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

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

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

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

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

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

From left: Councilmember Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and 618 S. Main developer Dan Ketelaar at the June 18, 2012 Ann Arbor city council meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The council debated but ultimately approved both the site plan and the brownfield plan for the 618 S. Main project – an apartment complex that Dan Ketelaar’s Urban Group Development Co. intends to market to young professionals. The 7-story building would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles. The project had received a recommendation for approval from the city planning commission on Jan. 19, 2012.

The project’s approval meant that the council granted a variance in the height allowed in the D2 (downtown interface) zoning district – 85 feet, which is 25 feet taller than the 60-foot limit allowed in D2. The majority of councilmembers felt that the project reflected a months-long positive collaboration by the developer with neighbors and with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which approved a $650,000 grant to complement the $3.7 million brownfield plan.

The project was opposed by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who essentially indicated he did not trust Ketelaar and other “speculators.” Kunselman also seemed unconvinced of the environmental benefits of the project. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) joined Kunselman in voting against the site plan and the brownfield plan. Both votes were 8-2 – Sandi Smith (Ward 1) was absent from the 11-member council.

In other business, the council made an adjustment to the current fiscal 2012 budget just before the fiscal year ends on June 30, to ensure that the city conforms with the state statute on uniform budgeting and accounting. The adjustment to the city’s general fund allowed for $1.3 million in additional expenses. Despite that, CFO Tom Crawford said he felt the city would end the year around “break even.”

The council also took action to allocate $1,244,629 to different nonprofits that provide human services. The amount was set as part of the FY 2013 budget, which the city council approved on May 22, 2012.

The council also authorized around $1.5 million for new dump trucks – with stainless steel parts to ensure a longer life than the vehicles they are replacing. And councilmembers approved a roughly $800,000 contract for a five-phase study to analyze stormwater in the city.

Other expenses authorized by the council included a $48,000 annual contract renewal with Governmental Consultant Services Inc., the city’s lobbyist in Lansing, and a $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK, the area’s economic development agency.

Also at the council’s meeting, nominations for three commissions were floated, to be voted on at the next meeting: Ken Clein for the planning commission; John German for the environmental commission; and Archer Christian for the greenbelt advisory commission.

618 S. Main

In separate items, the city council considered a site plan and the brownfield development financing for the 618 S. Main project.

618 S. Main: Background

The 618 S. Main project is an apartment complex that developer Dan Ketelaar intends to market to young professionals. The 7-story building would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles. The project had received approval from the city planning commission on Jan. 19, 2012.

At 85-feet tall, the project is 25 feet higher than permitted in the D2 (downtown interface) zoning district where the site is located. So it was submitted as a “planned project” – a provision in the zoning code that allows some flexibility in height or setbacks, in exchange for public benefits.

A planned project is not the same thing as a planned unit development (PUD), which allows for significant variance from the existing zoning by actually changing the zoning on a parcel. Among the public benefits cited for 618 S. Main is a rain garden system for stormwater infiltration, which is expected to reduce stormwater volume in the city’s piped system (as required by code), but would also result in cleaner flow.

The project borders the Old West Side historic district – and the board of the Old West Side Association submitted a letter of support for the development.

The proposed brownfield tax increment finance (TIF) plan works in concert with a $650,000 TIF grant (paid over a period of four years) awarded by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board at its June 6, 2012 meeting. Both the brownfield TIF and the DDA TIF grant work in a similar way: The developer must build the project and pay the new taxes on the project. After that, the developer receives reimbursement for eligible expenses.

The DDA’s grant covers work in the following categories: streetscape improvement costs; a rain garden to infiltrate stormwater, as opposed to detention-and-release; and upsizing a water main. Work covered by the brownfield plan includes: site investigations for characterization of soils and dewatering if water is encountered during excavation; disposal of soils; demolition of buildings and removal of existing site improvements; lead and asbestos abatement; infrastructure improvements like water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer upgrades, street repair and improvements to streets; and site preparation like staking, geotechnical engineering, clearing and grubbing.

The brownfield plan includes reimbursements to the developer of $3.7 million over 21 years. The city’s financial analysis puts the rate of return to the developer on his investment at between 5.81% and 6.13%. The city’s analysis concludes that the rates of return are below previously-approved brownfield plans. A risk identified in the city’s analysis is the fact that, based on the financial pro forma submitted by the developer, the return to the developer is low. [.pdf of the TIF analysis]

The city council’s brownfield review committee – Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – had given the 618 S. Main project a 3-0 vote recommending the city council’s approval of the plan.

618 S. Main: Public Hearing

Several people spoke at the public hearing on the site plan.

Barbara Hall introduced herself as representing the board of the Old West Side Association. Members of the OWS board are pleased to have participated in several months of productive discussion about the 618 S. Main project, she said. All aspects of the final design reflect input made during that process. The project gives the Main Street side an industrial facade, but uses a rain garden to buffer the impact on the other side, abutting the neighborhood.

An alliance of groups – from downtown neighborhoods, to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, the city’s design review board and the planning commission – have agreed that 618 S. Main is worth their support, Hall said. For the OWS board, the project as now presented offers a number benefits as compared to the strict D2 zoning. The benefits don’t completely offset the loss of locations for three long-standing businesses, she said. But she hoped that a large residential presence will re-invigorate existing retail business and spur additional businesses – like a grocery store. The OSW board sees the building as a gateway and urges approval of this opportunity for housing near the center of the city, Hall concluded.

Thomas Partridge expressed opposition to the project. As he understood the project, Partridge said, it includes no connection to a commitment to affordable housing – not even a single apartment. He urged reconsideration of the project as an affordable housing project.

Rita Mitchell introduced herself as a Fifth Street resident. She said she appreciates living in the Old West Side historic district – which is a great place to live, she said. She also appreciates the work of the OWS board, which has done a lot of work in connection with the 618 S. Main project. However, she was not sure the OWS board’s work represents all the people in the area – so she would speak for herself, Mitchell said. As presented, she noted, the 618 S. Main project requests a variance from the newly established D2 zoning – two stories taller than what the D2 zoning would allow. Immediately next to the building are one- and two-story buildings, Mitchell said. A 7-story building would create an out-of-character wall towering over the other buildings. Why would the council spend the time that had been invested to complete the A2D2 downtown rezoning process, only to approve a non-conforming project? she asked.

Mitchell said the developer appeared to have made a threat to build a worse alternative that could comply with the D2 zoning – the kind of approach that had led to City Place. [City Place is a controversial apartment project being built on South Fifth Avenue.] It’s an approach where a developer drives the agenda, she said. People feel compelled to agree, for fear of a worse outcome. Mitchell also questioned the value of the brownfield financial plan. She asked the council to vote no on the site plan and to return to the A2D2 process, to review and revise the downtown zoning again, so that effective step-downs are provided between downtown and neighborhoods.

Mike Siegel, associate principal of VOA Associates, a Chicago architecture firm, introduced himself as the project architect. He told the council that the project team had explored several schemes that were “by right” zoning. The distribution of the “building program” was lot-line-to-lot-line, from Ashley Street to Main Street down to Mosley Street, with a small courtyard in the middle. The building was 60 feet tall [the maximum height for D2 zoning] with some articulation architecturally along the streetwall.

Siegel said the project team was not really sure that “by right” approach was the right solution for the surrounding context. It’s a dynamic site from one side to the other, and it’s a transitional site, he said. So the team approached the city’s planning staff and had some conversations about how to deal with the issue. Planning staff suggested that with the “planned project” approach, there would be more flexibility for distributing the massing of the building – but there would need to be public benefits. In response to that suggestion, Siegel said three design schemes had been developed. To guide which of the three schemes would be pursued, the team had invited the community to a series of meetings, including local businesses. [For Chronicle coverage of one of those meetings held in November of 2011, see: "Public Gets View of 618 S. Main Project."]

A dialogue had been started, Siegel said. The community guided the shifting of the massing from Ashley Street to Main Street. Additional parking was requested, so an additional story of parking was added. The community asked that parking entries be divided on both side of the site, and that had been done, he said. The community wanted an enhanced pedestrian experience on Main Street, he said, so the building had been set back five feet to accommodate that. As the project went along, the team had appeared before the city’s design review board (DRB). The DRB was interested in the articulation of the streetwall. Out of that DRB conversation a tower element had been developed on the corner of Main and Mosley.

Shannan Gibb-Randall introduced herself as the project’s landscape architect. She’s with Insite Design Studio, an Ann Arbor firm. Gibb-Randall explained the concept of the rain garden, which she said could have been surface parking. But the team felt it had the potential to be something better. So the courtyard was created as an amenity for the people who will live in the building. But it’s also a great way to handle stormwater on the site in a sustainable way. She described it as the “back yard” for future residents of the building. Currently the site where the project is planned is 100% impervious, which means that every drop of rain runs into the Allen Creek and on into the Huron River.

Gibb-Randall explained that the rain garden will act as a sponge, with three feet of special soils and native plantings that are good at absorbing water. Anything that doesn’t get absorbed is connected to the sand seam layer, which is about nine feet down. So the stormwater will not travel through the city’s piped stormwater system. The site will be connected “just in case,” but a 100-year storm will infiltrate, she assured the council. The project would remove an acre of impervious surface that leads to Allen Creek, she said. She indicated that the project team hopes this approach will be a catalyst for other projects in downtown to do the same, which is possible because the downtown “sits on a pile of sand.”

Gibb-Randall also commented on the Main Street side of the building. The building has been pushed back, she said, which increases the 9-foot-wide sidewalk to a 14-foot-wide sidewalk. She also pointed to the densely planted area on the Mosley side of the building.

Dan Ketelaar, president of Urban Group Development Co., described the process as “surprisingly enjoyable.” He described the review process of the city’s design review board as working perfectly. The result shows how when people work together, you get something better than what you start with, he said.

The D2 is intended as a buffer between the downtown and the neighborhoods, he said. How do you do that, when one side is residential and one side is the downtown community? The project strives to do that in the best way it can, he said, and he felt like it had been successful. He described the process as difficult, but felt the community had enjoyed the process too.

Ketelaar stressed that 618 S. Main is not a student housing project, but rather it’s designed for young professionals. Of the units, 37% are studios, and 37% are one-bedroom units. The remainder are two-bedroom units. The amenities are meant to appeal to a young professional group – features like meeting rooms and lounge areas. The apartments are small, but with large common areas, so that residents can get together and spend time together, he said. It’s within walking distance to downtown, he said, and includes 120 parking spaces, which is twice the number required.

Ketelaar said the project team has tried to be as responsible as they know how to be. He felt that the project meets the requirement for a “planned project” outlined in the city code.

John Byl, an attorney with Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, told the council he was a brownfield specialist, and has been working on that aspect of the project. He was there and available to answer any questions about that aspect of the project, he said.

Ray Detter spoke on behalf of the downtown citizens advisory council. He said that CAC strongly supports the position of the Old West Side Association. He noted that 618 S. Main was unanimously approved by the planning commission. He pointed to the additional housing units. He allowed that the project exceeds the D2 height limit, but noted that as a “planned project” it provides commensurate benefit.

Dick Carlisle of Carlisle/Wortman Associates introduced himself as an owner and tenant of the South Main Market, located across Main Street from the proposed 618 S. Main project. He said he was very supportive of the project. He said that he and the other partners of South Main Market had achieved 100% occupancy of the market, but that’s because they’d invested a lot and worked hard at it. With any project as dense as 618 S. Main, there’ll be issues, he said, but he’s satisfied that they can work with this project. As one of the closest neighbors of the project, he said, they’re very supportive and hope it will get the city council’s support, too.

618 S. Main Site Plan: Council Deliberations–Bona fides

The council’s deliberations included a range of claims to connections to the neighborhood, which are extracted from this report’s summary of deliberations.

Mayor John Hieftje stated that he grew up in that neighborhood and that friends of the Fox family [owners of the former Fox Tent and Awning, which had been located on the 618 S. Main site] were friends of his family.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she used to live next to the Washtenaw Dairy. [The popular shop is located less than a block away from the proposed project, at Madison and Ashley.] The Old West Side was her home for over a decade, Briere said. She bought Christmas trees at the lot where Fox Tent and Awning was located – because it was easy for her and her little boy to carry them home.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’d live in the Old West Side for half of his adult life, so he had a strong affinity for the neighborhood.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) stated that as long as others had put their bona fides on the table, he wanted to mention that he used to work at Washtenaw Dairy: “So I see your living in the neighborhood, and [raise you a worked-at-the-dairy] …” The remark elicited laughs around the table.

618 S. Main Site Plan: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led off deliberations by picking up on one of the comments made by Rita Mitchell during public commentary. He asked planning manager Wendy Rampson for the city staff’s perspective on the idea that the accommodation for the extra height – 85 feet compared to 60 feet – is a reflection that the A2D2 downtown rezoning process did not get the specific regulations for D2 exactly right.

Rampson responded to Hohnke by describing D2 as a wide-ranging district that interacts with neighborhoods in a variety of ways. She noted that on the other side of Ashley from the project site is a historic district (Old West Side) and the buildings in the historic district aren’t likely to expand in the same way as 618 S. Main. But she pointed out that those properties [including the Washtenaw Dairy] are zoned C2B (commercial).

Rampson also pointed out that originally there was no height limit for the proposed downtown districts, but the city council had felt it was important to include height limits. She noted that the 618 S. Main project is not using the full premium available in the D2 district – which would allow up to 400% FAR (floor-area ratio). The 618 S. Main project has a FAR of 355%. It was envisioned, Rampson said, that in some places it would be desirable to push a building to one side or another, and that would result in pushing the building taller.

Hohnke confirmed with Rampson that the site of the project itself was not in a historic district.

Hohnke then asked Rampson to summarize the public benefits of the project. Rampson mentioned that by increasing the height along Main Street, the setback on Ashley is increased. Hohnke also asked about streetscape improvements. Rampson indicated that she couldn’t speak to that, because that had been added after the project had been voted on by the planning commission. Hohnke indicated that he was content to leave that issue aside until the discussion of the brownfield plan.

View from the southeast of the 618 S. Main parcel.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that the site had looked the same way for decades – but right now, it’s a parking lot encircled by a fence. Normally, he said, he’s not in favor of planned projects. But he appreciated the way the developer has worked with the community and with the design review board. Hieftje said he was moved by the fact that the project has met with approval at every stage. There seems to be a great deal of support for it, he said. The project deviates from the height limitation of D2 zoning, he noted, but provides public benefits.

Hieftje said he’s not troubled by the lack of retail in the project, because there’s plenty of retail across the street. He joked that building the 618 S. Main project might mean that people have to wait a little longer for an ice cream cone at Washtenaw Dairy [which is located at the southwest corner of Madison and Ashley, down the street from the 618 S. Main site].

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that D2 was established for areas close to residential neighborhoods. The height limit of 60 feet seemed appropriate to provide a kind of transition from downtown to residential he said. But the proposed 618 S. Main project is 40% higher than the D2 zoning’s 60-foot height limit. He contended that it’s the first projected presented in a D2-zoned area, since the A2D2 zoning was approved. [As Sabra Briere (Ward 1) would point out later in the meeting, the Zingerman's Deli expansion, approved by the city council at its July 19, 2010 meeting, was also located in a D2-zoned area.]

Anglin mentioned that it’s the block where Washtenaw Dairy is located. The site is a prime area to develop, he said. During the public engagement process, he said, a lot was achieved, but not much was ever said about the 60-foot height limit. Anglin expressed an objection to the presentation of a building design at one of the early public meetings that was 60-feet tall, conforming to the zoning – with the subsequent conversation focused on the idea that the design was not very good, but could be made better, by making it taller. Anglin characterized that approach as a game of changing rules for each new player.

The D2 zoning district is supposed to be a transition into neighborhoods, Anglin said. The 60-foot height limit was determined by looking at what was currently close to neighborhoods and found that it averaged 60 feet, which fit in quite nicely, he said. He gave Liberty Lofts, a former factory at Liberty and First that was converted into condominiums, as an example.

Councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

As for community input, Anglin said, he characterized it as “organizational input,” but when someone at a public meeting raised the issue of height, Anglin contended, that was put aside very quickly. Anglin reported receiving a note from someone who attended a meeting – someone that Anglin characterized as an intelligent person who owns his own business. The gist of the note was that the ability to make the building taller and the support through brownfield financing reflected “double-dipping.” Anglin indicated that people are confused by the process of inviting development and paying for it. He did commend the architect and the developer for their work on the project.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said it was not often that she found herself in opposition to statements Anglin made about development.

