Mayor John Hieftje checked his computer screen before the meeting started. Six hours later he declared the meeting adjourned. (Photos by the writer.)

Some of that business – the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority ordinance revision on TIF (tax increment financing) capture – was postponed until the council’s next meeting, on Nov. 7. Other business – Ypsilanti Township’s membership in the AAATA – was postponed until Nov. 18. That will be the first meeting of the new, post-election composition of the council.

First, here’s a rundown of the main outcomes from the meeting.

Transportation was a main theme on the agenda. The postponement on admitting Ypsilanti Township as a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority was the clear majority consensus, as it succeeded on an 8-3 vote. After that, the council voted unanimously to approve a contract with URS Corporation Inc. (URS) to conduct the Ann Arbor Station project environmental review. The total approved for the Ann Arbor Station contract – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – was $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency.

The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. The remainder will be covered by a federal grant. The council’s unanimous support was based on two factors: (1) the fact that there was to be no presupposed preferred alternative location for the station, and (2) that the public engagement process outlined in the project tasks was thorough.

The council also voted unanimously to give final approval to a change in the city’s sidewalk ordinance. As a result, cross-lot walkways in Ann Arbor will now be treated as “sidewalks” from the perspective of the city’s sidewalk repair millage. Even though the millage funds can now be used to repair the walkways, owners of property adjacent to cross-lot walkways will not bear responsibility for snow removal in the winter. Cross-lot walkways include those that connect streets to parks or school property, or connect two parallel streets.

The Ann Arbor DDA figured in other agenda items beyond the postponed vote on TIF capture. The council voted just 7-4 to approve a new budget allocation of $280,000 from the general fund to pay for a portion of a Main Street light pole replacement project. That didn’t meet the eight-vote majority requirement for the budget allocation to pass. The failed vote was the result of political wrangling between the council and the DDA board and staff over whether the DDA would not be able, or simply was unwilling, to fund the total cost of the $580,000 light pole replacement project. The poles are rusting out and pose some level of safety threat, although those deemed to be in immediate danger of falling have already been replaced.

The Ann Arbor DDA was also the topic of another agenda item – when the council voted 8-3 to reconsider its Sept. 16 vote on the appointment of Al McWilliams to the board of the DDA. On the 8-3 vote, the question of the appointment was again in front of the council. Councilmembers took 20 minutes to discuss the item before voting again 6-5 – along the same split as on Sept. 16 – to appoint McWilliams to the board. The 8-3 split on reconsideration was the same 8-3 split as on the postponement of the Ypsilanti Township membership in the AAATA – with mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) declining to join the majority on both occasions.

The other nomination on which the council voted was Wayne Appleyard’s reappointment to the city’s energy commission – with a tally of 8-3. That was enough to satisfy the city charter’s non-city resident requirement of seven votes. Dissenters were Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Kailasapathy and Lumm had concerns about Appleyard’s long term of service (since 2002). So they’ll be bringing forward an ordinance revision at a future meeting to establish term limits for all boards and commissions. The city charter already imposes term limits on a specific category of boards and commissions.

The council had another significant item on its agenda related to the energy commission – a resolution on divestment from fossil fuel companies that the commission had recommended the council approve. It was the third time the council had seen the question, after first voting it down, then reconsidering and postponing it. At the Oct. 21 meeting, the council amended the resolution to soften it further, which gave it a 9-2 tally when the council voted. Ward 2 councilmembers Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm dissented.

Besides the unfinished business from the Oct. 21 meeting, future meetings of the council will include the Lumm-Kailasapathy initiative to amend the city’s ordinance on boards and commissions to include term limits. Other initiatives announced at the Oct. 21 meeting included an outdoor smoking ordinance that Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) reported he’s been working on with city staff – with an eye toward establishing non-smoking areas in city parks.

Petersen announced that she’ll be putting forward a resolution stemming from frequent mention by community members of the need for a council ethics policy. Among other direction, Petersen’s resolution would ask the city attorney to provide guidance on a state statute. Warpehoski announced that he and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) were working on a framework to establish a pedestrian safety citizens advisory committee – possibly to be seated at the Nov. 18 council meeting. The effort is not designed to determine or preempt the outcome of an effort to repeal the pedestrian crosswalk ordinance, Warpehoski stated.

And Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) announced that he and Margie Teall (Ward 4) would be bringing forth a resolution asking the University of Michigan to decommission the large digital billboard it has constructed on East Stadium Boulevard next to the football stadium. The fallback position of the resolution will be to ask that the university restrict the time of the billboard’s operation, Taylor said.

Some items considered by the council but not included in this report are reflected in the live updates filed from the Oct. 21 meeting.

Transportation: Ypsilanti Township Membership in AAATA

The council was asked to approve revised articles of incorporation for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, so that Ypsilanti Township could be admitted as a member of the authority.

Transportation: Ypsi Twp. Membership in AAATA – Background

The change to the articles of incorporation would expand the board from nine to 10 members, with the additional member to be appointed by Ypsilanti Township. At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board already approved the membership of Ypsilanti Township. That action was contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

Ypsilanti Township hopes to become a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, pending approval by the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils. (Solid green indicates the geographic area already included by the AAATA.)

An earlier expansion in membership was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The name of the authority was also changed at that time to add the word “area” – making it the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. [Amendment 3 of the AAATA articles of incorporation]

The expansion of the AAATA’s geographic footprint to include some jurisdictions geographically close to the city of Ann Arbor – and with whom the AAATA has historically had purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) – sets the stage for a possible request of voters in the expanded geographic area. That request would be to approve additional transportation funding to pay for increased service frequencies and times.

The approach of focusing on the neighboring jurisdictions instead of all of Washtenaw County was one directed by the Ann Arbor city council at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, when the council chose to opt out of a countywide initiative.

The AAATA could place a millage request on the ballot in May 2014, probably at the level of 0.7 mills, to support a 5-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed. A schedule of public meetings to introduce that plan runs through mid-November. A decision to place a millage on the ballot would first need AAATA board approval – a question that has not yet come before the board.

Ypsi Twp. Membership in AAATA: Public Commentary

Martha Valadez introduced herself as a transit organizer for the Ecology Center and Partners for Transit. She told the council that access to public transportation is crucial for her personally and for her community. She supported the urban core transit program. She supported the membership of Ypsilanti Township in the AAATA. Membership would give the township a chance to participate in future funding requests, not just participation in governance, she said.

Matt Vanauker introduced himself as a Ward 5 resident and high school classmate of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). He was surprised that the council didn’t support the countywide initiative last year. He couldn’t imagine a reason why Ypsilanti Township would not be included as a member in the AAATA. He relied on public transportation to accomplish basic life functions, like grocery shopping and medical appointments, he told the council.

Abishek Thiagaraj introduced himself as a junior at the University of Michigan, studying biomedical engineering and volunteering with Partners for Transit. He sees transit as a priority, he told the council. The student perspective is that they’re grateful for the current service AAATA provides. But he talked about the need to improve transportation services to off-campus locations. He talked about the ability to integrate students more completely into the community through public transportation.

Ypsi Twp. Membership in AAATA: Deliberations – Summary Version

The idea that a vote on the admission of Ypsilanti Township into the AAATA should be delayed was not a clear consensus view on the council at the start of the meeting. The decision to postpone evolved during the course of deliberations – which lasted about an hour and fifteen minutes.

From left: Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers and Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority CEO Michael Ford.

The deliberations appeared to shift in favor of postponement when Sally Petersen (Ward 2) ventured that if there were a delay now to allow for residents to get their questions answered and weigh in on the governance question, a future transit millage would have a better chance of passing. Earlier in the meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had also spoken of the “strong minority” that was now asking for more time to review the proposal – a group that could “put the AAATA over the top some day.”

Following Petersen’s remarks, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), who’s been consistent and adamant in his support of transit initiatives, revealed that he would support postponement. Warpehoski wanted to postpone so that when the question returned to the council, it would pass with as much support as possible, not just a slender majority.

Warpehoski’s willingness to postpone appeared to convince Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) also to support postponement. But Kunselman’s support was somewhat reluctant, because he’d pledged to the leadership of Ypsilanti Township a year ago that he’d do whatever he could as a city councilmember to get Ypsilanti Township into the authority. Kunselman’s connection to the township is personal, as he was employed briefly as a planner for Ypsilanti Township from August 2003 to February 2004 before resigning. Kunselman said he wanted to see the resolution pass unanimously when it returns at the council’s second meeting in November.

And Kunselman pledged to attend some of the meetings that the AAATA has scheduled over the next few weeks to explain the importance of adding Ypsilanti Township to the AAATA. Those meetings had been conceived by the AAATA as a way to introduce the 5-year service plan for increased frequency and times. Now the meetings will serve the dual purpose of entertaining a discussion of the AAATA’s governance as it relates to the township’s possible membership.

After midnight during the final general communications time of the meeting, Warpehoski expressed a concern that the council’s action in postponing had probably done some damage to the perception of Ann Arbor as a good regional partner. In apologizing for his part in that, Warpehoski said it would be important for councilmembers to reach out to the leadership of Ypsilanti Township to try to repair that relationship.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

The interactions on Oct. 21 between Ann Arbor city councilmembers and other officials – Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo and AAATA’s CEO Michael Ford – were marked by a certain tension. Answering questions at the podium in front of the council, Stumbo and Ford appeared exasperated that the proposal the council was being asked to consider was being labeled as “rushed,” given the roughly year-long lead-up and the participation of five councilmembers in the ongoing discussions with other communities. Their frustration was also based on the fact that some councilmembers were not willing to separate out the question of governance – which was the question in front of the council that evening – from the question of future funding.

The atmosphere was one that saw Mike Anglin (Ward 5) – who’s been generally skeptical of AAATA initiatives – appear to sympathize with Ford, telling him that Ford is one of the most patient people he knows.

Just before she made the formal motion to postpone the vote, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) shut down Ford as he sought to respond to statements she’d made by telling him, “I didn’t ask you a question.” Later Ford asked mayor John Hieftje if he could respond to some statements Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had made. Hieftje declined to let him respond – but recognized Margie Teall (Ward 4) to speak. And Teall invited Ford to respond. Ford then stressed that the question before the council that night was governance: “The rest is noise,” he said.

Ypsi Twp. Membership in AAATA: Deliberations – Noisy Version

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by noting that it’s been over a year since he had been actively opposing AAATA’s countywide initiative. But he had told Ypsilanti Township supervisor Brenda Stumbo at the time that he’d do whatever he could as a city councilmember to get Ypsilanti Township into the authority. He would support Ypsilanti Township as a member of the AAATA, he said, but it’s important to understand what the significance of that is. It’s a matter of governance, not of finances, he stressed. However, if there were questions that still needed to be answered, he’d be content to wait. Putting Ypsilanti Township at the table would bind the community together better, Kunselman said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thought it was a bit premature to vote on the question that night, given that AAATA had just now started its public engagement campaign on the 5-year plan. She floated the idea of postponing until the second meeting in November. [That would be on Nov. 18, after the new composition of the council is seated, post-election.]

Michael Ford, CEO of the AAATA, answered questions from the podium, and was joined by Stumbo. Ford said all that was being asked of the council was to approve Ypsilanti Township admission as a member into the AAATA.

Stumbo told the council that Ypsilanti Township residents support this move. She recalled her long career in elected public service in the township – which spans nearly 25 years – joking that she started when she was 12. The township’s membership would come with a long-term financial commitment, she said. Currently the route the township pays for is $340,000 annually, she reported. It’s imperative for the township to have transportation. “We need to lift people up,” she said, and the way to do that is to provide transportation. Public transportation will help decrease congestion in Ann Arbor, she said. She was proud to be there that night and noted that the township board supports the move.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) confirmed with Ford that Ypsilanti Township currently has a purchase-of-service agreement (POSA). She said that although meetings were held in the township about this and the move was supported by Ypsilanti Township, she’s supposed to represent Ann Arbor. She characterized the timetable as “rushing” it. She addressed comments made by Ford and Stumbo from the podium that when the city of Ypsilanti was given membership, no objections were raised by the council and councilmembers had approved membership for the city of Ypsilanti. Kailasapathy noted that just because concerns weren’t raised when Ypsilanti city was added, doesn’t mean that she could not raise concerns now.

Ford responded by saying that the proposal was not being rushed. The AAATA had followed the Ann Arbor city council’s direction to work with the urban core communities to develop a service plan, the financial structure, and governance.

Kailasapathy countered Ford by saying that it’s not required that Ypsilanti Township be handled the same way as the city of Ypsilanti.

Petersen pointed out that the AAATA already has 5-year service plan meetings scheduled over the next few weeks. Petersen said her understanding was that the meetings would provide an opportunity for a give-and-take exchange. Given that the meetings are already scheduled, and her constituents have asked that the meetings be used to hear what everybody has to say, she indicated she wanted the meetings to be used to discuss the question of adding Ypsilanti Township. She wanted to slide the approval schedule forward only four weeks, she said, until the middle of November.

Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Margie Teall (Ward 4) responded to Petersen’s suggestion by saying that just because the meetings happen to be already planned, they shouldn’t be used to divert the planned focus of those meetings. Teall said the planning process had been exhaustive – describing it as lasting years. Ford noted that he’d met with individual councilmembers, so the proposal shouldn’t be a surprise to them. He pointed out that five of the councilmembers had participated in the urban core discussions, which had included Ypsilanti Township.

Ford said that some of the questions posed by the councilmembers had been received by the AAATA at noon that day, but the AAATA staff had done its best to answer them. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) responded that some of the questions weren’t answered. A spirited back-and-forth unfolded between Ford and Lumm. Lumm took the position that admitting Ypsilanti Township into the AAATA is not a stand-alone decision.

Ford reviewed the point of the 5-year service plan meetings – to go over the planned improvements to service. Lumm said she was trying to weigh the cost-benefit of a possible 0.7 mill tax. It’s difficult to assess it without more information, she said.

Mayor John Hieftje weighed in, saying he didn’t see how the funding mechanism affected the decision in front of the council that night. Admitting Ypsilanti Township is something that should have happened 30 years ago, he said. Anyone who was paying attention to transportation issues would have known this was coming, Hieftje said. And any funding decision would need to be approved by voters. Ann Arbor needs to work with communities around it, to realize its great promise as a city, Hieftje said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said the question is whether to allow Ypsilanti Township a seat at the table. Briere asked Stumbo what she sees as a benefit to membership.

As benefits, Stumbo talked about the Washtenaw Avenue connection to the eastern part of the county, and the long-term commitment that the township would be making. Instead of a year-to-year POSA agreement, there would be a longer-term agreement, she said. Stumbo said she was trying not to take it personally, but she could not understand why the council wouldn’t vote to allow Ypsilanti Township to join the AAATA.

Briere asked Ford if residents will be presented with a menu of improvements and their associated costs so that residents can choose what services they’d like. Ford described it as a very engaged process that would include adjustments based on what people say at the engagement meetings. Briere asked again when the dollar amounts would be broken down for each element of the service improvement plan. Ford replied that about a month after the meetings are concluded, those exact costs will be available. [Given the mid-November conclusion of the series of meetings on the 5-year service plan, that would mean the cost information would be available in mid-December.]

Kunselman reiterated that he’s committed to Ypsilanti Township having a seat at the table. That seat at the table does nothing to change the financing, he said. The city of Ann Arbor would still have eight out of 10 seats, which could easily control the board. He said that transportation services would only be “given away” to Ypsilanti Township if Ann Arbor’s own representatives on the AAATA board approved it. A discussion about the finances isn’t the one the council should be having right now, he said. That’s possibly even a year away, he said. [That means Kunselman is thinking a May 2014 millage vote is probably too soon.]

Kunselman said he’d opposed the initiative to establish a countywide transportation authority because of the proposed board composition. [Ann Arbor would have had 8 out of 15 board seats on that now-demised proposal.] He didn’t think the Ann Arbor city council needed to worry about board control. It’s just approving a seat at the table so the township can have a voice, Kunselman said.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) started by saying that he was wrong earlier – when the council had decided to “bail” on the countywide proposal – saying he’d been angry and he might have said some things about Kunselman that might have been insulting to Kunselman. [That was an allusion to the fact that Kunselman had cited an insult from DDA appointee Al McWilliams as Kunselman's reason for voting against McWilliams.] Warpehoski said that he now took it very seriously when Kunselman said that Ypsilanti Township should have a seat at the table. It’s important to be a good regional partner, Warpehoski said.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

On the finances, Warpehoski said it’s a chicken-and-egg problem. To get a solid financial foundation, you need a solid governance structure, he said. The step of finalizing governance needs to be taken before establishing the funding and service plan, he said.

Warpehoski asked Ford about the various permutations of Ypsilanti Township being in or out of the AAATA, and whether the millage passes or not: Is there any threat to Ann Arbor services? No, answered Ford. What’s the mechanism for funding Ypsilanti Township service as a member of AAATA if the millage doesn’t pass? Warpehoski asked. Stumbo explained that it would be paid for out of the township’s general fund. Ford noted that a similar financial agreement to the one the city of Ypsilanti had recently made would also be made with the township.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) characterized the proposal before the council as a pretty simple process. After the countywide transportation initiative was turned down a year ago, the council had said to the AATA: Go away and come back with an urban core plan. Now the question is whether the council meant what the council said back then, Taylor said. Taylor then ticked through the general benefits of public transportation – including congestion reduction and economic development.

Kailasapathy questioned Stumbo and Ford again. She wanted a copy of the MOU (memorandum of understanding) that would be signed with the township. Ford explained that the MOU would follow admission of Ypsilanti Township as a member of the AAATA. Kailasapathy indicated that she thought it would be appropriate to have a copy now for review. She referred to Taylor’s comments about the direction the council had given to the AAATA about the urban core process – by saying that the council had not given the AAATA a blank check for that process.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) acknowledged some of the frustration that had been expressed to that point by calling Ford one of the most patient people he knows. But Anglin said a strong minority on the council had asked for something specific – a strong minority that could put the AAATA over the top someday. Some councilmembers are asking for more time to answer questions of their constituents, he said. And Ann Arbor residents have paid the transit millage for many years, so if some councilmembers want some more time, they should be listened to, Anglin concluded.

Ford said that everyone seemed to be hung up on the idea of the millage. The AAATA had done what the council had asked it to do and that’s what the proposal was about, Ford said.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told Ford said that the discussion is about whether the board should be expanded – and that’s what residents want to weigh in on. People get very concerned if a decision is made without giving them a chance to provide input, she said. On the question of expanding the board, people should have a chance to weigh in on that, she said – during the meetings the AAATA has scheduled over the next few weeks. Higgins said she was not against having residents have a say.

Ford pointed out that the process for admitting Ypsilanti Township is the same process that had been used with the city of Ypsilanti. But Higgins shut down Ford by saying, “I didn’t ask you a question.” At that point, Higgins moved for postponement.

Teall said she’d oppose postponement. Warpehoski asked Ford what the impact of a postponement would be. Ford explained that the AAATA has been working on this a long time. Treating the township differently from the city of Ypsilanti is a problem, he said. It’s not the first time the AATAA has talked with the council about it, he noted. When Ford responded to Warpehoski’s specific question, he said it would slow down the process and not send a good message.

Hieftje said that Ypsilanti Township has been a “good citizen” for many years. He didn’t understand why the city of Ypsilanti should “breeze through” and then there’d be a pause with the township. Briere picked up on a concern expressed by Teall – that the meetings scheduled for the next few weeks would be refocused – from the 5-year service plan to the expansion of the board. Ford said it would put the AAATA behind on making any improvements to service. Briere asked how many meetings had been scheduled. Thirteen, said Ford, running through Nov. 14.

Briere ventured that Lumm wants dollar amounts attached to each improvement, to be able to choose from them Chinese-menu style. Briere asked Ford if that information could be assembled by mid-November. Ford ventured that it would take about a month after the meetings conclude to do that analysis.

Briere ventured that without membership on the board, Ypsilanti Township would still continue with its year-to-year POSA. She asked if it will be possible to have productive conversations at the scheduled public meetings if the governance question were not already settled. At that point, Jerry Lax – legal counsel for the AAATA – said Ypsilanti Township was prepared to make the longer-term POSA commitment, if it has a seat at the table. Lax said that if the township did not commit to a longer-term arrangement after being admitted to the authority, the AAATA would still have leverage in the negotiation of the year-to-year POSA.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Lumm disagreed with Ford that it’s inappropriate to treat the city and the township differently – citing the city’s dedicated millage versus the township’s POSA. Lumm said it sets a bad precedent – that to be eligible for membership in the AAATA, all you need is a POSA. She wanted to see the long-term MOU.

Lumm added that with so many unanswered questions, she thinks it’s important to postpone. Taking a cue from Higgins’ earlier objection to his commenting unless he’d been asked a question, Ford asked to be able to respond to Lumm, but Hieftje declined.

Teall was next to be called on by Hieftje, and after some brief remarks she gave Ford the floor. Ford reiterated that the issue before the council is governance – that is, adding Ypsilanti Township to the board. He added: “The rest is noise.”

Petersen responded to Ford’s statement by saying that governance and funding are inextricable linked. Petersen said that based on constituent feedback, the two issues are co-mingled. By delaying now, she said, a millage would have a better chance of passing.

Kailasapathy still wanted to see the MOU before voting to add Ypsilanti Township as member. Hieftje then indicated that he was keen to see the council progress to a vote on the motion to postponement. Ypsilanti Township has a greater risk in joining the authority, Hieftje said. He reiterated that Ypsilanti Township should have been added as a member of the transportation authority 30 years ago.

