage: "Discontent Emerges at Caucus" and "Building Bridges"] Bridge safety rating has dropped to 2 on a scale of 100.
• 2009: In March, traffic is rerouted so that it’s limited to the northern lanes, and does not pass over the beams showing deflection. [Chronicle coverage: "How the E. Stadium Bridge Gets Monitored" and "Council Gets Update on Stadium Bridges"]
• 2009: On Sept. 15, 2009 the bridge inspection consultant, Northwest Consultants Inc., inspects the East Stadium bridge over South State Street, and recommends removing the five southernmost beams.
• 2009: On Oct. 5, 2009 the city council authorizes expenditure to remove five beams.
• 2009: On Oct. 28, 2009 and again on Dec. 1, 2009, public meetings are held to discuss design.
• 2009: In November, five beams are removed from the bridge.
• 2009: In November, the state’s local bridge advisory board awards no funds for the Ann Arbor bridge project, citing the lack of any other non-city funding available for the project. [Chronicle coverage: "State Board: No Funding for State Bridges "]
• 2010: In February, the US-DOT announces the final recipients of the federal TIGER grant – they do not include the city of Ann Arbor.

At Monday’s council meeting, Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked Homayoon Pirooz to take the podium – he’s head of project management for the city. She led off by asking him to explain what the local bridge program is.

The Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) makes funds available to cities every so often through the local bridge program, not every year, explained Pirooz. The city’s application last year was for the FY 2012 budget, and the city did not receive approval, he reminded councilmembers. Since that time, he said, the city of Ann Arbor has been in constant communication with MDOT, and MDOT has encouraged Ann Arbor to apply again – for FY 2013. So Ann Ann Arbor is applying for $3 million from the local bridge program.

The city has been working on additional funding strategies, Pirooz reported, and since June of last year there have been some successes and some disappointments. The major disappointment was Ann Arbor not being selected for the federal TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant, which would have paid for almost all of the project.

Among the successes that Pirooz reported was $8 million that the city could “almost count on” as part of an earmark in the federal surface transportation fund. There’s also an MDOT transportation enhancement grant, which could mean as much as $1.5 million to fund the non-motorized improvements that are part of the project. That would bring the non-city share of the $23 million project to $12.5 million. The design is expected to be complete this summer.

The construction, which had originally been announced to start in the fall of 2010, said Pirooz, had been tied to the application requirements of the TIGER grant.

Teall asked if the city was still going after some other federal grants. Pirooz said that there had been some talk of a “mini-TIGER grant” and the city would apply for that if it becomes available.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that a formal announcement hasn’t been made of the second round of TIGER funding, but that Congressman John Dingell believes a second round of funding will happen.

If the construction starts in March of 2011, Teall wanted to know how long it would last. Pirooz indicated that it would depend on whether the bridge was completely closed to traffic during the construction period. If the bridge is completely closed to traffic, he said, the construction would take around 18 months. If one lane is left open, that would add six months to the schedule, he said. Teall confirmed with Pirooz that the longer the project takes, the more it will cost.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed that this would represent the third attempt to get funding from the state’s local bridge program. Kunselman also confirmed that the letter from MDOT indicates that the reason the city did not receive money during the most recent round of funding was that the city had no outside funding for the project.

Kunselman wanted to know why the city’s position was any different now than before, with respect to outside funding that had actually been secured. Pirooz indicated that the city was in the process of securing it, citing the $8 million in surface transportation funds. Kunselman confirmed with Pirooz that the $8 million was not “for sure.” Pirooz allowed that “nothing is for sure.”

Kunselman wanted to know what the city’s chances are. “Better than last time,” said Pirooz. Last time, he added, the city had ideas about sources, and the city told MDOT that, but the city couldn’t say how much from each source it could expect. Someone has to offer part of the funding and then the city can go after the other parts. Last time, the state’s local bridge program didn’t want to be the first award of money. This time, explained Pirooz, the city can tell the state that $8 million in federal surface transportation funding is in the works and that a $1.5 million transportation enhancement grant is in the works.

The tone of the conversation has changed, said Pirooz. Asked by Kunselman if the money had been promised, Pirooz said that no, it would not be wise for anyone to make that assumption. He estimated that the chances for getting funding from the state’s local bridge program was 70-80% this time, when last time it had been perhaps 30-40%.

Kunselman asked about the plan for the city to use two years worth of its street repair millage. City administrator Roger Fraser explained that the use of the street repair millage to fund the entire project had been the “fall-back plan.” Fraser said the city staff is trying to do “anything but that.” If the city was forced to do that, Fraser said, then “we’ll have a serious conversation with you.” That conversation would come as early as this fall, if the city can’t obtain the dollars.

When asked by Kunselman if the project would start this fall if the local street repair millage had to pay for all of it, Fraser stressed that the fall 2010 construction start had been based on a requirement of the TIGER grant application. It will now be a spring 2011 construction start, but funding needs to be in place by the end of the year.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked at what point the $8 million of federal surface transportation funding becomes certain. Pirooz indicated that in the process, the first step was WATS (Washtenaw Area Transportation Study) approval, and that’s been done. The next step, said Pirooz, is for SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) to approve it, which the city believed it would. Once that happens, said Pirooz, the city had a promise that the surface transportation program would pay the $8 million. The one last piece is the federal highway bill – the surface transportation program is part of that, and it’s still in the Congressional approval process. As long as there’s a highway bill, said Pirooz, the $8 million will happen. There’s a “slim to none” chance that the highway bill won’t happen, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the authorization to apply for funding from the state’s local bridge program to help pay for the replacement of the East Stadium bridges.

Construction: Fuller Road Station

Eli Cooper has presented the Fuller Road Station project on several occasions to different public bodies, most recently at an Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board meeting [Chronicle coverage: "AATA Gets Its Fill of Fuller Road Station"] Cooper also presented an update on the project to the city’s park advisory committee (PAC) at its March 16, 2010 meeting.

The city council appoints two of its own members as non-voting ex officio members of PAC: Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

At Monday’s city council meeting, during his communications time, Anglin reported that when Cooper had made his presentation at the March 16 PAC meeting, a lot of concerns were raised – noting that it is the park advisory commission, and that naturally they’re passionate about the parks – “as they should be,” he said. The city/university were working together, said Anglin, to build what most people see as a parking structure. Anglin said he shared some of their concerns, but also sees the larger vision [of a train station for commuter service] that could take place. The fact that there’s no guarantee that the train will become a reality is a concern to many people, he noted, especially at a time when the city is cutting expenses.

Taylor indicated that compared to Anglin, he had a somewhat different take on the PAC meeting, as far as the nature of the concerns that were expressed there. He suggested that among PAC members the main focus of concern was whether the city was getting a “sufficient deal” as expressed in the memorandum of understanding. The equity of the deal between the city and university was something that everyone would need to keep an eye on, Taylor said.

Mayor John Hieftje took up the issue of Fuller Road Station, saying that a question from the previous night’s caucus about when a specific set of information would be posted on the city’s website had been looked at by city staff. He also took the opportunity to respond to Anglin’s remarks on Fuller Road Station, pointing out that the last time the council had voted on it, Anglin had supported it.

Construction: Plymouth Green Crossings

The item that came before the council was a request for a change in the PUD agreement for the Plymouth Green Crossings project. What the change did was swap out a proposed restaurant for 26 temporary parking spaces plus 11 motorcycle spaces. At a planning commission meeting in February, the change received support of all five commissioners who were present, but fell short of the six votes needed to win an official “recommendation” from that body. [Chronicle coverage: "Plymouth Green Crossings Gets Every Vote, Still One Short"]

During public commentary at the city council’s Monday night meeting, Jim Mogensen told the council that the project had an interesting history. He said he first learned about it from a clerk’s report and he noticed that the project was going to need a water permit from the MDEQ. Mogensen said he just happened to be in the city hall building, and he asked Jerry Hancock about it, who said, What project?  [Hancock is Ann Arbor's stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator.]

Any citizen can call for a public hearing, Mogensen said, which he did. And that caused a delay, which gave Hancock some additional time to review the plan. Now there’s a bunch of underground detention tanks – which were required of the developer – that would not have otherwise been required. He asked the council to think about the tanks – whether it’s a parking lot or a restaurant, eventually the tanks will fail. If it’s a substantial building on top of the tanks, what do you do?

The other part of the project involves payments into the affordable housing fund by the developer, which the developer has experienced difficulty making, Mogensen noted. When a developer of a property has a problem, Mogensen observed, society will sort out the solution for the developer. What happens, though, when a tenant has a similar problem?

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously without discussion to approve the amended Plymouth Green Crossings PUD agreement.

Construction: Porous Pavement on Sylvan Avenue

Sylvan is a short one-block-long street running east-west, nestled into the upside down”V” formed by State and Packard streets, near Yost Ice Arena. At the city council’s Oct. 5, 2009 meeting, the city council had already approved an expenditure for $54,271 to pay for engineering services (from Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc.) for the Sylvan Avenue porous pavement project.

At that meeting, Margie Teall (Ward 4) had requested that it be pulled out of the consent agenda for individual consideration. Nick Hutchinson, a civil engineer with the city, fielded questions from Teall, in whose ward Sylvan Avenue is located. At that time Hutchinson indicated that the project should be finished in the spring of 2010.

At that October 2009 meeting, several benefits of porous pavement were drawn out. Many of them were the same as those mentioned at Monday’s meeting by Vince Caruso during public commentary. He noted that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considered it best practice: it reduces heat in the summer, it’s quieter under traffic load, requires less salt and plowing during the winter, because as the snow and ice melt, the water drains straight through.

The project’s budget is $481,245, drawing funding from the street reconstruction millage ($159,983) and the stormwater maintenance fund ($321,442). The stormwater funding portion of the project will be repaid as a loan secured by the office of the Water Resources Commissioner [formerly called the Drain Commissioner].

Before the council on Monday night was the approval of a construction contract with ABC Paving Co. for $343,875.

Outcome: The council approved the construction contract with ABC Paving Co. for $343,875.

Construction: Awards

The city council bore witness to the presentation of two awards from the Michigan chapter of the American Public Works Association (APWA). As part of their Project of the Year Awards, the city of Ann Arbor had won an award for the Huron Parkway-Nixon Road intersection improvements. The project won in the category of transportation projects under $2 million. The city also won an APWA award for the Harvard Drain and Nichols Arboretum stormwater enhancement project. The arboretum project won in the the environment category for projects under $2 million.

Making the award on behalf of the APWA was Evan Pratt, who is familiar to the city council as a member of the city’s planning commission. Pratt stressed that he was not part of the awards committee for the APWA. The APWA’s 29,000 national members, Pratt told the council, includes 800 members of the Michigan chapter.

Construction: Carbon Monoxide Levels

As a part of his city administrator’s report, Roger Fraser told the council that on the previous Wednesday afternoon [April 14], the carbon monoxide (CO) monitors in the building had started to ring shortly after 1 p.m., and that city hall – the Larcom Building – had quickly been cleared. They asked the fire department to come measure with their more sensitive equipment and firefighters had confirmed elevated CO readings in Larcom and the adjacent police/courts building currently under construction.

Speculation on Wednesday afternoon was that those CO emissions had come from several factors. There were strong winds out of south, and at the base of a hole where an excavator was working there were 8-inch uncapped wire feeds. Also, while work is being done in the basement, there is an opening in the south side of the building. The working theory was that diesel fumes were being sucked into the building through the wire feeds and the opening in the basement via the stair towers that have their base in the basement.

Overnight, there were clear CO levels, said Fraser. And the 6 a.m. test indicated clear readings. Staff had been told the day before that unless they heard otherwise, the plan was for everyone to come in to work as usual. After 7 a.m., the CO alarm went off again. “We were dumbfounded,” said Fraser. It turned out that a propane-operated skid loader working in the basement was emitting high levels of CO and was probably causing previous CO readings, not the excavator. Propane-operated equipment is not supposed to emit CO, said Fraser. The city has done additional sealing work and has looking into the issue of the skid loader, Fraser said.

City Charter and Council Rules

The city council considered a rule on email, and demonstrated in actual practice how a charter provision governs council conduct.

Charter and Rules: Email Rule Consideration

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who chairs the city council’s rules committee, asked that a resolution be added to the agenda that would formally direct the council’s rules committee to take up the issue of a rule on the councilmembers’ use of government email account to do its city business.

Whereas, The Council has agreed to consider the following amendment to the Council Rules: “City Council members will use their City e-mail accounts when sending e-mail communications about substantive City business, to the extent feasible. This rule does not cover communication to constituents or residents or communications regarding political activity.”

Whereas The Council considers it appropriate to have the Council Rules Committee review this Rule further;

RESOLVED, The Council formally considers this Rule and directs the Council Rules Committee to review the Rule further.