At a recent meeting of the Ann Arbor DDA, Briere had run into an old neighbor from the time when she lived in the area of the 618 S. Main project. And she asked her former neighbor on Mosley how she felt about the project. When it was first proposed, Briere reported, her former neighbor said she was not happy. But now she said it’s really amazing and she thinks it’ll be good for the neighborhood.

Because her former neighborhood is not the most liberal or conservative person in town, Briere had listened carefully to what she’d said. Briere also pointed out that 618 S. Main is the second project to be proposed in a D2 zone, not the first, as Anglin had said. The first had been the Zingerman’s Deli expansion, which Briere said was easy to forget – because the Zingerman’s project was not residential and not very controversial.

Briere said she’d met with Ketelaar the previous week and had reflected on her own reservations about the project. The benefit of a “planned project” is that the accommodations that can be made can’t result in a greater number of units – that is, it can’t be denser.

By way of background, the relevant section of the city code on “planned projects” to which Briere was alluding reads as follows:

A planned project shall maintain the permitted uses and requirements for maximum density, maximum floor area and minimum usable open space specified in this Chapter for the zoning district(s) in which the proposed planned project is located.

Briere noted that in the course of the several public meetings and the city’s approval process, the project was amended over and over. She concluded that she supported the project.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he watched the project as it was considered by a number of bodies that he sits on – the planning commission as well at the DDA partnerships committee. He allowed that the D2 zoning “was on our minds.” He described the project as an “incredible piece of work” and said it was gratifying to see the very collaborative process. He characterized the 618 S. Main project as tall only on one side – and on the residential side, it’s short, he said.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) called the “planned project” approach a tool that should be used cautiously – but concluded that in the case of 618 S. Main, it had been used beautifully.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ventured that the outcome of the A2D2 downtown rezoning process was that “we got D2 right.” The result of the D2 zoning, the design review board, and the planned project status allowed it to come together as an extraordinary project, she said.

Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed her appreciation for all the work than had gone into developing the A2D2 zoning, which happened before she won a seat on the council in 2011. Her perspective on the project was from the point of view of the DDA partnerships committee on which she serves. The focus of that committee’s work was on the TIF grant from the DDA. The policy guidelines that were created by the DDA, as well as the A2D2 zoning, all helped to create a great project, she said. The fact that the project adds to the diversity of the housing stock is important, Lumm said, as is the environmental cleanup of the site. She noted that the planning commission’s support had been unanimous. She concluded by indicating she supported the project.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he’d support the project, which he believes was the result of a process that is well-designed and works. It begins with the benchmark of D2 zoning, the citizen participation ordinance, the work of the city’s planning staff, input from the design review board, and the opportunity to deviate from the more rigid aspects of the zoning.

Taylor also mentioned the indicated market for the residents of the project – “workforce housing.” Taylor noted that councilmembers often hear references to that kind of housing. But when a developer says the project is intended for workforce housing, Taylor said it’s rare for him to sit at the council table and say to himself, “Yeah, that’s right!” In this case, however, he felt that considering the design of the units and their size and the type of amenities that are being provided, it was, in fact, a workforce housing project. He said he looked forward to seeing construction.

Councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that there’d been reviews of D2 zoning mentioned – the Zingerman’s Deli expansion. He reminded his council colleagues of the denial of a request to rezone a D2 parcel (conditionally to D1) on South University. [That denial by the council came at its April 16, 2012 meeting]. It was denied unanimously, he said, because of what that would have meant in terms of setting a precedent. Kunselman allowed that the 618 S. Main project as a “planned project” had a different standard. But he felt that the additional 25 feet allowed for the 618 S. Main project could be analyzed as “capricious and arbitrary.” And he felt the council could be setting itself up for something – in terms of “how we play with our local speculators” compared to other developers from outside Ann Arbor.

Kunselman also said he saw the evolution of the project very differently from the “Kumbaya of how … this speculator worked with the community.” Kunselman characterized it as no different from “a speculator with a big smile on his face and a knife in your back.” The strategy used by the developer, he said, was essentially, “You give me what I want, or I’ll give you what you don’t want.” Kunselman contended that the “by right” alternative that had been shown was not feasible and not marketable – so that scenario could not be used as a baseline against which to compare the “planned project.” Even the project that was being proposed was “on a string” financially, Kunselman said – which the brownfield financing analysis showed.

Kunselman said he didn’t share the impression others had of Ketelaar’s approach. Kunselman contended that Ketelaar did the same thing with the 601 S. Forest project. [Ketelaar was involved early on with that apartment project, now called the Landmark Building]. It started with a shorter building, was then proposed to be taller, and then everyone worked together to reduce the height. That was a building, Kunselman contended, that started the discussion about height limits. Now the height limits were to be adjusted for one particular “speculator,” Kunselman said.

Kunselman said he’d attended one of the citizens meetings and he mentioned that he’d be opposing the project. He said that the fear people expressed was astounding – that the developer would build something else that was worse. He repeated the phrase: “a knife to the back and smile on the face.” Development should start from a fresh slate of honesty and integrity, working with the community in a truly cooperative fashion, Kunselman said. He reiterated his concern that the city would be setting itself up to need to defend height limits in other situations. He concluded that he’d be opposing the project.

Hohnke noted that the 618 S. Main project is in Ward 5, which he and Anglin represent. It’s in a sensitive location, across from a historic district that has a significant amount of character, Hohnke said. But it’s also in the DDA district, which is the “official downtown,” he noted, where the community has said we want denser development. Hohnke was impressed with the collaborative process. He felt that in all his conversations, he never heard anything like a threat to build something worse, if this project was not approved. Hohnke noted that the extra height had resulted in a 60-100 foot setback on the Ashley Street side of the project, which he called an “enormous improvement.” He’d heard from a number of residents, who said they had a lot of concerns but were impressed by how input was incorporated by the development team – from a family that has lived near the project site for over 40 years.

Hohnke felt that the right balance had been achieved. He couldn’t imagine how a project could have been managed better than 618 S. Main.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the 618 S. Main site plan, with dissent from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

618 S. Main Brownfield Plan: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) led off by summarizing the work that the Ann Arbor DDA’s $650,000 grant would pay for: Main Street streetscape improvement costs (including the stretch from Mosley to Ashley Mews, which is well north of the 618 S. Main site); a rain garden to infiltrate stormwater, as opposed to detention-and-release; and upsizing a water main.

Andrew Cluley of WEMU interviews councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) after the June 18 meeting.

Higgins described the work on the streetscape improvements as an important part of transitioning from the proper downtown into the rest of the city, and described how the project would help establish a gateway to the city.

Higgins – who serves on the city council’s brownfield committee with Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – reported that the committee had met twice to go over the project.

Higgins described the process for approval of the brownfield plan, which would need to go before the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority and the county board of commissioners before being forwarded to the state of Michigan. She ventured that within the next month or so, a decision would be made on the project by the state.

Higgins said that many brownfield projects would not go forward, if the brownfield financing were not available – because of the increased costs to the developer for cleanup of contamination. This isn’t the only project that needs this brownfield financing, Higgins said. She recalled that for the Zingerman’s Deli expansion, the owners of Zingerman’s had said that if they had not received approval of the brownfield plan, they would have needed to move out of the city of Ann Arbor – something she could not imagine.

The 618 S. Main project had met all the requirements. She asked the city’s environmental coordinator, Matt Naud, and the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, to step to the podium and explain the project.

Crawford explained that the site is in the DDA tax capture district. The tax capture in the plan totals $3.7 million. Of that, Crawford said, about $400,000 is related to the city of Ann Arbor – and the rest is taxes from other jurisdictions.

In a previous brownfield project, Crawford said, the city had approved interest as a cost to be covered – during the period when the developer had not yet completed the project, and was borrowing money until the point when the project was completed and was generating the TIF that reimbursed the developer for eligible costs. However, the state decided not to approve the interest, which mean that the city of Ann Arbor had to cover the interest. So for the 618 S. Main project, Crawford explained, the city is only approving interest as an expense, if the state agrees that it’s eligible. If the state does not agree to cover the interest, Crawford said, then Ann Arbor is held harmless.

One of the criteria used to evaluate the project, Crawford said, is whether the return to the developer on his investment is reasonable, or if public dollars are being used to generate an excessive return to the developer. In this case, the return was estimated at around 6%, which is lower than the city had seen for other projects, Crawford said.

Responding to a question from Higgins, Crawford explained that the tax capture on the increment goes to the DDA, which would be used by the DDA as part of the grant it had made to the project. The city receives taxes on the additional property value over time that’s attributed to inflation, Crawford said.

Naud added that there also is economic development associated with the construction of the project. After the fourth year of the DDA grant, Naud continued, the DDA would be capturing the full increment and would have that money available to make further reinvestments in the downtown area. Naud characterized the brownfield plan as leveraging a relatively small local investment to get a larger investment from the state.

Mayor John Hieftje stressed that the local contribution being made by the DDA does not use funds that exist now, but rather uses the new taxes that the developer pays on the additional value of the property. Hieftje also wanted to stress that the DDA’s $650,000 TIF grant had been initially proposed to be $725,000. He had asked at the June 6, 2012 meeting of the DDA board [on which he sits] that money be removed that would have paid for elements required of the developer by city code. Hieftje pointed to enthusiasm for the streetscape improvements that Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had expressed early on.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that the topic had been discussed since March by the DDA partnerships committee, on which she serves. A policy and a set of guidelines had been developed in the context of the history of DDA grants. There was a consensus, Lumm said, that the DDA doesn’t finance projects that don’t need it. The initial request had been for $1.3 million, she noted. A lot of effort had gone into ensuring that support was being given for public benefits, not private developer costs. She felt that the only way the project would work is with the brownfield financing, and she supported the brownfield plan.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he would not support the brownfield plan. Later in the meeting, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked Kunselman if something had changed since the time that Kunselman had voted for the brownfield plan as a member of the city council’s brownfield committee. Kunselman indicated that he viewed his committee vote as parallel to the way that city councilmembers will sometimes vote for an ordinance change on initial consideration – in order to move it forward for additional public discussion – but will vote against it on final consideration by the council.

Kunselman characterized the brownfield plan as “highly speculative.” He stated that the DDA grant in support of off-site improvements – the streetscape on Main Street northward to Ashley Mews – is breaking new ground when it comes to financing public infrastructure. He expressed concern that there’d be no local control over low bids for that work if the developer was undertaking it.

Kunselman also expressed concern about the use of federal HUD [U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development] financing. Kunselman noted that there’s another project in town that is hoping for HUD financing – on the site of the former Georgetown Mall. Given that there are other developments moving forward in downtown Ann Arbor with market-rate financing, Kunselman wondered why HUD financing was being used.

Kunselman also noted that Crawford had described how the rate of return for the developer is low – which Kunselman concluded meant that the project is speculative.

Kunselman also expressed concern about the Armen Cleaners site – at the northwest corner of Mosley and Ashley – which is contaminated. Once a hole is dug for underground parking, Kunselman contended, it changes the hydrology underground. The 618 S. Main project is not intended to clean up the Armen Cleaners site. Groundwater is 15 feet below grade, Kunselman said, based on Village Green’s City Apartments site at First and Washington. A number of changes had to be made to the City Apartments project, in order to accommodate the groundwater, he said. He said he wouldn’t be surprised if Ketelaar later asks for additional height to lift the building out of the groundwater.

Kunselman also ventured that the pollution from Armen Cleaners might be induced to spread after the hole is dug for 618 S. Main – because water follows the path of least resistance. He allowed that “smart people” will tell us that this has been analyzed and that this scenario won’t happen, but Kunselman insisted that “we don’t know.”

Kunselman dismissed the reduction of the DDA’s TIF grant from $725,000 to $650,000 as “a pittance” compared to the amount of money that will be going into the project.

He also expressed concern that the 618 S. Main project would be competing with Georgetown Mall for brownfield and HUD money. [Later during deliberations, Higgins got clarification from Matt Naud, the city's environmental coordinator, that the two projects were not in competition – because the brownfield plan for the Georgetown Mall site has already been approved by the state.] He called the brownfield plan “padding” for the developer.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she’d attended several DDA partnerships meetings. At those meetings, she reported, Kunselman’s question about modeling the hydrology for the impact of 618 S. Main on the contamination at Armen Cleaners had been raised, and answered. John Byl, attorney with Warner Norcross & Judd LLP who’s worked for the development team on the brownfield aspects of the project, told Kunselman it’s an excellent question and it had been raised. Hydro-geologists had been retained and a report had been submitted to the DDA – the conclusion was that it wouldn’t have an impact on the Armen Cleaners site.

Anglin asked about the wells that were used to monitor the site. He expressed skepticism that there was significant contamination at the site that would warrant brownfield status.

Kunselman came back to the question of the impact of groundwater on the 618 S. Main construction. He wanted to know if the model that concluded there’d be no impact on the Armen Cleaners site included any pumping of groundwater associated with dewatering of the site. Byl indicated that not a lot of dewatering was expected, but Kunselman expressed skepticism that would be the case. Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering told Kunselman that the amount of dewatering was expected to be nominal. The footings are about two feet above the high water elevation, so there’d be minimal dewatering for footings. “And if you’re wrong?” asked Kunselman. “That’s what the tests show,” Wanty replied.

Kunselman wanted to know if additional dewatering was needed, if that changed the model for the impact on the Armen Cleaners site. Wanty explained that a trimming seal would be put down so that not a lot of dewatering would be necessary. Kunselman asked additional questions that confirmed there would be a connection to the city’s stormwater system to provide for the possibility that the rain garden’s capacity for infiltration was exceeded.

City of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford (back to camera) returns to the podium after conferring with the 618 S. Main development team to get an answer to a question from Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Responding to questions from Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Naud clarified that not all of the eligible expenses that a brownfield plan can cover are just environmental cleanup. A brownfield plan can also cover the additional costs associated with infill development. He also clarified that the burden is on the developer – because you have to actually build something, achieve an increment in value on the property, and then the taxes paid by the developer on that increment are what drive the financing in the brownfield plan. Only the actual expenses incurred by the developer are reimbursed. The taxes the city is already receiving would continue to be received, Naud said. Compared to other communities, Naud said, Ann Arbor does a lot of review for these proposals.

Responding to a question from Hohnke, Naud indicated that there would be full remediation of contaminated soils on a “dig and haul” basis.

Lumm commended the DDA for the development of their brownfield policy, which took two months to craft. She stressed that the brownfield money is not paid upfront. It can’t be used to cover the developer’s land cost, for example.

Anglin asked Crawford how much of the project was hoped to be financed through HUD. After conferring with Ketelaar, Crawford told Anglin about 75-80%.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the 618 S. Main brownfield plan, with dissent from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Medical Marijuana Licensing Ordinance

On the city council’s June 18 agenda were revisions to Ann Arbor’s medical marijuana licensing ordinance – which the council enacted a year ago on June 20, 2011.

The proposed ordinance revisions, recommended by the city’s medical marijuana licensing board at its Jan. 31, 2012 meeting, had already been considered and postponed once before, at the council’s April 2, 2012 meeting. The licenses that the board recommended be granted to 10 dispensaries citywide – recommendations also made at the board’s Jan. 31 meeting – have not yet come before the city council for final action.

The board-recommended revisions to the medical marijuana licensing ordinance are laid out in detail in The Chronicle’s coverage of the medical marijuana licensing board’s Jan. 31, 2012 meeting. [.pdf of recommended licensing ordinance revisions] Representative of the revisions is a change that strikes the role of city staff in evaluating the completeness of a license application. The following phrase, for example, would be struck: “Following official confirmation by staff that the applicant has submitted a complete application …” The changes also establish a cap of 20 licenses, and grant the city council the ability to waive certain requirements.

Mayor John Hieftje and councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Council deliberations were brief. A move to postpone the medical marijuana ordinance revisions came at the start of deliberations, and was made by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who serves as the city council’s representative to the medical marijuana licensing board. In arguing for postponement, she cited pending state legislation for regulating medical marijuana that could result in a need to further amend the city’s ordinance. Pending legislation includes House Bill 5681 (which would amend the public health code and create a “pharmaceutical-grade cannabis program”) and House Bill 5580 (which would give local authorities the option to allow dispensaries and testing facilities).