Stumbo told the council that the township doesn’t have a ward system like the city does – saying that she was elected in the township at large. So she understood the conversation around the table in that context. She pointed to the geography of the township, which surrounds the city of Ypsilanti. The city of Ypsilanti and the Ypsilanti Township are linked.

Warpehoski said he’d vote to admit Ypsilanti Township into the AATA today or a month from now. Kunselman’s 8-2 odds for the city on the board are pretty good, he allowed. But he’d vote for postponement because he wanted the final vote to have as much support as possible. He did not want it to pass with just a 6-5 vote, but rather with a solid majority.

Kunselman said he started out the deliberations stating he had unwavering support for adding Ypsilanti Township, but had been open to postponement. He told Stumbo that he was still committed to getting it done, but that night he’d support the postponement. “When we get back here, I look to have everybody here unanimously supporting this,” Kunselman said.

If the addition of the township as a member did not win that kind of support on the council, a millage wouldn’t pass, Kunselman cautioned. He said he’d attend some of the already-scheduled meetings and make clear why it’s important to add Ypsilanti Township as a member of the AAATA. It’s important to rebuild trust, he said. But “government is messy,” Kunselman allowed. He added that he had almost been ready to go for the vote that night, but now felt it was important to take the time to build trust.

Outcome: The council voted 8-3 to postpone the revised articles of incorporation for the AAATA admitting Ypsilanti Township as a member. The item was postponed until the council’s second meeting in November – on Nov. 18. That’s after the new composition of the council is seated, following the Nov. 5 election. Dissenting were mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Transportation: Ypsi Twp. Membership in AAATA – Coda

At the end of the meeting, well after midnight during the council’s final opportunity for communications, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said that Ypsilanti Township had done a tremendous amount of work. When he counted the votes around the table, he thought there would have been six votes that night and would be at least six votes in a month – but he wanted to work toward unanimity. He said that “relationships are important,” and he feared that by postponing the Ypsilanti Township vote, the council was not perceived by the township leadership as working well with its regional partners.

He suggested that councilmembers reach out to the township and give the relationship a personal touch. The relationship was hurt that night, he said, and he’d been a part of that, so he apologized. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) added his support to Warpehoski’s remarks.

Transportation: Ann Arbor Station

The council considered a contract with URS Corp. Inc. (URS) to carry out an environmental review of the Ann Arbor Station project. This rail station project relates most immediately to the prospect that Amtrak will be offering improved intercity service on the Chicago-Detroit Amtrak line.

Amtrak train arrival in Ann Arbor. (Chronicle file photo from September 2013)

An improved intercity rail station also has implications for the way that a different type of service – commuter rail service between Ann Arbor and Detroit – might be created and offered in the future. The total budgeted for the Ann Arbor Station contract on the Oct. 21 agenda – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – was $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. A transfer of $550,000 to the city’s major grant fund was approved a year ago by the city council at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting for the total project budget.

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

The funding approved by the city council a year ago came after the city learned that previous expenditures – which were made in connection with the now demised Fuller Road Station project – would not be considered as eligible local matching funds under the federal grant. Fuller Road Station had been a joint venture with the University of Michigan, and called for UM to build a parking structure on the same site as the proposed rail station at a location on Fuller Road.

The preliminary work that URS would do under the contract on the Oct. 21 agenda does not presuppose a preferred location for a new passenger rail station. The existing Amtrak station on Depot Street would be among the alternatives considered, in addition to the location identified for the Fuller Road Station, which is on city-owned land between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive adjacent to the UM medical center. The land is designated by the city in planning documents as parkland, and is zoned as public land. A 2009 appraisal commissioned by the city put the value of the land at $4.25 million.

Transportation: A2 Station – Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the council’s meeting, several people addressed the council on the topic of the train station.

Rita Mitchell told the council that the community has not yet agreed on whether the city should take responsibility for a new train station. She pegged the total amount of money already invested in study of a site at $1.7 million, when the sewer work was factored in. She questioned whether URS could be an objective consultant, given some work done in connection with the previous Fuller Road Station and as well as the ongoing connector study. Mitchell questioned the amount of funding in the contract just for the public engagement process, which she thought was too much, compared to the amount for the environmental assessment per se.

Nancy Shiffler introduced herself as chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She thought the public involvement component is a strength of the proposal. She’s looking forward to a well-publicized schedule for that engagement. She cautioned against relying on self-selected participants in online surveys. Task 4 of the contract, she said, is problematic, because it could result in a categorical exclusion for an FRA requirement with respect to parkland – an exclusion that would come too early in the process.

Clark Charnetski recalled the 30-year history of the study of different sites for a new rail station. Charnetski participated in the 1979 study. [.pdf of "The Ann Arbor Depot: A First Phase Investigation of Location Alternatives"] That was the era when the Amtrak station was still located within the building where the Gandy Dancer restaurant is currently located, Charnetski said. He invited the council to think about rail transportation from the passenger’s point of view. He noted a number of assumptions that were in place 30 years ago that have not proven to be correct. He said that even with current levels of ridership, an improvement to the station is needed. Responding to the idea that the current location could be used to improve the station, he said that the study will examine that option.

Jeff Hayner delivered remarks on several topics during public commentary, but on the train station contract, he told the council the public engagement component is very heavy, but wondered if that would be used to shape public opinion or to listen to it.

Transportation: A2 Station – Section 4(f) Background

Mentioned at several points during the meeting was a “Section 4(f) requirement.” It refers to part of the 1966 U.S. Dept. of Transportation Act. That federal act became ensconced in part as Section 138 of Title 23 of the United States Code. It includes the stipulation that publicly-owned park and recreational lands – as well as wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites – cannot be used for transportation project development unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative.

However, in August 2005, Section 6009(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) revised Section 138 of Title 23. It simplified the process and approval of projects that are deemed to have only de minimis impacts on Section 4(f) lands. Specifically, even if the U.S. Dept. of Transportation determines that a transportation use of Section 4(f) property results in a de minimis impact, an analysis of avoidance alternatives isn’t required.

The definition of “de minimis impact” in SAFETEA-LU is as follows [emphasis added in italics]:

With respect to parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges, the Secretary may make a finding of de minimis impact only if the Secretary has determined, after public notice and opportunity for public review and comment, that the transportation program or project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge eligible for protection under this section;

The Fuller Road site that’s been under discussion includes a 250-space surface parking lot. The previous Fuller Road Station collaboration with the University of Michigan was planned to be confined to the footprint of that currently paved surface, and not to extend farther towards the Huron River, where a soccer practice field is situated.

.gif animation of the Fuller Road site, which loops continuously, beginning with an image from the 1940s.

Given a configuration with a rail station building, platforms and an appurtenant parking facility – all of which is confined to the footprint of the current parking lot – it’s conceivable that an argument could be made for meeting the SAFETEA-LU “de minimis” standard. The argument would depend on a claim that the two activities currently undertaken on the parkland site – parking and soccer practice – would not be adversely affected.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted during the Oct. 21 meeting that the Fuller Road site had not seen a soccer ball since the Clinton administration, a rhetorical flourish he consistently uses in deliberations about the planning for a rail station at that location. Taylor’s point is relevant to the extent that the focus of the conversation remains only on the section of the site that’s currently paved and used as a parking lot. If it were determined that construction of a rail station facility on just that section of the site that’s paved still had an adverse effect on the use of the portion nearer the Huron River, which serves as a soccer field, then the SAFETEA-LU “de minimis” impact standard might not be met, and the Section 4(f) “no feasible” alternative standard would then apply.

Transportation: A2 Station – Sewer Work Background

During public commentary, Rita Mitchell referred to the sewer work that had been done on the Fuller Road site. That resulted in a defense of that work during deliberations by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and mayor John Hieftje – as a project that was part of the city’s capital improvements plan. That is, they argued that it was not done just to move sewer lines so that a foundation for a parking structure and train station could more easily be built. The council had originally approved the work at its June 20, 2011 meeting, but then reconsidered the vote on July 5, 2011 at the request of Mike Anglin (Ward 5). The council then re-voted the approval, but with Anglin’s dissent.

The approval two years ago was for a $1,216,100 construction contract to Hoffman Brothers Inc. The project involved relocating a sanitary sewer south of Fuller Road, and east of the Maiden Lane and East Medical Center Drive intersection. The project included moving and replacing an 825-foot, 30-year-old section of 60-inch sanitary sewer pipe. It also included construction of 525 feet of 24-inch stormwater pipe, as well as construction of 925 feet of a new 12-inch water main for service to Fuller Pool.

Transportation: A2 Station – Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by asking city transportation program manager Eli Cooper to clarify how much of the contract would use city funds. Cooper explained that the city amount is $165,000. Kunselman noted that the money has been appropriated and does not presuppose a particular site – so he was going to support the contract.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wanted to know who would decide the recommended location of the train station. Cooper noted that residents during the public commentary period that evening had pointed out that one-third of the contract was for public engagement. And council could participate in the process, he said. Kailasapathy asked if there would be one preferred site at the end. Cooper indicated that there would be a single preferred site at the end, and explained that as the sites are winnowed down, the criteria to be used would also be subject to public review and input.

Briere noted that most of the suggested sites are in Ward 1. She confirmed that the goal of a previous process was to present the federal government with a preferred site. Cooper indicated that Briere was right – it’s a requirement of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) project. The emphasis on the previous project [Fuller Road Station] was based on the intermodal character of that facility. How does this proposal differ from that [Fuller Road Station] proposal? Briere asked. Cooper said that one difference is that there’s no initially preferred alternative for the location.

Briere followed up with another question: What is an environmental assessment? Cooper explained that it’s an analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative effect of human action. It’s a qualitative descriptor about the impact of a project. That contrasts with an environmental impact statement, which is quantitative, he said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she hadn’t yet heard Cooper say the word “parkland.” Responding to a question from Lumm, Cooper said that any project on parkland would not be eligible for an FRA categorical exclusion. If the preferred site were parkland, then it would be subject to Section 4(f) review, Cooper said. Lumm asked for confirmation that as part of the process, it would be possible to see the “arc” of the selection process – as the set of potential sites is winnowed down.

In a comment that reacted to concerns expressed during public commentary, Cooper said that the public engagement process is not meant to tell people what the plan already is. Lumm asked who Cooper sees as the stakeholders. Cooper said that will be clearer after the project kickoff. Power Marketing Research will be doing the public engagement, he said. Cooper allowed that some of the stakeholders will be the “usual suspects,” in addition to the stakeholders who’d participated in the previous, now-demised Fuller Road Station project, he said. Those would include transportation agencies like the AAATA, MDOT, and UM parking and transportation staff, he said. It would be as comprehensive a list as possible. Stakeholders are only one part of the public engagement process, he said. There will be site tours to “walk the ground together,” he said.

Cooper noted that the no-build alternative is required to be included in the set of alternatives. The intent is to do this in an open and transparent and participatory process, he said. Lumm told Cooper some people have “zero confidence” that the outcome has not been determined to be Fuller Road. She contended the existing location of the Amtrak location is a “sweet spot” in terms of engineering.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked what she should tell residents who wonder why the city should build a new station for Amtrak. Cooper explained that Amtrak’s focus is on the operations – the trains themselves. It’s a discretionary decision for the city, he allowed. The idea is to meet the needs of residents and businesses to provide the kind of transportation facility they’d expect arriving in Ann Arbor. [In this remark, Cooper alluded to the sentiments expressed during an Oct. 14, 2013 city council work session by MDOT director of rail operations Tim Hoeffner, who described a passenger rail station as “the gateway to your community.” Hoeffner added: "That should be your face – that should be what you want to put forward. That shouldn’t be what we want to have come forward from Lansing."]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he was happy to see that this project seems different from the previous approach, with the Fuller Road Station. He said it seemed like the proposed process would actually consider alternate locations besides the Fuller Road site. He called for all the public process meetings to be videotaped. Some of the previous money that’s been spent was “foolishness,” he said. But he’d vote to support this. The public is tired of bad dialogue, he told Cooper. Cooper responded by saying the staff would do their best to facilitate good dialogue.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) posed a hypothetical question: If the site across the track, owned by Amtrak, turned out to be the preferred site, how would that work? Cooper explained that the federal dollars would come from the Federal Rail Administration. If the Amtrak property were the preferred location, there would be MOUs and legal instruments to bind the parties together.

Clark Charnetski was invited from the audience to explain that Amtrak owns the parking lot. The place where the tracks had been and were removed is now owned by MDOT. Amtrak owns the station, the property on which it sits and the metered parking lot, Charnetski said.

Lumm said that there’s no guarantee there’ll be federal money for eventual construction of a train station. She added that there’s no demonstrated need for a new train station. She’d reviewed the contract for the study. It’s an important study the community cares about, she said. It’s important that there be substantial public engagement. She then ticked through the elements of the public engagement process. She said it’s important to consider using the existing site as well as doing nothing at all. Given that those two primary concerns are addressed, she’d support the contract, but she called it a “tough” decision.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that improvement to the train station is deeply important. He pointed to improvements in Amtrak service and possible commuter service – with railcars having been acquired. It won’t happen tomorrow, but it’s important to plan for the future, he said. He called the sewer reconstruction done at the Fuller Road site – which was in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) – as something necessary anyway. To suggest that it wasn’t necessary is “flat-out false,” he said.

Hieftje picked up on Taylor’s defense of the sewer work. It’s important not to create myths, he said. He was pleased to see planning for a new rail station moving forward, whatever the location. He noted that Gov. Rick Snyder and MDOT are very interested in commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Detroit. But commuter rail would only be funded through the regional transit authority (RTA), Hieftje said.

Briere also added her comments on the sewer work that was done at the Fuller Road site. She reviewed the reasons that she voted to support that sewer work. She said that part of the issue was the fact that the line runs under the river. If a sewer line is under the river, it would be difficult to notice if there were a problem. It was not the case that the only reason for the sewer work was to allow for the foundations of the demised Fuller Road Station to be put in, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the URS contract.

Transportation: Sidewalks

The council considered a revision to the definition of “sidewalk” so that cross-lot walkways could be repaired using sidewalk repair millage funds, but not trigger the ordinary winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners. Cross-lot walkways include those that connect streets to parks or school property, or connect two parallel streets.

At the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting, councilmembers were set to give final approval to a different version of the ordinance revision, which would have still placed the responsibility of sidewalk shoveling in the winter on owners of property adjacent to cross-lot walkways. But the council took a different approach after hearing objections from the owners of adjoining property.

A companion resolution later on the agenda completed the necessary council action to allow the definitional change to have an actual impact: The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use. So the companion resolution accepted 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

This cross-lot path was described by John Ohanian at the city council’s July 1, 2013 meeting as one that he’d become responsible for shoveling if the city adopted the change in the definition of sidewalk that was being considered at that meeting.

This is the path – looking east from Frederick and Middleton into Greenbrier Park – that abuts Ohanian’s property.

No one spoke at the public hearing on the ordinance change.

Council deliberations were scant on both items, consisting of Jane Lumm acknowledging the hard work and responsiveness of city staff in working on the issue.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the change to the sidewalk ordinance and to accept the 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

Transportation: Ice Control Salt

The Oct. 21 agenda included an item authorizing the purchase of bulk salt, for ice control, and seasonal back-up supplies to be sourced from the Detroit Salt Company for $245,143 (2,800 tons of “early fill” at $34.50 a ton and 4,100 tons of “seasonal backup” at $36.23 a ton).

Winter use of ice control salt on roadways by the city of Ann Arbor (in tons). Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle. This year the council is being asked to authorize the purchase of a total of 6,900 tons of ice control salt.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the purchase of ice control salt.

Ann Arbor DDA: Al McWilliams

On the council’s agenda was a reconsideration of the council’s previous vote that appointed Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That original vote was taken on Sept. 16, and resulted in a 6-5 tally in favor.

Al McWilliams attended the Oct. 2, 2013 meeting of the DDA board and voted on the one agenda item. This photo is from Chronicle coverage of that meeting.

The Sept. 16 vote came after mayor John Hieftje stated during deliberations on Sept. 3 – as McWilliams’ confirmation that night appeared to have insufficient support on the short-handed council – that he was withdrawing the nomination.

That gave rise to a technical procedural issue – because Hieftje’s request for confirmation on Sept. 16 appeared to be a fresh nomination. So it should have been subjected to the council’s rule that applies when the vote comes at the same council meeting as the nomination – namely, that the confirmation achieve an eight-vote majority. For detailed analysis of the procedural issue, see “Column: How to Count to 8, Stopping at 6.”

City attorney Stephen Postema was then directed by the council at its Oct. 7 meeting to produce a written opinion on the legal validity of the 6-5 vote, which he subsequently did. Later in the Oct. 7 meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) convinced his council colleagues to re-open the agenda to consider a motion to reconsider the Sept. 16 vote on McWilliams. Warpehoski could do that as someone who voted on the prevailing side.

That motion for reconsideration was immediately postponed until the Oct. 21 meeting. The first vote faced by the council was the motion to reconsider.

Ann Arbor DDA: Al McWilliams – Public Commentary

Drew Waller, director of sponsorship at the Michigan Theater, told the council he was excited about the prospect of Al McWilliams being appointed to the DDA. [A single hiss came from the audience when he made the remark.] We should focus on what McWilliams can do for the community, Waller said. [Russ Collins, executive director of the Michigan Theater, also serves on the DDA board.]

Ann Arbor DDA: Al McWilliams – Council Deliberations

The council did not engage in substantive deliberations on the question of reconsideration.

Outcome: The council voted 8-3 to reconsider the vote on McWilliams’ appointment. Voting against reconsideration were mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

With the question of McWilliams’ appointment again in front of the council, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) recalled the possible conflict of interest issue. [The AAATA is a client of McWilliams' ad agency, Quack!Media, and the issue of conflict of interest could arise when the DDA considers its annual grant to the AAATA to support the go!pass program – at an amount totaling roughly a half million dollars a year. The go!pass allocation is not made under the terms of a contractual relationship, and DDA legal counsel Jerry Lax has opined in the past that the controlling statutory language does not apply in the event there's not a contract to be voted on.]

More important than the conflict of interest issue, Anglin said, was the reaction some of the female councilmembers had to the material on McWilliams’ website. McWilliams might be very talented, but Anglin feels that McWilliams erred in his judgment to post some of that material. It had been a 6-5 vote, Anglin noted, saying that it’s the first time he’s opposed a mayoral nomination. [Anglin actually also voted on May 13, 2013 against the appointment of Eric Mahler to the board of the AAATA.]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Warpehoski for his action to move to reconsider the vote, saying it was honorable. She thanked city attorney Stephen Postema for writing the opinion that the council had requested. She said she’d vote against the appointment. It’s not hard to find qualified applicants for the DDA board, she said. She wanted someone who has the maturity to serve on the board. She characterized the issue as one of judgment and respect.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he’d support the nomination, noting that the council had received many communications from people who know McWilliams well in a professional context. Business leaders are universal in their support of him, he said.

Warpehoski reviewed some of the objections to McWilliams’ appointment: (1) conflict of interest; (2) misogyny; and (3) judgment. He thought that (1) could be addressed with timely recusal. As far as the misogyny, he felt the material McWilliams had posted was a media critique, not an invitation to “Hey, check out this hottie!” He said he didn’t see any basis for the claim of misogyny. On (3) he echoed Taylor’s remarks.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) thanked Warpehoski for his effort to have the question reconsidered. But ultimately, “The man insulted me,” Kunselman said. And for that reason he’d be voting against McWilliams. Kunselman said he wouldn’t repeat the insult because it wouldn’t be appropriate decorum. Kunselman stated that “third-grade potty humor” is not appropriate for a public official. He cautioned that someone else at the table could be the next person that McWilliams insults.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said we all curse, but cursing with women’s body parts is unacceptable.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) stated that she wished the council wouldn’t spend time on this agenda item, but would “pipe up as well.” She said that someone who could bring great life to the DDA should be supported.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she wasn’t planning on saying anything. But she felt the fact that the word “misogyny” was being used in the debate about the appointment indicates that the appointment isn’t appropriate. She recalled her interaction with McWilliams on the phone. She’d told him he’d watered down his message with his choice of images and language. He’d told her he disagreed – and said it was appropriate vernacular. The recommendations the council had received were from people she respected, Petersen said, but they did not know about the conversation she’d had with him. At this point, she was not ready to appoint him to the DDA. “We need the highest caliber people” on the DDA board, she said.

Lumm thanked Petersen for her remarks. Lumm said it was a core demonstration of poor judgment to defame her colleagues in the way that McWilliams did.

Outcome: After 20 minutes of deliberations, the council again voted 6-5 to appoint McWilliams to the DDA board. Voting against McWilliams’ appointment on Sept. 16 and on Oct. 21 were: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Voting in favor were: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje.

Ann Arbor DDA: DDA TIF Ordinance

On the council’s Oct. 21 agenda was final approval an ordinance revision to Chapter 7. The revision would clarify the existing language of the ordinance, which regulates the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s TIF (tax increment financing) capture.

The clarification would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction on TIF revenue that’s already expressed in the ordinance language. It would essentially enforce the existing ordinance language. This ordinance revision was first considered by the council in February of this year. It received initial approval in April and has been in front of the council several times since then, but always postponed.

A joint committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has been meeting, most recently on Oct. 16, and appear headed toward an alternative that would enact a “cap” on DDA TIF revenue – that could be set at a high enough level that it might not have a substantive impact on actual TIF revenue. The idea is that a basis would be defined in terms of the taxable value of the increment in the TIF district on which the DDA could capture TIF. And the DDA would not be able to capture taxes on any amount in excess of that. An annual percentage increase would be applied to the basis, effectively raising the cap each year.