The consideration of the rule stemmed from a requirement in the terms of recent lawsuit that the city settled. [Chronicle coverage: "City Settles Lawsuit, Must Conduct Study"] The settlement agreement specified that:

21. As the City Council has previously been reviewing e-mail usage policies, the City Council will further consider the following amendment at the April, 2010 Council meeting(s), “City Council members will use their City e-mail accounts when sending e-mail communications about substantive City business, to the extent feasible. This rule does not cover communication to constituents or residents or communication regarding political activity.”
22. The Plaintiffs recognize that the City Council will address this through the council process and that this Agreement is not dependent on any particular result, other than the Council formally considering this possible amendment in some manner in April, 2010. The parties recognize that such a rule, even if adopted, is not binding on any subsequent Council and each new City Council enacts new rules after each general election.

There was no consideration by the council at Monday’s meeting in terms of a debate or discussion of the merits of amending their set of rules in the manner so specified. The scant discussion centered on an explanation from city attorney Stephen Postema that there was no requirement under the settlement terms that the council do anything with the rule. But Postema asserted that it was appropriate for the council to look at the rule. Postema did not repeat a previous statement he’d made to the media that to his knowledge the council used the government email system for their city business. Instead, he said he knew that councilmembers generally used the system, but allowed that there are difficulties in using it.

One of the issues that such a rule might address is the city of Ann Arbor’s failure under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to produce electronic communications by city councilmembers or other public officials that are sent using non-government email accounts. In The Chronicle’s most recent experience on April 13, 2010, the city failed to produce such records at least in part because the city does not consistently request of public officials that they produce writings from their non-government email accounts, which could be responsive to FOIA requests.

Despite a lack of discussion, by using the statement, “The Council formally considers this Rule …” the council can rely on the statement as a performative utterance to satisfy the requirement of the settlement agreement. Performative utterances, as explicated by J.L. Austin in his seminal work “How to Do Things With Words,” are sentences that are neither true nor false, but which are used to perform some act upon the world. Standard examples of these kinds of sentences include:

1. ‘I do’ in a marriage ceremony.
2. ‘I name this ship the “Queen Elizabeth.”‘
3. ‘I give and bequeath my watch to my brother’ as in a will.
4. ‘I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.’

Some things are not achievable with a performative utterance, of course. For example, “I hereby lift this piano” does not effect a piano lifting.

Mayor John Hieftje was keen to emphasize that the settlement agreement would not cost the city anything, because the environmental study, which is also a requirement of the settlement, was being performed in-house.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the remand of the email rule to its rules committee.

The council’s rules committee will be adding the consideration of an email rule to its current work plan of developing an ethics policy for the council.

Charter and Rules:  Glacier Hills and Jolly Pumpkin

Some of the ethical considerations under which the council does its work are prescribed not by council rule or by an ethics policy, but by the city charter. Applied on two occasions Monday night was the following charter provision:

4.4 (f)  Except as otherwise provided in this charter, each member of the Council present shall cast a “yes” or “no” vote on each question before the Council, unless excused therefrom by a vote of at least six members.

The reason for excusing Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) from voting on those two occasions was also charter-based:

4.4 (i) A member of the Council shall not vote on a question in which the member has a financial interest, other than the general public interest, or on any question involving the member’s own conduct. If a question is raised under this section at any Council meeting concerning the eligibility of a member of the Council to vote on any matter, such question shall be finally determined by the concurring vote of at least six members of the Council, not including such member.

Specifically, Taylor explained to his council colleagues, his law firm Butzel Long represented a potential beneficiary of the council’s action in two cases.

First, Butzel Long represents Jolly Pumpkin. So the council voted to excuse Taylor from the discussion on a resolution that allowed for a new outdoor service area for the Main Street bar.

Outcome: The new outdoor service area for Jolly Pumpkin was unanimously approved.

Second, Butzel Long provided the bond counsel for the city’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC) in connection with an EDC project that Glacier Hills had applied for – it includes $23 million in bonds. So the council voted to excuse Taylor from the discussion of that project, which was approved. As part of the resolution, two people were added to the EDC board: Dan Slee and John A. Rasmussen, who are representative of neighborhood residents and business interests likely to be affected by the project.

Outcome: The resolution to approve the EDC Glacier Hills project was unanimously approved.

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Stephen Ranzini, a member of the city’s EDC, thanked the council for passing the resolution and reminded the council to use their leverage with business owners, because the EDC had been allocated $17 million in tax-free bonding authority as part of the federal stimulus package. The Washtenaw County EDC, for which Ranzini also serves as vice chair, had been awarded another $33 million in tax-free bonding authority, said Ranzini. He noted that neither the city nor the county EDC had received any applications for funds – despite Ranzini’s attempts to to communicate through Ann Arbor SPARK, and through personal meetings. [See Chronicle coverage of Ranzini making the same point to the Ann Arbor DDA and of a recent Washtenaw County Economic Development Corporation meeting.]

Street Lights

Pulled out of the consent agenda for specific consideration was an item that approved a contract with DTE to convert 58 conventional streetlights to LED  fixtures. The location of the lights is the Hill-Packard-East University neighborhood, which was chosen in part in response to concerns about safety raised by some University of Michigan students in 2008.

As part of the contract, DTE is dropping the annual charges for the streetlights from $11,887 to $6,293.  The annual savings of $5,594 would result in a four-year payback on the city’s share of the $22,288 conversion cost. The city and DTE are splitting the conversion costs 50-50.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) called that kind of collaboration “exciting” and asked Andrew Brix to take the podium. Brix is the city’s energy programs manager.

Brix said that the city had been at the forefront in moving towards LED back in 2005. They’d been working with DTE on the issue. The state Public Service Commission had ordered DTE to produce a proposal for a uniform tariff for LED lights, Brix said, but they were “not there yet” based on what they submitted.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the safety issue and how the LED bulbs addressed it. Brix explained that the LEDs would produce “whiter” light and better color conditions. “You’ll be able to make out color,” he explained.

Asked by Margie Teall (Ward 4) what kind of fixtures were chosen, Brix said it was the same fixture used on Nixon Road – it was DTE’s choice, but the city was happy with it, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that it’s difficult to work on something owned by someone else and that the city had to win DTE’s cooperation.

Brix broke down the statistics for streetlights: The city owns 800 streetlights outside the downtown. The other 5,500 are owned by DTE.

Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) said he wanted to “pile on the praise” for DTE taking the step. He also noted that in connection with the A2Fiber response to Google’s request for information, DTE had been a “100-percent partner” on the project.

Hieftje allowed that he’d been impatient at the pace that the LED conversion has been moving forward, but that from DTE’s point of view, they are setting a precedent, so DTE is reluctant to go too fast.

Crosswalks

Resident Kathy Griswold addressed the council once again on the topic of moving the mid-block crosswalk at King Elementary School from its mid-block location to a four-way stop intersection about 300 feet away. She reported that she’d sent an email that day to Todd Roberts, the superintendent of the Ann Arbor Public School system, asking him to email city administrator Roger Fraser stating his support for the move.

Griswold noted that the parents of children attending the school are instructing their kids to cross at the intersection, but that the school crossing guards can’t guard that crosswalk – they can only serve at the mid-block location. A request made under the Freedom of Information Act, said Griswold, had revealed over 50 emails, but the project had come to a halt in the fall of 2009. It seemed mysterious, she said. She expressed the hope that she’d only be at council a few more times talking about the crosswalk.

How many times has Griswold addressed the council on the King School crosswalk issue? Here’s a (possibly incomplete) chronology:

• 2009 Aug. 16 city council caucus [link]
• 2009 Nov. 5 city council meeting [link]
• 2009 Dec. 21 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 Jan. 4 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 Feb. 1 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 Feb. 16 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 March 15 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 April 5 city council meeting [link]
• 2010 April 18 city council caucus [link]

Also crosswalk related, during his communications time Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) reported out from the WATS policy committee that there would be a presentation on HAWK (High Intensity Activated Crosswalk) signals at the next meeting. The city is looking at the possibility of a HAWK signal for the crossing at Third & Huron, near the Ann Arbor YMCA.

Other Commentary

Appearing briefly during public commentary to thank the council was the new executive director of the Leslie Science Center, Greta Brunschwyler. She thanked city administrator Roger Fraser and said she look forwarded to continued partnership.

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

Next council meeting: May 3, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

Scott Bonney, left, of Neumann/Smith Architects, talks with Newcombe Clark, a partner in The Moravian development. Neumann/Smith is the architect for both The Moravian and Zaragon Place 2. At right is Tim Stout of O'Neal Construction.

Monday afternoon’s public forum for Zaragon Place 2 – a proposed 14-story apartment building at the southeast corner of Thompson and William, next to Cottage Inn – was held by the developer and his team to comply with the city’s citizen participation ordinance.

But among those attending the two-hour open house at the Michigan Union were developers for both The Moravian and Heritage Row – two residential projects that have been vigorously opposed by some residents in the city’s near-south side.

There are significant differences among the three projects, but some connections as well, especially among the project teams. And all are at different stages of the process: plans for Zaragon Place 2 haven’t yet been submitted to the city’s planning department, while Heritage Row has been recommended by the planning commission and is expected to come before the city council in May. Meanwhile, in a grueling April 5 city council meeting that lasted well past 1 a.m., The Moravian failed to get the eight votes it needed for approval. Nearly 90 people – both supporters and opponents – spoke during a 3.5-hour public commentary on the project.

Based on reactions at Monday’s open house for Zaragon Place 2, it seems unlikely this latest project will arouse similar passions.

Zaragon Place 2 – Preliminary Design

The purpose of Monday’s citizen participation meeting was to comply with an ordinance that the city council passed in 2008 – taking effect at the start of 2009 – which requires that the developer hold a meeting about the proposed project prior to submitting it to the planning department. Property owners, residents and neighborhood groups within 1,000 feet of the project must be informed of the meeting – for Monday’s event, notices were mailed to about 1,500 addresses. The number is high in part because Zaragon Place 2 is just down the block from Tower Plaza, a 26-story condo building.

There was no formal presentation at the two-hour open house. Rather, developer Rick Perlman – a UM alumnus who lives in Chicago – was on hand to answer questions, as were architects with Neumann/Smith Architects of Southfield, which also designed Zaragon Place on East University. Initial floor plans and renderings of the 14-story building were displayed on easels.

Facing north: Site of the proposed Zaragon Place 2 at the southeast corner of Thompson and William. To the right is the 26-story Tower Plaza and the pink west wall of Cottage Inn restaurant.

Zaragon Place 2 – called ZP2 – is a sister building to the original Zaragon Place, Perlman told The Chronicle, with many of the same attributes. Like the first Zaragon, ZP2 will have first-floor retail, which will front Thompson and William streets. The 99 apartments will have 10-foot-high ceilings, stainless steel appliances, granite countertops and floors made of rubber from recycled tires. Both Zaragons have fitness rooms. Rent will likely be in the same price-range for both complexes, around $1,000 per tenant – “or whatever the market will bear,” Perlman said.

The mix of apartment sizes hasn’t been set, but there will be one-, two- and four-bedroom units housing between 200-350 residents. There are 248 tenants at Zaragon Place on East University, which Perlman said is serving mostly undergraduate students. ZP2′s location on the opposite side of campus will likely attract a higher percentage of graduate students – from the law school and business school, for example – as well as young professionals, he said.

About 40 parking spots will be included on the second and third levels of the building – in contrast to the other Zaragon, which has underground parking. And being on a corner lot with no tall buildings on either side allows for windows on all sides of the structure – every bedroom will have a window. Cottage Inn is a two-story building to the east of the proposed apartment complex. To the south is a University of Michigan surface parking lot.

The location on a corner lot – former site of a long-vacant bank building – should make it easier to build, Perlman said. He’ll be using the same team that worked on Zaragon Place, including Neumann/Smith Architects, O’Neal Construction as general contractor, and Midwestern Consulting for civil engineering work.

This project could be the first one approved under the city’s new A2D2 zoning – the site is zoned for D1, which allows for the densest development. Unlike The Moravian and Heritage Row, which are planned unit developments (PUDs), ZP2 is intended to be a “by right” development, meaning that it conforms to the site’s existing zoning codes.

The final piece of the A2D2 effort – the A2D2 design guidelines – haven’t yet been approved by the city council, but architect Scott Bonney said they’ve looked through the draft guidelines and are comfortable that the project will comply.

Plans for ZP2 will likely be submitted to the city’s planning department within a few weeks, with the hope it will come before planning commission in June and to the city council by August. If approvals are secured and construction can start this year, the project could be completed by 2012.

Monday’s Citizen Participation Meeting: Who Showed Up?