Briere invited city attorney Stephen Postema to comment on the pending legislation. He described the local option as allowing municipalities to regulate dispensaries in a manner similar to the way that Ann Arbor does. He expressed uncertainty about the likelihood that some of the legislation would pass – given that an amendment to a voter-initiated piece of legislation, like the 2008 Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, requires a 75% majority vote in the Michigan legislature.

Briere moved for postponement.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone action on revisions to the medical marijuana licensing ordinance until Oct. 1.

FY 2012 Budget Adjustments

The council was asked to amend the budget for its current fiscal year to bring actual expenditures in line with budgeted amounts – so that the city’s various funds do not show an excess in expenditures over budgeted amounts for the year. The amendments are necessary in order to conform with Act 621 of 1978 (Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act).

The council’s action bumped the general fund expense budget from $79,642,485 to $80,993,946 – an increase of $1,351,461. According to a staff memo accompanying the budget resolution, city staff are still projecting that a little less than $0.5 million of fund balance will need to be used for the year, due to other offsetting expenses.

For the general fund, some of the larger adjustments included: tax refunds higher than budgeted ($444,700); police services severances greater than budgeted ($250,000); two unbudgeted elections ($165,000) and a golf fund subsidy that was higher than budgeted ($131,761). [.pdf of all adjustments]

The bulk of the adjustment outside the city’s general fund was for bond refinancing at a lower interest rate ($2,758,100).

Council deliberations were brief. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she did not have a problem with the adjustments. But she indicated to city chief financial officer Tom Crawford that in a prior communication to the council, Crawford had been more confident that the city would end the year by essentially breaking even. She asked if the projected deficit [of $0.5 million] reflected Crawford being conservative or if things had actually deteriorated a bit.

Crawford told Lumm that he still felt the city would be close to breaking even. The reason the amendment is necessary, Crawford said, is that expenditures are approved by fund and by agency – and favorable news in one area can’t automatically offset negative news in another area, due to the way that expenses are approved. He believed the city would come close to breaking even, despite that evening’s necessary amendments to the budget.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the FY 2012 budget adjustments.

Human Services Allocations

The council was asked to authorize allocations totaling $1,244,629 to different nonprofits that provide human services. The amount was set as part of the FY 2013 budget, which the city council approved on May 22, 2012. That amount reflected a $46,899 increase to the amount in the proposed budget – an increase that was approved with the budget on May 22.

The process of making allocations followed a “coordinated funding” approach, as the city worked in concert with the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, the United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw County, and the Washtenaw Urban County to make the allocations. That approach was approved by the city council on Nov. 4, 2010.

The total amount allocated through the coordinated funding process is expected to be $4,285,089, from the following sources: Ann Arbor ($1,244,629); United Way of Washtenaw County ($1,677,000); Washtenaw County ($1,015,000); and Washtenaw Urban County ($348,460).

Proposals from nonprofits for funding exceeded the amount allocated by $2,295,428. The five priority areas used to evaluate proposals were aging, early childhood, housing & homelessness, safety-net health, and school-aged youth. A sixth priority area (hunger relief) was identified as a “sole-source activity” that’s provided by Food Gatherers, and wasn’t included in the evaluation process.

The largest awards made to 73 different programs included: $276,766 from the United Way to The Corner Health Center’s patient assistance and care management program; $204,892 from the United Way Safety Net Health Services to Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw’s program for maintaining the independence of older adults; $207,551 from the city of Ann Arbor to the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County’s residential program. [Google Spreadsheet of all awards compiled by The Chronicle]

Deliberations were brief. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said it was a pleasure to serve on the city’s housing and human services advisory board with Sandi Smith (Ward 1). Lumm said she was pleased that the budget was amended to increase the allocation. She described the allocation process as “robust” and said it ensured that the dollars are used wisely and leveraged as much as possible. She said the coordinated funding approach works well and that the amounts allocated to the different nonprofits were “reasonable and studied.”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to make the $1,244,629 in human services allocations.

Trucks and Plows

The council considered the purchase of 11 dump trucks and four front plows from Wolverine Truck Sales. The total cost of the vehicles and equipment was $1,548,376.

The 11 trucks to be replaced with the new vehicles are described in a staff memo accompanying the resolution as averaging $14,000 in repairs each for the last five years. Most of them date from 1999-2001. The dump bodies for some of the trucks are described as rusted out to the point that they would need to be replaced – at a cost of $30,000.

The plows to be replaced date from 1979–1981, and have a fixed angle. The new plows will have an angle that’s adjustable by the driver from inside the cab.

The money for the trucks and plows will be taken from the approved FY 2012 budget for fleet and facilities.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that the expenditure is not insignificant. She said she had inquired about the city’s vehicle inventory and felt the size of the fleet is not unreasonable for a community Ann Arbor’s size.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted the possible $30,000 per truck cost for some of the repairs and the ongoing repair costs for the vehicles. She also highlighted the fact that the city is anticipating that the trucks the city is purchasing will last longer because they have stainless steel bodies. The best part, Briere said, is the replacement of the snowplows – because instead of a fixed angle, they’ll be adjustable. Drivers will have a lot more control to tackle whatever snow we have, she concluded. Mayor John Hieftje said he appreciated the point Briere had made about the stainless steel.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the purchase of the 11 trucks and 4 snowplows.

Stormwater Study

The council was asked to approve a $822,700 contract with CDM Michigan Inc. for a stormwater analysis project. The project has five phases: (1) collect stormwater GIS data; (2) integrate the GIS with the model information and gather general monitoring data; (3) engage the public and perform preliminary model calibration; (4) gather comprehensive monitoring data and finalize model calibration; and (5) analyze modeling results and engage creekshed groups/neighborhoods.

In 2007, CDM was hired to complete the first two phases of the project. The contract considered by the council on June 18 is supposed to allow completion of the project.

Outcome: The council approved the stormwater study without discussion.

Ann Arbor SPARK Contract

The council considered a $75,000 contract with the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK.

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

Ann Arbor SPARK is also the contractor hired by the city’s local development finance authority (LDFA) to operate a business accelerator for the city’s SmartZone, one of 11 such districts established in the early 2000s by the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC). The SmartZone is funded by a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism, which in the current fiscal year captured around $1.5 million in taxes from a TIF district (the union of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts, though revenue is generated only in Ann Arbor’s district.) The specific taxes on which the increment since 2002 is captured are the school operating and state education taxes, which would otherwise be sent to the state and then redistributed back to local school districts.

For recent Chronicle reporting on the LDFA and its relationship with SPARK, see: “SmartZone Group OKs SPARK Contract.”

SPARK’s contract was included on the city council’s consent agenda, which consists of items involving less than $100,000. Consent agenda items are considered routine, and are voted on as a set. Any councilmember can pull out an individual item for separate discussion, which Sabra Briere (Ward 1) chose to do for the SPARK contract.

She had posed some questions about the contract before the meeting, which Skip Simms, SPARK’s vice president for entrepreneurial business development, had answered. So at the meeting, Briere asked Simms to the podium to provide the answers publicly. Simms did not have the written material in front of him, and Briere ended up essentially reporting on the information she’d received.

In summary strokes, she’d been told that in 2011 SPARK specifically recruited 20 companies to locate in Ann Arbor, and of those 20, 12 had moved into the city of Ann Arbor. Of those 12, according to SPARK, five had no knowledge, relationships or inclination to locate in Ann Arbor before 2011.

The companies that moved to Ann Arbor employ a total of 143 people.

Briere asked what kind of companies these are that moved to Ann Arbor. Simms explained that they are primarily technology and IT-based – software developers, for example. Simms indicated that the reason such companies relocated to Ann Arbor is that Ann Arbor has that kind of talent. In most cases, Simms continued, the companies are expanding. That expansion is sometimes accomplished by transferring an executive to Ann Arbor, who then starts up a new location for the company in Ann Arbor.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) noted that the city has had this line item to contract with SPARK for several years, and noted that it had been increased a few years ago to $75,000 per year. She indicated she was happy to support the contract – because SPARK was able to entice companies to relocate to Ann Arbor with only a minimal amount of money. Simms contended that with $405,000 of city of Ann Arbor support over the last five years, SPARK had aided companies that had committed to $177 million worth of build-out, investments in projects and new equipment, and those companies have created 3,886 jobs, he said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Simms for responding to the questions and told Simms that SPARK is great at what it does. She also noted that SPARK is partnering with the Pure Michigan campaign. Simms described a video that SPARK has produced that will promote the whole area. Lumm said the work that SPARK does – to help start-up companies and incubate new companies – is important. She allowed that it’s difficult to measure, but contended that SPARK is bringing added value. Lumm indicated she’d seen the video, which she praised as looking like something straight out of Madison Avenue.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the $75,000 SPARK allocation.

Ann Arbor Contract with Lobbyist

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the GCSI lobbying contract as part of its consent agenda.

Nominations: Boards and Commissions

Four nominations were made at the council meeting – to the planning commission, the greenbelt advisory commission and the environmental commission. Nominations to the planning commission are made by the mayor, with confirmation by a vote of the city council at the meeting following the nomination. Most of the other boards and commissions of the city follow that pattern.

However, nominations to the environmental commission and the greenbelt advisory commission are made by the council as a body and then also voted on by the council. The council will vote on all four nominations at its July 2, 2012 meeting.

Planning Commission: Ken Clein, Kirk Westphal

Mayor John Hieftje announced his nomination to replace Erica Briggs on the city planning commission: Ken Clein, a principal with Quinn Evans Architects. Briggs did not seek re-appointment.

Among the architectural projects Clein has worked on locally are the University of Michigan’s Hill Auditorium renovation, the new Ann Arbor municipal center, and the Zingerman’s Deli expansion.

Hieftje also announced that he was nominating Kirk Westphal for re-appointment to the planning commission.

The city council will vote on the appointments of Clein and Westphal at its July 2 meeting. City planning commissioners serve three-year terms.

Environmental Commission: John German

The council’s nomination to re-appoint John German to the city’s environmental commission was made by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). She is the city council’s appointee to that commission. German’s term expired in August 2011, but he has continued to serve. The council will be asked at its next meeting to re-appoint him retroactively for a three-year term ending on Aug. 7, 2014.

German’s background includes work with Chrysler, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Honda, and the International Council for Clean Transportation.

Ann Arbor’s environmental commission was established 12 years ago through a city ordinance, with the charge to “advise and make recommendations to the city council and city administrator on environmental policy, environmental issues and environmental implications of all city programs and proposals on the air, water, land and public health.”

Greenbelt Advisory Commission: Archer Christian

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), the city council appointee to the greenbelt advisory commission, announced Archer Christian as the council’s nomination to replace Mike Garfield on the city’s greenbelt advisory commission. Garfield is director of the Ecology Center, a nonprofit based in Ann Arbor, and Ms. Christian is the center’s development director. The council will vote on the nomination at its July 2 meeting.

The greenbelt advisory commission oversees the proceeds generated by two-thirds of the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage, which is levied at a rate of 0.5 mills.

Garfield is term-limited as a GAC member, having served two consecutive three-year terms. The spot vacated by Garfield is not designated for a representative of the Ecology Center. However, the 109-member commission includes two slots for representatives of environmental and/or conservation groups.

In his remarks at the June 18 council meeting, Hohnke highlighted Christian’s masters degree in crop and soil science. Hohnke also praised Garfield’s service on land preservation from the very beginning of the greenbelt initiative and thanked Garfield for his many years of leadership.

At GAC’s June 7 meeting, Christian briefly had addressed the commission, saying that as long as she can remember, she has wanted to be a farmer. Being able to translate that passion into helping preserve land in the greenbelt would be an honor, she told them. She gave a brief overview of her background, including the fact that she started at the Ecology Center four years ago as grants director, and became development director in January of 2012.

Christian told commissioners that she’s lived in Ann Arbor for eight and a half years, and it feels like home. Being in a forward-thinking community is a delight beyond measure, she said. [.pdf of Christian's résumé]

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Ann Arbor Marathon

As a part of his city administrator’s report, Steve Powers noted the running of the Ann Arbor marathon, which had taken place the previous day.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

A number of complaints had been received about disruption caused by the race. Powers asked councilmembers to forward complaints from constituents to him. The city staff is reviewing the event and would appreciate hearing from councilmembers’ constituents, Powers said.

Comm/Comm: Green Streets

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Valerie Strassberg introduced herself as chair of the city’s water committee, a subset of the environmental commission. She called the city council’s attention to a communications item on the agenda. That item includes the environmental commission’s resolution in support of a green streets policy. She hoped Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who serves as the city council’s representative to the environmental commission, will bring that resolution forward to the council for the July 2 meeting. The idea of the green streets initiative is for city staff to look at green streets as a formal process. Right now, when the city reconstruct roads, the project includes a look at what can be done to integrate green infrastructure – planting vegetation, bioswales, curbs, bump-outs and other devices to control runoff.

From the communications item Strassberg mentioned:

The terms Green Streets or Green Infrastructure are adaptable terms used to describe an array of products, technologies, and practices that use natural systems – or engineered systems that mimic natural processes – to enhance overall environmental quality and provide utility services. Green Streets usually treat and/or infiltrate storm water which improves water quality and reduces the volume and rate at which stormwater leaves the street.

Currently, those features are considered when the city undertakes a project, she said, but it’s not the norm. Sylvan Avenue [which was reconstructed using permeable pavement] is an example, as is the city hall’s rain garden. But those are the exceptions, she said, not the norm. The resolution would allow staff to explore opportunities to make those kind of features “the norm,” Strassberg said. She asked councilmembers to give the resolution consideration when it comes across their desks.

The environmental commission’s resolution includes the “resolved” clause that asks the city council to give direction to the city staff:

RESOLVED, that the Ann Arbor Environmental Commission is fully supportive of the Green Streets Initiative of the Environmental Commission Water Committee, and hereby recommends Ann Arbor City Council directs City Staff (from the Systems Planning, Project Management, and Field Operations Units of Public Services; Parks and Recreation, and Planning from Community Services) to work with the Environmental Commission in the development of a Green Streets policy.

Later in the meeting, Briere indicated she intended to bring forward a green streets resolution to the council’s July 2 meeting.

Comm/Comm: Countywide Transit

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported to her colleagues on the result of a committee meeting held earlier that day on possible amendments to the 4-party agreement and articles of incorporation that are associated with a possible expansion of governance and service area of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The four parties to the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA.

The cities and the AATA have approved the documents. But now the Washtenaw County board of commissioners has begun to focus on the document details. Briere noted that a June 14 working session of the county board, which had included AATA staff and legal counsel, had resulted in the airing of specific concerns by commissioners, who had suggested amendments to the documents. [Chronicle coverage: "Differences on Countywide Transit Debated"]

A committee with representation from each of the parties met the afternoon of June 18, Briere reported. [Members of the committee are: Sabra Briere and Christopher Taylor (Ann Arbor city council); Paul Schreiber and Pete Murdock (Ypsilanti mayor/city council); Conan Smith and Alicia Ping (Washtenaw County board); Jesse Bernstein and Charles Griffith (AATA board); David Read and David Phillips (U196 board).]

The committee’s consensus was that the possible amendments would not be brought before the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti or the board of the AATA at this time, and that the original language would be allowed to stand. The choice of phrasing by Briere resulted in some confusion.

Later in the Ann Arbor city council meeting, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) clarified that there will still be a formal vote by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Taylor stressed that it’s a matter of the other three parties declining to bring the county board’s amendments to their respective bodies.

Comm/Comm: Local Action on Energy Conservation

During public commentary, Kermit Schlansker told the council that the real argument about global warming is whether we should try to save energy or not. The Ann Arbor city council has shown almost no interest in saving the planet for our children, he said. Unless there’s a decided shift in local government goals, we’ll gradually become poorer and poorer as national resources become more scarce. Europe uses about half the energy per capita that U.S. residents do, he said. That’s because there are more apartment houses in Europe and more compact cities, more public transportation and smaller cars, he said.

An apartment house is an energy conservation device that “costs nothing and can live for 1,000 years,” Schlansker said. The whole cost of the building can be charged to habitation, which means the energy costs nothing, he said. An apartment building saves energy by using about 25% of the heating energy as a house, he said. More compact cities reduce the need for travel, and there is ready access to farmland, so that people can grow food.