On that approach, the key questions are what number to choose as the basis and what percentage to choose as the escalator. The committee’s current conversation appears to be headed toward establishing the basis at a level that reflects all the new construction through the next year and a percentage increase somewhere around 5%.

The existing ordinance language already defines a cap, but is calibrated to the projections of the increase in taxable value in the DDA TIF plan. Mathematically, the alternative approach could be expressed in terms of changing the projections in the DDA TIF plan.

When that alternative proposal from the committee is finalized, it would be brought forward as a substitute proposal for the ordinance revision.

At its Oct. 21 meeting, the council didn’t deliberate beyond remarks offered by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who reported that a joint committee meeting of DDA board members and councilmembers, held on Oct. 16, had not yet settled on the details of an alternative approach to the ordinance revision. He ventured that the discussion about the amount of the escalator on the basis for the cap currently stood around 4.5%.

Kunselman moved that consideration of the ordinance be postponed again until Nov. 7, so that the council could weigh the current proposal and the alternative that the committee puts forward.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the DDA ordinance changes until its Nov. 7 meeting. That’s the last council meeting before the new composition of council is seated, following the Nov. 5 election.

Ann Arbor DDA: Main Street Light Poles

The city council considered approval of $280,000 to be spent replacing 81 light poles in downtown Ann Arbor. The resolution stated that the light poles would be purchased from Spring City Electrical Manufacturing at a cost of $173,307, with additional costs for installation and labor bringing the total to $280,000.

Downtown Ann Arbor Main Street light pole on the northeast corner of Main & William. Photograph is from the city of Ann Arbor, taken in April 2012.

The potential expenditure amounted to the city’s portion of a $580,000 project to replace 81 light poles – with the other portion of the cost borne by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The $280,000 for the city’s share would need to be allocated from the general fund to the field operation unit’s FY 2014 street lighting budget. As a budget amendment, the resolution needed eight votes under the city charter.

By way of additional background, in April 2013 when the council gave initial approval of the change to the city ordinance that regulates the DDA’s TIF capture, an argument against that move was that it would leave the DDA without sufficient revenue to pay for the roughly $580,000 cost of replacing the decorative light poles, which are described by some as an iconic feature of Main Street.

Replacement was characterized as an urgent public safety issue, because the bases of some of the poles are rusting. Various statements were made about the number of light poles that had failed, but responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle earlier this year, city of Ann Arbor staff indicated that in early 2012 two of the light poles fell – due to a structural failure at the base of the poles caused by rust. After inspection of all the poles, two additional light poles were deemed to be in immediate risk of falling and were also replaced. As a part of the council’s FY 2014 budget deliberations, the council altered the DDA’s budget and directed the DDA to allocate $300,000 toward the replacement of the Main Street light poles.

The council’s specific action on May 20, 2013 was to alter the DDA’s budget by recognizing additional TIF revenues of more than $568,000, and shifting $300,000 of that revenue from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund. The council’s budget resolution also recommended that the DDA spend $300,000 of its TIF fund on the Main Street light pole replacement. Earlier this year, in response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that the city council was expected to be asked to act on the matter either at its July 15 or Aug. 8 meeting. But the issue was not placed before the council until Oct. 21.

Ann Arbor DDA: Main Street Light Poles – Background

Most of the council’s deliberations focused on the council’s decision in May this year to alter the DDA’s budget when the council adopted the FY 2014 budget. That budget change was first to add $568,343 in TIF revenue to the amount the DDA itself had budgeted for FY 2014 and then to transfer $300,000 of that from the TIF fund to the DDA’s affordable housing fund. The council’s budget amendment earlier this year also included a request that the DDA allocate at least $300,000 to the light-pole replacement project.

The council’s budget deliberations featured an argument by some councilmembers that the $300,000 transfer to the housing fund would impair the DDA’s ability to undertake the light pole replacement project and that the city would need to absorb the cost differential.

However, the set of budget amendments approved by the council in May didn’t include an allocation for the city to pay for the light poles, nor did the council’s action include a commitment expressed in a resolution that the city would absorb the cost.

All of that came in the context of the council’s consideration of a change to the city ordinance that regulates the DDA’s TIF capture – Chapter 7. That Chapter 7 change was given initial approval on April 1, before the council deliberated on its budget in May and even before it received the proposed budget from the city administrator later in April. The Chapter 7 change – on which final action continues to be postponed by the council – would essentially enforce the limitations on TIF revenue that are already expressed in the ordinance language, and disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation.

On the DDA’s current interpretation of Chapter 7, there’s no limitation on its TIF revenue as along as it has debt payments to make. Earlier in 2011, when the issue was first noticed, the DDA had agreed that there was a limitation, after analysis of the ordinance by its own legal counsel and the city attorney’s office. When it became apparent that the amounts that would need to be returned would recur and be more substantial than the DDA first calculated, the DDA adopted a different legal position – involving the debt clause.

The Main Street light pole issue surfaced during the deliberations on April 1 about the ordinance revision – as an example of a project the DDA might not be able to pay for, if the council enacted the Chapter 7 revision. At the council’s April 15 meeting, an amendment to the Chapter 7 revision proposed by Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and adopted by the council delayed application of the revised language until next year – FY 2015.

In timeline overview form:

• April 1, 2013: Initial approval of DDA TIF capture ordinance revision (Chapter 7). Main Street light poles were cited as a project the DDA might not be able to pay for if the Chapter 7 revisions were approved.
• April 15, 2013: City council approves the Petersen amendment to the Chapter 7 revision, which delayed application of the revised language until FY 2015.
• May 20, 2013: City council approves FY 2014 budget amendment that affects DDA budget.
  

  Whereas, The DDA is forecasted to receive $568,343 more in TIF revenues than anticipated in the proposed FY14 budget;
  Whereas, Council desires to support the public housing program in the DDA area;
  RESOLVED, The DDA TIF fund revenue and expenditure budgets be increased by $568,343 for the purposes of creating a one-time transfer;
  RESOLVED, The DDA Housing fund revenue and expenditure budgets be increased by $300,000 to reflect Council’s desire for the DDA to support affordable housing in the DDA area; and
  RESOLVED, Ann Arbor City Council requests that the DDA allocate at least $300,000 for the replacement of the light poles on Main Street.

• June 5, 2013: DDA board meets and executive director Susan Pollay reports the council’s action. She tells the board that she’s meeting with city staff to figure out how the light poles will be paid for.
• July 3, 2013: DDA board allocates $300,000 for the light pole replacement project at the same meeting it allocates $250,000 for other capital projects, and $59,200 to support the creation of a business improvement zone in the South University area. One “whereas” clause characterized the council’s action in a way that is not based on the wording of the city council’s May 20 budget amendment.
  

  Whereas, Through the 2013/14 budget approval process it was determined that the City would undertake this street light replacement in calendar year 2013, with the DDA allocating $300,000 toward the cost of the project, and the City allocating $216,000; [.pdf of complete DDA light pole resolution]

Ann Arbor DDA: Main Street Light Poles – Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations. She asked public services area administrator Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She wanted to know when the light poles were installed and by whom. Hupy explained that they were installed by the DDA in the late 1980s, so the poles are not quite 30 years old. They weren’t noticed to be rusting because their decorative base shields the rust from view, he explained. He said the bases might have contributed to water not draining away and that the replacement light poles would have a gap between the pole and the base, he explained.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked why the appropriation for the light poles was not included in the budget that the council was asked to approve in May. Hupy explained that at that time, the DDA was proposing to cover the entire cost. Based on that explanation, Kunselman wouldn’t support the resolution appropriating the money.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) pointed out that the council’s budget resolution was a request for the DDA to spend at least $300,000. She asked DDA executive director Susan Pollay if the DDA had considered making a greater contribution. Pollay reviewed the history of the council’s budget resolution.

Lumm inquired about the status of the city council’s resolution requesting the DDA to fund downtown police officers. Pollay told Lumm the DDA is looking at possibly hiring “ambassadors,” not police officers. She noted that some DDA board members would be traveling to Grand Rapids to learn more about that city’s ambassador program.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked where the $300,000 came from that the DDA had granted to Washtenaw County for its Annex renovation. It was allocated from the DDA’s TIF fund.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) began his remarks with: “C’mon, we knew this was coming” – indicating a view that the council understood that the council’s action to alter the DDA’s budget back in May meant that the city would need to pay a portion of the light pole replacement cost. Mayor John Hieftje said he remembered it the same way as Warpehoski.

Petersen asked if there was other money besides general fund money that could be used to pay for the light poles. No, said Hupy.

Kunselman pressed Hupy on the question of the appropriation of the funds. The DDA had said that the DDA would step up and cover the expense, Hupy said. It was not put into the city’s budget after discussion with the DDA, he said. Kunselman said that the council had not made a commitment to pay for the light poles. The DDA had spent money for other things, like the Washtenaw County Annex building.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) then claimed that Kunselman had made a “flat-out misrepresentation” of what had happened. The council had been told that the council would need to spend the general fund money to do it, Taylor contended. And it was the council’s ill-advised interference with the DDA’s budget earlier in the year that had caused this situation, Taylor said. The council had made the budget adjustments in May, “knowing full well that we’d be on the hook for the balance.” Taylor called the need to spend the money now a “self-inflicted wound.”

Briere said she appreciated what Taylor and Kunselman both said. Briere then told the council how she explained to a constituent the difference between the city’s and the DDA’s budgets. Briere said that the city council had told the DDA how to spend its money, and the DDA had done that. She was filled with regret that the council had done that, she said. When the DDA said it would step up and make that investment, she’d been relieved.

Petersen asked what the level of risk is for the light poles falling down. What kind of health and safety risk is posed? Hupy said those that were in immediate danger had been replaced. If the light poles were not all going to be replaced in the near term, the city would go out and replace a few more poles, he said.

Petersen said she sees the budgets of the DDA and the city as “fungible.” She’d like to see the DDA find the money to complete this project. Based on Pollay’s response to Lumm’s question, Petersen concluded the DDA would not be funding the police officers that the city council had requested. Responding to Briere’s remark, Petersen said she didn’t regret giving direction to the DDA. She said that she thought the DDA should find the money to pay for the light poles.

Lumm said that the resolution to allocate funds that night was consistent with the council’s budget resolution, so she’d support it. Warpehoski asked if the overall cost of replacement changes, if the poles are replaced in stages as compared to doing it all in one phase. Hupy explained that labor costs would go up. There would also be a mismatch between the globes for a time while the replacement was underway.

Kailasapathy related a vignette about a neighborhood where there’s no streetlight and no sidewalk – at the intersection of Dhu Varren and Birchwood. She’d met with city staff there early in the morning before it was light and they had seen children waiting for the bus to arrive. She compared the potential for mismatching light poles downtown to not having any streetlight at all at that Dhu Varren location. Like Petersen, Kailasapathy said she had no regrets about changing the DDA’s budget earlier in the year to allocate $300,000 for affordable housing.

Outcome: The council rejected the resolution on a 7-4 vote. It failed because it needed 8 votes to pass on the 11-member council. Voting against the resolution were Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

City Energy Commission: Fossil Fuel Divestment

A resolution on divestment from fossil fuel companies was back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013, the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until Oct. 21.

It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013. The resolution recommended that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. The resolution defines a “fossil fuel company” to be any of the top 100 coal companies or top 100 gas and oil extraction companies.

The top three coal companies on the list are: Severstal JSC; Anglo American PLC; and BHP Billiton. The top three gas and oil companies on the list are: Lukoil Holdings; Exxon Mobil Corp.; and BP PLC. The basic consideration of the resolution is the importance of the role that greenhouse gas emissions play in global warming.

The resolution recommended by the energy commission cites the city of Ann Arbor’s climate action plan, which has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2025 and 90% by 2050. The resolution warns that fossil fuel companies have enough fossil fuel reserves that, if burned, would release about 2,795 gigatons of CO2. That’s five times the amount that can be released without causing more than 2°C global warming, according to the resolution.

Nancy Walker, executive director of the city’s employee retirement system, has reviewed for the council at its meetings the implications of fossil fuel divestment on the retirement fund. Walker had told the council that moving to separately managed accounts from the system’s preferred strategy – of using co-mingled funds, mutual funds, and particularly indexed funds – would cost 30-40 basis points more in fees, independent of any difference in the return on investment.

City Energy Commission: Fossil Fuel Divestment – Public Commentary

Mike Shriberg, an energy commission member who’d addressed councilmembers the two previous times that the item had been on the agenda, conveyed some of the information orally that was included in the commission’s written response to the council’s questions. [Divestment: Response from Energy Commission] He asked that the council not be fixated on the question of fees. Rather, he urged the council to focus on what can be done now – by focusing on the investments that are not in indexed funds.

City Energy Commission: Fossil Fuel Divestment – Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje said he hoped the discussion could be brief, because it’s already been discussed a lot. [The council's deliberations lasted a half hour.]

Ann Arbor city energy commissioner Michael Shriberg.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that his impression is that the council was eager to express its support for divestment, but concerned about interfering with the pension board. An earlier amendment had been made to try to address that tension, he said. [The amendment was proposed by Taylor at the council's Sept. 16, 2013 meeting, and adopted by the council before postponing a vote on the resolution until Oct. 21. The amendment acknowledges that compliance with the requests by the council had to be consistent with the pension board’s fiduciary responsibility.]

Taylor indicated that he’d be more comfortable with further amendments so that the resolution enumerated a set of requests to investigate and consider various topics, as opposed to “urging” the pension board to do something. But he didn’t move the amendments at that point.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said it makes sense to remove language that has to do with divestment. She would be more inclined to support something that is more proactive about directing investment in clean energy instead of divesting from anything.

Hieftje said the resolution as it reads doesn’t have any “teeth” that would direct the pension board to do anything. It would send a message, however, that the city wants to align its investment strategy with its sustainability plan. He ventured it could be watered down further by saying, “maybe please could you possibly do something.” But the resolution was already soft enough as it is, Hieftje said. He felt the council should give the resolution an up-or-down vote and if the council voted it down, the council could ask the energy commission to come up with something else. [Hieftje serves on the city's energy commission.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) thought the resolution did need to be watered down further. He didn’t want to “urge” another body to do something over which the council has no control. Some of the other cities that have been referenced as having a similar policy simply had mayoral directives, he pointed out. Kunselman said the resolution should just be very simple. The list of things that are in the resolution as it’s written aren’t “neighborly,” he said. Kunselman felt that a resolution could be crafted that could be just enough to put the city of Ann Arbor on a list of cities that support the idea of divestment and that no one would check in detail to see what the resolved clauses actually say.

At that point Taylor proposed the amendments he’d alluded to earlier. The word “urges” would be replaced with “requests” throughout. Also the word “immediately” would be deleted from the first resolved clause. Another piece of language from Taylor’s amendments: “… to investigate whether it can reasonably divest …” The phrase “consider ensuring” would be used instead of just “ensuring.” [.pdf of fossil fuel resolution as amended]

Outcome: The council approved Taylor’s amendments with dissent from John Hieftje.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated he’d support the resolution. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she supported the elimination of the word “urge” and the substitution of “request.” But she didn’t know what this resolution will accomplish. She thanked the retirement board for its work. She pointed to the fees that would be incurred as a result of withdrawing investments from indexed funds.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that she couldn’t match Lumm’s rhetoric when it comes to investments because it’s not in her skill set. She relies on other people to guide her. There’s a concern that the staff of the pension board might not be able to distinguish between looking into things versus implementing something, she said. So Taylor’s amendments, she said, are reasonable. They provide guidance without imposing restriction.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated she’d support the amended resolution. Petersen allowed the amendments do water down the resolution, but she doesn’t want to support something that doesn’t have teeth. The council would be asking the pension board to take its eye off the ball for a while, she said. A resolution about investment as opposed to divestment would have teeth, she said.

Kunselman wanted to make sure that the title of the resolution had the word “urges” replaced with “requests,” along with the body of the resolution. Kunselman said he’d support the resolution, but made some remarks about what he wants the energy commission to focus its efforts on – energy efficiency projects, not investment strategy. Kunselman ventured that some members of the pension board were present and made a brief gambit to have them come to the podium.

Instead, city administrator Steve Powers gave some brief background on the work the pension board had done to give a preliminary assessment to the council’s requests. CFO Tom Crawford came to the podium and explained that the pension board had taken the council’s questions and deliberations seriously. The time it would take the board’s investment committee to investigate further was a concern, he said. The volunteer board has a professional investment advisor, and the advice from that advisor was there’s no way to very simply address the issue.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the amended fossil fuel resolution on a 9-2 vote. Dissenting were Ward 2 councilmembers Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm.

City Energy Commission: Appleyard Appointment

On the council’s agenda was just one appointment – that of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission.

Wayne Appleyard at an April 2010 joint meeting of the city’s energy, environmental and planning commissions. Next to Appleyard is Bonnie Bona, who at that time chaired the planning commission. (Chronicle file photo.)

Appleyard’s nomination was put forward at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting, but his confirmation was not requested at the council’s following meeting on Oct. 7. Even though the nomination was not put forward at the Oct. 7 meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) registered his concerns then about the nomination.

So the confirmation request was pending clarification of some concerns that Anglin and other councilmembers had raised about Appleyard’s status as a non-city resident and his long tenure on the commission – since 2002.

As a non-city resident, Appleyard’s confirmation needed seven votes, which it would likely not have received on Oct. 7 given the short-handed council that night. [Only eight out of 11 councilmembers attended.]

The seven-vote majority, instead of the typical six, is required by the city charter for non-city residents: [emphasis added]:

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

Appleyard lives in Grass Lake, Mich. With respect to Appleyard’s long tenure, a city charter requirement on city boards and commissions has been analyzed as not applicable to the city’s energy commission. The charter requirement limits continuous service on some kinds of boards and commissions to six years, after which a three-year lapse is required:

Boards and Commissions SECTION 5.17.
(a) The Council may create citizen boards for each of the following departments: Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Public Works, Utilities Department, Department of Parks and Recreation, and Department of Building and Safety Engineering. It may, in addition, create such a board for any department established pursuant to this charter. The Council shall prescribe the number of persons on each such board, the terms of office, the method of appointment of members, the board officers and the method of their selection, and provisions concerning the holding of regular and special meetings. No person serving on such board continuously for six years shall be eligible to reappointment, until the lapse of three years. …

The city energy commission was established in 1985 by a council resolution to “oversee City policies and regulations in areas of energy efficiency concerns and make periodic public reports and recommendations to the City Council.” So it’s not analyzed as corresponding to any particular city department. Under special qualifications, the online Legistar description states: “wide spread representation; interest in energy.” Terms of appointment for energy commissioners are three years.

When Appleyard was up for reappointment in 2010, no objections were raised. On that occasion, mayor John Hieftje pulled out Appleyard’s confirmation for a separate vote to ensure it was clear that he’d specifically received adequate support from the council, despite not being a city resident.

Appleyard is principal with Sunstructures Architects, with a focus in renewable energy and sustainable architecture. Appleyard designed the house of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

City Energy Commission: Appleyard Appointment – Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje led off by saying he couldn’t imagine anyone who’s more knowledgeable or qualified to serve on the energy commission.

Mayor John Hieftje and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). They were looking at the mayoral proclamation recognizing Diwali in Ann Arbor.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) acknowledged that Appleyard is highly qualified, and thanked him for his service. But local government is about local governance, she said. Her objection to the appointment was not personal, she said, and she valued Appleyard’s service. She thought, however, that among the 115,000 residents of Ann Arbor, other qualified commissioners could be found. If the energy commission recommends measures that could have an effect on the city’s financial well-being (like the fossil fuel divestment resolution), then the recommendations should be made by people who will live with the consequences, she said – that is, city residents.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that Appleyard is abundantly qualified. But she’s concerned about the length of his service – as a non-city resident. Reasonable term limits are a good government practice, she said. So Lumm wouldn’t support the appointment.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that service in the community leads to even more service in the community. There needs to be a kind of welcome mat put out to residents encouraging them to serve. Anglin offered his view that the energy commission should be focusing more on residential solar and geothermal initiatives. Going outside the community to fill the seat shouldn’t be necessary, he concluded.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) stated that it’s not Appleyard’s fault that there are no term limits on the energy commission, so she’d support the appointment. She reminded the council that non-city resident Alison Stroud was unanimously approved by the council as an appointee to the city’s commission on disability issues, because of her unique qualifications.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated that he was delighted to support Appleyard, who exemplifies excellence. Hieftje reiterated that Appleyard has tremendous expertise. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pointed out that Appleyard also serves on the environmental commission as the energy commission’s representative. Based on her experience serving on the environmental commission as one of two city council appointees to that group, Briere said Appleyard represents a valuable background and voice that would be otherwise unrepresented. She called his explanations cogent and patient. She characterized his style as non-aggressive but firm. So she supported his appointment.

Hieftje pointed out that Appleyard is a taxpayer as the owner of a business within the city limits. [Added after initial publication: According to Appleyard, he has moved his business address to his home in Grass Lake after maintaining it in Ann Ann Arbor for 35 years. The address listed on his website in downtown Ann Arbor is no longer current.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) recalled his relationship with Appleyard: Appleyard designed Kunselman’s house and Kunselman served on the energy commission back when Kunselman was the planning commission’s representative to that body. Kunselman said he’d support Appleyard’s appointment.

Outcome: The council voted 8-3 to approve the reappointment of Wayne Appleyard to the city energy commission. Dissenting were Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Upcoming Business

Several specific initiatives were announced by councilmembers at the Oct. 21 meeting, one of which grew out of the Wayne Appleyard appointment. Councilmembers will also be asked to vote on some nominations, which were made at the Oct. 21 meeting.