Most of the people who attended Monday’s meeting came during the first hour, and included a mix of residents, students, business owners and people associated with other developments.

Rick Perlman, right, developer of Zaragon Place 1 and 2, talks with Tom Luczak, a resident of the nearby neighborhood.

Several residents from the nearby South Fifth Avenue neighborhood dropped by, including some vocal opponents of The Moravian and Heritage Row projects. Feedback indicated that they would be supportive of Zaragon Place 2, given its location in the D1 zoning district. [Heritage Row on South Fifth Avenue is located in an area zoned for multi-family residential, or R4C. The Moravian's site, on Madison between Fourth and Fifth avenues, was a combination of R4C and M1 zoning, for light industrial uses.]

Tom Heywood, executive director of the State Street Area Association, showed up, as did John Splitt, one of the association’s board members and chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. Also attending was Ed Davidson, owner of Bivouac, a clothing and outdoor gear retailer on South State Street. He said he supports the Zaragon project: “We need more density – period.”

More residents mean more potential customers to keep stores in business, Davidson said. The State Street/East Liberty district has been hard hit by the economic downturn, losing long-time retailers Shaman Drum Bookshop and the John Leidy gift shop within the past year. Shaman Drum closed last summer after nearly 30 years in business. John Leidy, which opened in 1951, went out of business this February.

Peter Allen was one of several developers who came to the open house. Alex de Parry, developer of Heritage Row, attended as well. And Brad Moore, the architect for Heritage Row, had been one of the earliest to arrive. [Moore also does work for Cottage Inn, next door to the ZP2 project.] De Parry said his project will likely be coming before the city council for first reading on May 3. It was approved by planning commission at their March 16 meeting by a 6-2 vote.

Newcombe Clark, a partner in The Moravian project, showed up toward the end of Monday’s open house for ZP2. Several people on the Zaragon team – including Neumann/Smith Architects and Scott Betzoldt of Midwestern Consulting – had worked on The Moravian as well.

Yet another connection to Clark had nothing to do with development, however. Tim Stout of O’Neal Construction, the general contractor for ZP2, was heading to a marketing class later that evening for the UM Ross School of Business MBA program – Clark is taking the same class.

Alex de Parry checks messages on his cell phone before the start of the Ann Arbor planning commission meeting on Tuesday. (Photos by the writer.)

Alex de Parry, the developer of Heritage Row – a project on the east side of Fifth Avenue, south of William – will now seek approval from city council, though he still faces opposition from neighbors and others in the community.

Also at Tuesday’s meeting, the commission continued a broad effort to rezone parcels of city-owned parkland as “public land” – including one known as the “squarest “park in Ann Arbor. Commissioners also addressed concerns raised by residents living near two of the properties being rezoned: Arbor Hills Nature Area and Kilburn Park. Action on those two parcels was postponed.

Also postponed was a proposed site plan for expansion at Glacier Hills retirement community, which plans to construct a new skilled nursing care building within its complex on the city’s east side. Planning staff had some unresolved issue with the proposal, including the need to increase the amount of required bicycle parking. It was noted that residents there might not have a high demand for bike spaces.

Heritage Row

Alex de Parry has been seeking planned unit development (PUD) zoning for his residential project on South Fifth Avenue, now called Heritage Row, for more than two years. It’s the third time this project has been brought forward, in various iterations – including as the former City Place development.

The current project calls for renovating seven historic homes, repositioning them on the site, and building three new 3.5-story apartment buildings behind those houses, with an underground parking garage. In total, there will be a maximum 82 apartments with no more than 163 bedrooms. [For a more detailed description of the project, see Chronicle coverage: "Heritage Row Gets Postponed" and "Fifth Ave. Project to Meet Historic Standards"]

At their Feb. 18, 2010 meeting, planning commissioners voted to postpone action, asking the developer to work with city staff to clarify several issues raised during that meeting. On Tuesday, the group got an updated staff report, heard from several people during a public hearing on Heritage Row – the majority opposed to the project – and ultimately approved the site plan and PUD rezoning.

Staff Report on Heritage Row

Matt Kowalski of the city’s planning staff reviewed the developer’s responses to issues that commissioners had raised last month. He said all questions had been answered to the satisfaction of the planning staff, which was recommending approval of the project.

Specifically, a light tan brick had been chosen for the new buildings, with the goal of helping the buildings blend into the background. Windows will now be a more traditional double-hung style on all four sides of the new buildings.

To address privacy concerns that commissioners had raised on behalf of the residents on Hamilton Place, located to the east of Heritage Row, the back lot line will be planted with 30 evergreen Arborvitae shrubs. Those will grow to be about 20 feet high, Kowalski said.

Another change: the development agreement and PUD supplemental regulations for the project include a commitment to restore all materials on the historical houses according to standards of rehabilitation set by the Secretary of the Interior. This had been a request made by Kirk Westphal. [The full staff report is available to download from the city's website.]

Finally, Kowalski reported that he’d had a last-minute conversation with de Parry that wasn’t reflected in the staff report. De Parry has offered to use wood siding on the new buildings, instead of brick. Kowalski asked commissioners for feedback on that possibility.

Public Hearing on Heritage Row

Eleven people spoke during the public hearing on Heritage Row, most of them opposed to the project. Many had spoken at previous planning commission meetings as well. Here’s a sampling from Tuesday’s hearing:

Tom Luczak said that regardless of the color of the brick, the three new buildings behind the historic homes really stand out, in a way that’s incompatible with the neighborhood. He said he appreciated the offer to adhere to Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation for the existing homes, but that it was important for the new buildings to adhere to those standards as well.

Further, Luczak asked who would determine whether those standards had been met. The city’s historic district commission could do that, he noted – but only if that area was designated as an historic district. That’s not a sure thing, he said. [A study committee has been looking at whether to create a new historic district along Fourth and Fifth avenues, and has issued a preliminary report recommending that such a district be created. City council will ultimately decide the issue.]

Jack Eaton urged the commission to hold off on a vote until a decision had been made about the proposed historic district – a vote now would be premature, he said. The city is in the process of discussing urban density. There are other areas that have been designated for dense developments, but that section of the Fifth Avenue corridor isn’t one of them. A PUD would be an extraordinary departure from the area’s current zoning, he said, and should only be approved if the project is compelling. Heritage Row isn’t a compelling project, and doesn’t meet PUD standards, he contended.

Eaton said that commissioners shouldn’t compare the current project with de Parry’s previous proposal – it’s the PUD standards that should be considered, not whether Heritage Row is better than City Place. He asked commissioners to reject the proposal.

Eppie Potts listed several aspects of the project that she said deviated from current zoning in an unacceptable way. Issues included much greater density, greatly reduced setbacks, and deviations from the city’s central area plan. Nor would the proposal meet Secretary of the Interior standards, she said. The plan calls for moving four houses on the site, so that all seven historic homes would be aligned. “It would be like a pseudo-historic theme park, looking very plastic,” Potts said. She questioned why the project was being rushed through, before a decision had been made on designating that area as an historic district.

Ellen Ramsburgh, who is a member of the city’s historic district commission, said she agreed with the comments made by previous speakers opposing the project. As a resident of a near-downtown neighborhood, she said zoning needed to be kept in scale. She reported that she’d recently been to the top floor of the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research building, with a view looking down onto the Fifth Avenue neighborhood – it’s amazingly intact, she said, with no out-of-scale buildings.

Tom Whitaker reported that he had attended a recent meeting that the R4C study committee had held with local landlords. He said that the landlords had spoken out against oversized development. This type of development hurts them. Whitaker distributed a handout he’d made of residential projects in or around the downtown that had been approved, but not built – almost 1,200 units. There’s a pent-up supply, he said, but not a pent-up demand. The only people who want to build in neighborhoods are developers looking for cheap land. He also cited a range of detriments to the community caused by Heritage Row, including the project’s height and setbacks.

Aside from the project’s developer, Alex de Parry, the only speaker during the public hearing who supported Heritage Row was Kyle V. Mazurek, vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce. The project incorporates several goals supported by the chamber, he said, including greater density in the downtown area and the addition of workforce affordable housing, especially for young professionals. The project’s community benefits include more efficient land and energy use, preservation of the historic streetscape and the generation of property tax revenues. He urged the commission to approve the project.

Commission Deliberations on Heritage Row

Bonnie Bona first asked staff to clarify some issues that had been raised during the public hearing. One question was whether the developer could later add large mechanicals – for heating and air conditioning, for example – to the top of the new buildings, going higher than the currently proposed maximum height of 39.8 feet. Kowalski clarified that nothing can go above that maximum height of 39.8 feet.

Several people during the public hearing had asked the planning commission hold off on a vote until a decision about creating an historic district in that area is made. Bona explained that the Heritage Row project had been submitted to the planning commission, and they were required to act on it. She asked the staff what would happen to the project if the historic district were formed.

Diane Giannola, a planning commissioner who also serves on the city’s historic district commission, clarified for Bona that if an historic district is established, the developer would need to get a certificate of appropriateness from the HDC before he could proceed. Without that, the city wouldn’t issue building permits.

There was some discussion about whether the development would include a geothermal system. From the supplemental regulations:

A renewable energy source shall be utilized as the primary energy source for the building. The renewable energy source may be located on-site, such as geothermal energy for heating and cooling systems, or off-site such as purchasing renewably produced energy for electricity, or a combination thereof.

De Parry told commissioners that because of the size of the site, there wasn’t sufficient room to install a geothermal system. The buildings will be constructed to comply with the federal Energy Star program, he said. Jean Carlberg asked about the level of insulation in the historic homes. De Parry said the goal was to achieve R-30 levels in the sides and R-48 in the ceilings. Carlberg asked that those specifics be written into the supplemental regulations.

Erica Briggs asked who would determine whether the project complied with Secretary of the Interior standards. Kowalski said that if the historic district gets created, then the historic district commission would handle that. If not, then the city’s staff would review it.

After some additional issues were clarified, commissioners began stating their positions on the project.

Eric Mahler said he saw several benefits of the project, including affordable housing – the project has committed to construct 18% of its units as affordable housing, somewhat higher than the city-required 15%. Other benefits were energy efficiency, underground parking and preservation of the historical houses. Mahler said he was concerned about the historic district issue, but that it would be an arbitrary act on their part to hold up the project because of that.

From left: Planning commissioners Wendy Woods, Diane Giannola and Erica Briggs. Woods and Briggs were the two commissioners who voted against the Heritage Row project.

Wendy Woods had a different view. Things that are cited as community benefits are things that the developer should be doing anyway, she said. She wasn’t convinced that the project met PUD standards, and she was concerned about the size and massing of the new buildings. “To me it’s just out of scale with the neighborhood.” She planned to vote against it, she said.

Erica Briggs said it shouldn’t be a surprise that she too would not be supporting Heritage Row, noting that the project doesn’t conform with the city’s central area plan. She read from the relevant section:

In various locations, houses are overshadowed by larger commercial, residential or institutional buildings that are out of scale with existing surrounding development. In addition to being aesthetically displeasing, out-of-scale construction alters the quality of living conditions in adjacent structures. Often it is not so much the use that impacts negatively on the neighborhoods, but the massing of the new buildings.

She also cited a letter written by Jill Thacher, the city’s historic district coordinator. Among other things, Briggs agreed with Thacher’s comments regarding the importance of relationships among historic houses. Heritage Row isn’t context-sensitive, Briggs said. [.pdf copy of Thacher's letter]

Finally, she said it was important to note that there was a study committee reviewing the city’s R4C zoning – the project is not consistent with that zoning.

Kirk Westphal weighed in next, first by stating his preference for a darker brick on the exterior of the new buildings. He noted that it wasn’t in the commission’s purview to examine whether there was a market for these apartments, as some neighbors had suggested – that wasn’t among the criteria for determining a PUD, he said.

Westphal said that some PUD standards stood out more than others for him. By preserving the historic houses, the project is extending the life of those structures – that held a lot of weight with him, and was a major benefit to the street. Putting the parking underground was another benefit in terms of land use, he said.

Westphal said he was disappointed that the geothermal system didn’t work out, but Energy Star buildings would be a major upgrade. He concluded by saying he gave high deference to the city’s planning staff, who had been looking at these issues longer than most of the commissioners – and the staff didn’t always recommend approval.

Tony Derezinski, who also represents Ward 2 on city council, said the project had improved and that it was about as fine-tuned as it could get. He also cited deference for the staff’s opinion, saying that they’d gone over “every jot and tittle” of the development agreement. As for the R4C study committee – mentioned by Tom Whitaker during the public hearing – he noted that both he and Jean Carlberg serve on it, and that it’s not clear when that work will be finished. Heritage Row deserves the planning commission’s support, he said.