The city needs to start a project consisting of an apartment house on farmland – because that’s the only way we can care for poor people in the coming time of universal poverty, Schlansker said. He called for planting trees as the best way to store carbon. Fruit and nut trees can be planted to provide cheap food for future generations. Local generation of food by the local population is a must, he said. Sewage needs to go back into farmland, not into the rivers, he said. Engineering research groups need to be formed to create energy-saving devices.

Schlansker concluded by saying that the problems of the future are just as much the responsibility of local governments as they are for the federal government. All the steps necessary for energy sustainability – aside from nuclear power – are a “part of local living,” Schlansker said. He suggested that the role of governments is to create models of ideal systems that could be implemented by private enterprise. If local governments do some of the right things, he said, President Barack Obama will follow – but “he needs our help.”

Comm/Comm: Crosswalks, Sight Distance

Kathy Griswold told the council she wanted to provide them with an update on two topics she’s commented on in the past. The first was a sidewalk construction project near King Elementary School that would allow moving the crosswalk from a midblock point to an intersection where there’s a four-way stop. [The new sidewalk would extend from the northeast corner the Waldenwood and Penberton intersection to a path that continues to the school building.] Griswold described the project as funded and at one point staked out, but then was stopped. She told the council that the city staff had determined the crossing was unsafe, and had thus deployed a crossing guard at that location, which she described as requiring recurring dollars. If crossing guards were to be provided, she said, then all locations should be considered and prioritized based on those that are the most dangerous.

Griswold also objected to the continued mowing by the city of private property near streets. Griswold told the council that former public services area administrator Sue McCormick had told Griswold that it bothered her, too. When visibility is obstructed, she said, private property owners need to be notified so that the private property owners can take care of it. She highlighted Glacier Way and Huron Parkway as areas that need attention.

Comm/Comm: Camp Take Notice

Thomas Partridge told the council he was there as a resident of city of Ann Arbor and of the county, as a grandfather, and as a Democratic candidate for 53rd District of the Michigan house of representatives. He called for expansion of integrated human services, including affordable housing – in the context of what he described as the housing crisis of Camp Take Notice, an encampment off of Wagner Road [on state-owned land in Scio Township]. He called for emergency housing shelter as well as transitional housing. He called for an expansion of affordable transportation – countywide and regionwide. He told councilmembers they should set special interests like medical marijuana aside.

Partridge said it was important to work to re-elect President Barack Obama, to advance the goals of Ann Arbor, the state and the nation. Returning to the topic of Camp Take Notice, he said that now is a time of crisis for the people who live there, living in a tent city without protection from the environment. They’re under a brutal eviction order from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, he said. [The camp is on MDOT land.] Partridge called on Gov. Rick Snyder to revoke the eviction order.

Later in the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked mayor John Hieftje to give an update on Camp Take Notice. Hieftje indicated that MDOT is working with all human services providers in the community at the city, county, and state levels. Housing vouchers will be provided, he said. The Delonis Center will provide some help for people in transition. And all-out effort is being made to make sure a place is found for everyone. Hieftje said he expected conditions will be better than at camp itself. [As an example, at its June 6, 2012 meeting, the Washtenaw County board of commissioners authorized a grant agreement for up to $60,000 in emergency housing assistance for residents facing eviction from Camp Take Notice.]

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

Absent: Sandi Smith.

Next council meeting: Monday, July 2, 2012 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. 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!

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

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

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

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

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

GCSI lobbyist Kirk Profit and his colleagues most recently gave a formal update to the board at their March 2, 2011 meeting. GCSI provides lobbying services at the state level for several local units of government, including the city of Ann Arbor.

This brief was filed from the boardroom at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers talks with Washtenaw County administrator Verna McDaniel before the Oct. 5 meeting of the county board of commissioners. Powers, who started his job in mid-September and was formerly a Marquette County administrator, told the board he looked forward to building more collaborative efforts between the city and county. (Photos by the writer.)

The proposal debated by the board came from the Washtenaw County road commission. Rob Turner (R-District 1) recommended indefinite postponement. He objected to the idea of levying a millage without voter approval – an action that road commissioners believe is possible under a 1909 law. It’s still on the books but that hasn’t been used in decades.

Ultimately, the board voted to postpone action until their Dec. 7 meeting. The next evening – on Thursday, Oct. 6 – they held a working session on the issue.

In other business, the board gave initial approval to a contract with Sylvan Township, related to its bond repayment schedule, which the township is struggling to meet. The county will be tapping its reserves to help the township cover the bond payments, but the deal is contingent on township voters passing a 4.75 mill, 20-year tax that’s on the November 2011 ballot.

The board also took an initial vote to create a new management position and hire Greg Dill into that job – as county infrastructure management director. The job is part of a broader reorganization of county administration, which hasn’t yet been approved by the board.

Accolades were threaded throughout the meeting, as the county handed out its annual Environmental Excellence Awards to several local organizations. Praise was also served up to Lansing lobbyist Kirk Profit for his work on the county’s behalf. That praise included initial approval of a two-year contract renewal for Governmental Consultant Services Inc. – Profit is a director of the Lansing-based firm.

The board also said an official farewell to Kristin Judge, a Democrat from District 7 who resigned her seat, and was attending her last board meeting.

Introduction: Ann Arbor City Administrator

At the start of Wednesday’s meeting, county administrator Verna McDaniel introduced her counterpart at the city of Ann Arbor, Steve Powers, who started the job as city administrator on Sept. 15. Powers told commissioners that it felt good to be back at a county meeting – he’d spent most of his career in county government, including the past 15 years as county administrator in Marquette County.

Powers said that McDaniel, as county administrator, was one of the first people he had wanted to get to know when he came to town. He came from a place where cooperation was a necessity, and it’s clearly a necessity in Washtenaw County too, he said. Powers cited several examples of how cooperation is already taking place between the city of Ann Arbor and the county, including police dispatch operations, the joint office of community & economic development, and natural areas preservation. He said he looked forward to building on those efforts, to better serve citizens and manage the tax dollars entrusted to local government.

Road Repair Millage?

The item on Wednesday’s agenda that received the most discussion related to a county road repair plan – and the potential for a millage to fund it. The idea of a millage was put forward by the Washtenaw County road commission.

The board had initially discussed this issue at its Sept. 8 working session, and it was expected to be on the agenda for the Sept. 20 meeting. But it wasn’t until Sept. 23 that the road commission formally submitted its plan to the county clerk’s office outlining road improvements. The plan was then brought forward as an item of discussion on Oct. 5. However, no resolution related to the topic was proposed, and no member of the road commission attended Wednesday’s meeting.

At issue is how the board should respond to the road commission’s plan. One option would be to levy an 0.6 mill tax, which is now estimated to raise $8.7 million for a raft of road improvement projects countywide. [.pdf of projects list] [.pdf of map showing project locations] Road commissioners believe the millage could be levied under Public Act 283 of 1909. Because that act pre-dates the state’s Headlee Amendment, it could be levied by the board and would not require voter approval.

Wes Prater began the discussion by proposing that the board table the item. It’s important to communicate what’s happening with the road commission, he said, and that discussion needs to take place at a public meeting before the board takes action.

It’s ultimately the county’s responsibility to provide funding for roads, Prater said. Yet it’s been nearly two years since the board met with the road commission to talk about it. The road commission is getting the same amount of state funding as it did in 2000, Prater said. It’s struggling like everyone else, and many county roads and bridges are in bad shape. This needs to be discussed, he concluded.

Alicia Ping observed that the information given to the board was different than what some communities have received. At least one community had been told that all the millage proceeds collected from their community would be spent on projects there, but it turned out that no projects on the final list were located there, she said. [Ping did not specify which municipality she was referring to.]

There’s no question that some county roads need to be fixed, Ping said, but residents should be the ones voting on a millage.

Barbara Bergman said if she’s going to tax citizens and must choose between funding services for the homeless and children, for example, or filling potholes, then the choice was clear to her. She couldn’t support a millage for roads.

Ronnie Peterson separated out two issues: Communication with the road commission, and funding for county roads. The road commission has presented a plan, and now it’s up to the board to decide how to proceed, he said. They should have a dialogue in the public eye, he said. Finding a funding mechanism should come after a report on the condition of the roads, Peterson said.

Board chair Conan Smith said there’d been some back and forth about setting up a meeting with road commissioners, and he apologized for not following up on it. Regardless of the millage issue, the board needs to start working more closely with the road commissioners, he said.

From left: Commissioners Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11) and Rob Turner (R-District 1).

Rob Turner, who serves as the board’s liaison to the road commission, thanked Smith for apologizing. There’s been some miscommunication and misunderstanding, he said. The board needs to make time to meet with the road commissioners, and road commissioners have expressed the desire to do that. The board needs to hear about the conditions of county roads and bridges, and future funding needs.

However, Turner said, since news about the possible millage has spread, he’s heard from people of all walks of life who are very concerned that a millage might be levied without voter approval. There are also split opinions among officials of local townships, he said.

Turner said he supports road repair, but doesn’t support this approach to funding it. He then moved to postpone the road commission’s proposal indefinitely, and to encourage the road commission to work toward funding the projects with a voter-approved millage or millages.

Prater responded by saying Turner was jumping the gun – the board hadn’t yet discussed the proposal with the road commission. Postponing action until a specific date was fine, Prater added, but he didn’t support getting rid of the proposal completely.

Dan Smith agreed that indefinite postponement was premature. He said he had planned to suggest postponing it until the board’s Nov. 2 meeting.

Conan Smith asked a procedural question: Didn’t the board have to vote the proposal up or down? Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, replied that this is the first time a county has considered this particular law in roughly 40 years, so in some ways they’re winging it. Hedger’s reading of the law is that after the road improvement plan is presented to the board, commissioners can do whatever they want – approve it, reject it, pick only certain projects out of the list and levy a lower amount to cover the costs of those projects, or find another funding source.

Hedger noted that if the board delays action much longer, the county wouldn’t be able to include the levy on the December tax bills – assuming they wanted to levy the millage this year.

Kristin Judge said she disagreed with Turner. It’s important to address this now, she said. The board is an oversight body for the road commission – the board doesn’t control the road commission’s budget, but it does appoint the road commissioners, she noted. In her last newsletter, Judge said, she conducted a poll about the millage. Even constituents who are generally anti-tax seemed supportive of it, she said. Good roads are key to economic development, but the state isn’t providing sufficient funding. “To me, it’s an infrastructure question,” she said.

She felt the county could push the envelope on this issue. Judge also expressed frustration that the road commissioners hadn’t been scheduled for a meeting with the county board so far. She said she knew the road commissioners had wanted to come, but they hadn’t been put on an agenda – that’s an issue, she said. She would not support indefinite postponement.

Bergman said roads might be the county’s responsibility, but it’s yet another unfunded mandate from the state.

Turner said he appreciated Judge’s comments and he also wants the roads maintained. But this “ancient law” isn’t the way to do it. He felt it would be wrong to bring road commissioners to a meeting if he had no intention of supporting a millage. If the road commission comes with a more viable alternative – that he might vote for – then that’s fine.

Judge countered that it’s important to have this debate in public – and her board colleagues shouldn’t assume that they know the outcome of a vote. They shouldn’t stand in the way of a public debate on an issue of such importance to residents.

Dan Smith asked about procedure – is postponing indefinitely just another way of voting no? Hedger replied that there wasn’t a main motion to vote on. The agenda item had been a discussion point, not a resolution. The county administration didn’t want to presume to know what the board would want to do, he said, “so it’s now in your lap.” The motion to postpone indefinitely would have the effect of killing it, Hedger said. If commissioners vote to do that, the issue could be reconsidered in the future if it’s brought forward by someone on the prevailing side of the vote, he said.

After some additional commentary by Peterson, who supported having a public discussion with the road commission, Prater moved to “call the question” – a procedural move that forces a vote.

Outcome on Turner’s motion to postpone indefinitely: The motion was rejected on a 3-7 vote, with support only from Turner, Barbara Bergman (D-District 8) and Conan Smith (D-District 10). Leah Gunn (D-District 9) was absent.

At that point, Rolland Sizemore Jr. suspended discussion to handle other items on the agenda, including the Environmental Excellence Awards – several people were on hand to accept those awards, and had been waiting while the board conducted other business.

Later in the meeting, when the discussion resumed, Dan Smith moved to postpone the item until the board’s Dec. 7 meeting, and that it be scheduled as the topic of a working session at some point before that date.

Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working session, said he had tentatively scheduled the road commission for the Oct. 6 working session, pending the outcome of the board’s discussion on Wednesday. His only question about the Dec. 7 date is whether it’s too late for putting a millage on the December tax bill, if that’s what the board decides to do.

Dan Smith said they needed to think through the issue, indicating that they shouldn’t rush to make a decision based on the timing of the tax bill.

Peterson said he wished Dan Smith had made that proposal an hour ago – it would have saved the board some time. And if there’s an intent to kill the proposal on Dec. 7, that should be stated, he said. It’s just a report, he said, and the board needs to deal with it.

Sizemore expressed some reluctance to hold the working session so soon. He said he wanted to get some documents under the Freedom of Information Act before meeting with the road commission.

At that, Prater called the question.

Outcome: The motion to postpone the road commission proposal until Dec. 7 passed on a 9-1 vote, with dissent from Alicia Ping (R-District 3). Leah Gunn (D-District 9) was absent.

Later in the meeting, Sizemore urged anyone who was watching the meeting to contact the road commission and give them input. He provided the web address and phone number: www.wcroads.org and 734-761-1500.

The topic was on the agenda for the Oct. 6 working session, which was attended by road commissioner Ken Schwartz and Roy Townsend, the road commission’s director of engineering.

Sylvan Township Bond Repayment Contract

At Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners were asked to give initial approval to a contract with Sylvan Township related to the township’s bond repayment schedule. The township has been struggling to make payments on $12.5 million in bonds issued in 2001 to build a water and wastewater treatment plant intended to serve future development. The township expected that connection fees would cover payments for the bond, which is backed by the county’s full faith and credit. But the development never materialized. [More extensive background on the situation is provided in a staff memo that was part of the board's packet of material for the Oct. 3 meeting.]

Sylvan Township – located west of Ann Arbor, near Chelsea – is now facing default on its bond payment in May 2012, which the county will need to cover. The township board voted to put a proposal for a 4.75 mill, 20-year tax on the November 2011 ballot for township residents, with proceeds to pay a portion of the bond payments.

The millage proceeds alone would not be sufficient to cover the entire cost of the bond payments, and the county would need to tap its own capital reserves to cover the remaining amount. After the entire bond is repaid, the millage proceeds would continue to be used to repay the county to cover the amount used from its capital reserves, as well as interest. The millage proceeds would also be used to repay the county treasurer’s office, which advanced about $1.2 million to the township in 2007 and 2008 related to this project.

The contract between the county and township is contingent on voters passing the 4.75 mill tax. If the millage fails and the township defaults, the county could file suit against the township for breach of contract in failing to meet its debt repayment obligation, according to a staff memo. The county would also need to make the bond payments, to avoid having its bond rating negatively affected.

Sylvan Township Bond Repayment Contract: Commissioner Discussion

This issue has been discussed several times over the past year, most recently in a report by commissioner Rob Turner at the board’s Sept. 7, 2011 meeting. Turner represents District 1 on the county’s west side, which includes Sylvan Township.

At Wednesday’s meeting, Yousef Rabhi asked how much the county would be paying on an annual basis. Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, pointed Rabhi to supplemental materials provided at the meeting, which laid out the repayment schedule. Sylvan Township’s portion of the bon payments – using millage proceeds – start at $853,860 in 2012, with the county contributing $118,498. The estimates for county payments vary, reaching a high $262,414 in 2023. The bond will be repaid in 2026. For five years after that, all millage proceeds will be paid directly to the county, to repay the county’s contribution from previous years.

Hedger said the estimates for millage proceeds were calculated for the worst-case scenario – that is, for zero percent growth in property value.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the contract with Sylvan Township, contingent on township residents passing a 20-year, 4.75 mill tax in November. A final vote on the resolution is expected at the board’s Oct. 19 meeting.

Contract Renewal for Lansing Lobbyist

Commissioners were asked to give initial approval to renew a two-year contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc., a Lansing-based lobbying firm. The contract would run from  Nov. 1, 2011 through Oct. 31, 2013 at $54,250 per year. That’s the same rate that the county currently pays, and is already built into the proposed 2012-2013 budget. [.pdf of draft contract]

GCSI lobbyist Kirk Profit attended Wednesday’s meeting. He and his colleagues most recently gave a formal update to the board at their March 2, 2011 meeting. GCSI provides lobbying services at the state level for several local units of government, including the city of Ann Arbor.