Upcoming Business: Board/Commission Term Limits

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) announced during the final communications time of the evening – which took place well after midnight – that she’d consulted with the city attorney to bring forward a resolution to apply the term limit restriction of the city charter to all boards and commissions. [The city charter provides term limits for a particular subset of boards and commissions. Lumm's proposal would likely be to incorporate the city charter limit of two terms (unless there's a one-term lapse) into the city's ordinance about boards and commissions.]

Upcoming Business: Nominations

Nominated to fill the remaining vacancy on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board – due to the resignation of Nader Nassif – was Cyndi Clark, owner of Lily Grace. The business is described on its website as a luxury cosmetics boutique in downtown Ann Arbor.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) perused the pink appointments and nomination list before the meeting started.

To fill a vacancy left by Leigh Greden on the Ann Arbor housing commission board, Tim Colenback was nominated on Oct. 21. Greden’s nomination had been made, but was never put forward for a confirmation vote. Colenback also serves on the city’s housing and human services advisory board. Colenback has told mayor John Hieftje that he won’t be able to serve on both bodies.

A replacement for Julie Grand on the park advisory commission was nominated at the Oct. 21 meeting – David Santacroce. He’s a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and chaired the North Main Huron River corridor task force, which worked for a year and delivered its report recently to the council on recommendations to the corridor. Grand attended her last meeting of PAC on Oct. 15, 2013, after completing the maximum two terms of service.

Amy Shepherd was nominated to serve on the city’s commission on disability issues. On the energy commission, Shoshannah Lenski was nominated to replace Mike Delaney, and Mike Shriberg was nominated for reappointment.

Upcoming Business – Ethics Policy?

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) noted there’s been a lot of conversation about the notion of a conflict of interest. And she’s been meeting with constituents about the possibility of implementing a city ethics policy. So she’s preparing a resolution for the next meeting to instruct the city attorney to provide education and professional training for city councilmembers and appointees on Act 196 of 1973, which outlines standards of conduct. The city administrator would be directed to provide information on the city’s website about standards of conduct. She invited other councilmembers to co-sponsor the resolution.

Upcoming Business – Outdoor Smoking

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) announced that he’s working with staff on an outdoor smoking ordinance that would mirror an ordinance enacted by Washtenaw County. He’s looking to empower the city administrator to designate some areas of parkland as non-smoking areas, he said. Warpehoski said that at least the playgrounds should be non-smoking. He reported that he’d be asking the park advisory commission for input, as well.

Upcoming Business – Pedestrian Safety

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) announced that he and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) were working on a framework to establish a pedestrian safety citizens advisory committee.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

The Federal Highway Authority has a framework, he said, for developing a pedestrian safety action plan. He said that city staff is moving forward with a plan to implement that framework. It would take a little money and the council’s approval, he said. One of the components of that framework is a citizens advisory committee. He thought the committee would be seated at or after the second council meeting in November, on Nov. 18. And the process of coming up with recommendations would last six to nine months, he thought.

The effort is not designed to determine or preempt the outcome of the effort to repeal the pedestrian crosswalk ordinance, Warpehoski said.

Briere followed up on Warpehoski’s remarks by saying they want first to identify the broad categories of people or groups who might serve on such a pedestrian safety committee. As examples she gave representatives from the disability community, or school groups. But the idea would not be to identify individuals. Instead, people who were interested in serving would be asked to submit an application. At this point, she and Warpehoski hadn’t “been foolish enough to say, ‘Oh, one person from each ward.’” She hoped that the mayor’s office would work with the representation from each ward to ensure good representation on the committee.

Upcoming Business – UM Billboard

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) announced that he’s working with Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) on a resolution asking that the University of Michigan decommission the large digital billboard outside the Michigan football stadium on East Stadium Boulevard. The background of that resolution given by Taylor was the council’s relatively recent action, on June 17, 2013, to limit digital billboards in the city.

Taylor contended that the UM billboard creates the kind of harms that the council’s action in revising its ordinance sought to avoid. If it won’t be decommissioned, he said, the resolution will ask that the university operate the billboard only just before events at Michigan Stadium or at Crisler Center.

Upcoming Business – Downtown Parks

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as one of two ex officio council appointees to the city’s park advisory commission, alerted the council to the recommendations of the park advisory commission‘s subcommittee on downtown parks. That will be on the next meeting’s agenda for formal acceptance, he said.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for all members of the community, including the middle class. He was there as a candidate for city council, and asked voters in Ward 5 to write in his name when they vote. He called for the ending of homelessness, and more access to affordable transportation, and health care. He recalled the demonstration several years ago at city hall by the KKK, which he claimed mayor John Hieftje authorized. [Hieftje was not mayor at the time, as demonstrations took place in 1996 and 1998. This was a point that Sabra Briere (Ward 1) made several hours later at the end of the meeting. Jane Lumm (Ward 2), whose previous tenure on the council included that era, noted that the KKK had not been invited to Ann Arbor. Hieftje, for his part, said he was glad he was not mayor at the time.]

Partridge complained that the planned redesign of the city’s website doesn’t go far enough. [The redesign of templates for the city's website was on the consent agenda – a contract with Keystone Media for $26,900.]

Comm/Comm: Jeff Hayner

Jeff Hayner is running for Ward 1 city council as an independent. He had just arrived from the PTO Council launch party, he told councilmembers. He drew an analogy to the trust we have in educators and the trust we have in elected representatives. He thought community engagement is the key – in improving schools as well as in local government. He said the redesign of the city webpages that was on the agenda was long overdue. He was glad to see that one of the tabs will be “Democracy in Ann Arbor.” He disagreed with Tom Partridge, when Partridge had said that it’s difficult to get to the website.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: Due to the Nov. 5 general election, the next council meeting will be on Thursday, Nov. 7, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

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

It’s possible that the council might be briefed at the meeting on proposals received by the Oct. 18 deadline for the purchase of the city-owned parcel on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues (the former Y lot), but that’s not yet clear. The property had been listed for $4.2 million.

Many of the Oct. 21 items already on the agenda can be divided into three main categories: transportation, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and the city’s energy commission.

The council held a work session about transportation on Oct. 14, 2013. Transportation-related items on the Oct. 21 agenda include a resolution that would admit Ypsilanti Township as a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The specific question to be considered is a revision to the AAATA’s articles of incorporation – which would also expand the number of board members from nine to 10.

A second transportation-related agenda item is a city-led initiative to develop a new train station, with the location to be determined. The existing location, as well as one on Fuller Road near the University of Michigan medical campus, would be among the possibilities. On the council’s agenda is a contract with URS Corp. to conduct an environmental review that would include public engagement, site selection and conceptual design. The council’s authorization would be $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000, with the rest covered by a federal grant that has already been awarded by the Federal Rail Authority.

To the extent that pedestrian infrastructure is also part of the city’s transportation system, a transportation-related pair of items would alter the definition of “sidewalk” to include cross-lot walkways. Affected by the change, for example, would be walkways that connect streets with parks or school property. The change would allow for use of sidewalk repair millage funds to repair cross-lot walkways, without triggering the winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners.

Finally, the city council will be asked to approve an annual resolution related to wintertime transportation – the purchase of ice control salt for city streets.

Related to the Ann Arbor DDA are three items: (1) reconsideration of the appointment of Al McWilliams to the board of that authority – likely to be confirmed on a re-vote, if reconsideration is approved; (2) final consideration of a change to the city ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF (tax increment financing) capture – likely to be postponed yet again; and (3) a budget allocation of $280,000 to cover costs associated with replacement of downtown ornamental, pedestrian-scale light poles. The DDA is contributing $300,000 to the cost of the $580,000 project. Some councilmembers think the DDA should pay for the full amount, so the eight-vote majority required for the budget amendment might not be achieved.

The specific size of the majority vote required could also be a factor in one of two agenda items related to the city’s energy commission – the re-appointment of Wayne Appleyard to the commission. The confirmation will need a seven-vote majority under the city charter, because he’s not a city resident. The other energy-related item is an energy commission-recommended resolution – which was previously rejected, reconsidered and postponed by the city council. The resolution would call upon the city’s employee retirement board to divest from fossil fuel companies.

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

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

Transportation

Three transportation-related issues appear on the agenda.

Transportation: Ypsilanti Township Membership in AAATA

The council will be asked to approve revised articles of incorporation for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, so that Ypsilanti Township is admitted as a member of the authority. The board would be expanded from nine to 10 members, with the additional member to be appointed by Ypsilanti Township. At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board already approved the membership of Ypsilanti Township. That action was contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

Ypsilanti Township is now a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, pending consideration by the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils. (Green indicates the geographic area included by the AAATA.)

An earlier expansion in membership was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The name of the authority was also changed at that time to add the word “area” – making it the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. [Amendment 3 of the AAATA articles of incorporation]

The expansion of the AAATA’s geographic footprint to include some jurisdictions geographically close to the city of Ann Arbor – and with whom the AAATA has historically had purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) – sets the stage for a possible request of voters in the expanded geographic area. That request would be to approve additional transportation funding to pay for increased service frequencies and times.

The AAATA could place a millage request on the ballot in May 2014, probably at the level of 0.7 mills, to support a 5-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed. A schedule of public meetings to introduce that plan runs through mid-November. A decision to place a millage on the ballot would first need AAATA board approval – a question that has not yet appeared before the board.

Transportation: Ann Arbor Station

Appearing on the Oct. 21 agenda is a contract with URS Corp. Inc. (URS) to carry out an environmental review of the Ann Arbor Station project. This rail station project relates most immediately to the prospect that Amtrak will be offering improved inter-city service on the Chicago-Detroit Amtrak line.

Amtrak train arrival in Ann Arbor. (Chronicle file photo from September 2013)

An improved intercity rail station also has implications for the way that a different type of service – commuter rail service between Ann Arbor and Detroit – might be created and offered in the future. The total budgeted for the Ann Arbor Station contract on the Oct. 21 agenda – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – is $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. A transfer of $550,000 to the city’s major grant fund was approved a year ago by the city council at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting for the total project budget.

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

The funding approved by the city council a year ago came after the city learned that previous expenditures – which were made in connection with the now demised Fuller Road Station project – would not be considered as eligible local matching funds under the federal grant. Fuller Road Station had been a joint venture with the University of Michigan, and called for UM to build a parking structure on the same site as the proposed rail station at a location on Fuller Road.

The preliminary work that URS would do under the contract on the Oct. 21 agenda does not presuppose a preferred location for a new passenger rail station. The existing Amtrak station on Depot Street would be among the alternatives considered, in addition to the location identified for the Fuller Road Station, which is on city-owned land between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive adjacent to the UM medical center. The Fuller Park land is designated by the city in planning documents as parkland, and is zoned as public land. A 2009 appraisal commissioned by the city put the value of the land at $4.25 million.

Transportation: Sidewalks

The ordinance change in front of the council for final approval on Oct. 21 would revise the definition of “sidewalk” so that cross-lot walkways could be repaired using sidewalk repair millage funds, but not trigger the ordinary winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners. Cross-lot walkways include those that connect streets to parks or school property, or connect two parallel streets.

At the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting, councilmembers were set to give final approval of a different version of the ordinance revision, which would have still placed the responsibility of sidewalk shoveling in the winter on owners of property adjacent to cross-lot walkways. But the council took a different approach after hearing objections from the owners of adjoining property.

A companion resolution later on the agenda completes the necessary council action to allow the definitional change to have an actual impact: The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use.  So the companion resolution accepts 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

This cross-lot path was described by John Ohanian at the city council’s July 1, 2013 meeting as one that he’d become responsible for shoveling if the city adopted the change in the definition of sidewalk.

This is the path – looking east from Frederick and Middleton into Greenbrier Park – that abuts Ohanian’s property.

Transportation: Ice Control Salt

The request to be considered by the council is for the purchase of bulk salt, for ice control, and seasonal back-up supplies to be sourced from the Detroit Salt Company for $245,143 (2,800 tons of “early fill” at $34.50 a ton and 4,100 tons of “seasonal backup” at $36.23 a ton).

Winter use of ice control salt on roadways by the city of Ann Arbor (in tons). Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle. This year the council is being asked to authorize the purchase of a total of 6,900 tons of ice control salt.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

Three items on the Oct. 21 agenda relate to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Ann Arbor DDA: Al McWilliams

The item on the council’s Oct. 21 agenda is a reconsideration of the council’s vote that appointed Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That original vote was taken on Sept. 16, and resulted in a 6-5 tally in favor.

Al McWilliams attended the Oct. 2, 2013 meeting of the DDA board and voted on the one agenda item. This photo is from Chronicle coverage of that meeting.

The Sept. 16 vote came after mayor John Hieftje stated during deliberations on Sept. 3 – as McWilliams’ confirmation that night appeared to have insufficient support on the short-handed council – that he was withdrawing the nomination.

That gave rise to a technical procedural issue – because Hieftje’s request for confirmation on Sept. 16 appeared to be a fresh nomination. So it should have been subjected to the council’s rule that applies when the vote comes at the same council meeting as the nomination – namely, that the confirmation achieve an eight-vote majority. For detailed analysis of the procedural issue, see “Column: How to Count to 8, Stopping at 6.”

City attorney Stephen Postema was then directed by the council at its Oct. 7 meeting to produce a written opinion on the legal validity of the 6-5 vote, which he subsequently did. Later in the Oct. 7 meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) convinced his council colleagues to re-open the agenda to consider a motion to reconsider the Sept. 16 vote on McWilliams. Warpehoski could do that as someone who voted on the prevailing side.

That motion for reconsideration was immediately postponed until the Oct. 21 meeting. Even if successful, Warpehoski’s motion is unlikely to result in a change of any councilmember’s vote, but would serve to eliminate the procedural question about McWilliams’ appointment. On Oct 21, the first vote to be taken will be on the motion to reconsider. If at least six councilmembers vote to reconsider, then the question of the appointment itself will be in front of the council.

Ann Arbor DDA: DDA TIF Ordinance

An ordinance revision to Chapter 7 that’s in front of the council for final approval on Oct. 21 would clarify the existing language of the ordinance, which regulates the DDA’s TIF capture. The clarification would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction on TIF revenue that’s already expressed in the ordinance language. This ordinance revision was first considered by the council in February of this year. It received initial approval in April and has been in front of the council several times since then, but always postponed. Another postponement is likely on Oct 21.

A joint committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has been meeting, most recently on Oct. 16, and appear headed toward an alternative that would enact a “cap” on DDA TIF revenue – that could be set at a high enough level that it might not have a substantive impact on actual TIF revenue. When that alternative is finalized, it would be brought forward as a substitute proposal. But based on the Oct. 16 committee meeting, that won’t be ready for the Oct. 21 council meeting.

Ann Arbor DDA: Main Street Light Poles

The city council will be asked to approve $280,000 to be spent replacing 81 light poles in downtown Ann Arbor. The light poles will be purchased from Spring City Electrical Manufacturing at a cost of $173,307, with additional costs for installation and labor bringing the total to $280,000.

Downtown Ann Arbor Main Street light pole on the northeast corner of Main & William. Photograph is from the city of Ann Arbor, taken in April 2012.

The expenditure would amount to the city’s portion of a $580,000 project to replace 81 light poles – with the other portion of the cost borne by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The $280,000 for the city’s share still needs to be allocated from the general fund to the field operation unit’s FY 2014 street lighting budget. As a budget amendment, the resolution needs eight votes under the city charter. It might not achieve that number, because of the ongoing political wrangling between the Ann Arbor DDA and the city council.

By way of additional background, in April 2013 when the council gave initial approval of the change to the city ordinance that regulates the DDA’s TIF capture, an argument against that move was that it would leave the DDA without sufficient revenue to pay for the roughly $580,000 cost of replacing the decorative light poles, which are described by some as an iconic feature of Main Street.

Replacement was characterized as an urgent public safety issue, because the bases of some of the poles are rusting. Various statements were made about the number of light poles that had failed, but responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle earlier this year, city of Ann Arbor staff indicated that in early 2012 two of the light poles fell – due to a structural failure at the base of the poles caused by rust. After inspection of all the poles, two additional light poles were deemed to be in immediate risk of falling and were also replaced. As a part of the council’s FY 2014 budget deliberations, the council altered the DDA’s budget and directed the DDA to allocate $300,000 toward the replacement of the Main Street light poles.

The council’s specific action on May 20, 2013 was to alter the DDA’s budget by recognizing additional TIF revenues of more than $568,000, and shifting $300,000 of that revenue from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund. The council’s budget resolution also recommended that the DDA spend $300,000 of its TIF fund on the Main Street light pole replacement. Earlier this year, in response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that the city council was expected to be asked to act on the matter either at its July 15 or Aug. 8 meeting. But the issue was not placed before the council until Oct. 21.

City Energy Commission

Two items on the Oct. 21 agenda relate to the city’s energy commission.

City Energy Commission: Appleyard Appointment

On the agenda as of Friday, Oct. 18 was just one appointment – that of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission.

Wayne Appleyard at an April 2010 joint meeting of the city’s energy, environmental and planning commissions. Next to Appleyard is Bonnie Bona, who at that time chaired the planning commission. (Chronicle file photo.)

Appleyard’s nomination was put forward at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting, but his confirmation was not requested at the council’s following meeting on Oct. 7. Even though the nomination was not put forward at the Oct. 7 meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) registered his concerns about the nomination of a non-city resident.

So the confirmation request is pending clarification of some concerns that Anglin and other councilmembers have raised about Appleyard’s status as a non-city resident and his long tenure on the commission – since 2002.

As a non-city resident, Appleyard’s confirmation needs seven votes, which it would likely not have received on Oct. 7 given the short-handed council that night. [Only eight out of 11 councilmembers attended.]

The seven-vote majority, instead of the typical six, is required by the city charter for non-city residents: [emphasis added]:

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

Appleyard lives in Grass Lake, Mich. With respect to Appleyard’s long tenure, a city charter requirement on city boards and commissions has been analyzed as not applicable to the city’s energy commission. The charter requirement limits continuous service on some kinds of boards and commissions to six years, after which a three-year lapse is required:

Boards and Commissions SECTION 5.17.
(a) The Council may create citizen boards for each of the following departments: Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Public Works, Utilities Department, Department of Parks and Recreation, and Department of Building and Safety Engineering. It may, in addition, create such a board for any department established pursuant to this charter. The Council shall prescribe the number of persons on each such board, the terms of office, the method of appointment of members, the board officers and the method of their selection, and provisions concerning the holding of regular and special meetings. No person serving on such board continuously for six years shall be eligible to reappointment, until the lapse of three years. …

The city energy commission was established in 1985 by a council resolution to “oversee City policies and regulations in areas of energy efficiency concerns and make periodic public reports and recommendations to the City Council.” So it’s not analyzed as corresponding to any particular city department. Under special qualifications, the online Legistar description states: “wide spread representation; interest in energy.” Terms of appointment for energy commissioners are three years.

When Appleyard was up for reappointment in 2010, no objections were raised. On that occasion, mayor John Hieftje separated out Appleyard’s confirmation for a separate vote to ensure it was clear that he’d specifically received adequate support from the council, despite not being a city resident.

Appleyard is principal with Sunstructures Architects, with a focus in renewable energy and sustainable architecture. Appleyard designed the house of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

City Energy Commission: Fossil Fuel Divestment

A resolution on divestment from fossil fuel companies is back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013, the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until Oct. 21.

It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013. The resolution recommended that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. The resolution defines a “fossil fuel company” to be any of the top 100 coal companies or top 100 gas and oil extraction companies.

The top three coal companies on the list are: Severstal JSC; Anglo American PLC; and BHP Billiton. The top three gas and oil companies on the list are: Lukoil Holdings; Exxon Mobil Corp.; and BP PLC. The basic consideration of the resolution is the importance of the role that greenhouse gas emissions play in global warming.

The resolution cites the city of Ann Arbor’s climate action plan, which has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2025 and 90% by 2050. The resolution warns that fossil fuel companies have enough fossil fuel reserves that, if burned, would release about 2,795 gigatons of CO2. That’s five times the amount that can be released without causing more than 2°C global warming, according to the resolution.

Nancy Walker, executive director of the city’s employee retirement system, has reviewed for the council at its meetings the implications of fossil fuel divestment on the retirement fund. Walker had told the council that moving to separately managed accounts from the system’s preferred strategy – of using co-mingled funds, mutual funds, and particularly indexed funds – would cost 30-40 basis points more in fees, independent of any difference in the return on investment.

Live updates from the meeting will appear starting here a few minutes before the scheduled meeting start time of 7 p.m.

6:42 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers has arrived. Responding to a Chronicle query, he indicates that bids on the old Y lot will not be reported out or discussed tonight – because Colliers is still analyzing the responses.

6:49 p.m. Several attendees are here for the Diwali proclamation. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is wearing a sari for the occasion.

7:07 p.m. Thomas Partridge is using the time before the meeting to quiz Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) about the DDA ordinance. And we’re off.

7:08 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) is absent. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is absent for roll call, but he’s here. Higgins’ absence will have implications for vote tallies.

7:12 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wants the McWilliams reconsideration moved up on the agenda, right after the mayor’s communications. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) points out that Higgins is absent and that one condition on the reconsideration was that all councilmembers be present for the reconsideration. Mayor John Hieftje says Higgins is on her way. Warpehoski ventures that he could re-open the agenda in case Higgins has not arrived when the council considers the item.