Jean Carlberg said she’s thought long and hard about how the new buildings might dominate the streetscape, and concluded that they won’t be noticed. She gave the example of driving down Division past the McKinley building – you barely notice the taller apartment building behind it, she said. She acknowledged that Tom Whitaker will be able to see the buildings out of his bedroom window, but “the rest of us won’t.”

Carlberg added that Heritage Row makes better use of the land that’s now used for parking behind the historic homes. She also cited the benefits of affordable housing, underground parking, energy efficiency and fire suppression systems – if there were a fire, the existing historical buildings would be gone instantly, she said.

The existing homes are part of Ann Arbor’s history, Carlberg said, and preserving the streetscape was important for her, though she noted that there’s nothing magic about the current setbacks. Another factor in favor of Heritage Row is that they’ve not heard any complaints from residents of Hamilton Place, she said. Calling the project a “great win” for the community, Carlberg said they’d been talking about it for a long time, and now they should move it forward.

Diane Giannola agreed with the benefits mentioned by other commissioners, and found it to be a good project for the area.

Bonnie Bona asked de Parry about the number of units in the complex – she was concerned that with a maximum number of 163 bedrooms, it would be possible to build 27 units with six bedrooms each. She acknowledged that his proposal called for no six-bedroom or four-bedroom apartments, and only one five-bedroom apartment. Would he be willing to make that a part of the supplemental regulations? De Parry agreed, noting that the five-bedroom apartment is in one of the historical homes, as it’s currently configured.

Bona also asked why he was now considering wood siding, as opposed to brick. She asked which he preferred. De Parry said it was an attempt to address Erica Briggs’ concerns about the aesthetics of the new buildings, as well as some of Jill Thacher’s comments. They were trying to make it more like Braun Court, he said, but he’d be willing to do whatever pleased the commissioners. Bona asked the project’s architect, Brad Moore, to weigh in. Moore said his primary aim was to please his client, but that the original design had been brick.

In giving her opinion of the project, Bona said she agreed with what other commissioners had said about the benefits of the project. There’s nothing in the central area plan that argues against density, she said, and preserving the streetscape is a huge benefit. The project will create smaller apartments, which the commission has been asking for. It’s come a long way from when it was first proposed, she said.

Outcome: The project was approved on a 6-2 vote, with Erica Briggs and Wendy Woods dissenting. Commissioner Evan Pratt left the meeting before the vote was taken.

Rezoning to Public Land

Earlier in Tuesday’s meeting, in what planning staff describes as an effort to “clean up” zoning of city-owned property that’s used as parkland, the planning commission approved the rezoning of six parcels of parks and nature areas. The new zoning will be “public land” or PL. Previously, these parcels had different types of zoning, ranging from office to residential to agricultural.

The action at Tuesday’s meeting was to be the final part of a broader effort to rezone or annex about 50 parks or portions of parks. Other parcels have been rezoned or annexed at previous meetings. However, because of concerns raised by residents of the Arbor Hills neighborhood, where two of the parcels are located, the commission postponed actions on those two items.

In response to some of the concerns, Bonnie Bona, the commission’s chair, asked planning staff to clarify how the land would remain protected as parkland.

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff explained that there are three ways that parkland is protected. The primary way is its inclusion in the city’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, known as the PROS plan. All parkland is listed in this state-mandated plan, which is updated every five years – an update is currently in progress, led by parks planner Amy Kuras.

In addition, city-owned property is designated as parkland by city council resolution, DiLeo said. And in some cases, deed restrictions placed on the property will limit its use to parkland. DiLeo also noted that parkland is under the stewardship of the park advisory commission, an appointed body that makes recommendations to the city council.

DiLeo said the current mix of zoning doesn’t reflect the land’s actual use as parkland. Rezoning parkland to “public land” better reflects that use, she said.

Land that’s designated as parkland – either by council resolution or by being listed in the PROS plan – also means that it is protected by city charter, which requires voter approval for the sale of parkland, DiLeo said. When asked by Bona whether parkland might be removed from the PROS plan, both DiLeo and planning manager Wendy Rampson said they couldn’t recall that ever happening.

Six Parcels Rezoned

Planning commissioners voted to rezone the following six parcels. The changes require final approval by city council.

Bonnie Bona, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission, reads a resolution to rezone parcels of city-owned parkland.

Arbor Oaks Park: A three-acre park in the Arbor Oaks neighborhood, east of Stone School Road and north of Ellsworth Road on the city’s south side. Currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling).

Berkshire Creek Nature Area: A five-acre nature area next to the Berkshire Creek development, on the east side of South Huron Parkway, north of Washtenaw Avenue. Currently zoned R4A (multi-family dwelling).

Bluffs Nature Area: The 41-acre parcel – located on the east side of North Main Street, between Huron View Boulevard and West Summit Street – is currently zoned for several different uses, including agriculture, office, C1 (local business) and R4A (multi-family dwelling). Though most of the land for this nature area was acquired in the 1990s, a one-acre section on the north edge was recently donated by the nursing home on Huron View Boulevard.

Glacier Highlands Park: A 1.6-acre park – known as the “squarest in Ann Arbor,” DiLeo said – is located in the Glacier Highlands neighborhood, east of Green Road and north of Glazier Way. Currently zoned R1B (single-family dwelling).

Mallets Creek Nature Area: A three-acre nature area next to the Brentwood Square development, on the west side of South Huron Parkway and north of Washtenaw Avenue. Currently zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling).

Scheffler Park: A small 0.3-acre piece of land was recently acquired as an addition to the 5.5-acre park north of the Darlington subdivision, at the northeast corner of Edgewood Drive and South Huron Parkway. The 0.3-acre parcel is currently zoned as office district.

City Parkland within Arbor Hills

Two parcels – Arbor Hills Nature Area and Kilburn Park – were considered separately, in response to concerns from residents. Located in the Arbor Hills neighborhood in northeast Ann Arbor, north of Green Road, both parcels are currently zoned as planned unit development (PUD). Arbor Hills Nature Area is a six-acre area; Kilburn Park is two acres.

Map of Kilburn Park and Arbor Hills Nature Area. (Links to larger image)

Seven people spoke during a public hearing on the rezoning. Though the hearing was for commentary on rezoning of any of the parcels, five of the speakers were from the Arbor Hills neighborhood. Several other people from that neighborhood attended Tuesday’s meeting, but did not formally address the commission.

Edward J. Zelmanski, an attorney from Plymouth representing the Arbor Hills Condominium Association, said it was inappropriate to rezone the parcels to public land – he asked that the action be tabled, or denied. Rezoning the property to public land would open it up to other possible uses, he said.

The Arbor Hills development was established as a PUD, Zelmanski noted, and the two parks shouldn’t be separated from that. Zelmanski also raised the issue of whether there had been proper notice given. Some residents didn’t receive notice of the proposed zoning change, even though they were entitled to be notified – as members of the condo association, they were part owners of property adjacent to the parkland, he said.

Jane Klingsten, co-president of the Arbor Hills Condominium Association, asked for postponement. She said they’d received some documents related to this issue that they hadn’t yet had time to review. Residents needed to be assured that their access and easement rights were protected, she said. In addition, Klingsten wondered about the distinction between “park” and “nature area.” Though the parcel was now being referred to by city staff as a nature area, Klingsten said there’s a sign at the end of Ashburnam Road that calls it “Arbor Hills Park.” She wanted to make sure the designation remained as a park.

Two other residents spoke about concerns that the parks, if zoned as “public land,” could be sold or developed. Another Arbor Hills resident, Marty Smith, said he hadn’t planned to speak, but that he thought Zelmanski was incorrect – publicly owned land shouldn’t be zoned as a PUD. Smith said he’d looked at the zoning ordinances, and that the proposed change seemed in line with the land’s actual use. He supported the rezoning.

Commission and Staff Discussion on Public Land Rezoning

City planner Alexis DiLeo again outlined the ways in which parkland is protected. She said that the “public land” zoning is also used for land owned by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor District Library, Ann Arbor Public Schools and Washtenaw County.

Several commissioners voiced support for postponing action on the two Arbor Hills parcels, and had follow-up questions for staff.

Kirk Westphal, picking up on a concern raised by a resident during the public hearing, asked whether the neighborhood’s stormwater detention pond is located within the city-owned area, and whether there are utility easements running through the park. DiLeo said she’d check on those issues.

Jean Carlberg asked about whether proper notice had been given. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said that city staff would look into that issue. They typically send notice to property owners within 300 feet of the parcel. The condo association was also sent notice, she said, but it’s possible that there are homes in the perimeter of the neighborhood that weren’t contacted.

Saying it was great to see people come out to make sure that parkland is protected, Erica Briggs asked for clarification about whether there was greater or less protection under the designation of “public land,” as compared to previous zoning. DiLeo said there was better protection as public land. Previously, when the land was zoned as residential or office, for example, there might have been the impression that it could be developed, she said. The best protection, though, is being listed in the PROS plan, and being under the stewardship of the park advisory commission.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to recommend rezoning of six parcels to “public land.” They voted to postpone action on the Kilburn Park and Arbor Hills Nature Area.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

A public hearing notice duct-taped to a tree on Fifth Avenue, announcing the Feb. 18 public hearing of the proposed Heritage Row development. (Photos by the writer.)

Developer Alex de Parry is asking to rezone the seven-parcel site, with plans to restore the historic houses there and build three 3.5-story buildings behind them. Commissioners generally were favorable toward the project, citing benefits of restoring the older homes, among other things. A fair amount of  their discussion involved what color of brick to use on those new buildings.

The public hearing drew several neighbors who raised concerns they’d voiced over de Parry’s previous project in the same location, called City Place. Several mentioned the new buildings as being too large for the neighborhood. Another concern: An historic district study committee hasn’t finished its report, which could affect the project.

But before they considered Heritage Row, commissioners discussed proposed changes to Plymouth Green Crossings, a mixed use complex off of Plymouth, west of Green Road. The developers, represented by David Kwan, are asking to alter their original agreement with the city.

Economic conditions, including the departure of Pfizer, have slowed plans to complete the project, which was to include a total of three buildings and a standalone restaurant. Two buildings have been constructed – tenants include Sweetwaters and Olga’s – but a perceived lack of parking has stymied attempts to fill the retail space, Kwan said. He and his partners hope to put in a temporary parking lot on the land that originally was slated for the restaurant.

One commissioner wasn’t too excited by Kwan’s idea. Concerns were also raised about payments to the city’s affordable housing fund, which are being spread out over several years.

Plymouth Green Crossings

Developers of Plymouth Green Crossings are asking to amend the original planned unit development (PUD) agreement, which was approved in early 2006. Rather than build a restaurant, they’re asking for permission to turn that part of the site into a temporary parking lot, adding 26 additional parking spaces and 11 spots for motorcycles.

The proposal had been postponed from the planning commission’s October meeting, to give the developers time to make required affordable housing payments.

Plymouth Green Crossings: Public Comment

David Kwan, one of the partners in the development, said he was available to answer any questions.

Ethel Potts spoke about the developer’s request to make staggered payments to the city’s affordable housing fund, in lieu of providing affordable housing units in the complex. She wondered if the staggered payments – rather than an upfront sum – would set a precedent, or if it would be limited to this specific instance. She said she assumed the latter.

Brad Mikus also had concerns related to the affordable housing payments. As proposed, the staggered payments mean that the city is essentially providing the developer with an interest-free loan, he said, which seems unfair. He noted that since the affordable housing fund can be matched by state dollars, it’s not just the local funding that’s affected. Related to the proposed parking lot, Mikus said that since it was part of the planned unit development (PUD), it should meet PUD standards, which require a public benefit. There’s no public benefit to parking, he said. In fact, there’s a negative impact to the environment.

Plymouth Green Crossings: Staff Report

Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff said that staff recommended approval of the project. The developers had received approval from the Ann Arbor city council earlier this month to amend the payment schedule to the affordable housing fund, spreading payments over the next three years. They’ve paid $60,000 so far, out of a required $315,000 total payment.

In the foreground is a plot of land to the north of the buildings at Plymouth Green Crossings. Originally slated for a restaurant, the developers want to put in a temporary parking lot there.

Commissioner Kirk Westphal chaired the meeting, and asked Kahan to respond to some issues raised during public commentary. Regarding housing payments, Kahan said it was not a change in policy to allow staggered payments. It’s a decision that rests with the city council.

The developers had originally intended the housing units to be sold as condominiums, which would have provided money up front from which to make the affordable housing payments. But market conditions dictated that they lease the units instead, which takes longer to recapture the developers’ investment, Kahan said. He was confident that the payments would be made during the negotiated period.

Regarding environmental impact, Kahan said the site, which is in the Millers Creek watershed, already included a stormwater management system that took into account the construction of a restaurant. The system would still be able to accommodate runoff, even if the impervious surface is in the form of a parking lot.