County administrator Verna McDaniel noted that commissioners had been given a list of issues that GCSI had worked on for the county, and said that GCSI staff have been very helpful and responsive. From the staff memo recommending GCSI’s contract renewal:

GCSI has, on numerous occasions, been able to cut through the red tape and arrange for County officials to meet with various hard to reach members of State government. In addition, GCSI has on many occasions advocated the County’s position on pending legislation with key State lawmakers. GCSI also keeps the Board of Commissioners and key County Administrative personnel periodically apprised of developing legislation that could positively or adversely affect County government. This early notification permits the County to develop a strategy to either promote or oppose the proposed legislation.

Contract Renewal for Lansing Lobbyist: Commissioner Discussion

Several commissioners praised GCSI and Profit specifically. Conan Smith said Profit has done yeoman’s work over the last year, on issues ranging from state revenue-sharing to 80/20 legislation [requiring public employees to pay 20% of their health care costs, effective Jan. 1, 2012, or to cap the amount that local governments would pay as premiums for employees] to threats against Act 88, which allows the county to levy an economic development millage without voter approval. Smith hoped Profit would be able to bring even more benefits to the county in future years.

Kirk Profit, a director with Governmental Consultant Services Inc., a Lansing lobbying firm, attended the Oct. 3 county board meeting. Commissioners gave initial approval to renew GCSI's contract with the county.

Barbara Bergman recalled that when this contract first came up for consideration years ago, she questioned whether the county would get any value out of it. “That was not the smartest question I ever asked,” she said.

Kristin Judge also thanked Profit, and said she hoped someday the county would consider hiring a lobbyist at the federal level, too. She was especially grateful for his work in helping secure funding for an improvement project at Lakeside Park on Ford Lake, which included building a new boathouse.

Wes Prater quipped that with all the praise Profit was getting, he must not actually be on the payroll. Profit replied that GCSI appreciated the compensation provided by the county. Prater added that Profit has always been a hard worker, now and when Profit had been a state legislator.

Conan Smith noted that Profit also has worked on behalf of the county parks & recreation department. He asked for an update on pending state grants for parks-related projects.

Profit began by praising parks & rec staff and its director Bob Tetens, crediting them for pushing for collaborative efforts that have been funded in the past. That included the $500,000 in state funding received for the Ford Lake project, in partnership with Eastern Michigan University.

This year, Profit said, even though there’s not a lot of money coming out of the state, Washtenaw County is again well-positioned to receive funding from the state Dept. of Natural Resources trust fund. He said that state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-District 18) – who is married to Conan Smith – and state Rep. David Rutledge (D-District 54) have been helpful, as have DNR staff. Profit noted that Gary Owen, DNR’s legislative liaison, grew up in this area.

He mentioned that the $300,000 requested from the DNR trust fund for the proposed Ann Arbor skatepark scored well, and now they’re working with the trust fund board to ensure that the full amount gets awarded. [The county parks & recreation commission approved $400,000 in matching funds for the skatepark, which is proposed for city-owned land at Veterans Memorial Park in Ann Arbor. The $300,000 state grant would be counted toward meeting that match.]

Profit also cited collaboration between the city of Ypsilanti and the county parks & rec department on a $300,000 DNR grant for Rutherford Pool, calling it a recreational opportunity in an urban setting that’s unmatched in this region. He praised the collaborative efforts of the county, and thanked commissioners for their support.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the GCSI contract renewal. A final vote is expected at their Oct. 19 meeting.

Infrastructure Manager

On the agenda was a resolution to authorize hiring Greg Dill to the new position of county infrastructure management director, with a salary of $116,758. The resolution also approved the creation of that post, with responsibility for information systems and technology, as well as management of the county’s buildings and other facilities. Some of those duties were previously assigned to the county’s information & technology manager, a position that was eliminated following the departure of James McFarlane earlier this year.

Dill has been director of administrative operations for the sheriff’s office, but previously worked for five years in facilities management for the county. Dill attended Wednesday’s meeting but was not asked to address the board formally.

The creation of this new job and Dill’s appointment to it were originally on the agenda for the board’s Sept. 21, 2011 meeting. However, that item and a proposed reorganization of county administration were pulled from the agenda at that meeting. The reorganization would have replaced the deputy administrator position by giving additional responsibilities to four managers, including Dill, paying them annual stipends of $15,000 each in addition to their salaries. Some commissioners had concerns over the stipend, and the proposed reorganization has not yet been reintroduced.

Infrastructure Manager: Commissioner Discussion

Wes Prater asked whether the job description could be altered after board approval. County administrator Verna McDaniel said it’s quite easy to do that and it can be handled administratively, as long as they’re not changing the salary rate.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he had a problem with the way salaries are presented for new positions. There’s often just a range given, he said, but it would be better to have the exact amount. He asked that staff provide information over the past two years indicating the salary ranges that the board has approved for new hires, and the actual salary that’s been set for those jobs. It might be time to tighten up what the county pays, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to create the position of infrastructure manager and hire Greg Dill for that job. A final vote is expected on Oct. 19.

Appointment to Natural Areas Advisory Group

On the agenda was a resolution appointing Catherine Riseng to the natural areas technical advisory committee (NATAC), which advises the county parks & recreation commission regarding its natural areas preservation program (NAPP). Her appointment was recommended by the county parks & recreation commission, to fill a seat previously held by Mike Wiley. She’ll serve the remainder of a two-year term, which expires on Dec. 31, 2012.

Riseng is an aquatic ecologist researcher at the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment. She also is vice chair of the city of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt advisory commission. [.pdf of Riseng's cover letter and resume] Other NATAC members include: Rane Curl, Bob Grese, David Lutton, Tony Reznicek, John Russell, and Sylvia Taylor.

NAPP is funded by a 10-year countywide millage that was first approved by voters in 2000 and renewed in 2010 at 0.2409 mills.

Outcome: Without discussion, commissioners unanimously approved the appointment of Catherine Riseng to NATAC.

Environmental Excellence Awards

At Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners passed a resolution honoring winners of the county’s 2011 Environmental Excellence awards, now in its 14th year. The awards were handed out to representatives of the winning organizations by Steve Manville of the county’s environmental health department, and Janis Bobrin, water resources commissioner.

The overall Environmental Excellence Award went to the Chrysler Group LLC for the Chrysler Proving Grounds in Chelsea, in recognition of its waste reduction and recycling program, its model stormwater and erosion control system involving native plants, and its efforts to keep toxic materials out of the waste stream.

The Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission was given the Excellence in Water Quality Protection Award for its innovative stormwater management, use of native plants in landscaping, and pollution prevention. An honorable mention in this category was awarded to Horiba Instruments Inc.

The Leslie Science and Nature Center of Ann Arbor received the Excellence in Waste Reduction and Recycling Award for its extensive recycling program, purchasing of recycled products, and educating the public in waste reduction and conservation ethics. And ITC Holdings Inc. of Ann Arbor received the Excellence in Pollution Prevention Award for reducing the use of toxic substances and preventing pollution before it is produced.

After the presentation, several commissioners praised the winners. Yousef Rabhi said environmental quality is important, and it’s important to have local institutions like these at the forefront of environmental protection. He noted that during the presentation he’d received a text message from his girlfriend, Christine Muscat, an environmental compliance analyst with Con-way Freight in Ann Arbor. She was teasing Rabhi about the fact that her employer’s environmental efforts hadn’t been mentioned. Rabhi gave Conway and his girlfriend a shout-out for their work.

Conan Smith said that places that take care of the environment attract the best talent. It’s part of Washtenaw County’s culture, he said, telling the organizations that “you’re really the models of the future of our economy.”

Smith and other commissioners also thanked Bobrin and her staff for their efforts in environmental protection, praising the innovative approach they took to the work.

Ann Arbor Drain Projects

Drain projects in Ann Arbor – including two related to the East Stadium bridge reconstruction project – were given initial approval by commissioners at Wednesday’s meeting.

The county water resources commissioner’s office was asked by the city of Ann Arbor to design and build stormwater control measures for the bridges along Stadium Boulevard between Kipke and South Industrial, according to a staff memo. The Allen Creek East Stadium bridges drain project and the Malletts Creek East Stadium bridges drain project will require in total no more than $415,000 for bonds issued with the county’s full faith and credit. The bonds will be repaid through special assessments on property in the drain district for this project.

Separately, county commissioners gave initial approval to an Allen Creek drain project in Ann Arbor. The project involves installing an underground infiltration system on the west side of the Veterans Park Ice Arena and putting in a rain garden near the entrance of the ice arena on the east side of the building. Rain gardens will also be installed next to Fire Station #3 at 2130 Jackson Ave., and trees will be planted in the city right-of-way throughout neighborhoods on the city’s west side.

The Allen Creek project had been previously approved by the board at its July 2011 meeting, as one of several drain projects authorized at that time. The overall cost of the projects approved then is now expected to be $1.45 million less than originally estimated. However, the $330,000 approved for the Allen Creek project turned out to be an underestimate – that project is now expected to cost up to an additional $65,000. That $65,000 – covered by bonds issued with the county’s full faith and credit – was the amount commissioners were asked to approve at Wednesday’s meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the drain projects on an initial vote. A final vote is expected on Oct. 19.

Farewell to Kristin Judge

It’s the board’s custom to award a resolution of appreciation to commissioners when they leave the board. On Wednesday, Kristin Judge, a Democrat who represents District 7, received such a resolution. It was her last regular board meeting before her resignation, which took effect on Oct. 9. She announced her decision to step down on Sept. 30, citing potential conflicts with a job she recently accepted with the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC).

After receiving a framed copy of the resolution, Judge got a standing ovation from her board colleagues and staff, and several commissioners praised her work on the board. Conan Smith (D-District 10) described her as a “force of nature,” while Rob Turner (R-District 1) cited her energy, passion, and compassion. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) called Judge ”an outstanding public servant – and I have not said that about many people in my career.”

From left: Commissioners Ronnie Peterson, Conan Smith, Kristin Judge, Wes Prater.

Saying there were too many people to thank individually, Judge said she’s loved every minute of her time on the board. [She was first elected in 2008, then re-elected in 2010.] One of her goals, she said, has been to make people understand that government really works, and that most people in government are good. In her new job she’ll work with local and state governments nationwide, she said, helping address online security threats.

Much of Judge’s recent work has been related to cyber-security issues. She led the formation of the Washtenaw County Cyber Citizenship Coalition, and organized the Oct. 7 Michigan Cyber Summit, a day-long event that served as the kickoff for National Cyber Security Awareness Month. Keynote speakers included Janet Napolitano, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. In conjunction with that event, at Wednesday’s meeting the board also passed a resolution declaring October as cyber security awareness month in Washtenaw County.

The county has announced the process for filling the vacant District 7 seat, which will be an appointment made by the board of commissioners. The deadline to apply is Wednesday, Oct. 12 at 5 p.m., and the board is expected to make a decision at its Oct. 19 meeting.

The board must make an appointment within 30 days of a resignation, for a commissioner to serve until special elections are held. There will be a Feb. 28, 2012 primary for that seat, followed by a May 2012 special general election. The winner of that election would serve a truncated term for the current District 7, through 2012. Redistricting of the county board that takes effect in 2013 will reduce the number of districts in the county from 11 to 9 – candidates for the new districts will compete in an Aug. 7 primary and November general election.

Upcoming Working Sessions

The topic of working sessions emerged at several points during Wednesday’s meeting.

After the discussion about a potential road repair millage, Rolland Sizemore Jr. told his fellow commissioners that he wanted to schedule a working session to discuss all possible millages that might be coming in the future. He said he’s heard rumors that some commissioners want to see a countywide millage to fund human services. There’s also the likelihood that a countywide transportation millage might be floated. Why not put them all on the table to get a better overall sense of what’s happening? he said.

Ronnie Peterson said he hoped that the road repair millage would be the topic of a working session, before other possible millages get discussed. Sizemore noted that a working session on the road millage was set for the following evening.

Later in the meeting, Yousef Rabhi – who as chair of the working sessions sets those agendas – reported that the Oct. 6 working session would include the possible road millage, as well as an update on bond ratings and the county’s fiscal scorecard. A special budget-related working session will be held on Thursday, Oct. 13, he said. Topics will include an update on the community’s food and housing needs, and a discussion of the proposed 2012-2013 budget for nonprofit and other outside agency funding.

Peterson questioned why commissioners needed an update on food and housing needs. They should focus on budget items, he said. Rabhi indicated that the update, which had been requested by Barbara Bergman, would be brief.

Conan Smith observed that the community’s food and housing needs provide a context for making budget decisions, particularly for funding nonprofits that provide food and housing services.

Peterson again expressed concern, saying he hoped the working sessions weren’t going to be stacked with non-budget items. If so, he wouldn’t attend. The budget for funding outside agencies is over $1 million, he noted. They had a lot to discuss, and commissioners shouldn’t be burnt out on other topics before they get the chance to address the budget. The budget is their biggest responsibility, he said. [Earlier in the meeting, the board had voted to postpone the agenda item on a discussion of the budget until their Oct. 19 meeting.]

Bergman said she certainly wanted a complete discussion about outside agency funding, but she agreed with Conan Smith – the update on food and housing would provide context.

Rabhi then highlighted topics for other upcoming working sessions, noting that topics reflect items that commissioners had previously expressed interest in. On Thursday, Oct. 20, the board will hear from Pat Horne McGee, director of Washtenaw Head Start. [The county administration has proposed relinquishing support for the program, and previously reviewed that option at a July 21, 2011 working session.] Other topics for Oct. 20 include professional services contracts and the county’s Voluntary Employee Benefits Association (VEBA) trust. A Nov. 3 working session will focus on the 2012-2013 budget.

Public Commentary: Salem Twp. Historic District

The only speaker during the four opportunities for public commentary was Terry Cwik, president of the Salem Area Historical Society. He said the topic he wanted to address – creation of an historic district for Jarvis Stone School, the Dickerson Barn and associated property – wasn’t on the agenda that night. It would likely come up at the board’s Oct. 19 meeting, but he couldn’t attend then. The school is owned by the historical society, he said, and a study committee has been working on a proposal for the board to review.

Cwik said the one-room schoolhouse on North Territorial was built in 1857 and in continuous use until 1967. The historical society now uses the school as its headquarters, he said. The site is a worthy candidate for designation as an historic district, he said, and would be the second one in Salem Township. [The current historical district is Conant Farm on Napier Road.]

Kristin Judge said she’d been to the school, and called it a gem in the community. Conan Smith expressed confidence that the historic district designation would eventually be approved, and noted that it was located just a couple of miles from where he’d grown up. He also joked that it was special because commissioners Barbara Bergman and Wes Prater had been part of the school’s first graduating class. Prater pointed out that Smith was incorrect: “It was the second,” Prater quipped.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Kristin Judge, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Dan Smith, Conan Smith, and Rob Turner.

Absent: Leah Gunn.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

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

GCSI lobbyist Kirk Profit attended Wednesday’s meeting. He and his colleagues most recently gave a formal update to the board at their March 2, 2011 meeting. GCSI provides lobbying services at the state level for several local units of government, including the city of Ann Arbor.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Before the June 20 meeting started, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) handed out amendments she'd be proposing to the medical marijuana licensing ordinance. From left: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). (Photos by the writer.)

The first local law stipulates where medical marijuana businesses can be located in the city – it’s an addition to Ann Arbor’s zoning code. The second law establishes a licensing board for medical marijuana dispensaries and sets up an application process for the award of a maximum of 20 licenses to dispensaries in the first year of the program.

On Monday evening, the council undertook amendments to the licensing ordinance that were few compared to massive changes that have taken place at several council meetings dating back to January 2011. On Monday, the labeling requirements for marijuana packaging were changed so that dollar amounts are no longer required.

The council teetered on the edge of postponing the legislation, when city attorney Stephen Postema encouraged councilmembers to delay voting until the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an opinion on a case (Michigan v. McQueen) for which oral arguments were heard on June 7. Despite the support for postponement from mayor John Hieftje, an initial vote to postpone achieved only two other votes. A second vote achieved a total of five votes, leaving the postponement one vote short of the six-vote majority it required.

As some councilmembers observed that the council had invested a disproportionate amount of time on the medical marijuana legislation, Hieftje contended that it had not prevented the council from handling its other work.