7:14 p.m. City administrator communications. City administrator Steve Powers reports on a “feel-good” story – 400 trick-or-treaters during the city’s trick-or-treating on the Huron River. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl introduces some guests from Thailand and China who have been visiting Ann Arbor.

7:14 p.m. Proclamations. The proclamation on the agenda tonight is for Diwali – a five-day Hindu festival, the “festival of lights.” It declares Nov. 3, 2013, as Diwali in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

7:23 p.m. Speakers are in turn explaining the religious and cultural significance of Diwali.

7:23 p.m. Higgins has just arrived.

7:25 p.m. Buddhism is now being explained. Previous speakers explained Jainism and Sikhism.

7:27 p.m. We’re now receiving a chanted blessing. The blessing earns applause from the audience.

7:29 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Four people are signed up to speak on the topic of the contract with URS for the environmental review for the Ann Arbor Station project: Rita Mitchell, Nancy Shiffler, Clark Charnetski, and Jeff Hayner. One of the two alternate speaker slots is also filled with a speaker who wants to address the council on the topic of the URS contract – Drew Waller. [More background above on Ann Arbor Station].

Four people are also signed up to talk about the addition of Ypsilanti Township to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority: Martha Valadez, Matt Vanauker, Marko Arizankoski, and Abishek Thiagaraj. Alternate speaker Emmanuel Jones is also signed up to talk about adding Ypsilanti Township to the AAATA. [More background on Ypsilanti Township membership in AAATA]

Ann Arbor energy commissioner Mike Shriberg is signed up to speak in support of the resolution urging the employee retirement system to divest from fossil fuels companies. This resolution is back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013 the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until tonight. It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommending that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. [More background on fossil fuel divestment]

Tom Partridge is signed up to speak in favor of his Ward 5 city council write-in candidacy.

7:36 p.m. Tom Partridge introduces himself as an advocate for all members of the community, including the middle class. He’s here as a candidate for city council and asks voters in Ward 5 to write in his name when they vote. He calls for the ending of homelessness, more access to affordable transportation, and health care. He recalls the demonstration several years ago at city hall by the KKK, which he says mayor John Hieftje authorized. [Hieftje was not mayor at the time.] Partridge complains that the planned redesign of the city’s website doesn’t go far enough.

7:40 p.m. Rita Mitchell says the community has not yet agreed on whether the city should take responsibility for a new train station. She pegs the total amount of money invested in study of a site at $1.7 million. She questions whether URS can be an objective consultant given some work done in connection with previous Fuller Station and the connector study. Mitchell questions the amount of funding in the contract just for the public engagement process, which she thinks is too much, compared to the amount for the environmental assessment per se.

7:42 p.m. Martha Valadez is transit organizer for the Ecology Center and Partners for Transit. She says access to public transportation is crucial for her personally and for her community. She supports the urban core transit program. She supports the membership of Ypsilanti Township in the AAATA. It will give the township a chance to participate in future funding requests, not just participation in governance, she says.

7:44 p.m. Matt Vanauker introduces himself as a Ward 5 resident and high school classmate of Kunselman. He’s surprised that the council didn’t support the countywide initiative last year. He can’t imagine a reason why Ypsilanti Township would not be included as a member in the AAATA. He relies on public transportation to accomplish basic life functions, like grocery shopping and medical appointments.

7:46 p.m. Nancy Shiffler is chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She thinks the public involvement component is a strength of the proposal. She’s looking forward to a well-publicized schedule. She cautions against self-selected participants in online surveys. Task 4 of the contract, she says, is problematic, because it could result in a categorical exclusion for an FRA requirement with respect to parkland – and exclusion that would come too early in the process.

7:49 p.m. Mike Shriberg is an energy commission member. He’s spoken to the council twice previously. He’s conveying some of the information in this document: [Divestment: Response from Energy Commission] He asks that the council not be fixated on the question of fees. He asks the council to focus on what can be done now – by focusing on the investments that are not in indexed funds.

7:53 p.m. Clark Charnetski recalls the 30-year history of the study of different sites of a new rail station. That was the era when the Amtrak station was still located within the building where the Gandy Dancer restaurant is currently located. He invites the council to think about rail transportation from the passenger’s point of view. He notes a number of assumptions that were in place 30 years ago that have not proven to be correct. He says that even with current levels of ridership, an improvement to the station is needed. Responding to the idea that the current location could be used to improve the station, he says that the study will examine that option.

7:56 p.m. Abishek Thiagaraj is a junior at UM in biomedical engineering, volunteering with Partners for Transit. He sees transit as a priority. The student perspective is that they’re grateful for the current service AAATA provides. He talks about the need to improve transportation services to off-campus locations. He talks about the ability to integrate students more completely into the community through public transportation.

7:59 p.m. Jeff Hayner is running for Ward 1 city council as an independent. He’s just come from the PTO launch council. He draws an analogy to the trust we have in educators and elected representatives. He thinks community engagement is the key – in improving schools as well as in local government. He calls the redesign of the city webpages that’s on the agenda tonight long overdue. He’s glad to see it – one of the tabs will be “Democracy in Ann Arbor.” He disagrees with Tom Partridge that it’s difficult to get to the website. On the train station contract, he says the public engagement component is very heavy, but wonders if that will be used to shape public opinion or to listen to it.

8:01 p.m. Drew Waller works at Michigan Theater. He’s excited about the prospect of Al McWilliams being appointed to the DDA. [A single hiss comes from the audience.] We should focus on what McWilliams can do for the community, he says.

8:01 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

8:04 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says she’s been meeting with constituents about a city ethics policy. She’s not sure there’s appetite for it, but is preparing a resolution for the next meeting to instruct the city attorney to provide training for public officials on Act 196 of 1973 and to the city administrator to provide information on the city’s website. She announces the re-launch of a customer satisfaction survey she conducted previously. The Huron High School tennis team has won a championship, that she’s reporting tonight at the council table.

8:12 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expresses his appreciation for city administrator Steve Powers’ work. He’s seen Powers show up to community meetings, he says.

8:12 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) give a shout-out to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission for a national level recognition. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) echoes Anglin’s remarks about Powers. She refers to a meeting on the Dhu Varren, Green, Nixon intersection as an example of his work. “Our taxes are well-invested,” said one resident, according to Lumm.

8:12 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) mentions an Oct. 30 meeting on a public improvement project in Springbrook subdivision, near his neighborhood. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) thanks Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) for bringing forward the Diwali proclamation. He also announces that he’s working with staff on an outdoor smoking ordinance that would mirror the county ordinance. He’s looking to empower the city administrator to designate some areas of parkland as non-smoking areas. He says at least playgrounds should be non-smoking. He’ll be asking the park advisory commission for input, as well.

He announces that he and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) are working on a framework to establish a pedestrian safety citizens advisory committee. He thinks the committee would be seated at the second council meeting in November. The effort is not designed to determine or preempt the outcome of the effort to repeal the pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

8:16 p.m. Briere follows up on Warpehoski’s remarks by saying they want first to identify the broad categories of people or groups who might serve on such a pedestrian safety committee.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) announces that he’s working with Teall on a resolution asking that the University of Michigan decommission the large billboard outside Michigan football stadium on Stadium Boulevard. If it won’t be decommissioned, he says, the resolution will ask that the university operate the billboard only just before large events. Taylor also alerts the council to the recommendations of the park advisory commission‘s subcommittee on downtown parks. That will be on the next meeting’s agenda for formal acceptance, he says.

8:17 p.m. Nominations. Being nominated to fill the remaining vacancy on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board – due to the resignation of Nader Nassif – is Cyndi Clark, owner of Lily Grace. The business is described on its website as a luxury cosmetics boutique in downtown Ann Arbor.

To fill a vacancy left by Leigh Greden on the Ann Arbor housing commission board, Tim Colenback is being nominated tonight. Greden’s nomination had been made, but was never put forward for a confirmation vote. Colenback also serves on the city’s housing and human services advisory board. Colenback has told Hieftje that he can’t serve on both bodies.

A replacement for Julie Grand on the park advisory commission is being nominated tonight – David Santacroce. He’s a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and chaired the North Main Huron River corridor task force, which worked for a year and delivered its report recently to the council on recommendations to the corridor. Grand finished her term on PAC, completing her maximum two terms of service at PAC’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.

Amy Shepherd is being nominated to serve on the city’s commission on disability issues. On the energy commission, Shoshannah Lenski is nominated to replace Mike Delaney, and Mike Shriberg is being nominated for reappointment.

8:17 p.m. Appointments. On the agenda as of Friday, Oct. 18 was just one appointment – that of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission. Appleyard’s nomination was put forward at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting, but his confirmation was not requested at the council’s following meeting on Oct. 7 – pending clarification of some concerns that councilmembers have raised about Appleyard’s status as a non-city resident and his long tenure on the commission, since 2002. [More background on Appleyard appointment]

8:21 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje begins by saying he can’t imagine anyone who’s more knowledgeable or qualified to serve on the energy commission.

8:21 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) says Appleyard is highly qualified, and thanks him for his service. But local government is about local governance, she says. It’s not personal, she says, and she values his service. She thinks that among the 115,000 residents of Ann Arbor, other qualified commissioners could be found. If the energy commission recommends measures that could have an effect on the city’s financial well-being (like the fossil fuel divestment resolution), the recommendations should be made by people who will live with the consequences.

8:24 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) says Appleyard is abundantly qualified. But she’s concerned about the length of his service – as a non-city resident. Reasonable term limits are a good government practice. So Lumm and Kailasapathy won’t support the appointment. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) says that service in the community leads to more service in the community. There needs to be a kind of welcome mat put out to residents. Watching the energy commission, Anglin says, he thinks that residential solar and geothermal initiatives should have received more attention. Going outside the community shouldn’t be necessary, he concludes.

8:30 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says it’s not Appleyard’s fault that there are no term limits. She’s going to support the appointment. She reminds the council that non-city resident Alison Stroud was unanimously approved by the council as an appointee to the city’s commission on disability issues, because of her unique qualifications.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) says he’s delighted to support Appleyard, who exemplifies excellence. Hieftje reiterates that Appleyard has tremendous expertise. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) points out that Appleyard also serves on the environmental commission as the energy commission’s representative. She says he represents a valuable background and voice that would be otherwise unrepresented. She calls his explanations cogent and patient. His style is non-aggressive but firm, she says. She supports his appointment. Hieftje points out that Appleyard is a taxpayer as a business owner.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) recalls his relationship with Appleyard. Appleyard designed Kunselman’s house and Kunselman served on the energy commission back when Kunselman was the planning commission’s representative to that body. He says he’ll support Appleyard’s appointment.

8:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to approve the reappointment of Wayne Appleyard to the city energy commission. Dissenting were Lumm, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

8:31 p.m. Reconsider: Appointment of Al McWilliams to DDA (postponed from Oct. 7). The council’s vote on Al McWilliams’ appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority was taken on Sept. 16, and was approved on a 6-5 vote in favor – but appears to have required eight votes under the council’s rules. That vote resulted in a procedural controversy. Late in the Oct. 7 meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) convinced his council colleagues to re-open the agenda to consider a motion to reconsider the Sept. 16 vote on McWilliams. Warpehoski could do that as someone who voted on the prevailing side. That motion for reconsideration was immediately postponed until tonight’s meeting.

The point of Warpehoski’s motion is unlikely to result in a change of any councilmember’s vote, but would serve to eliminate the procedural question about McWilliams’ appointment. Tonight, the first vote to be taken will be on the motion to reconsider. If at least six councilmembers vote to reconsider, then the question of the appointment itself will be in front of the council. [More background on Al McWilliams appointment]

8:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to reconsider the vote on McWilliams’ appointment. Voting against reconsideration were Hieftje, Taylor and Teall.

8:34 p.m. Anglin reviews the conflict of interest issue. He says that more important than that was the reaction some of the female councilmembers had had to the material on McWilliams’ website. McWilliams might be very talented, but Anglin feels that he erred in his judgment to post some of that material. It was a 6-5 vote, he says, adding that it’s the first time he’s opposed a mayoral nomination.

8:37 p.m. Lumm thanks Warpehoski for his action to reconsider the vote. She says it was honorable. She thanks city attorney Stephen Postema for writing the opinion that the council had requested. She’ll vote against the appointment. It’s not hard to find qualified applicants for the DDA board, she says. She wants someone who has the maturity to serve on the board. It’s an issue of judgment and respect, she says.

Taylor says he’ll support the nomination, noting that the council has received many communications from people who know McWilliams well in a professional context. Business leaders are universal in their support of him, he says.

8:41 p.m. Warpehoski reviews some of the objections: (1) conflict of interest; (2) misogyny; and (3) judgment. He thinks that (1) could be addressed with timely recusal. As far as the misogyny, he felt the material McWilliams had posted was a media critique, not an invitation to “Hey, check out this hottie!” He said he didn’t see any basis for the claim of misogyny. On (3) he echoes Taylor’s remarks.

8:46 p.m. Kunselman thanks Warpehoski for his effort. “The man insulted me,” Kunselman says. And for that reason he’ll be voting against McWilliams. Kunselman says he won’t repeat the insult because it wouldn’t be appropriate decorum. Kunselman says that “third-grade potty humor” is not appropriate for a public official. He cautions that someone else at the table could be the next person that McWilliams insults.

Kailasapathy says we all curse, but cursing with women’s body parts is unacceptable.

8:52 p.m. Teall says that she wishes the council wouldn’t spend time on this agenda item, but will “pipe up as well.” She says that someone who could bring great life to the DDA should be supported.

Petersen says she wasn’t planning on saying anything. The fact that the word “misogyny” is being used indicates that the appointment isn’t appropriate. She recalls her interaction with McWilliams on the phone. She’d told him he’d watered down his message with the images and the language. He’d told her he disagreed and said it was appropriate vernacular. The recommendations the council had received were from people she respected, she said, but they did not know about the conversation she’d had with him. At this point, she’s not ready to appoint him to the DDA. “We need the highest caliber people” on the DDA board, she says.

Lumm thanks Petersen. She says it’s a core demonstration of poor judgment to defame her colleagues in the way that McWilliams did.

8:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has again voted 6-5 to appoint McWilliams to the DDA board.

8:52 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Four public hearings are scheduled. The first is on a change to the definition of sidewalks – the effect of which will allow sidewalk millage repair funds to be used to fix cross-lot walkways, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement.

The second and third hearings are fairly straightforward rezoning issues – one involving an annexation into the city from an adjoining township and the other a rezoning from residential to public land (because the city acquired the land). The fourth public hearing is on site plan for U-Haul on South State Street.

8:53 p.m. PH: Sidewalk ordinance. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:57 p.m. PH: Rezoning of Kocher property. Thomas Partridge says that items like this should have amendments attached requiring accessibility to public transportation and affordable housing.

8:57 p.m. PH: Rezoning of 3875 East Huron River Drive. No one speaks at this public hearing.

9:00 p.m. PH: U-Haul site plan. Thomas Partridge again calls for an amendment requiring access to public transportation on the site. He says the site plan should be referred back to the planning commission.

9:01 p.m. Minutes and consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes just two items. One is a contract with Keystone Media ($26,900) to redesign the basic templates for the city’s website. The other is the acceptance of the board of insurance review minutes from Sept. 19.

9:01 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. No one does tonight.

9:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved the consent agenda.

9:01 p.m. DDA ordinance. The ordinance revision (to Chapter 7) in front of the council for final approval tonight would clarify the existing language of the ordinance. The clarification would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction on TIF (tax increment financing) revenue that’s expressed in the ordinance language. This ordinance revision was first considered by the council in February of this year. A joint committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has been meeting, most recently on Oct. 16, to develop a substitute proposal. But based on the Oct. 16 committee meeting, that won’t be ready for tonight’s meeting. The item is likely to be postponed. [More background on DDA TIF ordinance]

9:03 p.m. Kunselman reports that a joint committee meeting of DDA board members and councilmembers has not yet settled on the details of an alternative approach. Kunselman wants the ordinance postponed again until Nov. 7, so that the council can weigh the current proposal and the alternative that the committee puts forward.

9:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone the DDA ordinance changes until its Nov. 7 meeting. That’s the last council meeting before the new composition of council is seated, following the Nov. 5 election.

9:04 p.m. Sidewalk Ordinance. This ordinance change in front of the council for final approval would revise the definition of “sidewalk” so that cross-lot walkways could be repaired using sidewalk repair millage funds, but not trigger the ordinary winter maintenance requirement on adjacent property owners. The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use; so the companion resolution accepts 34 specific cross-lot walkways for public use. [More background above on cross-lot paths]

9:05 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanks staff for their work.

9:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the change to the sidewalk ordinance.

9:05 p.m. Accept 34 sidewalks for public use. This is the companion resolution to the sidewalk ordinance change. The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use; so the companion resolution accepts 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

9:06 p.m. Lumm thanks staff for being responsive to concerns from specific neighborhoods.

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

9:06 p.m. Zoning: Kocher parcel. This is a typical rezoning after annexation from a township into the city. The 2925 Devonshire parcel is 0.66 acres and will be rezoned to R1A (single-family dwelling district).

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the zoning of the Kocher property.

9:06 p.m. Zoning: 3875 East Huron River Drive. The council is being asked to give final approval of a rezoning request for 3875 E. Huron River Drive from R1A (single-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The council had given initial approval of the rezoning at its Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. The site, which is adjacent to the city’s South Pond park, will be used as parkland.

Aerial view of 3875 E. Huron River Drive.

The property was acquired by the city in 2010, but a “life estate” was in place until earlier this year, according to a staff memo. The two-acre site – located on the north side of E. Huron River Drive and west of west of Thorn Oaks Drive – includes a single-family home. The land overlooks South Pond. City assessor records show that the property was previously owned by the Elizabeth Kaufman and Wes Vivian trust.

9:07 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) calls it a generous gift.

9:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the zoning of the 3875 East Huron property.

9:09 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess. The next item up on the agenda is the Ypsilanti Township membership in the AAATA. Township clerk Karen Lovejoy Rowe and supervisor Brenda Stumbo were here previously, but it appears they have departed from the meeting.

9:20 p.m. And we’re back.

9:20 p.m. Admit Ypsilanti Township to AAATA. The council is being asked to approve revised articles of incorporation for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, so that Ypsilanti Township is admitted as a member of the authority. The board would be expanded from nine to 10 members. [More background on Ypsilanti Township membership in AAATA]

9:21 p.m. Brenda Stumbo is actually still here.

9:25 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) says it’s been over a year since he was out opposing the countywide initiative. But he’d told Stumbo at the time that he’d do whatever he could as a city councilmember to get Ypsilanti Township into the authority. He’ll support Ypsilanti Township as a member, he says, but it’s important to understand what the significance is. It’s a matter of governance, not of finances. However, if there are questions that still need to be answered, he’d be content to wait. Putting Ypsilanti Township at the table will bind the community together better, he says.

9:25 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) says she thinks it’s a bit premature to vote on it tonight, given that AAATA has just now started its public engagement campaign on the 5-year plan. She floats the idea of postponing until the second meeting in November. [That will be after the new composition of the council is seated, post-election.]

9:29 p.m. Michael Ford, CEO of the AAATA, is now at the podium. He notes that Ypsilanti Township leadership is here. [Both Stumbo and Lovejoy Rowe are still here.] Ford says that all that’s being asked is for Ypsilanti Township to be admitted as a member.

Stumbo says township residents support this move. She recalls her long career in public service in the township, joking that she started when she was 12. It’s a long-term financial commitment. Currently the route the township pays for is $340,000 annually, she says. It’s imperative that the township have transportation. “We need to lift people up,” she says, and the way to do that is to provide transportation. It will help with congestion in Ann Arbor. She’s proud to be there tonight and says that the township board supports the move.

9:32 p.m. Kailasapathy confirms with Ford that Ypsilanti Township currently has a purchase-of-service agreement (POSA). She said that although meetings were held in the township about this, she’s supposed to represent Ann Arbor. She characterizes this timetable as rushing it. Just because concerns weren’t raised when Ypsilanti city was added doesn’t mean that she can’t raise concerns now.

Ford responds by saying that it’s not being rushed, and that the AAATA had followed the Ann Arbor city council’s direction to work with the urban core to develop service, the financial structure, and governance.

9:33 p.m. Kailasapathy counters by saying that it’s not required that Ypsilanti Township be handled the same way as Ypsilanti city.

9:37 p.m. Petersen says that it just so happens that the 5-year service plan meetings are being scheduled over the next few weeks. Petersen said her understanding was that it would be a give-and-take exchange. The meetings are already set up. And her constituents have asked that the meetings be used to hear what everybody has to say. That would slide the schedule forward only four weeks, she says, until the middle of November.

Teall says that just because the meetings happen to be planned, they shouldn’t be used to divert the focus. She says the process has been exhaustive. It’s been years, she said. Ford notes that he’s met with individual councilmembers and it’s not a surprise. He points out that five of the councilmembers have participated in the urban core discussions.

9:42 p.m. Ford says that some of the questions posed by the councilmembers were received by the AAATA at noon today. Lumm says some of them weren’t answered. Ford and Lumm engaged in spirited back-and-forth. Lumm takes the position that admitting Ypsilanti Township into the AAATA is not a stand-alone decision.

Ford reviews the point of the 5-year service plan meetings – to go over the service improvements. Lumm says she’s trying to weigh the cost-benefit of a possible 0.7 mill tax. It’s difficult to assess it without more information. Hieftje says he doesn’t see how the funding mechanism affects the decision tonight. Admitting Ypsilanti Township is something that should have happened 30 years ago. Anyone who was paying attention to transportation issues would have known this was coming, he says. Any funding decision would need to be approved by voters. Ann Arbor needs to work with communities around it, to realize its great promise as a city, Hieftje says.