Plymouth Green Crossings: Commission Deliberations

Commissioner Jean Carlberg said that Sweetwaters, one of the tenants in the complex, seems to be doing quite well at that location. She asked David Kwan whether there would be sufficient parking if a restaurant is eventually built.

Kwan characterized the parking issue as one of perception. The food service tenants – Sweetwaters and Olga’s – seem to be doing well. Inkstop, a regional business with a store at Plymouth Green Crossings, closed last fall when the company declared bankruptcy. Right now, much of the activity is concentrated on the south side of the complex, where the site is narrowest, he said. When the restaurant is built, activity will move more to the north, where there’s more parking.

Carlberg said it seemed reasonable to proceed in phases, and that she felt comfortable with the affordable housing arrangement, given the difficult economy.

Commissioner Erica Briggs said she wasn’t as comfortable, and had several concerns. If the restaurant is built, that will take away parking from current tenants, she said – it didn’t seem like other businesses in that complex would support that. But a larger concern for her was that it’s not clear whether the second phase of this project will be built. Would the project have been approved, if it had originally called for parking at that location, not a restaurant?

An aerial view of the Plymouth Green Crossings site, taken prior to construction. (Image links to larger file.)

By approving this project, the commission would be sending mixed messages to the community, Briggs said.  On the one hand, they try to limit parking on certain projects. Yet the developer is saying that because there’s the perception of a lack of parking, he wants to create a wealth of parking spots. “I don’t know that’s the message we want to be sending to the community,” she said.

Commissioner Diane Giannola recalled that they’d discussed the parking issue previously. Kahan confirmed this, noting that the developers had an arrangement with the Ann Arbor campus of the Cooley Law School, to use the school’s large parking lot to the north. Kahan also noted that the businesses on the site would have different peak times of need for parking. Fifth Third Bank, for example, would need parking for customers on weekdays, while a restaurant would have more of an evening demand. In addition, he said, residents of the apartments have their own parking spaces.

Giannola said it seemed like a more efficient use of space to put in a parking lot, until the economy turns around and a restaurant can be built.

Commissioner Evan Pratt shared the concerns raised by Briggs. He wondered whether they should revisit the entire site plan, given that things didn’t turn out as envisioned. Was the approved site plan the right one?

Wendy Rampson, planning manager, reminded commissioners that this site was formerly part of NSF International’s property – NSF occupied the building where Cooley Law School is now located, and the land was vacant until Plymouth Green Crossings was built. The majority of the northwest corner of Plymouth and Green is taken up by the Millers Creek headwaters, and the planning commission had imposed some “strenuous” requirements on the developer because of that, Rampson said. It had been a risky project, she added, especially given the economy.

The developers were just asking to tweak the project to make it successful, Rampson said, noting that the PUD accomplishes everything that was laid out in that area’s master plan. There was a demand for the rental units, she added, but the city had held up certificates of occupancy until they settled the question of affordable housing payments.

Pratt said he didn’t want to feel that they were locked into the original layout. Perhaps it’s time to talk about whether parking is in the right place, he said. An underground garage might be more appropriate, or future buildings should perhaps be relocated within the site.

The entrance to Plymouth Green Crossings, looking north from Plymouth Road. At the bottom right of the photo is the start of a rusted steel retaining wall.

Carlberg said it’s not the commission’s place to tell the developers to redesign a site that’s already been approved – that’s inappropriate. The developer is in a far better position than commissioners are to understand the difficulties his development is facing, she said.

Since the stormwater system is already set, Carlberg said she saw little jeopardy in putting in the parking lot.

Pratt then brought up the issue of a vegetative screen along the front retaining wall. It’s a pretty long stretch of rusted steel, he said, and he was hoping for more screening.

Kwan noted that some plantings had been made, and that they planned also to have plants that would grow from the top of the wall and hang down. They’d make that a priority in the spring, he said.

Briggs asked if Kwan was planning to use porous materials on the parking lot, similar to what the Downtown Development Authority did at the former YMCA site at Fifth and William. Kwan replied that they viewed the lot as temporary, and weren’t planning to invest in more than standard asphalt.

Briggs queried Kahan about whether materials for the parking lot are discussed with staff, or whether that is the choice of developers. Kahan said it’s an increasingly common topic, but porous materials aren’t always practical in lots with lots of activity – it’s an issue of durability. For lots that don’t have a lot of turnover – in office complexes, for example, as opposed to retail – the staff asks developers to consider porous materials.

Carlberg noted that it would be a tremendous expense for a temporary lot, given the site prep that’s required. If the soil is clay, it has to be taken out and replaced with a soil that drains well. The Y lot was different, she said, because they had to fill in a basement there and could use soil that was appropriate for a porous surface.

Briggs also asked if employees at the complex were being encouraged to park on the north side of the site, to free up availability for customers closer to the businesses. Some employees are using the Cooley lot, Kwan said. But the problem is really with the commercial brokers who are looking at the site for clients, Kwan added. Their mindset is that there needs to be more parking – they’re not as “enlightened” as the people of Ann Arbor, he said. The owners had lost three or four potential tenants because of the parking issue. “We’re really trying to get them in the door – it’s virtually impossible right now,” he said.

Briggs said she’d support the project, but asked that the commission schedule a discussion at a future meeting to talk about the issue of parking in the city’s core versus its outskirts. Over time, she said, they can change people’s perceptions about what’s necessary, in terms of parking.

Outcome: All five commissioners who were present – Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Diane Giannola, Evan Pratt and Kirk Westphal – voted to approve the amended PUD agreement. However, since the motion required six votes to pass, it failed for lack of votes.

Heritage Row

Heritage Row is the third iteration of a project by developer Alex de Parry that began as City Place, on the east side of Fifth Avenue between William and Packard. [For a full timeline of the City Place/Heritage Row proposals, see Chronicle coverage: "Fifth Ave. Project to Meet Historic Standards"]

Heritage Row: Staff Report

Matt Kowalski of the city’s planning staff gave an overview of the project. De Parry is seeking rezoning from R4C – multi-family residential – to a more flexible planned unit development (PUD). Seven historic houses will be preserved. Three of those – at 407, 411, and 415 S. Fifth – will remain in place, and four will be moved to align with a uniform 19-foot setback for all seven houses.

Additions that have been built onto the original structures will be removed. The seven houses will have a maximum of 38 rental units and 55 bedrooms, including a minimum of 11 efficiencies.

Behind those houses, three new buildings will be constructed – 3.5 stories high, at a maximum height of 39.8 feet. The buildings will have a maximum of 44 units, totaling as many as 99 bedrooms in a mix of two- and three-bedroom apartments. Of the total apartments in Heritage Row, 18% will be designated as affordable housing – the city requires a minimum of 15%.

Sixty parking spaces and 112 bicycle parking spots will be provided in an underground structure, with access off of South Fifth Avenue. An underground stormwater management system will be built on the site as well.

The full staff report – a 26 MB file – is downloadable from the city’s website.

Kowalski said staff was recommending that the planning commission postpone the proposal, so that the developer can incorporate feedback from staff and commissioners.

Heritage Row: Public Comment

Speakers at the public hearing generally fell into two categories: Those who objected to the project, or elements of it, and those affiliated with the developer. Here’s a sampling.

Tom Luczak: Saying he was 6 feet 2 inches tall, Luczak asked commissioners to imagine that he was wearing a pointed hat, but that behind him stood a row of 7-foot-tall NBA players. It was an analogy to how the large buildings behind the historical houses on Fifth Avenue would totally overwhelm those homes, he said. Though the developer has come a long way on this project, it’s still incompatible with the neighborhood.

The Germantown Neighborhood Association was recommending a height of no more than 30 feet, he said. The size would also affect how much sunlight reached the houses on Hamilton Place to the east, he said, as well as to the house north of the development. Luczak also noted that the project is located in an area that’s being considered as a possible historic district. “History may be repeating itself,” he said, referring to a lawsuit brought by the developers of Glen Ann Place. Confusion over how that development fit into the historic district process really “buggered up” the project, he said. The city needed to be mindful of that.

Andrew Broderick: This project was an attractive one, Broderick said. It marries historic preservation with increased density, and improves the housing quality in that neighborhood.

Alex de Parry: The Heritage Row developer said he was proud that this project might be a model for infill development, mixing the historic with the new. Although they had not planned this originally, restoring the historic homes takes the project to a level they hadn’t thought possible, he said. De Parry pointed to the affordable housing component, on-site parking and stormwater management as other benefits of the project.

Beverly Strassmann: It’s true that the current proposal is improved, Strassmann said, especially compared to City Place, which was de Parry’s previous proposal for that site. But for it to be a win-win, “it still has a ways to go.” If the new buildings were 30 feet tall and echoed the style of the historic homes, that might work. But with three “massive” new buildings behind those homes, it’s not fair to say that the streetscape is protected. Further, the project seems badly timed, she said, given the ongoing study of a possible historic district in that area.

Strassmann hoped that the project would be postponed until the city council made a decision on that. Her next point was on density: She and her neighbors supported density – but in the downtown, she said, only within the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority. If you allow developers to build on cheaper land outside of the downtown, then there’s no incentive to build downtown – and you’re cannibalizing the neighborhoods. It’s not as bad as the Moravian, Strassmann said, referring to another proposed development farther south on Fifth Avenue. But it’s still too dense for the neighborhood. Finally, she said she was worried about the increased traffic along Fifth, especially at the intersection with Packard, which she called a “deadly corridor.”

Ethel Potts: Potts, a former planning commissioner, said she wished the project weren’t rushed, given that the area might become an historic district. There were several elements of the project that the historic district committee might not approve, she said, like the removal of the stone foundations – though she acknowledged that the developer planned to put the stones back in place after the houses were moved.

De Parry was planning to remove the additions that had been made to the original homes, she noted, but some of those additions are old enough to be historic in their own right. Further, moving the houses from their current locations into a rigid row – was that something the historic district commission would approve? The project would be too crowded and not have enough green space, Potts said, and as a PUD, it should have benefits to the neighborhood, not have detrimental effects.

Brad Moore: The project’s architect said he wanted to clarify the staff report. The development team originally proposed a dark brick for the exterior of the new buildings, but after talking with staff they chose a lighter tone for the brick and accents. The cantilevered bay windows in the rear of the building had been added as an amenity to the bedrooms, but could be removed if the commission found them objectionable.

Regarding parking, Moore said the residents will be urban dwellers and won’t rely on cars – the project encourages the use of non-motorized transportation. In response to concerns about building height, Moore gave a handout to commissioners that he said showed how the project would appear to someone standing on Fifth Avenue, looking toward the buildings. It’s clear that the buildings in the rear of the historical houses don’t dominate the streetscape, he said.

Scott Munzel: Munzel, an attorney for the developer, urged the commission to approve this project. It meets the recommendations of the city’s Downtown Residential Task Force, which specifically encourage density one-quarter mile beyond the DDA boundaries, he said. Other beneficial effects include the preservation – and improvement – of historic houses, he said, and the efficient use of land that’s now “dead space.” The new buildings are clearly consistent with the area – they won’t loom, he said. Finally, he noted that the project will replace what are now parking lots and messy backyards.

Martha Luczak: A resident who lives directly across the street from the proposed project, Luczak asked for clarity regarding how Heritage Row would fit into the potential historic district. It was important to avoid a “debacle” like the one involving Glen Ann Place, she said. She also described her heart as pounding when Moore passed out images related to the project that the neighbors hadn’t yet seen.

Heritage Row: Commission Deliberations

Jean Carlberg asked about the back lot line, abutting the lots on Hamilton Place. What would be placed between the those properties? There are trees that straddle the property line, said Brad Moore, the project’s architect. They’ve also proposed a two-foot-tall retaining wall, to handle the change in grading. He said they also planned to plant trees there.

Carlberg pointed out that a retaining wall does nothing to protect the privacy of the Hamilton Place residents, and urged him to do something more to screen the properties. She said that only one couple from that street has attended the public meetings on this project. Moore informed her that the couple she mentioned had moved – most of the residents there are renters.

These are two of seven houses on South Fifth Avenue that will be restored as part of the Heritage Row project, if approved by the planning commission and city council. In the background are houses on Hamilton Place, to the east.

Alex de Parry noted that almost 50 feet separates the Hamilton Place houses from the back of the proposed Heritage Row buildings. He said he’s talked privately with residents there, and reported that they’re not worried about the proximity.

Saying she thought the project was moving in the right direction, Carlberg said she wasn’t bothered by the taller new buildings. However, she did raise concerns about the number of small units. There’s community pressure to have fewer multi-bedroom units – the type of apartment that’s associated with student housing. But when you have a greater number of efficiencies and one-bedroom apartments, the number of units mushrooms, Carlberg said.