On Monday, that other work included a collective bargaining agreement with its police service specialists union, which was an item added just that evening to the agenda. The council also heard public commentary critical of the recent budget approved on May 31 by the council, which includes the layoff of some firefighters and police officers. The meeting was preceded by a demonstration by the city’s public safety employees, at Fifth and Huron streets just outside city hall

The council  also approved two contracts in connection with the East Stadium Bridges replacement project and three purchase orders related to tree care. And the council gave final approval to sewer and water rate increases and a revision to its landscaping ordinance.

The council revised its debt/fund balance policy, and revised its budget to reflect the blending of its economic development fund back into the general fund. Also related to economic development, councilmembers approved the annual $75,000 funding for Ann Arbor SPARK and set a public hearing for a tax abatement for Picometrix.

The council established an affordable housing lien policy and gave initial approval to technical revisions to the city’s pension ordinance. They confirmed appointments to the new design review board, but postponed a vote on setting the design review fee. The council added a work session for July 11, which is likely to include an update on the planned Fuller Road Station.

The council also heard a presentation on a skatepark planned for Veterans Memorial Park.

Medical Marijuana

At Monday’s meeting, the council considered two city ordinances that ensconce medical marijuana businesses with local regulations.

One ordinance concerned zoning – legislation that stipulates where medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities can set up business. The second ordinance concerned licensing – a law that describes how licenses will be awarded to dispensaries, and how a licensing board will be set up to evaluate applications.

Key features of the zoning ordinance include the requirement that medical marijuana dispensaries must be located in districts zoned as D (downtown), C (commercial), or M (manufacturing), or in PUD (planned unit development) districts where retail is permitted in the supplemental regulations. Medical marijuana cultivation facilities are only allowed in areas zoned as C (commercial), M (manufacturing), RE (research), or ORL (office/research/limited industrial). Medical marijuana businesses are prohibited in a 1000-foot buffer zone around schools.

Key features of the licensing ordinance include a limit of 20 total licenses for dispensaries in the first year – cultivation facilities are not licensed under the ordinance. The license applications will be processed by a five-member medical marijuana licensing board consisting of one member of the city council, one physician, and three other Ann Arbor residents. The license application requires proof of legal possession of the premises for which the license is sought. Licensed dispensaries are required to maintain records on patients for 30 days after marijuana is dispensed, and on cultivation sources for 60 days.

The council’s work on the medical marijuana legislation dates at least as far back as June 7, 2010, when councilmembers convened a closed session on the topic to discuss a city attorney’s memo dated May 28, 2010. The council convened another closed session on July 19, 2010, purportedly to discuss the same May 28, 2010 memo. The council did not publicly discuss the topic until Aug. 5, 2010, when it enacted a moratorium on the use of property in the city for medical marijuana businesses.

Dispensaries that were operating before the moratorium was enacted – and that were allowed under the moratorium to continue to operate – will have a 60-day window within which they can apply for a license after the ordinance takes effect, which is 60 days from publication. Other dispensaries cannot apply until 75 days after the ordinance becomes effective.

Medical Marijuana: Public Commentary

Every council meeting agenda includes 10 3-minute slots at the start of the meeting for which people can sign up to speak. On Monday, some of them addressed the topic of medical marijuana. This public commentary does not count as the public hearing for any issue. Public hearings do not require signing up in advance and are not limited to a specific number of speakers.

Dennis Hayes reiterated a point he’d made at the council’s previous meeting – data from Michigan’s Dept. of Community Health show that over half of registered medical marijuana patients are on Medicaid, Social Security or some other form of support. Ann Arbor should be proud of leading the way to helping them get the medicine they need for relief, he said. About the process of enacting the legislation, he said at the very least, it has been a long slog. He thanked councilmembers Sabra Briere and Sandi Smith, both of Ward 1, for their efforts.

Hayes said that Ann Arbor’s ordinance would be an example for the rest of the state of Michigan. However, he said that the requirement for the dollar amount on labeling needs to be removed. He called the record-keeping that’s been agreed upon appropriate and helpful, but added that he hoped to come back with further suggestions. He allowed that there would be litigation for some time to come, but said it’s now time to move forward.

Chuck Ream noted that if the city could tax medical marijuana, they could hire more police officers. He told the council it’s time to finish the legislation, but it’s important to finish it right. He said he’d previously asked that no monkey wrench from the legal department be thrown into the process, and said the suggestion to delay passage that evening was such a monkey wrench. He allowed that, yes, there would be a ruling that would be handed down, and there’d be another one after that and another one after that. At their last meeting, he told the councilmembers, all the major decisions were done. But he described the zoning ordinance as “still in bad shape.” The zoning ordinance should be made parallel with the licensing ordinance, he said.

A citation for the charter of the city of Ann Arbor should be included, Ream said, saying that it’s not just the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act that enables the local legislation, it’s also the city charter. He said the council should toss out the part about the defenses, exceptions and and immunities. To the phrase “valid registration card,” he asked the council to add “or its equivalent.” He also asked the council to take the dollar amount off the label – that just provides evidence to bust people, he said.

Rhory Gould said he was speaking as a representative of Arborside Health and Wellness. He thanked mayor John Hieftje and the council for developing an ordinance that would serve and protect all. He also thanked all his colleagues – including his attorney, Matt Abel – for diligence in helping to get the ordinance to pass in the right manner. He said he’d previously complained about the length of the moratorium. The current legislation is something that can be used as an example, for other communities in the state, he said. Others will look to Ann Arbor as leaders on how to do things the right way. He stated that he would like one of the available licenses to be awarded to Arborside. He stated that he would “give it his all” to give professional service to everyone. He thanked the council for effort to put the ordinance in place.

Medical Marijuana: Public Hearing

A formal public hearing related to the licensing ordinance. The public hearing on the zoning ordinance had been held previously.

Mayor John Hieftje told the audience before the public hearing started that he thought the medical marijuana ordinances would be postponed. His said his “best guess” would be that the legislation would be postponed. If it were postponed, the public hearing would be continued until it was voted on, but those who spoke that evening would not be able to speak at the continued hearing.

After the vote on medical marijuana, during a recess, Charmie Gholson chats with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Chuck Ream stated that it was disconcerting to hear that the measure might be postponed. No one knew it was being postponed, he said. He returned to similar comments he’d make during public commentary at the very start of the meeting. He asked the council to include a reference to the Ann Arbor city charter in the legislative intent section. He said that the language in the ordinance that stated the ordinance did not provide for defense against prosecution is “pretty poor language,” when 74% of Ann Arbor residents voted in 2004 to give dispensaries every power that they have. The dollar amount requirement on packaging needs to be removed, he said – that sets up evidence for people to get busted. He hoped that there would be no more foolishness, shenanigans or chicanery.

Charmie Gholson told the council she had not been there for a while, because she’d been ill. Even if someone doesn’t need help to get to the microphone, she said, that doesn’t mean that they’re not struggling with chronic and lethal illness.

She pointed to the renewed federal interest in distribution facilities that the council had expressed at its recent meetings. She said, “We’re in a national battle.” She’s been working on this issue for the last five years, she said. In June, she continued, two reports had been released – one from the Global Commission on Drug Policy and one from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. The conclusion of those reports was that the drug war has failed with devastating consequences. It’s a U.S. attorney’s job to say, “It’s still working,” she said. She told the council that the reality is, if you start talking to victims of the drug war, you would think that the war is a failure.

Medical Marijuana: Recent Developments – Michigan v. McQueen

City attorney Stephen Postema told the council about a case that’s now before the Michigan Court of Appeals.

By way of background, the case that’s being heard on an appeal by the prosecutor – Michigan v. McQueen (Compassionate Apothecary) – was noted in The Chronicle’s coverage of the council’s Jan. 3, 2011 meeting, when the council deliberated on the licensing legislation. The case was initially heard by chief judge of the Isabella County trial court, Paul Chamberlain, who was asked to consider a request from the Isabella County prosecutor to find that Compassionate Apothecary constituted a public nuisance. In his order filed Dec. 16, 2010, Judge Chamberlain found that “Defendants only operate their business during designated business hours, and as decided above, perform their medical marihuana related conduct pursuant to the MMMA. Therefore, their business does not constitute a nuisance per se.”

In finding that Compassionate Apothecary operated in accordance with the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, Chamberlain laid out how the Compassionate Apothecary business model, in his view, conformed with the MMMA:

This court is charged with determining whether the patient-to-patient transfers in this case are considered medical use of marihuana, as permitted by the MMMA. Further, the record reveals that only registered qualified patients or registered primary caregivers make such transfers as members of defendants’ business. Members place their marihuana in defendants’ lockers, and the members transfer or deliver the marihuana pursuant to the MMMA. Even when a registered primary caregiver transfers medical marihuana to another member, such caregiver does so under the authorization of the patient to whom he or she is registered. The Legislature did not prohibit such transfers, and such registered primary caregiver conceivably serves as a person who assists a registered qualified patient with using or administering marihuana. MCL 333.26424(i). Therefore, the ultimate issue before this court is whether the presumption listed in MCL 333.26424(d) applies and pertains to the patient-to-patient medical use of marihuana in this case. This court finds that it does.

Postema told the council that a request for an expedited appeal had been made, which had resulted in the hearing of oral arguments two weeks ago [June 7, 2011]. What is significant about the case being heard by the Court of Appeals, said Postema, is that the opinion would be binding if it were published, and it would be the first time that guidance had been provided. He said that based conversations with people who saw the oral arguments, the unanimous opinion of observers was that the ruling would come down quickly, and when it did come down, the business model used in that case would not be found legal. Postema said the sense he got from attorneys who represented dispensaries was they weren’t optimistic. They were predicting a reversal in favor of the prosecutor. He said it’s something the council should consider.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Postema to explain exactly what the issue was in the Isabella County case. Postema said that the municipality had tried to close down the business, because it was based on patient-to-patient transfer of marijuana, and explained that this is how a number of dispensaries in Ann Arbor operate. Briere followed up by asking Postema to confirm that for both the licensing and the zoning, what the council has proposed is: Everything must be done in accord with MMMA, and that means in accord with any court’s interpretation of it. Postema confirmed that is the case.

Briere asked if the court were to rule that dispensaries can’t exist, what effect would there be on the city’s ordinances? Postema said definitions in the ordinances may need to be altered. He also said that the licensing board set up by the ordinance might need to be given some guidance.

Medical Marijuana Licensing: Deliberations on Postponement

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said they don’t know a date certain when the Court of Appeals ruling might come down, so the choices on postponement would be to postpone indefinitely or postpone every two weeks. Postema said he felt that in a month, he thought the ruling would come down. At that point, Briere said, she wanted to talk about a few amendments that she wanted to propose, then let the council consider the issue of postponement.

Before considering amendments, mayor John Hieftje wanted more information from Postema. He asked if the pending court ruling could outlaw dispensaries. In responding, Postema contended that if the court struck down the trial court’s ruling, it would end most dispensaries as they exist across the state.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said there was clearly some benefit in moving forward – the council has been “at this a while.” He wondered what the harm is if the council moves forward and a ruling comes down inconsistent with the city’s ordinance. The language would have to be amended, said Hohnke, either as an existing ordinance or as a pending ordinance – the task would be the same. Postema attempted to respond to Hohnke’s point by saying that the issue for everyone is getting guidance on the state law. It would be useful, however the ruling came down – it’s what everyone has been waiting for, Postema said. The importance that the court was attaching to the ruling was evident from the effort that had been made to expedite consideration of the appeal.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said that the council had been working in good faith with voters’ desire, saying the council had hammered it out, and is now ready to cross the finish line. What she was hearing in the city attorney’s remarks is that it’s a matter of how business is done at a dispensary, which is up to them to do. It’s not the council’s job to anticipate when and how the court would rule, and she felt that dispensaries will make their own decisions about their business model.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was not active in the deliberations, but cast one of two votes against the medical marijuana legislation..

Hieftje said he didn’t know why the council wouldn’t take the additional time, if it might be able to make a more informed decision. Right now, he contended, if you want access to medical marijuana you can get it – the moratorium could be extended by one month, which would allow existing dispensaries to continue to operate.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) posed a more specific version of Briere’s question to the city attorney. Taylor noted that the pending court decision involves the manner in which marijuana is distributed: Does the pending Ann Arbor ordinance “engage” how dispensaries transfer their marijuana? Postema responded by contending that the court ruling could affect Ann Arbor’s ordinance, depending on how the ruling comes out. A dispensary has to get marijuana from somewhere, he said – a dispensary may get it from “overages” from caregivers, or it might be transferred between patients. Postema went on to say that many dispensaries in Ann Arbor use patient-to-patient transfer in their business model.

Taylor pressed Postema to speak to the issue of whether Ann Arbor’s ordinance engages that question: Does it engage how they get the marijuana? Postema allowed that right now it’s an open question. But he maintained that if the council felt that patient-to-patient transfer is not allowed under the law, then the council would not adopt this kind of ordinance. He went on to say that the attorney general for the state of Michigan, Bill Schuette, had said he felt that patient-to-patient transfer is not allowed, so Postema felt having the court ruling in place would be useful before proceeding.

[Ann Arbor's licensing ordinance defines dispensaries as follows: "'Medical marijuana dispensary' means a building or part of a building where one or more primary caregivers operate with the intent to transfer marijuana between primary caregivers and/or qualifying patients, other than a medical marijuana home occupation or a dwelling unit in which the transfer of marijuana occurs between a primary caregiver and qualifying patient who resides in the dwelling unit as permitted under subsection (7)."]

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), standing, touches base with interim city administrator Tom Crawford.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he agreed with the mayor. He had never understood the rationale of proceeding with this ordinance, when it would be altered by legislation and court decisions. The time invested by the council on the issue of medical marijuana legislation was so disproportionate compared to other priorities. Rapundalo indicated he’d voted for the measure at the polls, but did not see why the council couldn’t wait it out. This is just ridiculous, he said, to keep going forward. So at that point he moved for a postponement, with a second in support of that motion coming from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Briere went back to the question that Taylor had asked Postema – if anything in the ordinance, as written, deals with business practice – because that’s the issue at hand based on his description of the court case. She noted that the proposed licensing board is supposed to set the criteria for licensing and those criteria could reflect any possible court ruling. Postema allowed that was true. But he said that the practice of patient-to-patient transfer is very prevalent, so a ruling could result in the ordinance needing to clarify that. A court ruling could also give guidance to the board, said Postema.

Briere said at the most she was intending to introduce a few amendments, so requested that the council discuss the amendments, and then discuss whether to postpone. So she said she would not support a postponement “at this moment.”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he was confused about postponing based on a potential court ruling. He asked what the difference was between a potential for a court ruling on marijuana compared to a recent ruling on the living wage ordinance? Postema said a recent decision on the living wage ordinance was an unpublished opinion, so has no precedential effect. He expected that the opinion in the Michigan v. McQueen case would be published, and thus be used as a precedent.

Taylor said he agreed with Rapundalo that medical marijuana is an important issue, but not the council’s top issue. For Taylor it was a “near call,” but he was in favor of “gutting it out tonight.” And if the council needed to change the ordinance, the council could run that through the ordinary process.

Hohnke agreed with Briere’s desire to consider the amendments first, so he asked if Rapundalo would consider withdrawing the motion to postpone and then reintroduce it. Rapundalo, sitting to Hohnke’s right, shook his head no. Faced then with commenting on the issue of postponement, Hohnke said that while he appreciated the helpful input from the city attorney, he was not convinced of the benefit of postponement, so he would not support it.

Outcome on postponement: The motion to postpone failed 3-7, with Higgins, Rapundalo and Hieftje voting for it.

Medical Marijuana Licensing: Deliberations – Amendments

The council then proceeded to the amendments offered by Briere, which included the following additions [in italics] and deletions [in strikethrough], most notably the elimination of dollar amounts from the labeling requirements:

5:50.1(2)
(a)“Registry identification card” means a document issued by the department that identifies a person as a registered qualifying patient or registered primary care giver

7:506(4)
(e) The date delivery, weight, and type of marijuana and dollar amount or other consideration being exchanged in the transaction;
…
(h) The name of an authorized representative of the medical marijuana dispensary whom a registered qualifying patient can contact with any questions regarding the product and the address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the medical marijuana dispensary of an authorized representative of the medical marijuana dispensary whom a registered qualifying partent can contact with any questions regarding the product.

Outcome on amendments: The council approved all the amendments without significant comment.