9:46 p.m. Briere says the question is to allow Ypsilanti Township a seat at the table. Briere asks Stumbo what she sees as a benefit to membership. Stumbo talks about the Washtenaw connection, and the long-term commitment as benefits. Instead of a year-to-year POSA agreement, there would be a longer-term agreement. She says she’s trying not to take it personally, but she can’t understand why the council wouldn’t vote to allow Ypsilanti Township to join the AAATA.

9:49 p.m. Briere asks Ford if residents will be presented with a menu of improvements and their costs so that residents can choose what services they’d like. Ford described it as a very engaged process that would include adjustments based on what people say at the engagement meetings. Briere asks when the dollar amounts will be broken down for each element of the service improvement plan. Ford says that about a month after the meetings are concluded, those exact costs will be available.

9:53 p.m. Kunselman reiterates that he’s committed to Ypsilanti Township having a seat at the table. That seat at the table does nothing to change the financing, he says. The city of Ann Arbor will still have eight out of 10 seats, which can control the board. He says that transportation services would only be “given away” to Ypsilanti Township if Ann Arbor’s own representatives on the AAATA board approved it. A discussion about the finances isn’t the one the council should be having right now. That’s possibly even a year away, he says. [That means Kunselman is thinking a May 2014 millage vote is probably too soon.]

Kunselman said he’d been against the countywide transportation authority initiative based on the board composition [8 out of 15 board seats on that now-demised proposal]. He didn’t think the council needed to worry about board control. It’s just approving a seat at the table so the township can have a voice, he says.

9:56 p.m. Warpehoski starts by saying that he was wrong earlier – when the council had decided to “bail” on the countywide proposal, he’d been angry and allowed that he might have said some things about Kunselman that might have been insulting. He now took it very seriously when Kunselman says that Ypsilanti Township should have a seat on the table. It’s important to be a good regional partner, Warpehoski says.

On the finances, Warpehoski says it’s a chicken-and-egg problem. To get a solid financial foundation, you need a solid governance structure, he said. The step of finalizing governance needs to be taken before establishing the funding and service plan.

10:00 p.m. Warpehoski asks under the various permutations of Ypsilanti Township being in or out, or whether the millage passes or not: Is there any threat to Ann Arbor services? No, says Ford. What’s the mechanism for funding Ypsilanti Township service as a member of AAATA if the millage doesn’t pass? Stumbo says it’d be paid for out of the township general fund. Ford explains that a similar arrangement to the one the city of Ypsilanti had recently made would also be made with the township.

10:03 p.m. Taylor says it’s a pretty simple process. After the countywide transportation initiative was turned down, the council had said to the AATA: Go away and come back with an urban core plan. Now the question is whether the council meant what the council said back then. Taylor is now ticking through the general benefits of public transportation – congestion reduction and economic development.

Kailasapathy is asking Stumbo and Ford questions. She wants a copy of the MOU (memorandum of understanding) for the township. Ford says that the MOU will follow the membership. Kailasapathy wants it now. She references Taylor’s comments about the urban core – saying that the council had not given the AAATA a blank check.

10:06 p.m. Anglin calls Ford one of the most patient people he knows. He says the strong minority has asked for something specific, a strong minority that could put the AAATA over the top someday. Some councilmembers are asking for more time to answer questions of their constituents. Ann Arbor residents have paid the millage for many years, so if some councilmembers want some more time, they should be listened to.

Ford says that everyone is hung up on the idea of the millage. The AAATA had done what the council had asked it to do and that’s what this is about, Ford said.

10:10 p.m. Higgins says that the discussion is about whether the board should be expanded, and that’s what residents want to weigh in on. People get very concerned without giving them a chance to provide input. On the question of expanding the board, people should have a chance to weigh in on that, she says – during the meetings the AAATA has scheduled over the next few weeks. Higgins is not against having residents have a say.

Ford says that this is the same process used with the city of Ypsilanti. Higgins shuts down Ford saying, “I didn’t ask you a question.” Higgins moves for postponement.

10:12 p.m. Teall says she’ll oppose postponement. Warpehoski asks Ford what the impact of a postponement would be. Ford says the AAATA has been at this a long time. Treating the township differently from the city of Ypsilanti is a problem, he says. It’s not the first time the AATAA has talked with the council about it, he notes. Ford says it would slow the process down and not send a good message.

10:17 p.m. Hieftje says that Ypsilanti Township has been a “good citizen” for many years. He says he doesn’t understand why the city of Ypsilanti should “breeze through” and then there’d be a pause with the township. Briere picks up on a concern expressed by Teall – that the meetings scheduled for the next few weeks would re-focus from the 5-year service plan to the expansion of the board. Ford says that it would put the AAATA behind on making any improvements to service. Briere asks how many meetings. Thirteen, says Ford, running through Nov. 14.

Briere ventures that Lumm wants dollar amounts attached to each improvement, to be able to choose Chinese-menu style. Briere asks Ford if that information can be assembled in mid-November. Ford says that it’ll take about a month after the meetings conclude.

AAATA legal counsel Jerry Lax has joined Stumbo and Ford at the podium, but he hasn’t spoken yet.

10:27 p.m. Briere ventures that without membership on the board, Ypsilanti Township will continue with its year-to-year POSA. She asks if it will be possible to have productive conversations at the scheduled public meetings without the governance question settled. Lax says Ypsilanti Township is prepared to make the longer-term POSA commitment, if it has a seat at the table. Lax says that if the township did not commit to a longer-term arrangement, the AAATA would still have leverage in the negotiation of the year-to-year POSA.

Lumm disagrees with Ford that it’s inappropriate to treat the city and the township differently – citing the city’s dedicated millage versus the township’s POSA. Lumm says it sets a bad precedent that to be eligible for membership in the AAATA, all you need is a POSA. She wants to see the long-term MOU. [Lax has basically explained earlier that the willingness on Ypsilanti Township's part to enter into the long-term MOU is based on having a seat at the table.]

Lumm says that with so many unanswered questions, she thinks it’s important to postpone. Ford asks to respond. Hieftje says no. Teall makes some remarks and gives Ford the floor. Ford reiterates that the issue before the council is governance – that is, adding Ypsilanti Township to the board. He adds: “The rest is noise.” Petersen says that governance and funding are inextricable linked. Petersen says that based on constituent feedback, the two issues are co-mingled. By delaying now, she says, a millage would have a better chance of passing.

10:31 p.m. Kailasapathy still wants to see the MOU before voting to add Ypsilanti Township as member. Hieftje wants to move to a vote on the postponement. Ypsilanti Township has more to risk, Hieftje says. He says that it should have been done 30 years ago.

Stumbo says that the township doesn’t have a ward system – they’re elected at large. So she understands the conversation around the table. She points to the geography of the township, which surrounds the city of Ypsilanti.

10:33 p.m. Warpehoski says he’d vote for it today or a month from now. Kunselman’s 8-2 odds for the city are pretty good, he says. But he’ll vote for postponement because he wants the final vote to have as much support as possible. He doesn’t want it to pass with a 6-5 vote. He wants a solid majority.

10:36 p.m. Kunselman says he started out saying he had unwavering support for adding Ypsilanti Township, but was open to postponement. He tells Stumbo that he’s still committed to getting it done. He’ll support the postponement. “When we get back here, I look to have everybody here unanimously supporting this,” he says. If it’s not that kind of support, a millage won’t pass. He says he’ll attend the scheduled meetings and make clear why it’s important to add Ypsilanti Township to the board. It’s important to re-build trust, he says. “Government is messy,” Kunselman says. He adds that he had almost been ready to go for the vote tonight, but now felt it was important to take the time to build trust.

10:37 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to postpone the revised articles of incorporation for the AAATA admitting Ypsilanti Township as a member. The item is postponed until the council’s second meeting in November. That’s after the new composition of the council is seated. Dissenting were Hieftje, Taylor and Teall.

10:37 p.m. Recess. We’re again in recess.

10:49 p.m. And we’re back.

10:49 p.m. Fossil fuel divestment resolution. This resolution is back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013, the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until tonight. It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommending that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. [More background on fossil fuel divestment]

10:50 p.m. Hieftje says he hopes the discussion can be brief, because it’s already been discussed a lot.

10:55 p.m. Taylor says that his impression is that the council is eager to express its support for divestment but concerned about interfering with the pension board. An earlier amendment had been made to try to address that tension. He’d be more comfortable with a set of requests to investigate and consider various topics.

Petersen says it makes sense to remove language that has to do with divestment. She would be more inclined to support something that is more proactive about directing investment in clean energy instead of divesting from anything.

Hieftje says that the resolution as it reads doesn’t have any “teeth” that would direct the pension board to do anything. It would send a message, however, that the city wants to align its investment strategy with its sustainability plan. He ventured it could be watered down further by saying, “maybe please could you possibly do something.” But the resolution is already soft enough as it is. He felt the council should give this an up or down vote and ask the energy commission to come up with something else.

10:59 p.m. Kunselman says it does need to be watered down further. He doesn’t want to urge another body to do something over which the council has no control. Some of the other cities that have been referenced as having a similar policy simply had mayoral directives, he says. Kunselman says it should just be very simple. The list of things that are in the resolution aren’t “neighborly,” he says.

Taylor now offers a set of amendments that he says he’s sending around by email and to the clerk.

11:01 p.m. Taylor says that “urges” will be replaced with “requests” throughout. Also the first resolved clause deletes the word “immediately.” Another piece of language from Taylor’s amendments: “… to investigate whether it can reasonably divest …” The phrase “consider ensuring” is used instead of just “ensuring.”

11:02 p.m. Taylor’s amendments are approved, with dissent from Hieftje.

11:09 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support the resolution. Lumm says she supports the elimination of the word “urge” and the substitution of “request.” She doesn’t know what this resolution will accomplish, however. She thanks the retirement board for its work. She points to the fees that would be incurred as a result of withdrawing investments from indexed funds.

Briere says that she can’t match Lumm’s rhetoric when it comes to investments because it’s not in her skill set. She relies on other people to guide her. There’s a concern that the staff of the pension board might not be able to distinguish between looking into things versus implementing something. Taylor’s amendments, she says, are reasonable. They provide guidance without imposing restriction.

11:12 p.m. Teall indicates she’ll support the amended resolution. Petersen says the amendments do water down the resolution, and she doesn’t want to support something that doesn’t have teeth. The council would be asking the pension board to take its eye off the ball for a while. A resolution about investment as opposed to divestment would have teeth, she says.

11:18 p.m. Kunselman wants to make sure that the title of the resolution has “urges” replaced with “requests,” along with the body of the resolution. Kunselman says he’ll support the resolution, but makes some remarks on what he wants the energy commission to focus its efforts on – energy efficiency projects, not investment strategy. Kunselman ventures that some members of the pension board are present.

City administrator Steve Powers gives some brief background, and CFO Tom Crawford takes the podium. The pension board had taken the council’s questions and deliberations seriously, Crawford says. The time it would take the board’s investment committee was a concern, he says. The volunteer board has a professional investment advisor, and the advice has been that there’s no way to very simply address the issue. Hieftje wants to move to a vote.

11:19 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the amended fossil fuel resolution on a 9-2 vote. Dissenting were Petersen and Lumm.

11:21 p.m. Resolution to accept donation of property at 3013 W. Huron River Drive. This resolution accepts and appropriates foundation funds to the parks for upkeep and maintenance of 3013 W. Huron River Drive as parkland.

11:22 p.m. Briere and Teall make remarks in support. Kunselman adds a lighthearted remark about a junior high classmate.

11:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the donation.

11:22 p.m. Resolution recognizing Skyline Athletic Booster Club as a civic nonprofit organization. The purpose of the recognition is for the booster club to obtain a charitable gaming license. The booster club is hosting the Millionaire Party (a poker tournament) on eight occasions: Nov. 1, 2, 3 and 4, as well as Dec. 7, 8, 9 and 10.

11:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recognize the Skyline Athletic Booster Club as a civic nonprofit organization.

11:22 p.m. Site Plan: U-Haul Moving and Storage The city planning commission recommended approving the site plan for the U-Haul expansion at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. The U-Haul business is located at 3655 S. State St., south of the I-94 interchange.

Aerial view of U-Haul site on South State Street, indicated with crosshatches.

The project calls for building a 1,246-square-foot addition to the front of the existing retail building. The expansion includes a new 4,994-square-foot, one-story warehouse and an 11,696-square-foot, one-story self-storage building. Both of the new buildings would be at the rear of the site and not visible from South State Street. The project is estimated to cost $1.2 million.

This site is part of the area covered in the South State Street corridor plan, which the planning commission voted to add to the city’s master plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting. That plan calls for office uses at that U-Haul location in the future.

11:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the U-Haul site plan.

11:23 p.m. 81 street light poles for Main Street. The light poles would be purchased from Spring City Electrical Manufacturing at a cost of $173,307, with additional costs for installation and labor bringing the total cost to $280,000. The $280,000 still needs to be allocated from the general fund to the field operation’s unit FY 2014 street lighting budget.

As a budget amendment, the resolution needs eight votes under the city charter. It might not achieve that number, because of the ongoing political wrangling between the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the city council. [More background on Main Street light poles]

11:26 p.m. Briere leads off. She asks Craig Hupy to the podium. He’s the city’s public service area administrator. She wants to know when they were installed and by whom. Hupy says that they were installed by the DDA in the late 1980s, so the poles are not quite 30 years old. They weren’t noticed to be rusting because their decorative base shields the rust from view. He says the bases might have contributed to water not draining away. The new light poles would have a gap between the pole and the base, he explains.

11:31 p.m. Kunselman asks why the appropriation was not included in the budget. Hupy says that at that time, the DDA was proposing to cover the entire cost. Kunselman won’t support this resolution.

Lumm points out that the council’s budget resolution was to spend at least $300,000. She asks DDA executive director Susan Pollay if the DDA had considered making a greater contribution. Pollay reviews the history of the council’s budget resolution. Lumm inquires about the council resolution requesting the DDA to fund downtown police officers. Pollay says the DDA is looking at ambassadors, not police officers. She notes that some DDA board members will be traveling to Grand Rapids to learn more about that city’s ambassador program.

Kailasapathy asks where the $300,000 came from that the DDA had granted to Washtenaw County for its Annex renovation.

11:32 p.m. “C’mon, we knew this was coming,” Warpehoski says. Hieftje says he remembers it the same way as Warpehoski. Petersen asks if there is other money besides general fund money that could be used. No, says Hupy.

11:34 p.m. Kunselman presses Hupy on the question of the appropriation of the funds. The DDA had said that the DDA would step up and cover the expense. It was not in the city’s budget after discussion with the DDA. Kunselman says that the council had not made a commitment to pay for the light poles. The DDA had spent money for other things, like the Washtenaw County Annex building.

11:37 p.m. Taylor says that Kunselman has made a “flat-out misrepresentation” of what had happened. The council had been told that the council would need to spend the general fund money to do it. It was the council’s ill-advised interference with the DDA’s budget earlier in the year that has caused this situation, Taylor says. The council had made the budget adjustments in May, “knowing full well that we’d be on the hook for the balance.” He calls this a “self-inflicted wound.”

11:44 p.m. Briere says she appreciates what Taylor and Kunselman both said. Briere is now telling the council how she explained the difference between the city and the DDA’s budget to a constituent. Briere says that the city council had told the DDA how to spend its money, and the DDA has done that. She was filled with regret that the council had done that. When the DDA said it would step up and make that investment, she’d been relieved.

Petersen asks what the level of risk is for the light poles falling down. What kind of health and safety risk is posed? Hupy says those that were in immediate danger have been removed. If the light poles were not all going to be replaced in the near term, the city would go out and replace a few more poles, he says. Petersen says that she sees the DDA and the city’s budgets as “fungible.” She would like to see the DDA to find the money to complete this project. The DDA would not be funding police, she noted. She didn’t regret giving direction. She says that she thinks the DDA should find the money.

11:48 p.m. Lumm says that the allocation resolution is consistent with the council’s earlier budget resolution, so she’ll support it. Warpehoski asks if the overall cost of replacement changes, if the poles are replaced in stages as compared to doing it all in one phase. Hupy says that labor costs would go up. There would also be a mismatch between the globes.

11:48 p.m. Kailasapathy relates a vignette about a neighborhood where there’s no streetlight and no sidewalk – and a meeting that the city staff and she had attended about it. She had no regrets about changing the DDA’s budget earlier in the year to allocate $300,000 for affordable housing.

11:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected the resolution on a 7-4 vote. It failed because it needed 8 votes to pass on the 11-member council. Voting against the resolution were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Kunselman and Anglin.

11:49 p.m. Ann Arbor Station. The request in front of the council is to approve a contract with URS Corp. Inc. (URS) for the Ann Arbor Station project environmental review. The total budgeted for the Ann Arbor Station contract on tonight’s agenda – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – is $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. A Federal Rail Authority grant awarded to the city will cover the remaining $660,000. [More background on Ann Arbor Station]

11:50 p.m. Kunselman wants city transportation program manager Eli Cooper to clarify how much of the contract would use city funds. Cooper says it’s about $165,000. Kunselman notes that the money has been appropriated and does not presuppose a particular site. He’s going to support the contract.

11:57 p.m. Kailasapathy wants to know who decides the location of the site. Cooper notes that public commenters had pointed out that a third of the contract was for public engagement. The council could participate in the process, he says. Kailasapathy asks if there would be one preferred site at the end. Cooper says that as the sites are winnowed down, the criteria to be used would also be subject to public review and input.

Briere notes that most of the suggested sites are in Ward 1. She confirms that the goal of a previous process was to present the federal government with a preferred site. Cooper indicates that she’s right – it’s a requirement of the NEPA project. The emphasis on the previous project was based on the intermodal character of that facility. How does this proposal differ from that [Fuller Road Station] proposal? Cooper says that one difference is that there’s no initially preferred alternative for the location.

12:00 a.m. Briere asks: What is an environmental assessment? Cooper says it’s an analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative effect of human action. It’s a qualitative descriptor about the impact of a project. That contrasts with an environmental impact statement, which is quantitative.

12:03 a.m. Lumm says she hasn’t heard Cooper say the word “parkland.” Cooper says that any project on parkland would not be eligible for categorical exclusion. If the preferred site were parkland, then it would be subject to Section 4F review, Cooper says. Lumm asks for confirmation that as a part of the process, it would be possible to see the “arc” of the selection process.

12:06 a.m. Cooper says that the public engagement process is not meant to tell people what the plan already is – he’s reacting to concerns expressed during public commentary. Lumm asks who Cooper sees as the stakeholders? Cooper says that will be clearer after the project kickoff. Power Marketing Research will be doing the public engagement. Cooper allows that some of the stakeholders will be the usual suspects. Stakeholders are only one part of the public engagement process, he says. There will be site tours to “walk the ground together,” he says.

12:08 a.m. Cooper notes that the no-build alternative is required to be included in the set of alternatives. The intent is to do this in an open and transparent and participatory process, he says. Lumm tells Cooper some people have zero confidence that the outcome has not been determined to be Fuller Road. She says the existing site is a “sweet spot” in terms of engineering.

12:09 a.m. Thomas Partridge asks, “Does anybody know what time it is?” Briere points out the clock on the wall. It’s 12:08.

12:11 a.m. Kailasapathy asks what she should tell residents who wonder why the city should build a new station for Amtrak. Cooper explains that Amtrak’s focus is on the operations – the trains themselves. It’s a discretionary decision, he allows. The idea is to meet the needs of residents and businesses to provide the kind of transportation facility they’d expect arriving in Ann Arbor.

12:14 a.m. Anglin says he’s happy to see that this project seems different from the previous approach. He says it seems like this process will actually consider alternate locations besides the Fuller Road site. He calls for all the public process meetings to be videotaped. Some of the previous money that’s been spent was “foolishness,” he says. He’ll vote to support this. The public is tired of bad dialogue, he says. Cooper responds by saying they’ll do their best to facilitate good dialogue.

12:16 a.m. Kunselman poses a hypothetical: If the site across the track, owned by Amtrak, is the preferred site, how would that work? Cooper explains that the federal dollars would come from the FRA. If the Amtrak property were the preferred location, there would be MOUs and legal instruments to bind the parties together.

12:17 a.m. Clark Charnetski from the audience explains that Amtrak owns the parking lot. The place where the tracks had been and were removed are now owned by MDOT. Amtrak owns the station, the property on which it sits and the metered parking lot, he says.

12:21 a.m. Lumm says that there’s no guarantee there’ll be federal money for eventual construction of a train station. She says there’s no demonstrated need for a new train station. She’d reviewed the contract for the study. It’s an important study the community cares about, she says. It’s important that there be substantial public engagement. She’s now ticking through the elements of the public engagement process. She says it’s important to consider the existing site or doing nothing at all. Given that those two primary concerns are addressed, she’ll support it, even though she calls it a “tough” decision.

12:27 a.m. Taylor says that improvement to the train station is deeply important. He points to improvements in Amtrak service and possible commuter service – with railcars having been purchased. It won’t happen tomorrow, but it’s important to plan for the future, he says. He calls the sewer reconstruction done at the Fuller Road site – which was in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) – as something necessary anyway. To suggest that it wasn’t necessary is “flat-out false,” he says.

12:27 a.m. Hieftje picks up on Taylor’s defense of the sewer work. It’s important not to create myths, he says. He says he’s pleased to see planning for a new rail station moving forward, whatever the location. He notes that the governor and MDOT are very interested in commuter rail. It would only be funded through the regional transit authority (RTA), Hieftje says.