Heritage Row is exactly what the downtown residential task force was looking for, she said. “I see a great deal to like in this third proposal in front of us.” The issue of the historic district was awkward, she conceded, and she didn’t see a benefit in the commission making a decision at this point on the project.

Evan Pratt asked whether they should get an opinion from the city attorney’s office about the historic district process. Wendy Rampson of the city’s planning staff said the attorney had already weighed in. While there’s a moratorium on demolition and construction in that area – until the historic district study committee turns in its report – there’s no moratorium on planning, Rampson said. The developer is aware, she said, that if the area is designated an historic district, he’ll have to get the necessary approvals from the city’s historic district commission – even if planning commission has already approved his site plan. Without the HDC approval, the city wouldn’t issue permits, she said.

Pratt and Erica Briggs both said they shared Carlberg’s concerns about screening in the back. Briggs suggested adding a privacy wall, so that people could enjoy their back yards.

Briggs said she was torn about this project. The rehabilitation of the historic houses is a great benefit to the neighborhood, and the addition of the back buildings is a good use of space. But architecturally, the new buildings lack detail and don’t fit into the character of the neighborhood, she said. She’s also concerned about the height, and thinks that perhaps they’re trying to cram too much density into that area. “It still does have a little ways to go to make it work in the neighborhood.”

Diane Giannola asked how the existing houses would be shifted on the site. Moore said they’d be moving forward, and in some cases a foot or two to the right or left, to create access to the garage and utilities. Giannola asked whether it would be helpful to tear down one of the houses – would that make things easier? Moore didn’t think so.

Kirk Westphal wanted staff to clarify if any landmark trees would be removed. Matt Kowalski reported that no landmark trees would be removed, nor would any street trees be taken down. A couple of trees on the site would be removed, in one case to clear way for access to the underground garage.

Westphal also raised the issue of the brick color of the new buildings, saying they’d gone back and forth about the colors via email exchanges. When Kowalski said the developer was hoping for feedback from the commissioners, Westphal asked for clarification about the goal of the background buildings.

The background buildings are intended to be less prominent than the historic houses in front, Kowalski said. An historical consultant who had weighed in on the matter said that darker colors would make the building more prominent, as would architectural details, he said. That’s why the developer was leaning toward lighter brick, and fewer distinctive features on the new buildings.

De Parry passed around samples of the brick, saying they’d started out with a dark color called Old Detroit. The consensus among commissioners was a preference for a medium shade of brick – known as Washtenaw – with Giannola and Briggs adding that they’d like to see more character in the structures.  When Giannola asked whether the color of the background buildings should be coordinated with the colors of the historic houses in front, Westphal noted that they might be “maxing out” on their authority at this point.

Westphal asked whether de Parry was willing to agree that the project would conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. De Parry said it was already in the development agreement. Kowalski clarified that meeting those specific standards wasn’t in the agreement, though the agreement did state that the historic homes would be restored. When Westphal again asked de Parry if he’d conform to those standards, de Parry said yes.

“I’m very encouraged by what’s being proposed,” Westphal said. De Parry’s extensive work with the neighbors was a positive, he added, and there’s a great benefit to putting parking underground. Westphal also cited the stormwater detention system as a benefit.

Briggs said she was disappointed at the level of discussion they were having, and noted that they talked more about the Plymouth Green Crossings project than they had about Heritage Row. They hadn’t discussed whether this project met the public benefits required by a PUD, she said. The neighbors had significant concerns over the height of the new buildings, she noted. This was the commission’s major opportunity to discuss the project before its final hearing, she said, adding that she’d hate for them to wait until then to give feedback to the developer.

Giannola said she wasn’t bothered by the height. Westphal also said it wasn’t a great concern for him. What tipped the balance for him in favor of the project was the restoration of historic houses. He also cited the project’s goal of Energy Star certification and energy-conserving features as obvious benefits.

Carlberg asked about the windows, wondering if they were going to look like those on the building at South State and Washington, which she didn’t like. Moore assured her that they’d be standard residential windows, not tinted.

De Parry responded to height concerns, saying that there were taller buildings in the neighborhood, including the church a block away. And because of the land elevation, there are houses on Hamilton Place that are actually higher than the west elevation of the new buildings for Heritage Row, he said.

Briggs said her concern was less about height and more about the lack of architectural detail for the new buildings – she was surprised they lacked character. De Parry expressed some frustration, noting that he’d been told to have less architectural detail than originally proposed so that the buildings would blend into the background: “You get five preservation architects in the room, and they’ll give you five different opinions.” He said they were trying to do what people wanted. “We try to walk that fine line and make half of the people happy, versus having nobody happy.”

At this point, Carlberg made a motion to postpone.

Outcome: All six commissioners present –  Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Diane Giannola, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal and Tony Derezinski, who had arrived late – voted to postpone the project.

Final Public Commentary

During the meeting’s final slot for public commentary, Beverly Strassmann spoke again, saying that if they were picking out a wedding ring, it sure looked like they were getting married. She reiterated that it was premature to move ahead on this project, before hearing results of the historic district study committee. She also restated her point about density belonging downtown, not in the nearby neighborhoods.

Other Items

Kirk Westphal noted that there will be a public hearing at the commission’s March 2 meeting for a project proposed by the Michigan Islamic Academy. The academy, located at 2301 Plymouth Road, is seeking site plan approval to remove an existing classroom trailer and build a new three-story, 10,500-square-foot classroom building.

Present: Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Diane Giannola, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal and Tony Derezinski

Absent: Bonnie Bona, Eric Mahler, Wendy Woods

At the podium, Bill Godfrey of Three Oaks Group and Tom Fitzsimmons of the North Central Property Owners Association both express their support of the Near North housing project on North Main. In the background, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). (Photo by the writer.)

Ann Arbor City Council meeting (Sept. 21, 2009): Ann Arbor’s city council approved both major development projects on its agenda, one of them enthusiastically, the other only reluctantly.

Although there was a smattering of opposition expressed to the Near North affordable housing development during the public hearing on the matter, the 39-unit project on North Main Street ultimately won the support of its closest neighbors. That support was reflected symbolically when developer Bill Godfrey and neighbor Tom Fitzsimmons stood side-by-side at the podium as they each addressed the council, which gave the project its unanimous approval.

The “matter of right” City Place project proposed for the block of South Fifth Avenue just south of William was also unanimously approved by the council, but councilmembers took turns criticizing both the project and the developer, Alex de Parry. The council had previously established a historic district study committee and enacted an associated moratorium on demolition and work in the area where the proposed project is located. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) compared de Parry’s decision to bring the project forward despite the moratorium to “stamping feet, being upset you didn’t get what you wanted.”

Many members of the audience held yellow 8×11 paper signs calling on councilmembers to support a resolution that would have released council emails sent during their meetings dating back to 2002. However, council rejected that resolution except for a resolved clause that would in the future provide the public with copies of electronic communications among councilmembers during its meetings – by appending them to the official minutes of the meeting that are eventually posted on the city’s website.

The council also put looming financial issues on the radar by passing a resolution that opposes a recent Michigan budget proposal that would cut state shared revenues to the city of Ann Arbor by about $1.2 million. At the council’s budget and labor committee meeting that was held Monday – before the regular council meeting – Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, floated some possible ideas for meeting that shortfall.

Near North

Near North is an affordable housing project of 39 units proposed for North Main Street. The nonprofit Avalon Housing and the developer Three Oaks are working on the project together. The project is a planned unit development (PUD), which by definition asks for a rezoning of the property to accommodate the project. As a PUD, it is evaluated by the city council in terms of whether its public benefit is adequate to justify the rezoning that is requested. It therefore differs from the City Place project, which is a “matter of right” proposal and does not ask for a rezoning of the property.

Public Comment on Near North

Close to a dozen people spoke in favor of the Near North project, most of them citing the affordable housing benefit provided by its 14 supportive housing units as well as the remaining units that target incomes at up to 50% of the area’s median income.

Dave DeVarti stressed that the project was important as a step in the direction of replacing the 100 units of affordable housing lost at the location of the old YMCA building at the corner of Fifth and William, when the city acquired the property and subsequent mechanical failures led to its demolition. The need for affordable units would, said DeVarti, become more acute as federally funded co-op housing was converted to market-rate condos. The benefit of the affordable units offered by Near North, he said, was that the affordability of the units was built into the zoning, which meant that their lower cost would extend beyond a 20- to 30-year horizon.

Tim Colenback immediately followed DeVarti, saying that he agreed with everything DeVarti had said, describing him as a “great and wise man.” The remark drew a laugh. Colenback went on to enumerate some of the city’s parking structures, saying how pleased he was to have so many great places in the city where he could “house his car.” He asked that the city think of making the same commitment to housing people has it does to housing cars.

Ray Detter took up Colenback’s comedic gambit, by declaring, “I am not a great and wise man!” But he then actually went on to disagree with Colenback and DeVarti’s conclusion about supporting the project. He noted that many of the same arguments against City Place also applied to Near North: It’s not consistent with the Central Area Plan and it’s too dense. Further, said Detter, it did not represent a significant increase in affordable housing – especially when weighed against the removal of the existing houses on the parcels where Near North would be built. Where, Detter wondered, would the people in the 27 bedrooms in the five existing houses go?

John Floyd argued against the project in two ways. First, he said, it would be healthier if the city attempted to surround downtown with neighborhoods similar to the Old West Side. And second, the fact of a PUD proposal – which by definition means that a variance to the existing zoning is requested – seemed to undermine the idea that the city was currently engaged in a process to reevaluate the zoning of the entire city.

Several speakers emphasized the positive benefit that had come from the collaboration between the North Central Property Owners Association and the developer. Architect Damian Farrell said that the collaboration had resulted in “a better design.”

That collaboration was reflected when Three Oaks Group developer Bill Godfrey and North Central Property Owners Association planning committee member Tom Fitzsimmons made their respective remarks standing jointly at the podium.

But the collaboration was hedged with some remaining serious concerns. They were expressed clearly by John Hilton, who first made clear what crucial point had finally won the neighborhood’s support: the revision in design that allowed for the planting of larger trees, which could develop into a mature landscaping. That, he said, was the key difference between near-downtown and downtown neighborhoods. He then expressed concern for a planning process that led from a project that was, five years ago, “laughed out of city hall,” to something seen in a completely different light when the phrase “affordable housing” had been attached to it.

Hilton singled out Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the council’s representative to the planning commission, for particular criticism. Hilton criticized Derezinski for being “too tired” to deliberate on the project at a planning commission meeting, moving to postpone those deliberations, then “skipping” the meeting when the deliberations took place. Derezinski later contended that he would have voted yes on the project. [The planning commission vote was 5-2 in favor of the project, but did not reach the 6-vote majority needed for recommendation to the city council.] Derezinski, Hilton said, had “crossed the line to dishonesty.”

Hilton also singled out Sabra Briere (Ward 1) for special praise, saying that he had not imagined that a councilmember could be so resourceful.

Council Deliberations on Near North

In expressing his support of the project, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said that the approval of a PUD required demonstration of “a bold benefit to the community.” Near North offered that, he said, in the form of 39 units of affordable housing, and the removal of three houses from the floodway. Massing of the building was, he said, a concern for a near-downtown neighborhood. But it represented a step forward in the drive for as many as 500 units of affordable housing.

Notes taken during city council deliberations on Near North by Michael Appel, executive director of Avalon Housing, which is collaborating on the project with Three Oaks Group. (Photo by the writer.)

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said that Near North set “a new standard for how developments should be collaboratively worked upon.” He stressed that the replacement of the 100 units of housing from the old YMCA site had not fallen off the radar.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that he was at first disappointed in the project, due to the amount of opposition in the neighborhood, but felt that now it was a model that could be expanded throughout the city.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) brought up the issue of LEED certification, which she has previously emphasized in connection with Near North. The project earned her support, despite the fact that she wanted a stronger commitment at this stage to LEED certification at a level as high as possible.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) sought clarification on the side agreement reached between the developer and the neighborhood association regarding Phase Two of the project, which governed how and when the retail space in the project could be filled. Kevin McDonald, with the city attorney’s office, explained that it essentially was in the same spirit as what had been built into the supplemental regulations. The idea was to not allow use of the retail portion of the project until the existing retail store on the southeast corner of Main and Summit was no longer a commercial property.

Briere, though she ultimately supported the project, expressed the kind of reservations that Ray Detter had outlined in his public commentary. She was concerned about the construction of a building with a “factory-loft look” getting built in a near-downtown neighborhood. She said she would have had fewer reservations if the project had all 39 of its units reserved for supportive [not just affordable] housing and if it did not require removal of any houses.