Medical Marijuana Licensing: Deliberations (Again) on Postponement

With the main motion to approve the licensing again before the council, mayor John Hieftje said he wouldn’t vote against it, but also said it would be “silly” to pass it. With his frustration apparent, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked if he would like another motion to postpone, and the mayor said he would appreciate one. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), however, indicated that he himself wasn’t interested in pursuing a postponement further. So it was Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) who moved for a postponement, with support from Margie Teall (Ward 4), who seconded the motion.

There was some clarification about the timing of the postponement – it would have been to the council’s second meeting in July. Without further discussion, the council voted and split 5-5, so the motion failed.

Outcome: The postponement failed, because it did not get the required six-vote majority. Voting for the postponement were: Rapundalo, Kunselman, Teall, Higgins, Hieftje. Voting against the postponement were: Taylor, Hohnke, Anglin, Smith and Briere. Derezinski was absent.

Medical Marijuana Licensing: Deliberations on Main Motion

Mayor John Hieftje continued the deliberations on the main motion, expressing his frustration that the postponement had not been achieved. “If this comes back to us and we have to spend any more time on it, I think we’ve done ourselves and the whole city a disservice. We’ve spent a great deal of time on this – a great deal of time.”

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) told the mayor she could respect his concern, but told him, “The work is done. And we’ve gone through this over and over again.” She said that any future revisions could be informed by the licensing board.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said it should be no surprise that he would not be supporting the ordinance – he’d hoped there would at least have been a postponement. He said the medical marijuana issues had gotten out ahead of the regulatory environment. He agreed with the remarks of a speaker who had addressed the council at a previous meeting, who had said the council was trying to shove the genie back in the bottle. He didn’t think it was going to work. He said he appreciated the time and effort that Briere and Smith had put into it. But he said the effort – particularly on the part of the city attorney’s office – has been out of proportion with other priorities.

Rapundalo said he thought the current language is still insufficient in terms of regulatory parameters that are needed. Particularly in terms of neighborhoods and health, safety and welfare, he was concerned. He alluded to an example in his own extended neighborhood without specifying the nature of that example.

Dispensaries are not allowed by the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, and Rapundalo said that allowing them in the ordinance caused him concern. He was also concerned about the city’s exposure and conflict with respect to federal laws. “We’re setting ourselves up for lots of protracted uncertainty and chaos,” he said. The council don’t know what the future will hold in terms of legislation and court decisions, so it’s ridiculous to go ahead with this local ordinance, he said.

The medical issue has become very different from what it was originally envisioned, Rapundalo continued. Many people supported the state ballot measure, but didn’t anticipate dispensaries. He also alluded to a growing illicit trade in obtaining referrals from physicians to get registry cards, which he found quite troubling. Until the state can provide more clarity, he said, there should be no sanctioning beyond what is unambiguously allowed under state law. He said the city should extend the moratorium and take the time to figure out how to put the genie in the bottle.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) responded to Rapundalo’s remarks by saying there was not a word she would disagree with. Through the entire process it had been eye-opening. She said that many were quite happy not to address medical marijuana with a city ordinance, but the council had two ordinances in front of it. One tells where medical marijuana can be grown and under what circumstances – they’d been told it’s a necessary zoning ordinance. The other sets up a licensing board.

Some communities have been sued because they prohibited dispensaries, Briere said. The council had worked hard to craft something that protects city. There’s a built-in delay. There is a 60-day delay before documents can be filled out by any dispensary. There is another delay before any licenses can be issued, she said. If something happens between now and the time licenses can be issued, then she was happy to pull everything back or part of it back and revise it. The truth is that it’s taken more time than anyone anticipated, and she would like to move on and address other issues.

Hieftje made the point that although the council had spent hours and hours on the issue, it had not kept the council from getting its other work done. He said he was afraid it would soon be back in the council’s lap again. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he appreciated Rapundalo’s comments, noting that it was a difficult path to navigate between state and federal law. But he said the council had to the best of its ability crafted ordinances to address the ambiguities in the law and he felt that the council had a mandate to do that.

Outcomes: The council voted 8-2 in favor of the medical marijuana licensing ordinance. Dissenting were Rapundalo and Higgins. Derezinski was absent. The vote on the zoning ordinance came out the same way and was taken without significant discussion.

Medical Marijuana: Coda

Towards the end of the meeting, the council came back to the issue of the moratorium by recognizing that the moratorium currently in place extends only through the end of June. The licensing ordinance does not take effect until 60 days after legal publication, which was expected to be Thursday, June 23. After that, existing dispensaries have a 60 window within which they can apply. Others must wait until 75 days after the ordinance takes effect.

Outcome: The council voted to extend the moratorium by 120 days from June 30, 2011.

Collective Bargaining: Police Service Specialist

Added to the agenda on Monday night at the request of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) was a new collective bargaining agreement with its police service specialist union for a contract that goes retroactively from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2013.

Key features of the contract are no wage increases and participation in the city’s health plan, which requires a contribution by employees to the cost of that plan. There are five members of the police service specialist union. They provide support services to police officers.

Collective Bargaining: Public Commentary

Anne Daws spoke on behalf of Citizens for a Safe Ann Arbor – representatives of the police and fire departments – to urge the mayor and council to reconsider and amend the budget approved at the end of May. [Though the city uses a two-year planning cycle, it adopts budgets just one year at a time. The budget adopted by the council last month for FY 2012, which begins July 1, 2011, is the first year of a two-year cycle.] Current staffing levels for police and fire mean that they are unable to provide the level of service that the community deserves, she said.

Daws said it is unsafe both for emergency responders and for residents to reduce further the number of police officers, 911 dispatchers and firefighters. For emergency responders who live in Ann Arbor, they’re in a unique position, because they work in the city so they understand what’s going on in the community, and they pay taxes so they understand the tax burden, she said. When they go home at night, they rely on emergency responders to keep them safe.

In 2002 there were 196 police officers, Daws continued. Now there are 122 – the administration would eventually like to reduce that to 109. For this year, four police officers have been given pink slips, she said, in addition to two dispatchers and one police service specialist. Officers are now being sent to priority calls – domestic violence, suicidal subjects and fights – without a backup. They’re told a backup will be sent when one can be found. For non-priority calls, like non-injury traffic crashes, the wait can be 30-90 minutes, she said.

For the fire department, Daws continued, in 2002 there were 113 firefighters, and now there are 81. The administration wants to reduce that to 76, she said. The department is using rotating closures of stations – last week, Fire Station 3 was closed. There’s talk of Washtenaw County taking over dispatch operations, she said. That would mean that when citizens of Ann Arbor call 911, she said, their call would go in line with all the people calling from Washtenaw County, including West Willow and Ypsilanti Township.

[During time for communications from the interim city adminstrator, Tom Crawford said earlier this month there had been a press release about possibly transitioning dispatch to the county. Separate from that was the layoff of two dispatchers, Crawford said. Given the closeness in timing, he wanted to point out the distinction.]

Daws concluded by saying that they were honored and proud to serve the community, but at the same time worried to see staffing levels drop to all-time lows.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), responding a few minutes later to the comments by Daws, said he’s mentioned on numerous occasions that the layoffs could be mitigated in the police and fire departments, if the bargaining units adopted the same health care plan that non-union and some other unions have taken on. It’s within the control of public safety unions, he said, to avert layoffs.

Mayor John Hieftje added that no one is asking the public safety unions to take on diminished health care, just to pay for a portion of it.

Collective Bargaining: Council Deliberations

Introducing the new contract for council approval, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – chair of the council’s labor committee – said he was glad to bring it forward from the labor committee. The key elements of the contract had been arrived at a number of months ago, he said, before the legislative developments at the state level, which may lead to a requirement that municipalities pay no more than 80% of employee health care costs.

Rapundalo ticked through some highlights of the contract: a retroactive term from 2009 through June 30, 2013; no wage increase; increases in pension contribution by employees in the latter years; and adoption of the city’s health care plan, which includes a contribution from the employees. He expressed the hope that the contract would be a model for the remaining unions, who have not ratified an agreement.

Asked by Sandi Smith (Ward 1), interim city administrator Tom Crawford said the union included five police service specialists who perform a variety of specialized services to support officers. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked how much money and how many jobs were saved through the contract. Crawford said he did not have those figures handy. When the city does negotiations, it has savings targets, but uses different ways to achieve those savings.

Kunselman said for a four-year agreement, where there is no wage increase, and they pay more for health care, he hoped an estimate could be provided based on just that. Crawford told Kunselman that with respect to evaluating savings, the city has not been paying wage increases. He told Kunselman he could provide an estimate.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to agree to the contract with the police service specialists. This leaves the contract with the much larger police officers union still unsettled – it expired on June 30, 2009.

Infrastructure: East Stadium Bridges, Barton Dam

Before the council were two contracts related to the East Stadium Boulevard bridges replacement project. The first was a $3,587,456 contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan Inc. for project management and construction engineering services for the replacement. According to a staff memo, the contract would be paid for out of money from a variety of sources: street repair millage; the water supply fund; sanitary sewer fund; storm water funds; the alternative transportation fund; and the major street fund.

The second was a $609,815 contract with Northwest Consultants Inc. for construction engineering and design engineering services. The staff memo identifies funding sources as the water fund, the sewer fund, the stormwater fund and the street repair millage.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she expected the money for the two contracts on the East Stadium bridges project to come from a mix of local street funds and federal funds. Homayoon Pirooz, head of the city’s project management department, indicated that the contract for design and construction engineering is all local money.

Approval for construction of the project would come before the council in September, and that portion would be mostly federal and state funds, Pirooz explained. At the end of the day, he said, the city would be able to capture all the state and federal grants that had been assigned to the bridge replacement project. Briere asked for confirmation that the federal TIGER II grant funds had all been secured. Pirooz said that the TIGER II money had been finalized and the money had been secured. [TIGER is an acronym for the federal program Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery.]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked that the public be made aware of which federal funds had been secured. Pirooz told Anglin that $13.9 million had been awarded through the TIGER II federal program and a total of around another $3 million had been awarded by the state of Michigan.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the two contracts associated with the East Stadium bridges replacement project.

Another construction project on the agenda was a contract with Gerace Construction Co. for $812,500 worth of concrete repairs to Barton Dam. The funding was drawn from the water supply fund, but also required a $366,250 appropriation from the general fund reserve.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without comment to approve the contract for concrete repairs to Barton Dam.

Tree Care

The council was asked to approve purchase orders with three different companies: Asplundh Tree Expert Co. ($90,000), Advanced Tree Care Services ($40,000) and Owen Tree Service ($30,000) for tree removal, stump removal and tree trimming services. The item resulted in a fairly extended interaction between councilmembers and Craig Hupy, the head of the city’s systems planning unit.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wanted to know when the contracts went into effect. Hupy said that the resolution had been drafted in April of this year, with the intention of taking it to the council for its first meeting in May – now it’s the second meeting in June. The city’s fiscal year ends June 30. Obviously, he said, there would be little or no expenditures in FY 2011. Briere confirmed that by authorizing the resolution, the council was not expecting work to be completed in the next nine days.

Briere then brought up the possibility that in the city’s approach to urban forestry, too much emphasis was placed on tree removal, and not enough on maintenance of healthy trees. Hupy responded by saying that tree removal is always a concern. Before a tree is removed, the city has two professionals do an assessment before a decision is made about a removal – removals aren’t taken lightly, Hupy said. It’s clear that with current funding levels, the city doesn’t have a maintenance plan for trimming trees. That’s a desirable long-term goal. He said he hoped that will eventually be a recommendation that comes from the urban forestry management plan.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) returned to the question of when the expenditures would take place – it’s a $160,000 expenditure that will be approved for each of the next three years, including the current fiscal year, which has only nine days left. After some back and forth, the result was that the council voted to amend out the reference to the current fiscal year.

Hohnke asked if there is anything about the approval of the expenditure that locks in a particular approach to tree care. No, answered Hupy.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said the staff report noted a couple of staff retirements. He asked Hupy what the status is of the city’s forestry department in terms of trucks and people. What are they capable of doing? Hupy told Kunselman that throughout field operations, the city is stretched thin. For example, in water and sewer, he would normally go to a four 10-hour-a-day work week to gain efficiencies. The city can’t do that this summer because there are not enough employees to get coverage. Similarly, forestry is down and park operations is down due to retirements. The city has a number of vacancies posted, but is not being terribly successful in attracting candidates, he reported.

Kunselman wondered how the city council was approving expenditures for the contracts for FY 2013, when it has not yet approved that year’s budget. Interim city administrator Tom Crawford explained that a standard city purchase order contains language to the effect that qualifies the amount, to the extent that funding has been approved by the city.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the amended resolution.

Water, Sewer, Stormwater Rates

Before the council was final approval for increases in water, sewer and stormwater rates.

In terms of revenue generated to the city, the rate increases are expected to generate 3.36% more for drinking water ($664,993), 4% more for the sanitary sewer ($829,481), and 3.35% more for stormwater ($176,915). [.pdf of complete utility rate changes as proposed]

According to the city, the rate increases are needed to maintain debt service coverage and to maintain funding for required capital improvements.

The city’s drinking water charges are based on a “unit” of 100 cubic feet – 748 gallons. Charges for residential customers are divided into tiers, based on usage. For example, the first seven units of water for residential customers have been charged at a rate of $1.23 per unit. The new residential rate for the first seven units is $1.27.

The city’s stormwater rates are based on the amount of impervious area on a parcel and are billed quarterly. For example, the lowest tier – for impervious area less than 2,187 square feet – has been $12.84 per quarter. Under the new rate structure, that increases to $13.24.

Water usage for Ann Arbor city residents is available online under the My Property tab. [You'll need your account number to access information.]

Water, Sewer, Stormwater Rates: Public Hearing

Vince Caruso introduced himself as a coordinating member of the Allen’s Creek Watershed Group. He told the council that he would support the use of porous pavement – it can handle two inches of rain an hour, has less heat-island effect, and is 70% quieter when vehicles travel across it. He noted that the city has paved Sylvan Avenue with porous pavement. There’s now a proposal to use state revolving funds for four projects, and to use stormwater funds to pay for those projects. He said he does not support paying for the complete road construction cost from stormwater funds – but he would support the incremental cost between using standard pavement compared to porous pavement.

Caruso criticized the fact that there were no funds for watershed studies, but the city wanted to spend stormwater fees on roadwork. He cautioned that the city’s public services area administrator, Sue McCormick, should know something about the issue of using restricted utility funds on purposes for which they are not designated, alluding to a court case, the Bolt decision. The Bolt decision had involved the city of Lansing, where McCormick worked earlier in her career. Some would say it’s appropriate to spend the stormwater money on porous pavement road construction, because it’s a great improvement in stormwater management, Caruso said. But the roads would be built anyway, he said. A watershed study for the Allen’s Creek is needed, he concluded.

Thomas Partridge said he had concerns about raising the water, sewer and stormwater rates given the “flat rate schedule,” without attention to the value of a home or a homeowner’s income. That makes it an anti-democratic tax that harms the most vulnerable members of our society, he said. Partridge called on the council to amend the ordinance to ameliorate the most harmful aspects of flat rate taxing. He also took a shot at the medical marijuana legislation by suggesting that the city charge higher rates and fees to those residents who seek “to turn this great city into one big pot facility.”

Water, Sewer, Stormwater Rates: Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje noted that during the council’s initial deliberations on the rate increases, the question had been raised about whether comparative data supplied by the city staff were relevant to the city of Ann Arbor’s situation. Stephen Kunsleman (Ward 3) had pointed out that most of the communities cited in the rest of southeast Michigan were served by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD).

Hieftje said that other comparative data had been supplied in the meantime, and that it would inform the council’s judgment. Councilmembers did not discuss the additional data, nor was it publicly available at the time of the meeting. [.pdf of rate comparison to Lansing and Grand Rapids] [.pdf of 2009 rate comparison across various communities]

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the new water, sewer and stormwater rates.

Water Laboratory Managment

Connected to the city’s water-related infrastructure was an item that established a $110,026 contract with PerkinElmer Health Sciences for a water laboratory information management system. During council deliberations, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) asked for some clarification, which established that the city’s laboratory is staffed by five people and provides sampling services to the water treatment plant and the wastewater treatment plant, as well as stormwater and special projects. The city provides sampling assistance to the Huron River Watershed Council, and is also running tests for the Pioneer High School stormwater detention project to determine the efficiency of that project, as well as the city’s compost site. In addition, the city provides sampling services to Ann Arbor Township, Scio Township and Barton Hills.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract with PerkinElmer Health Sciences for the water lab information management system.