12:32 a.m. Briere also adds her comments on the sewer work that was done at the Fuller Road site. She reviews the reasons that she voted to support that work. She says that part of the issue was the fact that the line runs under the river. If a sewer line were under the river, it would be difficult to notice if there were a problem. It was not the case that the only reason for the sewer work was to allow for the foundations of the demised Fuller Road Station to be put in, she says.

12:33 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the URS contract.

12:33 a.m. Purchase of ice control salt ($245,143). The request is for the purchase of bulk salt, for ice control, and seasonal back-up supplies to be purchased from the Detroit Salt Company for $245,143 (2,800 tons of “early fill” at $34.50 a ton, and 4,100 tons of “seasonal backup” at $36.23 a ton).

12:34 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the ice control salt purchase.

12:34 a.m. Fire department mutual aid box alarm system (MABAS) Division. The resolution authorizes the city administrator to enter into the required Act 7 (interlocal) agreements necessary to establish the city of Ann Arbor Fire MABAS Division and appoint Ann Arbor’s fire chief as a representative to the MABAS executive board. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, participation in MABAS would not replace any of the existing mutual aid agreements the city of Ann Arbor has. A MABAS approach to response by multiple jurisdictions defines a standard response package of equipment and personnel, which is automatically dispatched to a fire. That contrasts with the mutual aid approach, in which additional resources can be called if they’re deemed necessary once the initially-responding units have assessed the situation.

12:34 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve participation in MABAS.

12:36 a.m. Council communications. Briere recalls the 1996 visit by the KKK. She was a member of the ACLU team who worked to ensure that the peace was kept. Hieftje had not been mayor on that occasion, she said. She was referring to Thomas Partridge’s public commentary. Lumm says that she was a councilmember at the time and the KKK was definitely not invited to come to Ann Arbor.

12:43 a.m. Lumm says that she’s consulted with the city attorney to bring forward a resolution on term limits to be applied in the city charter.

Warpehoski says that Ypsilanti Township has done a tremendous amount of work. When he counts the votes around the table, he thinks there will be six votes in a month, but wants to work toward unanimity. He says that “relationships are important,” and he fears that by postponing the Ypsilanti Township vote, the council was not perceived by the township leadership as working well with its regional partners. He suggests that councilmembers reach out to the township and give the relationship a personal touch. The relationship was hurt tonight, he says, and he’d been a part of that, so he apologized. Kunselman added his support to Warpehoski’s remarks.

12:45 a.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:45 a.m. Thomas Partridge is holding forth. He complains about the locations where meetings of some boards and commissions are held. He asks the voters of Ward 5 for their support in his effort to win election to the council as a write-in candidate. He complains that the AAATA bus system is not adequate, yet the council is talking about the right location for a train station.

Clark Charnetski recalls how he first arrived in Ann Arbor 53 years ago on the New York Central and got off at what is now the Gandy Dancer. He thanks the council for their vote on the Ann Arbor Station study.

Kai Petainen takes the podium to thank the council for its vote on the Ann Arbor Station study. It’s the public engagement portion of the contract he supports. He says he’ll complain if the preferred location turns out to be Fuller Road Station. In a nod to his Canadian roots, Petainen notes that Winter Classic tickets go on sale soon.

Michael Benson takes the podium on behalf of the graduate student government at the University of Michigan. He announces a forum on the city’s leasing ordinance, on Wednesday, Oct. 30 at 6:30 p.m. in the fourth floor auditorium of the Rackham Building.

12:52 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Sandi Smith was elected by her colleagues as chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board at its July 3, 2013 annual meeting. Here she’s showing the DDA’s new website on her tablet. (Photos by the writer.)

The board also approved a $59,200 grant to support the formation of a business improvement zone in the South University area. A “trolley” for the upcoming art fairs also received $10,000 worth of support, in action taken by the board.

The capital projects included $50,000 for repair of sidewalk-related amenities that aren’t covered by the city’s sidewalk millage. In addition, the board allocated $200,000 for a streetscape framework planning project. Board action also included $300,000 for the replacement of light poles on Main Street.

The light pole replacement is one source of current friction between the city and the DDA – as the expectation of the city had been that the entire $516,000 project would be paid for by the DDA. But the result of wrangling over the DDA’s FY 2014 budget – given approval by the council on May 20 – was a transfer of $300,000 from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund. So the DDA’s position is that it can’t fund the entire light pole replacement project, because of that transfer to the housing fund.

The light pole question is related to the general issue of DDA finances and the revenue it receives through tax increment finance (TIF) capture of taxes – from entities that levy those taxes in the DDA district. Elected as chair at the annual meeting – which immediately followed the board’s monthly meeting – Sandi Smith will face the resolution of the TIF revenue issue as one of her first challenges.

The outstanding issue concerns the way that the DDA administers Chapter 7 of the city code of Ann Arbor – which regulates the DDA’s TIF capture. This spring the Ann Arbor city council gave initial approval to a revision to Chapter 7. The council’s action, if given final approval, would prevent the DDA from giving the code an interpretation that doesn’t recognize a cap on TIF revenue that is expressed in Chapter 7. The amendment to the ordinance would return several hundred thousand dollars a year to other taxing authorities from which the DDA captures taxes. Those entities include the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College, Washtenaw County and the city of Ann Arbor.

The council has postponed final action on the matter until Sept. 3, 2013. Between now and then, the council’s expectation is that a joint DDA-council committee will meet and make recommendations on the Chapter 7 issue.

At its July 1 meeting, the city council appointed four members to its committee: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). And at the July 3 monthly meeting, outgoing DDA board chair Leah Gunn appointed the DDA’s committee: Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Joan Lowenstein and Sandi Smith.

Another point of recent budgetary friction between the city and the DDA was raised briefly at the July 3 board meeting. In a formal resolution, the city council had encouraged the DDA to allocate money to fund downtown beat patrol police officers. For its part, the DDA has for a few years already been mulling the question of some kind of additional security – either in the form of ambassadors, community standards officers or police officers. At the July 3 meeting, DDA board members indicated they would continue to mull that range of options, but seemed disinclined to commit to funding police officers.

The board also heard a range of routine reports on July 3, including the monthly parking revenue report. The DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. In the future, it was announced, the report will be delivered only on a quarterly basis. Also related to parking policy, a tentative pilot project was announced that could change the basic approach the DDA takes to selling monthly parking permits. The idea would be to assign permit eligibility only to property owners in a defined geographic area. The number of permits would depend on the number of square feet of property – independent of uses such as office, residential, retail, etc. Currently, the DDA uses a first-come-first-served system for individuals, with a waiting list.

The DDA’s monthly meeting marked a transition on the board, as two board members were bid farewell. Newcombe Clark served one four-year term. He’s making an employment-related move to Chicago. Leah Gunn concluded nearly 22 years of service on the board. She finished out her time on the board as chair.

South University Area BIZ

The DDA board was asked to approve a $59,200 grant to support the establishment of a business improvement zone (BIZ) for the South University area of downtown. The money would be allocated only at specific milestone points.

A BIZ is a self-assessment district that can be established under Public Act 120 of 1961 by agreement of a sufficient number of property owners in the district – to generate funds to pay for additional services not provided by the city. If it’s established, the South University Area BIZ would be the second such district in downtown Ann Arbor. In 2010, a BIZ district was established for a three-block stretch of Main Street, between William and Huron streets – to provide sidewalk snow clearing, litter pickup and poster removal. [See Chronicle coverage from 2009: "Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ Clears Hurdle."]

The Ann Arbor DDA provided a grant to assist with the formation of the Main Street BIZ, voting on April 1, 2009 to award $83,270 to defray various costs associated with the formation of the BIZ. Those costs included accounting, auditing, operations and legal services.

At that time, DDA board members reflected on the fact that they did not necessarily want to be signaling – through their support of the Main Street BIZ – that the DDA would be inclined to support all other subsequent efforts to establish business improvement zones in other areas of the downtown. Partly to address that concern, the board asked that the Main Street BIZ produce a “blueprint” for the formation of a BIZ, which could be used by other groups to help navigate the lengthy required process.

At a May 29, 2013 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee, South University Area Association executive director Maggie Ladd and consultant Betsy Jackson pitched the grant to the committee. Jackson, president of The Urban Agenda Inc., told the committee that while the blueprint was a useful fill-in-the-blank document, it was important to have someone with sufficient expertise to fill in those blanks. Jackson was also the consultant hired for the Main Street BIZ.

According to the DDA board resolution, South University property owners are contributing a total of $25,000 toward the start-up costs.

South University Area BIZ: Board Deliberations

Joan Lowenstein introduced the resolution on the South University Area BIZ. Lowenstein reported that South University Area Association executive director Maggie Ladd had spoken to the partnerships committee about the grant. Lowenstein noted that something similar was already in place for an area along Main Street. In the South University area, Lowenstein said, there’s increased commercial activity, and along with that there was increased use of the sidewalks. It would be useful to take a more uniform approach to issues like cleanliness, visitor comfort, and snow removal. The initial support for the South University Area BIZ, Lowenstein said, was shown by the willingness of property owners to contribute $25,000 to the administrative start-up costs.

Lowenstein noted that one of the deliverables from the DDA’s funding of the administrative start-up costs for the Main Street BIZ was a template for creating additional business improvement zones. She reported that such a template had been created, but that creating a BIZ is not just a matter of filling in the blanks. The template or blueprint would save some legal costs – but there’s a log of legwork involved, she said. For example, the exact method of the assessment has to be calculated and its impact weighed. [For example, an assessment could be done based on lineal feet of street frontage or by square feet of property, which would give different burdens to property owners and possibly affect the willingness of a property owner to vote yes.]

Keith Orr indicated his willingness to support the resolution because a BIZ can do things that a DDA can’t do.

Russ Collins stressed that the DDA was responding to requests from businesses in the area, and that it was not a proposal about development. Businesses in the area decided they wanted additional services to make their area more appealing. Sometimes, Collin said, the general public feels the DDA’s primary purpose is to promote new building in the downtown – when the DDA doesn’t actually do much of that. But the DDA does try to support local businesses when they request support to fulfill a mission that fits with the DDA’s mission. And he felt the grant fits that dynamic.

Newcombe Clark wanted to know if there was definitely going to be a South University Area BIZ “at the end of this” or if the DDA’s grant would just support a study. Orr indicated that it’s unknown whether a BIZ would actually be established, but he said, “one hopes there’s a BIZ at the end.” It’s not a study to see if the property owners want it or not. But because it adds a new tax, the people who would be taxed have to vote on the proposal, Orr pointed out. And there are a number of milestones along the way that have to be completed, he noted. Lowenstein explained that there’s an initial vote, and if the proposal didn’t manage to get approval on the initial vote, then the DDA’s contribution would be minimal. After that initial vote, there’s additional administrative work that needs to be done.

Newcombe Clark.

Clark indicated that his recollection was that when the organizers of the Main Street BIZ had approached the DDA, they had “enough ducks in a row” that they’d been able to say: Give us this money and there will be a BIZ at the end of this. Orr responded to Clark by saying that for the Main Street BIZ, the outcome had been unknown. Orr noted that you’d have to canvass to find out who the actual property owners are, which is not always obvious. Clark responded to Orr by saying, “In South U. it’s pretty easy to get 60% [the threshold for BIZ votes of approval] … Two or three people. That’s not a $90,000 project.” Clark said that as long as there are milestones for the DDA’s payments, he was inclined to support it. “If we’re out five grand for a vote,” he said, that would be fine, but he didn’t want to “be out 90 grand to look up numbers that are in my cell phone.”

In response to Clark’s concern, Sandi Smith noted that a “whereas” clause provided for disbursement of funds at key milestone points. She ventured that the language could be modified to say “up to $59,200″ so that if the process stalls along the way, the DDA would stall on its disbursement of funds. That language was added.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the $59,200 grant to help establish a BIZ for the South University area.

Art

Art came up in several ways, in addition to the board’s resolution on funding for an art fair “trolley.”

Art: Art Fair Trolley

The board was asked to provide $10,000 worth of support for a “trolley” to operate during the upcoming art fairs. The shuttle service for the Ann Arbor art fairs – which take place from July 17-20, 2013 – would circulate to the four different fair areas. [.pdf of the "trolley" route]

The Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau is also contributing $10,000. The DDA board resolution described the annual operating cost of the art fair trolley as more than $25,000.

Art: Art Fair Trolley – Public Commentary

Max Clayton introduced herself as the executive director of the Guild of Artists and Artisans, but she was speaking on behalf of all four art fairs that make up the Ann Arbor art fairs. She characterized the art fairs as an economic driver, which had been its original mission. They had succeeded at that mission, she continued, for more than 50 years. The art fairs bring about $78 million of economic impact to the community each year, she said. But that $78 million is not revenue to the art fairs, she stressed. That’s money being spent by fairgoers, to shop in stores, eat in restaurants, park in lots and structures, and enjoy a hotel stay.

She described how the art fairs in the last few years are starting to face increased competition from fairs in other parts of the country. Ann Arbor’s art fairs can compete based on the quality of the artists and the art in the fairs, she said. A survey had been done of fairgoers to discover what they need and what they enjoy – to keep them coming back. What they’d heard from fairgoers was the importance of understanding where they were. They’d heard that the fair is too big and people don’t know how to get around. It was determined that fairgoers need to be helped to understand how to navigate the fairs better – so that the event could be enjoyed to its fullest.

So the organizers of the art fairs had decided to pay for an art fair trolley, which follows a route encircling all of the art fairs. The shuttle stops for the art fair trolley are the same as the stops for the shuttle service operated by the AAATA, she said. It costs about $25,000 a year. She pointed out that the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau had also contributed $10,000 to the effort. The support of the DDA would be recognized in various ways, including signage placed on the trolley, she said. The vehicle also has a wonderful trolley bell, she noted.

Art: Art Fair Trolley – Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt introduced the item by saying that other organizations were also involved in supporting the trolley – the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau as well as the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

Outcome: Without further discussion, the board unanimously approved the $10,000 grant for the art fair trolley.

Art: East Stadium Bridges Public Art

During the public commentary segment at the start of the meeting, John Kotarski introduced himself as a member of the Ann Arbor public art commission. He updated the board on the status of the East Stadium bridges art project. He pointed board members to the art commission’s website, where they could view a 45-minute presentation on the four artist proposals for the site. He addressed two questions: Why had the East Stadium bridges location been chosen? And what had been done to include local artists?

East Stadium Boulevard as well as South State Street form a gateway into the city, Kotarski said. At the direction of the city, the public art commission had reached out to stakeholders in that general area. The money that has been allocated for the project originated with the Percent for Art program, he pointed out. And that means that the money has to be connected thematically to the funds of origin. The idea was to create a sense of place and to unify East Stadium Boulevard and South State Street, and to encourage multimodal transportation.

Ann Arbor public art commissioners Bob Miller (standing) and John Kotarski at the July 3 DDA board meeting.

Addressing the idea of local artists, he said it was the desire of the public art commission to involve local artists. But the fact of the matter is, he explained, it’s not possible to have an exclusive competition for local artists – because the city attorney has said that would be illegal. So what the public art commission has done to encourage local artists, he continued, is to do extensive outreach. He named four organizations – the Ann Arbor Art Center, the Street Art Fair, the Arts Alliance, and the Ann Arbor Women Artists – along with 45 other organizations that had been encouraged to be engaged and to submit proposals. There had been 32 submissions for this project. Of those, 10 were Michigan artists and four were Ann Arbor residents. Those 32 have been winnowed down to four.

Kotarski encouraged DDA board members to check out the proposals and to take the survey. Their feedback, he said, is important and invaluable to the public art commission. He and art commission chair Bob Miller – who accompanied Kotarski at the DDA board meeting – have been presenting the information to various groups, including the park advisory commission, the Arts Alliance, and a Ward 2 public forum. The following week they’d be appearing before the planning commission, at its July 9 working session. The public art commission really wants the community to understand what the four proposals are, he said.

You don’t always hit home runs, Kotarski cautioned, though you hope for that. But he did feel there was one proposal of the four that would work very well. So he again encouraged board members to investigate the four proposals and to take the survey.

Art: Public Commentary

Ray Detter reported out from the downtown area citizens advisory council. He said that Marsha Chamberlin, from the public art commission, had filled in the CAC on projects currently in progress. Detter said that Chamberlin had reported that the city had approved the hiring of a full-time city administrator. [The conclusion of a city council committee on public art, which made recommendations that led to the elimination of the Percent for Art funding mechanism at the council's June 3, 2013 meeting, stated: "A full-time art administrator is preferable." Chronicle inquiries about the possibility that the city has moved forward with a decision to hire a full-time administrator have not yet been answered, because of the holiday break.

[Added Monday, July 8 at 8:45 a.m.: Responding to an emailed Chronicle inquiry, public services area administrator Craig Hupy indicated no decision has been made about how to implement the recommendation for a full-time administrator. There are, he wrote, "a couple of ways to deliver that desire: a FTE as a city employee, a contract employee or a contract for services. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages." Before a "vehicle" for providing that full-time effort can be determined, the scope of needs and desires must be drafted, he indicated. "Whatever is recommended will likely have to go to city council for approval," Hupy wrote.]

Pedestrian Issues

Pedestrian issues were the subject of two board resolutions.

First, the board was asked to consider a streetscape framework plan for downtown Ann Arbor at a cost of $200,000 over the next two years. The resolution allocating the funds states that “an enjoyable pedestrian experience is one of downtown’s principal attractions.”

The $200,000 cost would not cover construction. But according to the board’s resolution, it’s a realistic budget to cover “consultants, contingency, and other related costs.” The idea cited in the resolution is to shorten the planning phases and reduce the costs associated with future streetscape projects. The resolution directs the DDA’s operations committee to create a final project budget and timeframe.

The most recent streetscape project completed by the DDA related to improvements on Fifth and Division, which included a lane reduction and bump-outs.

The second agenda item on July 3 that affected the downtown Ann Arbor pedestrian environment was a $50,000 allocation for general sidewalk maintenance. The money would cover displaced bricks, uneven sidewalk flags, and missing, dead or overgrown trees.

Pedestrian Issues: Streetscape Framework

Roger Hewitt introduced the resolution on the streetscape framework plan by saying it had been discussed for several months now. He stressed that the DDA was not looking to plunge into a specific streetscape improvement project. But in the past, when the DDA has done streetscape improvements, it has looked at a single street or a few blocks of a street and decided what it might look like. Now, it would be appropriate, Hewitt said, to take a step back and look at how all downtown streets are used by cars and pedestrians. The idea was not to identify materials or locations of where every lamppost or sign or bench should go. The idea, he said, was to determine “what sort of streets those should be.”

For example, Hewitt said: Should parking be made available on a street? Should the sidewalks be wider or narrower? Where should loading zones go? Where should taxi stands go? The idea would be to identify four or five different types of streets and which streets should be in each category. The DDA would coordinate with the city staff, as well as the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on the project. The project would provide a blueprint for where streetscapes should go in the future, Hewitt said – and provide guidelines for what a particular improvement on a particular street should look like. The proposed budget of $200,000 would be spent over the next two fiscal years, Hewitt said. The major cost would be the cost of the consultant, Hewitt concluded.

Sandi Smith said she hoped that the streetscape framework planning process wouldn’t preclude acting on opportunities that might arise in the shorter term. As an example, she gave the 618 S. Main project, noting that part of the brownfield grant would pay for streetscape improvements. John Splitt ventured that the 618 S. Main improvements would be done in the summer of 2014, so he assumed that the framework planning wouldn’t stand in the way. Keith Orr stressed that the framework planning was not a design guideline project, but would address issues like: On this type of street, what should signage look like? Which signs should be together? How far should one parking meter be from another parking meter? Russ Collins jokingly added to Orr’s questions: Should trees be removed that block beautiful theater marquees? [Collins is executive director of the Michigan Theater.]

Smith returned to her point that she wanted to make sure the DDA remained nimble enough to be responsive when needed. Newcombe Clark responded to Smith by saying: “We never stop dancing.” Hewitt ventured that the DDA had learned how to be nimble.

Outcome: The DDA board unanimously approved the $200,000 for a streetscape planning framework.

Pedestrian Issues: Sidewalks

DDA executive director Susan Pollay described the needed work on sidewalks as issues that had been identified during two walk-throughs of the downtown. While there’s a city sidewalk millage that can address slabs of concrete that show significant deterioration, it doesn’t cover issues like the following: bricks that are coming loose, tree pits, and pruning of trees. Those are details that add up to a walkable downtown, she said. She told board members that the money is in the approved budget.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board unanimously approved the $50,000 for sidewalk repairs.

Main Street Light Poles

The board was asked to approve a resolution allocating $300,000 for the replacement of decorative light poles on Main Street. The total estimated cost of the project is $516,000 for 81 light poles.

Downtown Ann Arbor Main Street light pole on the northeast corner of Main & William. This photograph is from the city of Ann Arbor staff, taken in April 2012.

Based on the DDA board’s resolution, it’s the DDA’s expectation that the city of Ann Arbor will make up the difference of $216,000.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle earlier this year, city of Ann Arbor staff indicated that in early 2012 two of the light poles fell – due to a structural failure at the base of the poles caused by rust. After inspection of all the poles, two additional light poles were deemed to be in immediate risk of falling and were also replaced.

The DDA’s resolution indicates that the city of Ann Arbor’s budget approval process this year had determined that the city would allocate $216,000 for the project. What the Ann Arbor city council actually did on May 20, 2013 was to alter the DDA’s budget by recognizing additional TIF revenues of more than $568,000, and shifting $300,000 of that revenue from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund.