Mayor John Hieftje expressed his support for the project by citing the opportunity to create greenspace on that corner, and the possibility that the retail space could become the equivalent of a Jefferson Market for this area.

Outcome: The council approved unanimously the PUD proposal for Near North.

City Place

The proposal before city council on Monday was a “matter of right” project with 24 total units, each with six bedrooms. There would be two buildings, separated by a parking lot. Currently there are seven houses standing on the parcels where the project is proposed. The project’s history includes the following dates:

• Jan. 15, 2008: Conditional rezoning – Ann Arbor Planning Commission recommended denial.
  YES: None. NO: Bonnie Bona, Craig Borum, Jean Carlberg, Ron Emaus, Joan Lowenstein, Eric Mahler, Ethel Potts, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal.
• May 20, 2008: PUD (planned unit development) – Planning Commission recommended denial.
  YES: Emaus. NO: Bona, Borum, Carlberg, Lowenstein, Mahler, Potts, Westphal. ABSENT: Pratt.
• Sept. 4, 2008: PUD – Ann Arbor Planning Commission recommended denial.
  YES: Borum, Lowenstein. NO: Bona, Carlberg, Potts, Pratt, Westphal, Woods.
• Dec. 15, 2008: City Council rejects resolution to establish a Historic District Study Committee for Germantown.
• Jan. 5, 2009: PUD – City Council denied on a unanimous 0-10 vote.
  NO: John Hieftje, Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Rapundalo, Leigh Greden, Christopher Taylor, Margie Teall, Marcia Higgins, Carsten Hohnke, Mike Anglin. ABSENT: Sandi Smith.
• April 21, 2009: MOR (matter of right) – Planning Commission recommends approval on 6-3 vote.
  YES: Bona, Carlberg, Derezinski, Mahler, Westphal, Woods. NO: Potts, Borum, Pratt.
• June 1, 2009: MOR – City Council postponed it due to inconsistencies in drawings provided on website. [Errors attributed to city staff.]
• June 15, 2009: MOR – City Council sent it back to Planning Commission due to technical errors with drawings provided at the Planning Commission April meeting. [Errors attributed to city staff.]
• July 7, 2009: MOR – Planning Commission recommended denial on 5-1 vote to approve (needed 6).
• July 20, 2009: MOR – City Council postpones until January 2010, to give the developer the opportunity to pursue a revised PUD. A condition was that the developer could bring back the matter of right project with 35-days notice.
• Aug. 9, 2009: City Council establishes a Historic District Study Committee and moratorium on demolition for two-block area, including the proposed site of City Place.
• Aug. 11, 2009: “Streetscape PUD” receives planning staff initial review.
• Aug. 12, 2009: “Streetscape PUD” introduced to neighbors to comply with the neighbor participation ordinance.
• Aug. 17, 2009: City Council revises language of moratorium to include all forms of work, including demolition.
• Aug. 30, 2009: Application for “Streetscape PUD” was not at accepted by city planning staff.

Public Commentary on City Place

At least two dozen people spoke against the project during the public hearing.

Some argued that the council should deny the project on the basis that it did not actually meet the zoning code as contended by the city planning staff. Specifically, they said, the height of the building exceeded the allowable 30 feet, because what the staff was analyzing as a dormer was actually the roof. In addition, they contended that the building did not meet setback requirements, because the rule applied by city planning staff was intended for irregularly-shaped lots, not rectangular lots.

Others argued against approval of the project based on the contention that it jeopardized health, safety and welfare. The health claim was based on increased load to sewer and water systems, while the safety claim was based on increased vehicular traffic in the area.

Still others pointed to the value of the existing seven houses that would be torn down in order to build the project. That value was expressed both in terms of historic worth as well as the labor of the workers who had built the homes – labor should be honored.

Speaking in favor of the project was the developer, Alex de Parry, as well as the architect, Bradley Moore, and consultants David Birchler and Jamie Gorenflo. De Parry ticked through the key dates of the time line, including July 20, when he said the city was encouraging him to bring forward a “Streetscape PUD” as an alternative to the original PUD that had been rejected by the council on Jan. 5, 2009. The “Streetscape PUD” would have preserved the front part of six out of the seven houses, linking them with a structure at the rear of the property.

Believing that the city was acting in good faith, he said, they had asked the council to table the “matter of right” project in order to be able to comply with the city’s request to pursue the “Streetscape PUD” instead.

Moore cited his more than 20 years of experience working and designing buildings in Ann Arbor in every different zoning district in the city. He said that he’d always worked with the planning staff to follow their interpretation of the zoning codes and that this project should be approved based on the fact that it met the zoning codes. For Birchler’s part, he walked the council through the four relevant chapters of the city code – Chapter 55, 59, 62, 57 – concluding that for each chapter, the project conformed to the code requirements. Gorenflo attested to the adequacy of the sewer and water utilities for the project.

Council Deliberations on City Place

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) began deliberations by saying that there had been very little support for the project, pointing to the unanimous rejection by the council of the earlier PUD proposal in January. [Although the vote for the record was unanimous, the project enjoyed support from at least six, possibly seven, councilmembers. They  did not vote for the project after neighbors who were opposed to the project successfully filed a protest petition just before the January 5, 2009 vote – that petition raised the standard for approval to an eight-vote majority.]

Hohnke went on to say that while de Parry claimed there was no other choice for him but to submit the matter of right project, there was another choice that was represented by the outcome of the Near North project, that had seen a more collaborative approach. He said that de Parry had used “every tool in his tool box” and that the city council had merely used the tools it had in putting a powerful moratorium in place. He said he would support the outcome of the historic district study committee if the establishment of a district was recommended, which was a reasonable expectation, he said. Earlier during the evening in his communications to council, Mayor John Hieftje also had indicated he planned to vote for the establishment of a historic district.

Hohnke then compared the idea of bringing the matter of right project before the council in the face of the moratorium to “stamping feet, being upset you didn’t get what you wanted.”

Nevertheless, Hohnke said, he was going to “hold his nose” and vote for approval because the project met the zoning code, despite diligent attempts to find any possible violation.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he felt that there might be some basis for denying the project based on the height and setback issues.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) indicated that he had preferred the original PUD proposal. He was not as sanguine about the historic district as Hohnke and Hieftje had been, saying that the process of the establishment of a historic district would need to be evaluated at the point the committee made a recommendation. Margie Teall (Ward 4) declared that she absolutely didn’t like this project and said she was looking forward to the historic district study committee report.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) began her remarks by describing the developer as wanting to “have it all.” She contended that he had not given the city the best product he could, but rather something that they had to approve – which was, she said, a “creative way of using our own rules against us.”

However, there were some positive effects from the developer’s tactic, she said, which were that (i) it had caused the R4C zoning study committee to take a slightly different focus, and (ii) that she felt the council might be less reluctant to consider a historic district study committee in the future. [This was an allusion to the council's rejection in December 2008 of the establishment of a historic district study committee for the area. On that occasion, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had said he'd need to see a pile of additional data to support formation of a committee, and Leigh Greden (Ward 3) explained that he would not vote for a study committee, because he predicted he would vote against a district, even if one was recommended.]

On Monday, Taylor rejected the contention that the vote on the matter of right project was a matter of “standing up to them” or “having some fortitude.” It was, he said, simply a matter of following the law.

In his communications to council earlier in the meeting, Hieftje indicated that legal jeopardy was attached to not approving the project. And the council avoided that kind of legal jeopardy by voting unanimously to approve it.

The council thereby established what would have happened at either the June 1 or the June 15 meetings of council, when the council failed to vote on the matter of right project – due to errors made by city planning staff in preparation of the materials for the council.

Outcome: The council approved unanimously the matter of right City Place proposal.

Council Electronic Communications

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had indicated at two prior council meetings his intention of bringing forward a resolution that would (i) release city council emails sent during past meetings – dating back to 2002, when laptop computers were first used by the council, and (ii) make public as an attachment to the meeting minutes the emails sent by councilmembers during future meetings .

Hatim Elhady, left, holds two yellow signs expressing support for Mike Anglin's email resolution. Elhady is an independent candidate for the city council's Ward 4 seat, challenging Marcia Higgins. To Elhady's right is Yousef Rabhi, who is the Ann Arbor Democratic Party's vice-chair of campus relations. (Photo by the writer.)

The resolution evolved from the release of emails by the city in response to FOIA requests made initially by the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center for emails sent during a meeting in February in which an underground parking structure was approved. That request was followed up with others by The Ann Arbor News, The Ann Arbor Chronicle and other citizens. The emails ranged from juvenile horseplay to  violations of the Open Meetings Act, which requires that deliberations of a public body be made at an open meeting.

Public Commentary on Council Email Resolution

Three people spoke during public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting on the email resolution.

Andrew Ryder: After reading a brief poem, Dryer suggested that “people who don’t have anything to hide don’t hide it.” He asked those in the audience who supported the resolution – many of whom were already holding yellow signs with a statement of support – to stand. Something like thirty or so people stood.

Tim Colenback: Colenback thanked Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) for putting the resolution together, saying that it represented an important step to restore trust. He suggested that there was a stigma attached to the council itself and to the community as a whole as a result of the emails that had been made public. That harm could be repaired partly through Anglin’s resolution, he contended. He also argued that the release of past emails could properly inform future city councils of the basis for decision-making by past councils.

Jack Eaton: Eaton urged the council to pass Anglin’s proposed measure, saying there was no question that the councilmembers had engaged in improper email exchanges. He characterized the measures taken by councilmembers to date as half-hearted, saying that only some councilmembers had offered apologies, and that they had been only partial apologies. [To date, no councilmembers have made apologies in the council chambers during a council meeting.] With regard to a new council rule that restricts the sending of emails by councilmembers, Eaton noted that even the Open Meetings Act had not prevented councilmembers from sending emails to each other. If money was really a concern, he suggested, then councilmembers should dig into their own pockets – pointing out that the meeting in December of 2007 when council had considered its own pay raise [it's actually required to do so] was “tainted” by exchanges of emails that arranged the sequence and nature of deliberations.

Council Deliberations on Council Email Resolution

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) led off deliberations by making essentially the same case that the public speakers had made: it was an effort to increase transparency. The emails were subject to the Freedom of Information Act in any case, Anglin said, but requesting the emails under FOIA would cost the requesters money. The idea behind his resolution, which set out a timetable for release of all council emails during meetings dating back to 2002, was to relieve individual citizens of that financial burden.

With respect to the financial cost to the city, city administrator Roger Fraser said that the “worst case scenario” was around $45,000.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who’d worked with Anglin to craft the language of his resolution, said that some of the changes had been to address concerns of staff by lengthening and structuring the timetable for release of the documents. She said she’d read every word of the emails that had been requested to date under the FOIA, and that it had been a revelation – not always in a good way. She said that there would likely be a brief embarrassment to some councilmembers – present and past – when additional emails were released, but that it was a good move for all of council. She characterized it as “an ethical move.”

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) allowed that the changes that had been undertaken “make it begin to be palatable,” but she quickly dashed any hope she’d be supporting the resolution as it stood, saying “I can’t be shamed into doing this.” Her point was that the majority of her emails had already been made public, having just been elected to the city council in November 2008.

Smith said she agreed with the idea of attaching future emails during meetings to the meeting minutes. For the past emails, however, she said, “There’s a mechanism in place called FOIA. It is not a roadblock.”

Smith then attacked the proposal on grounds of its cost, saying that it reflected 6-7 years of Project Grow funding. [For FY 2010, the council did not approve the $7,000 that had been allocated to the gardening nonprofit in past years.] Or, she said, the $45,000 could fund six individuals for supportive services. Later in deliberations, Smith said she’d been turning over every stone in the budget trying to find a way to save $380,000 so that parking meters would not need to be installed in residential neighborhoods near downtown – she’d come up $90,000 short. In that context, she couldn’t support an expenditure on past emails.

She concluded her second speaking turn by addressing Anglin directly concerning his remarks about his intention to bring the proposal forward at a previous council meeting [presumably the Aug. 17 meeting]: “You emailed me not 30 minutes after you proposed this! I don’t take that lightly.”

Other councilmembers picked up on the cost issue, which Smith had introduced, with several of them characterizing the proposal as simply a shifting of the cost from individual requesters to the city – not something they were willing to contemplate in the current economic climate.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) related his recollection of his time in the state legislature in 1976 when the FOIA was being debated, saying that the debate at the time centered then, as now, on the question of full-disclosure versus reasonableness of cost.

Another theme identified by councilmembers in arguing against the original resolution was the need to look forward instead of backward. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said that everyone she’d talked to was supportive of the council looking ahead. In weighing the harm that the already-released emails had caused the council, Mayor John Hieftje said that he’d much rather see the council looking forward.