The council’s resolution also recommended that the DDA spend $300,000 of its TIF fund on the Main Street light pole replacement. In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that the city council will be asked to act on the matter either at its July 15 or Aug. 8 meeting. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy, responding to the same query, explained that it wasn’t yet clear if the council action would include an additional appropriation, or if it could be handled within the existing budget.

Main Street Light Poles: Public Comment

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter indicated support for the DDA’s resolution. Combining city and DDA funds makes good sense, he said, and the light pole replacement provides an opportunity to do that. He indicated there could be an opportunity to use public art funds for that project.

Main Street Light Poles: Board Deliberations

DDA executive director Susan Pollay introduced the item by saying that there had been a problem “quietly brewing” on Main Street. One of the first installations of pedestrian-scale lighting in the DDA district, she said, was along Main Street between Huron and William. On the inside they’re rusting, she explained, because water has intruded. Last year, she said, four of them blew over in a storm. [In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city of Ann Arbor staff stated that two light poles had fallen down in the spring of 2012. After inspection of all the poles, it was determined that two additional poles were at immediate risk of falling and were also replaced.]

According to Pollay, the city staff have been trying to find a way to pay for the replacement. As part of the city council’s budgeting process, Pollay said, the DDA was supposed to provide $300,000 for the project. If the board approved the resolution, then Pollay would communicate to the city staff, so that a resolution could be prepared for the city council, and the council would need to approve the remaining amount. Newcombe Clark drew out the fact that the money would be drawn from the DDA’s TIF fund. He asked that the point be added to the resolution.

Pollay described how the replacement would need to be coordinated with banner replacement and holiday light plug-ins.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the $300,000 grant to the city of Ann Arbor for replacement of the light poles on Main Street.

City Council, DDA Relations

The light pole question is actually related to the general issue of DDA finances and the revenue it receives through tax increment finance (TIF) capture of taxes – from entities that levy those taxes in the DDA district. Elected as chair at the annual meeting – which immediately followed the board’s monthly meeting – Sandi Smith will face the resolution of the TIF revenue issue as one of her first challenges.

City Council, DDA Relations: Background

An effort led by Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – which has taken different forms over the last year and a half – culminated earlier this spring in initial approval by the council of a revision to Chapter 7, which regulates the DDA’s TIF capture. The council’s action, if given final approval, would prevent the DDA from giving the city code an interpretation that doesn’t recognize a cap on TIF revenue expressed in Chapter 7. The amendment to the ordinance would return several hundred thousand dollars a year to the other taxing authorities from which the DDA captures taxes. Those entities include the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College, Washtenaw County and the city of Ann Arbor.

City Council, DDA Relations: Committee Not “Mutually Beneficial”

The council has postponed final action on the matter until Sept. 3, 2013. Between now and then, the council’s expectation is that a joint DDA-council committee will meet and make recommendations on the Chapter 7 issue.

Board chair Leah Gunn. One of her last acts as chair was to appoint members to the DDA-council joint committee.

At its July 1 meeting, the city council appointed four members to its committee: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

In her remarks on the appointment of the DDA members to the committee, board chair Leah Gunn indicated that the understanding going into the city council meeting was that there would be three members. But the council had appointed four members. [During the council's July 1, 2013 meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had proposed that Jane Lumm (Ward 2) be added to the list.]

The four DDA board members appointed to the committee by Gunn are: Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Joan Lowenstein and Sandi Smith.

Newcombe Clark asked if it had to be called the “mutually beneficial” committee. He referred to the fact that history is “unfortunately … annotated and tagged with these names.”

At the council’s July 1 meeting, the council had also eschewed the label of “mutually beneficial” for the name of the committee – at the suggestion of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was sitting in the audience of the July 3 DDA meeting and waved to board chair Leah Gunn, who then invited Briere to the podium to explain. Briere told the DDA board that the council had settled on the idea of calling it a joint DDA-council committee. The DDA board appear amendable to that as well.

City Council, DDA Relations: More Background

By way of background on the reluctance on the part of some to call the group a “mutually beneficial committee,” that phrase in connection with the sorting out of issues between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor DDA is not new.

The phrase was first mooted in a Jan. 20, 2009 council resolution. The main issue at that time was the contract under which the DDA administers the city’s public parking system. Subsequently, “mutually beneficial” committees for both entities were appointed, but they did not achieve any results. The following year, new committees were appointed and those committees met over the course of several months, culminating in a new parking agreement ratified in May 2011.

The council formally disbanded its “mutually beneficial” committee at the end of 2011.

City Council, DDA Relations: Housing, Light Poles

Pending the resolution of the Chapter 7 TIF issue, the city council had already altered the DDA’s FY 2014 budget in action taken at its May 20, 2013 meeting. The council’s resolution modifying the DDA’s budget involved housing and the Main Street light poles.

Touching implicitly on the housing issue at the July 3 DDA board meeting, Sandi Smith reported out from the recent meeting of the partnerships committee. The committee had received an update from representatives of various affordable housing advocates – Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) executive director Jennifer Hall, Washtenaw County office of community & economic development director Mary Jo Callan and Washtenaw Housing Alliance executive director Julie Steiner. Smith reported that the three had been given an update on “where the moving parts fit together” and about ongoing funding reductions at the federal and state levels. The partnerships committee learned about the places the DDA can “plug in,” Smith said, and had agreed to continue to learn and talk to representatives of the affordable housing community.

By way of additional background, one place that housing advocates hope the DDA “plugs in” is with $300,000 of support for an initiative the AAHC is undertaking, which would convert the city’s public housing stock to project-based vouchers. The effort includes a requirement that significant renovations be made to many of the properties. The hope is that the DDA would provide $300,000 of support for a package of renovations that includes AAHC properties within 1/4 mile of the DDA district boundary. That’s the area the DDA currently uses as a policy guideline for allocating expenditures from its housing fund.

The $300,000 figure is significant, because it’s the amount the city council transferred from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund, in a budget action taken on at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. The DDA’s position is that it can’t fund the entire light pole replacement project – because of that transfer to the housing fund.

City Council, DDA Relations: Downtown Beat Cops

Reporting out from the DDA’s operations committee, Roger Hewitt noted that the city council had passed a resolution requesting that the DDA consider providing funding for police officers. [That resolution was passed at the council's June 3, 2013 meeting. At the DDA board's June 5, 2013 meeting, board chair Leah Gunn had referred the matter to the operations committee.]

Hewitt said the committee had a discussion about the matter of funding downtown police. There are a number of ways to approach it: with ambassadors, community standards officers, or police officers. Hewitt said the DDA would take a reasoned approach to determine what fits best.

Sandi Smith expressed a reluctance for the DDA to pay for an ongoing city operational expense. She felt, however, that it would be great to fund a start-up program to cover equipment needs – like uniforms. A light-hearted exchange unfolded based on the idea of Robocop as a depreciable asset.

Parking

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. A report on monthly parking activity is a typical part of all board meeting reports.

Parking: Monthly Report

Roger Hewitt gave the monthly parking revenue update. [A recent Chronicle column includes the breakdown of the DDA parking numbers for nearly the last four years.]

Hewitt highlighted the revenues from the new Library Lane structure, which was completed in July of 2012. The structure showed revenues over $100,000 for May 2013. That is far more than projected, Hewitt said, and compares favorably with revenues from the Forest structure, which has been open for 20 years. The Library Lane structure has been accepted by patrons and is being adopted for use more rapidly than any other new structure, Hewitt said.

Hewitt also noted that this month’s report would be the last monthly report, and in the future quarterly reports will be given instead.

Commenting on the rationale for the move to quarterly reports, Newcombe Clark stated that “the painful convenience of data is that you can often torture it to tell you whatever you want it to say.” He’d been more and more concerned about the pressure that the DDA might feel to create policy based on monthly data. It might indicate a trend, but at this point the DDA is not running any kind of statistical analysis that would give any confidence or probability that “anything from the tides of March or the weather or what-have-you” might indicate revenue, he said.

At his self-described “polite and insistent poking,” Clark had proposed to move the reports to a quarterly review, so that the DDA could look at trends with a more objective eye. “The data will, of course, be collected daily as it [currently] is, and will be available for anybody that wants it,” he said. If board members just miss the monthly reports and it leaves a void in the monthly operations committee meeting, Clark quipped, he suspected they would restore the monthly reports. He thought it was a good policy to take a break from looking at data and getting lost in it without understanding it.

Parking: Permit Pilot Program

As part of his report from the operations committee, Roger Hewitt noted that the committee had focused on the high demand for parking in the area of the University of Michigan campus. Illustrating the overall demand was the number of monthly parking permits that had been sold for the new Library Lane structure. Over 600 monthly permits had been sold for Library Lane, Hewitt said, and there’s already a wait list for that new structure.

Hewitt said the operations committee had been discussing how to make the process for issuing permits “less subjective and more objective.” By way of background, the parking permit allocations are currently made on a first-come-first-served policy with a waiting list. So decisions about who may purchase them are objective. What could be considered subjective is the number of permits that can be sold for a particular structure. For some structures, the oversell margin seems to be maximized. For others, it is not.

That subjective component can make other DDA decisions also seem subjective – like determining whether monthly permits will be assigned to new developments under the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. That program can allow a new development to satisfy a parking requirement by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system. Permits purchased through the CIL program are priced at a 20% premium. The DDA can exercise its discretion in determining whether there is capacity in the parking system to grant the permits. Whether there is capacity is the issue that could be subjective.

When the DDA granted 40 CIL permits in the Forest Street structure to the proposed 624 Church Street project – which is in the South University area – at least one owner of an existing residential building complained that this was unfair. That was the owner of the Zaragon building, located adjacent to the 624 Church Street development. Hewitt operates his revive + replenish business on the ground floor of Zaragon.

At the July 3 meeting, Hewitt reported that the operations committee had decided to start a pilot project for the Forest Street structure – to assign permits not based on the first-come-first-served basis as they currently are. Instead, permits would be issued to building owners in the South University area inside the DDA district, based on the square footage of those buildings.

That would provide an objective standard for determining who gets the parking permits instead of assigning them in a subjective manner, he said. It would be a pilot project, Hewitt stressed. No contract would be issued. Each building owner would be contacted and would be offered a chance to purchase permits at the going rate, based on how much square footage they owned. Hewitt indicated that roughly one parking space would be provided for every 2,500 square feet of building area, based on the data the DDA had collected.

Current permit holders would be “grandfathered in,” Hewitt said. He said there are very few examples where there are more permits in a building now than the proposed system would allow. If every building owner took up the DDA’s offer, about 280 permits would be sold for the Forest Street structure, compared against roughly 600 spaces in the structure, Hewitt reported. [However, half of the 600 spaces in the Forest structure are allotted to the University of Michigan. Currently, about 100 permits are sold for Forest.]

Hewitt indicated that at this point, the goal is to measure the level of interest. No one is going to lose their parking space, he stressed. If someone voluntarily decides not to renew their monthly parking permit, then the permit would go into the new system of allocation. Because the South University area is a separate geographic area from the rest of downtown, Hewitt said, it would be a better laboratory to experiment in.

Keith Orr asked about the timeframe for the project and the standards for evaluating success. What does success look like? Orr asked. Hewitt characterized the project at this point as “more informational gathering.” It’s not that the DDA is trying to achieve a specific goal beyond encouraging development in the South University area, Hewitt said. It gives current and future property owners the firm knowledge that: “If I build this many square feet, I’m going to get this number of parking spaces. It takes away a variable and puts in a known number,” Hewitt said.

It’s a question of whether there’s continued economic development and continued job growth, Hewitt said. The pilot project would be evaluated as it goes along, Hewitt said. It’s difficult to know what the reception is going to be and how successful it is. In the South University area, the DDA receives a large number of requests for monthly permits from students or parents of students who don’t live in the DDA district. That was a group that the DDA didn’t need to incentivize, Hewitt said. This proposal would use the parking system to benefit property owners in the area, Hewitt said. It would be up to the property owners to decide how those permits would be divided among their tenants.

Newcombe Clark indicated that he had been concerned about this. “Trying to answer the question of what is fair, is just going to give heartache for everybody,” Clark said. What he hoped would be released is something a bit more detailed – something that defines who the property owners are. With the exception of a limited number of reserved parking passes, the permits provide the ability for regular users of the system to save some money and have consistency with expectations for availability of parking. South University makes sense, Clark said, because of the geographic area – but also because of the contribution in lieu (CIL) approval of 40 parking spaces for the 624 Church Street development.

This approach to permits, Clark said, might allow the DDA to “get ahead of all these reactive pulling-out-of-the sky of who gets what, where, and why.” To him it was a big step to address demand management with monthly parking permits. There are long wait lists at large structures, and he didn’t want to get into the question of whether students or students’ parents deserve those spaces or not. That will be something the DDA continues to wrestle with, but the fact is, Clark stated: There will be more demand than supply. Getting away from the idea of “fairness” to the idea of an “objective standard” is a step forward, Clark said. If everyone hates it or no property owners take up the DDA on the offer, that would be helpful information, he said.

Hewitt wrapped up the conversation by saying that the CIL ordinance had pushed the DDA to address the issue, characterizing the CIL program as requiring the DDA to provide parking if there is room in the system.

Parking: Public Commentary

During public commentary time at the conclusion of the meeting, Alice Liberson indicated that she had no problem with cost and availability of parking in Ann Arbor. She said “it cracks me up” when she hears people say it costs too much and there’s no place to park. That’s because she compares the situation to Boston, where she lived previously. She was critical, however, of the new parking kiosks. She described them as very cumbersome. You have to wait for the screen to come up. And she felt she’s not the only one who’s had to go back and verify the number of the space where she’d parked – which has to be keyed into the kiosk. She’s also had her coins and credit card rejected.

Liberson also contended there’s a mean-spiritedness about the new parking kiosks, because they don’t show you the amount of time that’s still remaining from a previous patron, which makes it difficult to use the leftover time. She also complained about the way the meter bag program is handled. [Meter bags are placed over the meter heads to indicate that motorists are not allowed to park there.]

Board Transition

At the annual meeting, which immediately followed the regular monthly meeting on July 3, Sandi Smith was elected chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board for the current fiscal year, which began July 1.

Newcombe Clark reacts to a modification of his resolution of appreciation to include the phrase ‘”polite and insistent poking.”

Smith’s election as chair followed the board’s custom of electing its vice chair to the position of chair for the next year.

Other board officers elected included John Mouat as vice chair, Keith Orr as secretary, and Roger Hewitt as treasurer. They were all made by separate unanimous votes.

Smith took over the role of chair from Leah Gunn, who’s concluding her service on the board. Gunn’s current term on the DDA board expires on July 31 this year.

At the board’s July 3 meeting, the board bid farewell to Gunn and Newcombe Clark, whose term is also expiring at the end of July. First appointed in 2009, Clark served one four-year term. He’s making an employment-related move to Chicago.

Gunn served for nearly 22 years on the board starting in 1991.

In 2011 she announced she would not to seek re-election in 2012 to a seat on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. She had first been elected as a county commissioner in 1996. After redistricting of the county board seats, she decided to support fellow Democrat Yousef Rabhi, who was re-elected and now serves as chair of the Washtenaw County board. In her professional life Gunn served as a librarian in the University of Michigan graduate and law libraries.

Bob Guenzel led the standing ovation given to Leah Gunn on concluding her DDA board service.

The second term for Russ Collins is set to expire on July 31, along with those of Gunn and Clark. However, Collins was nominated at the city council’s July 1 meeting by mayor John Hieftje for reappointment to the DDA board.

Resolutions of appreciation were read aloud by DDA executive director Susan Pollay for outgoing board members Clark and Gunn.

Clark took some good-natured ribbing from his board colleagues as Smith picked up on a phrase he’d used earlier in the meeting to describe his own behavior: “polite and insistent poking.” The phrase was incorporated into his resolution.

For her part, Gunn picked up on her resolution’s mention of her previous turn as chair of the board – in 1995-96. She took the opportunity to note that during that period Pollay had been hired as executive director, so Gunn wanted to take some credit for Pollay.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council.

Comm/Comm: Connector Study

By way of background, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is currently conducting an alternatives analysis study for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops.

A previous study established the feasibility of operating some kind of high-capacity transit in that corridor. A key finding of the feasibility study was that the demand for high-capacity transit is clear in the “core” of the corridor – primarily between the University of Michigan’s north campus, medical facilities and central campus. The demand was found to be less intense on the corridor’s “shoulders.”

In his report out from the operations committee at the DDA’s July 3 meeting, Roger Hewitt said that the connector study had held a public meeting a few weeks ago. It had not been overly well-attended, he allowed. The study is at this point in the process of looking at routes and modes. The option of the elevated guideway system had been eliminated from further consideration – due to cost, and difficulty of putting it through an historic district. It was five times more expensive than the next-most expensive option, he said.

Comm/Comm: DDA Website

Sandi Smith pointed out that the new DDA website is up. She thanked DDA management assistant Jada Hahlbrock for her hard work with Keystone Media to complete that project. Smith said the website includes an interactive map, where visitors can find out where charging stations, bike stations, and parking structures are, with details about each facility, including current vacancy rates. Vacancy rates are not all “hooked up” yet, she said, but that functionality is in progress.

Comm/Comm: Development, Planning

Issues of future downtown planning came up during public commentary at the start of the July 3 meeting and during Ray Detter’s report out from the downtown area citizens advisory council.

Alice Liberson introduced herself as a resident of Burns Park who owns a business on Fourth Avenue [Dogma Catmantoo]. She’d never attended a DDA board meeting, she said, but she’d just been reading an article in the media that she wanted to comment on. Whatever is going on in the South University area took her by surprise, she said. Some people want to make a high-density downtown – a regular, “grownup downtown.” Many times, she said, things happen under the radar and then all of a sudden it’s a fait accompli. What’s wrong with one- and two-story buildings? she wondered. Whatever you do, you’re not going to bring grownups to that South University area, she said.

She indicated skepticism that building high-density, fancy buildings would encourage specific demographics to move. The city can’t control who’s going to live where, and she didn’t think it should try. She suggested that there’s a great opportunity to establish a pedestrian, no-car zone. There are no such zones in Ann Arbor, she noted. She contended that most charming small towns have a car-free zone, where you can sit outside and enjoy a meal and not inhale car fumes. In such a car-free zone, people move slowly, and they wind up patronizing retail stores. She concluded her remarks by saying she hoped she didn’t sound strident, quipping that she has “tone issues.”

At the conclusion of the meeting, Liberson clarified that she was not against development.

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter updated the DDA board on the re-establishment of the R4C citizens advisory committee. He also updated the board on the D1/D2 zoning review process that the city council, on April 1, 2013, had directed the planning commission to undertake. Detter reported that the planning commission’s executive committee had met the previous day to begin interviews to hire a consultant to help with that process. Two large public meetings would be held, Detter reported, in addition to several smaller meetings – with the goal to report back to the city council by the end of September.

Detter also noted that a design review task force had been established [through council action on March 4, 2013] to review the downtown design guidelines. The first of four scheduled meetings would take place on July 24 from 4:30-6 p.m. in the ground floor south conference room at city hall. Detter hoped that public input would be allowed at the meetings. He called for “more teeth” for the design guidelines. There are ways to give them more teeth, Detter contended.

The developer of the 413 E. Huron project, Detter contended, had “scoffed” at the recommendations of the design review board. Detter mentioned two projects that would be coming forward located in the D1 zoning area: at 121 E. Liberty and 210 S. Fourth. The public participation meetings for those projects would be taking place on July 10, Detter said. Nothing higher than five stories is proposed, Detter said. The properties are in a historic district, he pointed out.

[The back-to-back meetings for those projects start at 6 p.m. on July 10 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. The first citizen participation forum, from 6-7:10 p.m., is for a proposal by the owners of the Running Fit building at 121 & 123 E. Liberty. They hope to add two stories of apartments to the existing one-story building, as well as a rooftop patio and penthouse occupying a partial fourth floor. The second forum, from 7:10-8:30 p.m., is for a project at the Towne Center – the former Montgomery Ward building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave. The project would add up to three stories of apartments above portions of an existing two-story building. A new facade is planned for the building.]

Present: Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein,

Absent: Nader Nassif, John Mouat.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Sept. 4, 2013, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. 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!

Downtown Ann Arbor Main Street light pole on northeast corner of Main & William. Photograph is from the city of Ann Arbor, taken April 2012.

Based on the DDA board’s resolution, it’s the DDA’s expectation that the city of Ann Arbor will make up the difference of $216,000. The board’s action came at its July 3, 2013 meeting.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle earlier this year, city of Ann Arbor staff indicated that in early 2012 two of the light poles fell – due to a structural failure at the base of the poles caused by rust. After inspection of all the poles, two additional light poles were deemed to be in immediate risk of falling and were also replaced.

The DDA’s resolution indicates that the city of Ann Arbor’s budget approval process this year had determined that the city would allocate $216,000 for the project. What the Ann Arbor city council actually did on May 20, 2013 was to alter the DDA’s budget by recognizing additional TIF revenues of more than $568,000, and shifting $300,000 of that revenue from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund.

The council’s resolution also recommended that the DDA spend $300,000 of its TIF fund on the Main Street light pole replacement. And in response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that the city council will be asked to act on the matter either at its July 15 or Aug. 8 meeting. At the July 3 DDA board meeting, DDA executive director Susan Pollay noted in her remarks to the board that if the board approved the resolution, at that point the council would be asked to act.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301 where the DDA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]