Only Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) joined Anglin and Briere in supporting the idea of the city systematically releasing past city council emails.

So an amendment proposed by Smith – to eliminate from the resolution all but the part that would attach future emails during meetings to the official minutes – passed with dissent from Anglin, Briere, and Hohnke.

The resolution as amended passed with dissent only from Anglin, who told The Chronicle after the meeting that it had been “gutted” to the point that he couldn’t support it. [In that respect, the resolution thus played out in similar fashion to a recent moratorium on development in R4C zoning districts that Anglin had proposed. After substantial amendment to that resolution, Anglin voted against it.]

Outcome: With dissent from Anglin, council approved a resolution that will see electronic communications exchanged among its members during its meetings attached to the official minutes of meetings.

Analysis of Cost-Shift Argument

The “cost-shift” analysis that led many councilmembers to conclude that it was not fiscally responsible to voluntarily release past emails could be based on an incomplete understanding of who bears the actual cost of the effort in responding to a FOIA request.

The city’s policy is that the first four hours of labor required per request to separate and redact material is not charged to requesters. As a consequence, by making separate requests for material, requesters can virtually eliminate the cost to themselves of obtaining records.

Further, the FOIA carries a three-week time period for compliance, as contrasted with the comparatively relaxed, several-month time frame proposed by Anglin’s resolution. So if the city is forced to provide the material under FOIA, the fees the city could collect would (i) likely fall well short of covering the city’s cost, and (ii) require the city’s staff to do a large volume of work in a constrained time frame.

Budget Projections

Already at its Aug. 6 meeting, the city council had heard a slightly revised forecast from Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, that included possible shortfalls for FY 2010, which is the current fiscal year. The range for projected shortfalls was $2.4 to $3.3 million.

Ideas for covering that shortfall were floated at the council’s budget and labor committee meeting that was held at 5 p.m. this past Monday before the whole council met at 7 p.m. Councilmembers Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Mayor John Hieftje constitute the council’s membership on the committee.

Also at the committee meeting were city administrator Roger Fraser, plus heads of all the city departments, including: Sue McCormick, director of public services; Jayne Miller, director of community services; Barnett Jones, director of safety services; Robyn Wilkerson, head of human resources; and  Stephen Postema, city attorney.

Among the ideas being considered in a preliminary fashion by staff to account for the FY 2010 shortfall is an extension of the mowing cycle for parks. Higgins was concerned that it was the previously longer mowing cycles that had led to complaints from the public about the upkeep in parks, and she noted that the idea of increasing from a 14-day to a 19-day cycle would mean that the city would be incrementing back up to a longer cycle. Hieftje wondered why in some cases an entire field needed to be mowed when simply carving a mowed path might suffice. Miller explained that much of the expense of mowing involved getting staff and equipment to the place to do the mowing. At the same time, McCormick said that staff always looked at the possibility of “naturalizing” areas.

Rapundalo drew out the fact that “savings from golf course losses” meant that losses for the golf fund were $130,000 less than anticipated – the measures put in place by the golf course task force and city parks staff to increase revenues were having an effect.

Briere asked about the idea that stump removal be eliminated from the general fund and assigned to the stormwater fund. “How does that save money?” she asked. Answer: It doesn’t, but it’s paid for out of a different revenue stream. The connection of stump removal to stormwater is this: To replant trees, which help reduce stormwater runoff, it’s necessary to remove stumps.

There’s been some stormwater funds freed up, explained McCormick, because stimulus funds have been used to reduce the debt service on some projects the city is doing through the office of the county’s water resources commissioner, Janis Bobrin.

Another idea to increase revenues is to look at the rates for expired parking meter fines.

The discussion was not exhaustive of all the various ideas, and it was stressed: They’re just ideas at this point.

There are enough ideas, however, that if implemented, the shortfall for FY 2010 could be mostly covered. The projected shortfall of $4 million to $5.8 million for FY 2011, said Crawford, still had a lot of “heavy lifting” to go. About $1.6 million in possible savings ideas had been identified, with another $2.1 million that might work, Crawford said.

One of the unknowns, and the factor that accounts for the range in the shortfall projections, involves the amount of statutory state shared revenue the city will receive. A budget proposed by state house speaker Andy Dillon would reduce statutory state shared revenue by 30%, which translates into a $1.2 million reduction for the city of Ann Arbor.

It’s in that context that Leigh Greden (Ward 3) brought forward a resolution at the council’s meeting that expressed opposition to that state budget proposal. The resolution urges state Sen. Liz Brater, and state Reps. Pam Byrnes and Rebekah Warren – all legislators representing the Ann Arbor area – to vote against that budget, and asks Gov. Jennifer Granholm to veto any budget that would cut statutory state revenues.

Outcome: The resolution opposing cuts to state shared revenue passed unanimously.

Publishing

During public commentary on the need to adopt a sense of “diminished astonishment” when trying to follow public events, Jim Mogensen mentioned the fact that the public hearing on City Place had been published in the Detroit Free Press, but not in AnnArbor.com’s print edition.

It’s worth noting that the state statute requires that a newspaper be in publication for a year before it meets the legal requirement for publication of legal notices – so AnnArbor.com, which started publishing in July 2009, doesn’t qualify.

During a break in council’s meeting, city clerk Jackie Beaudry clarified for The Chronicle that from the point of view of cost, the Washtenaw Legal News is the city’s preferred choice, but that sometimes the timing of the once-a-week Legal News publication schedule forces the city to resort to the more expensive Detroit Free Press. Compared to the old Ann Arbor News, Beaudry said, the Free Press notices cost 10 times as much.

The issue of legal notices came up on another occasion during the council’s meeting when Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked for clarification on the status of the ballot language for the proposed charter amendments on the publication of the city’s new ordinances.

At its Aug. 17 meeting, the city council had passed a resolution to place two charter amendments on the ballot, each related to the publication of ordinances after being approved by the city council. Then, at its Sept. 8 meeting, the city council revised the ballot language – at the suggestion of the state attorney general’s office and parallel with the suggestion already made by The Chronicle on Aug. 18.

County Clerk Larry Kestenbaum sent a letter dated Sept. 10 to the city of Ann Arbor’s clerk, to the effect that the ballot language revision made by city council could not be accepted, because it came after the deadline of Aug. 25, which is set by the state.

Kestenbaum followed up with a letter dated Sept. 17, which relaxed the clerk’s position: the ballot language revision could be accepted, with the provision that the city accepted any liability and financial implications that might attach to changing the language after the deadline. [See also Kestenbaum's comment written on The Chronicle's Sept. 20 caucus report.]

At council’s Monday meeting, the explanation offered to Higgins by city attorney Stephen Postema did not address the issue of the city’s possible liability and financial implications.

Plastic Bags

Before the council was a resolution that would restrict the use of plastic bags at retail establishments. Since its first introduction more than a year ago on July 21, 2008, the resolution had been postponed at the request of the resolution’s sponsor, Stephen Rapudalo (Ward 2), on four different occasions. On Monday it was a different story: no postponement. Instead, Rapundalo asked his colleagues to table the resolution. That means it will need six out of 11 votes to be brought back off the table for consideration.

Rapundalo acknowledged right out of the gate that he might be “incurring the wrath” of his colleagues in asking for another delay. He offered a kind of status report on the work, however, saying that the work was about 3/4 done, pointing to focus groups that had been conducted, as well as a comprehensive survey.

In response to a request from Mayor John Hieftje for some kind of timetable, Rapundalo said that before the end of the year, it would be ready.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to table the resolution on plastic bags.

Applications Requested

Mayor John Hieftje announced that there were vacancies on several boards and commissions for which applications were being sought: the cable commission, the taxicab board, the board of review, and the sign board of appeals.

Descriptions of these bodies are from the city’s website.

Cable Commission

How Established: Section 2:128, Chapter 32, Title II of the Ann Arbor City Code. Purpose: To advise Council, City Administrator and Director of Cable Communications on all matters pertaining to the implementation of the provisions of the City’s Cable T.V. Ordinance and Franchise Agreement with the cable company; review and make recommendations on the general direction of Community Access Television. Special Qualifications for Appointment: Ability to interpret financial and other reports; time to be involved in committee work over and above regular monthly meetings; enthusiastic advocate of both Cable T.V. and local community television. Length of Terms: 5 years – However, with the approval of Council, the Mayor shall fix initial terms at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years so that no more than 2 appointments expire in 1 year. Any vacancy in office shall be filled by the Mayor for the remainder of the term. Meeting Times and Frequency: This is a permanent commission that meets the 4th Tuesday of the month at 7:00 pm, at Community Television Network, 2805 S. Industrial. The meetings are telecast live and taped for replay. Member / Committee Composition: 7 members – maximum.

Taxicab Board

How Established: Section 1:207, Chapter 8, Title I of the Ann Arbor City Code. Purpose: The purpose of the Taxicab Board is to enforce the Taxicab Ordinance, hear appeals of those who are aggrieved by any decision made by the Administrator and adopt regulations to facilitate the administration of the Taxicab Ordinance. Length of Terms: Councilmember 1 year, other members 3 years. All terms expire the 2nd Monday in April. Members continue to serve after date of term expiration until a successor is appointed. Meeting Times and Frequency: This is a permanent committee that meets the last Thursday of every month at 8:30 a.m. in the 4th floor conference room. Membership / Committee Composition: 8 members: 5 voting members including 1 Councilmember, the CFO (non-voting), and the Chief of Police (non-voting).

Sign Board of Appeals

How Established: Section 5:517, Chapter 61, Title V of the Ann Arbor City Code. Purpose: To hear and decide appeals where the appellant alleges that the Administrator has made an error in the enforcement of the Code regarding signs and outdoor advertising. The Board can authorize a variance from the strict application of the Code if it involves practical difficulties of unnecessary hardships. Special Qualifications for Appointment: None. However, professional and business persons are recommended. Length of Terms: 3 year terms which continue until a successor is appointed. Meeting Times and Frequency: This is a permanent Board that meets the 2nd Tuesday of each month at 3 p.m. This Board meets only when an appeal has been submitted. Membership / Committee Composition: 7 members.

Board of Review

How Established: Section 9:10(a) of the City Charter – Chapter 8, Section 1:188 of the City Code. Second Board of Review Committee eliminated on March 3, 2003. Purpose: Examines and reviews the assessment roll of the City. Special Qualification for Appointment: Knowledge of taxation and of property values. Length of Terms: 3 years. Appointment in January to a term beginning in February. A member whose term has expired may not continue to serve. However, there is no limit to the number of consecutive terms a member may serve. Meeeting Times and Frequency: This is a permanent Board that meets at 9 a.m. beginning the 3rd Monday in March; 6 hours each day for 4 consecutive days. In addition, the Board meets on the Tuesday (for 1 day) following the 3rd Monday of July for correction of errors only and the Tuesday (for 1 day) after the 2nd Monday of December for correction of errors only. Membership / Committee Composition: 3 members – Number established by Charter. A second Board of Review was appointed by Mayor and Council on March 5, 1990 at the request of the City Assessor. The second Board of Review has been eliminated since the passage of Proposal A establishing limits on taxable values has reduced the number of appeals received from local residents and businesses and it is anticipated that the number of appeals will continue at this reduced level.

Other Business

asd-

Public Comment

Among the topics addressed by speakers at public comment were the creation of the Ann Arbor Tree Conservancy . In a somewhat related theme, one person spoke to the importance of maintaining good sight-lines at intersections not obstructed by tree-limbs or other foliage.

Two speakers addressed the issue of homelessness in connection with Camp Take Notice.

One speaker addressed the importance of preserving the diverse and distinctive character of Ann Arbor’s neighborhoods.

Other Council Business

The city council approved a new historic district application fee schedule.

It also authorized application for funding of storm water improvements in the West Park area through the office of the county’s water resources commissioner. [See previous Chronicle coverage in "West Park Renovations Get Fast-Tracked."]

The council also approved an agreement with MDOT, that will see a start this fall to a project that will:

… replace the existing southbound US-23 ramp with a new “loop” ramp in the northwest interchange quadrant, construction of three roundabouts in place of the current traffic signals, constructing a new pedestrian bridge spanning US-23 along the south side of Geddes Rd and non-motorized multiuse asphalt path connecting Earhart Road to Dixboro Road, and reconstructing Geddes Road from the Bridge over US-23 west of Earhart Rd

The council also approved street closures necessary for the Big Heart Big House Run, on Oct. 4, 2009, which is a 5K/10K run that gives entrants a chance to finish their race by running down the tunnel of Michigan Stadium onto the football field, where the finish line is located. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) got assurances from Jayne Miller, community services director with the city, that neighbors in the areas of the street closures had been adequately notified.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Leigh Greden, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Monday, Oct. 5, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]