Landscaping Ordinance

Before the council was final approval to a revision in its landscaping ordinance. The changes are intended to: (1) improve the appearance of vehicular use areas; (2) revise buffer requirements between conflicting land uses; (3) reduce negative impacts of stormwater runoff; (4) improve pedestrian movement within a development site; and (5) preserve existing significant vegetation.

Those benefits are meant to be achieved through several text amendments to the ordinance, which include: adding definitions for “bioretention” and “native or prairie plantings”; allowing the width of landscape buffers to vary; modifying requirements for interior landscape islands; prohibiting use of invasive species for required landscaping; and increasing fines for violation.

The city’s planning commission had given the ordinance change a unanimous recommendation at its March 1, 2011 meeting. The city council gave its initial approval to the landscaping ordinance change at its June 6 meeting. All city ordinances require a first and a second reading in front of the city council, after a public hearing, before final enactment.

During council deliberations, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that as a result of a conversation she’d had with some staff in the field operations area, it was her understanding that sometimes after a landscape island is first built, and a contract expires, it takes a while for someone to adopt it. We tend to see a shabbiness, she said, before it’s brought back up to standard. She wondered if this ordinance would change that. She clarified with Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain program manager, that the landscape islands to which the ordinance referred were generally in strip mall contexts.

The issue Smith had identified was apparently related to the establishment of rain gardens on city property, where there is initially a contract period for maintenance of the garden – after the contract expires, there’s sometimes a lag time before the city takes it over.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said Smith raised a good issue. While the private sector does a good job initially, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of teeth for enforcement following up. Trees get proposed for a development and planted, but a few years later, they’re dead. He wanted to know if the ordinance change provided additional teeth for enforcement.

Hancock said the ordinance was not proposing a change to the enforcement activities – it’s complaint-based and there is no inspection program, Hancock explained. If a site plan is proposed to be revised, there is also enforcement at that point, he said. He said the fines are being increased, which may help improve things if enforcement is required.

Kunselman noted that the increase specified is from not more than $500 per violation to not more than $2,500 per violation. He wanted to know if those violations were written by community standards or by code enforcement officers. Hancock said that typically it would be code enforcement inspectors from planning and development services who write up those type of violations.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the change to its landscaping ordinance.

Fund Balance, Debt Policies

The council was asked to consider adoption of a new fund balance policy to comply with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 54, and revision of the city’s debt policy to include two new sections – one on defeasance of debt and another on inter-fund loans.

The new GASB standard requires a finer-grained explication of the components of a fund balance. The breakdown of fund balance categories is: (1) non-spendable – not in spendable form or legally/contractually unable to be spent; (2) restricted – constraints on funds placed by creditors or through enabling legislation; (3) committed – specific constraints placed on the use of funds by the city council (for example, funds set aside by council resolution); (4) assigned – constrained by the intent of the city, but not restricted or committed (for example, those funds to which authority for assignment is given to the chief financial officer); and (5) unassigned – a fund balance that does not fit into any other classification. [.pdf of fund balance policy]

The debt policy as it relates to inter-fund loans includes a provision that addresses the ability of the city to make loans to specific funds from the investment pool. [The city invests its fund balances in a pool, not for each fund.] The policy notes that while such inter-fund loads may be prudent in certain situations, they are ultimately backed by the city’s general fund. So such inter-fund loans should only be approved if the credit worthiness is high for the fund to which a loan is made. [.pdf of debt management policy]

During brief council deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know if the council had policies on debt and fund balance prior to this one. The city’s interim city administrator and chief financial officer Tom Crawford explained to Kunselman that these policies have existed previously – they are listed in the budget book every year.

Kunselman asked if debt and fund balance policies are required of other units, like the Ann Arbor Housing Commission and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Crawford said that developing such policies is the responsibility of those units. Crawford said he did recall suggesting the DDA adopt a fund balance policy around the time when the underground parking garage was being discussed. Kunselman asked if such a policy would require some amount to be set aside for bond reserve – he noted that the DDA does not have a bond reserve. Crawford explained that it’s the city that issues the bonds, when the DDA bonds for projects, so it’s the city that meets the requirements for any bond issuance.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the fund balance and debt policy.

Economic Development Fund, General Fund

Before the council for its approval was the authorization to blend the city’s economic development fund – with its fund balance as of June 30, 2010 standing at $967,161 – into its general fund. The move had been planned as part of the fiscal year 2012 budget that the council adopted at its May 31, 2011 session.

The economic development fund was established on June 18, 2007 by a unanimous vote of the city council by transferring $2.18 million from the general fund to the new economic development fund. It was set up to meet the city’s commitment made to Google to pay for up to 400 parking spaces for its employees, for up to four years for an estimated total cost of approximately $2,029,017. Google’s hiring was not as rapid as it had initially projected, and that left a bit under half of the money untapped.

The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) No. 54 has also changed the definition of what funds qualify as special revenue funds – the city’s economic development fund was established as such a fund, but no longer qualifies under the new GASB 54 definition, and thus needs to be blended back into the general fund.

The council’s resolution also amended the current fiscal year 2011 budget in some other ways as well, so that expenditures from funds that exceeded budgeted amounts are appropriately covered. Among those expenditures covered were: the International City/County Management Association fire protection study ($54,000); higher maintenance costs for Superior Dam ($35,000); and higher snow removal costs and cleanup from the recent Plymouth Road mudslide and pavement markings ($500,000).

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked  how it was that returning the $967,161 balance in the economic development fund to the city’s general fund resulted in an amendment of $1,127,590.  She noted that in the memo, $750,000 is attributed to the transfer from the economic development fund. The city’s CFO and interim city manager, Tom Crawford, said that the city was re-characterizing expenditures coming from the economic development fund “as if it was from the general fund.” So the fund balance and the expenses are being transferred to the general fund. The reason for that is due to the GASB rule, which was anticipated to go into effect for FY 2012. In turns out that the GASB rule is in effect for the end of the current fiscal year.

Briere came back to her original question, which was how the total of $1,127,590 was calculated. Crawford explained that it was the total for all the item adjustments. Only $750,000 was due to the economic development fund, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) concluded that the effect of the resolution was that the city is adding about $1 million to the general fund reserve. Crawford said  it was less than that, but essentially, yes. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked for a clarification of non-departmental dollar amounts. Crawford said it was all the economic development fund.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to blend the economic development fund into the general fund.

Consent Agenda: SPARK, Lobbyist Funding

Among the several items on the Ann Arbor city council’s June 20, 2011 meeting consent agenda were two involving significant city contractors: Ann Arbor SPARK for $75,000, and Governmental Consultant Services Inc. (GCSI) for $48,000.

Items on the consent agenda are considered routine, and include contracts for less than $100,000. They’re voted as a group of items. However, councilmembers may separate out items on the consent agenda for separate consideration. Neither the item for SPARK nor for GCSI were considered separately.

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

Ann Arbor SPARK is also the contractor hired by the city’s local development finance authority (LDFA), to operate a business accelerator for the city’s SmartZone, one of 11 such districts established in the early 2000s by the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC). The SmartZone is funded by a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism, which in the current fiscal year captured around $1.4 million in taxes from a TIF district (the union of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts, though revenue is generated only in Ann Arbor’s district.) The specific taxes on which the increment since 2002 is captured are the school operating and state education taxes, which would otherwise be sent to the state and then redistributed back to local school districts.

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

Christopher Tayor (Ward 3), an attorney with Butzel Long, was excused from voting on a consent agenda item involving a $37,000 purchase order for that firm to provide legal services to the 15th District Court. That was achieved by separating out the item from the rest of the consent agenda.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the consent agenda, including the items on Ann Arbor SPARK and GCSI.

Picometrix Tax Abatement

The council was asked to approve a resolution setting the date for a public hearing on July 18, 2011 for a tax abatement for Picometrix LLC, located at 2925 Boardwalk in Ann Arbor. Picometrix is a supplier of high-speed optical receivers.

The 5-year abatement would apply to $2,434,882 of personal property that Picometrix is acquiring. From the application for abatement: “Due to the projected increase in production volume, the company will need to purchase assets to maximize production and support added staffing.”

The list of personal property included in the application ranges from garden-variety desks and cubicles to digital oscilloscopes and laser beam profilers. If the abatement were approved, it would reduce the company’s annual tax bill for the new equipment by about $16,500 annually. The new personal property would generate approximately $20,700 in property taxes for each year during the abatement period, according to a city staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The industrial development district in which the Picometrix tax abatement is sought was established in 2006.

At its June 6, 2011 meeting, the council held a public hearing on a proposed tax abatement for another company – Sakti3. No one spoke at that hearing, and the council did not take a vote on the abatement that evening. No council vote is currently scheduled for the Sakti3 abatement.

Outcome: The council voted without comment to set the Picometrix tax abatement hearing for July 18, 2011.

Affordable Housing Lien Policy

Before the council for its approval was a policy under which liens can be subordinated and city loans forgiven, in the interest of perserving affordable housing.

Key elements of the policy: at least one city or county lien will be maintained on the property; liens with federal affordability restrictions will be in the highest lien position possible; liens that do not have federal affordability restrictions will be discharged if needed to facilitate reinvestment of outside funding; the city administrator is authorized to approve lien subordinations and lien discharges.

The city council had discussed a specific case related to the forgiveness of loans and subordination of liens at its May 16, 2011 meeting. The context there was the appropriation of funds for the demolition of houses to prepare for construction of the Near North affordable housing project, located on the east side of North Main Street between Kingsley and Summit.

Outcome: Without comment, the council unanimously approved the affordable housing lien policy.

Pension Benefit Change

On the agenda was an item to approve some purely technical changes to its ordinance on retiree benefits for non-union employees. For example, the phrase “three years” was revised to read “36 consecutive months.”

These were not the changes to the pension ordinance that had been described in a resolution passed at the city council’s June 6 meeting. Under those planned ordinance changes for the future, for new hires after July 1, 2011, the final average contribution (FAC) for the pension system would be based on the last five years of service, instead of the last three. Further, employees would be vested after 10 years instead of five, and all new non-union hires would be provided with an access-only style health care plan, with the opportunity to buy into whatever plan active employees enjoy.

The council will need to give a second and final approval of the technical changes to the ordinance change, after a public hearing, at a future meeting.

At its June 6 meeting, the council had passed a resolution directing the preparation of the ordinance change for non-union employees, and expressing an aspiration to eventually extend the same policy to union workers. At that meeting, chief financial officer Tom Crawford stressed that the potential savings to the city would not be realized immediately, but rather five to seven years in the future.

Also at the June 6 meeting, mayor John Hieftje attempted to head off potential criticism that such a policy should have been enacted sooner, by pointing out that the city had reduced the size of its work force over the last several years and had made few new hires in recent years.

In response to a request from The Chronicle, the city provided data on new hires made by the city since July 1, 2006. Of those 121 new hires, 49 are non-union positions; they would have translated into savings had the policy been enacted five years ago.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the technical changes in the city’s pension ordinance.

Design Review Board

Before the council for approval was a fee for its new design review process, which is now part of the city’s code. Projects in Ann Arbor’s downtown area, zoned D-1 and D-2, are now subject to a mandatory process of design review, but compliance with the board’s recommendations is voluntary. The proposed application fee was to have been set at $1,000 – to cover estimated mailing costs of $500 and about five hours of city staff time.

A postponement of the vote was moved by Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the vote on the fee until July 5.

Also at its June 20 meeting, the council confirmed the nominations for the initial membership of the design review board: Tamara Burns, Paul Fontaine, Chester B. Hill, Mary Jukari, Bill Kinley, Richard Mitchell, and Geoffrey M. Perkins.

That board met to review its first project two days later, on June 22, 2011, at 3 p.m. The project reviewed was The Varsity at Ann Arbor, a residential project planned for 425 E. Washington St., next to the 411 Lofts building. The site is currently an office building which formerly housed the Prescription Shop. The Varsity is planned to be a 13-story apartment building with 173 units that would house 418 people. It would include 77 parking spaces. [.pdf of The Varsity at Ann Arbor project presentation]

Outcome: The council unanimously confirmed the appointments of the design review board.

Scheduling of Work Session: Fuller Road?

The council was asked to vote on a revision to its calendar for the year to include a work session scheduled for July 11. While the staff memo accompanying the resolution indicates only that the additional session is due to “numerous activities developing in the city,” a likely topic to be addressed at the July 11 session is the city’s proposed Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station would be located on what is now a city-owned surface parking lot south of Fuller Road, east of East Medical Center Drive. The parcel is included as parkland in the city’s park planning documents – some residents oppose the project because it’s on land designated as parkland. The initial phase of the project is being planned by the city and the University of Michigan as a large parking structure with bus bays and a bike station, with plans eventually to build a train station on the same site.

At the council’s June 6 meeting, the Fuller Road Station had received extensive public commentary, despite the lack of any item on the agenda related directly to the project.

Partly in response to that commentary and to remarks from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), at that meeting Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pushed for a city council working session on the project. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting: “Sabra Briere (Ward 1) anticipated mayor John Hieftje’s reaction to Anglin’s comments [Hieftje has pushed hard for the project] by telling the mayor that she knew he had a lot of thoughts about Fuller Road Station. But she thought the council should have a working session, so that councilmembers can become more knowledgable about the issue. Hieftje indicated that he would look into adding something to the calendar.”

The city’s park advisory commission received an update on Fuller Road Station at its May 17, 2011 meeting.

Outcome: The city council voted unanimously to add a work session to its calendar.

Environmental Commission Appointment

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) had placed Jamie Woolard’s name before the council at the council’s previous meeting to serve a three-year term. Woolard brought valuable experience in environmental law, Hohnke said. He encouraged the council to support the appointment.

[Unlike appointments for most other boards and commissions, which are nominated by the mayor, the nomination for spots on the city's environmental commission originate with the city council.]

Outcome: The council unanimously approved Woolard’s appointment.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to make 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. The agenda also sometimes includes items of interest on which there is no council comment.

Comm/Comm: Planning Commission Nomination

Eleanore Adenekan‘s name was placed before the Ann Arbor city council as the replacement for outgoing planning commissioner Jean Carlberg, who is ending her 16-year tenure on the commission.

At Carlberg’s final city planning commission meeting – a June 14 working session – no word had been received by staff or commissioners about the identity of Carlberg’s replacement.

The nomination will need to be confirmed at the council’s next meeting.

Comm/Comm: Student Relations Committee Proposal

Michael Benson introduced himself as a resident of Ward 2 and an electrical engineering PhD student at the University of Michigan. He was speaking as the president of the graduate student body. He began by telling the council about a recent encounter some university students in Iowa had with the state’s Senate education appropriations committee. Senator Shawn Hamerlinck told them: “I do not like it when students actually come here and lobby me for funds. That’s just my opinion. I want to wish you guys the best. I want you to go home and graduate. But this political theater, leave the circus to us, okay?” The quotation, read aloud, provoked smiles from councilmembers.

Then Benson reminded councilmembers that in 2005, the council had created a student relations committee – the council appoints and approves its members. The other members, however, are appointed by the Michigan Student Assembly. The student relations committee has not met for a long while, partly due to the fact that the MSA has not appointed members.

Benson proposed amending the method of appointment and expanding the membership of the committee to include some some high school students, some undergraduates, some graduate students and some students in professional schools. He suggested that the mayor appoint all the members, working with partners in the educational community, with the council giving confirmation of those nominations. The committee should meet monthly, he said, and should strive to find solutions to problems affecting the city and student community.

By way of additional background, back in 2005, when the council again contemplated a possible couch ordinance, the issue was seen as a topic appropriate to be addressed by the then newly-formed council-student relations committee. From a Nov. 12, 2005 Ann Arbor News article, “Fire Official Pushes for Couch Ban,” by Tom Gantert:

“The new student relations committee needs to talk about this,” said [councilmember Leigh] Greden, who will serve on that committee. “I want them to look at the issue and talk about ways to solve the problem. We are going to have a dialogue about it.”

Benson, who served on the council-student relations committee in 2008 and 2009 – while he was Michigan Student Assembly’s general counsel – wrote in a fall 2010 email to The Chronicle that the council-student relations committee had not met since Greden’s loss in the Democratic primary election of August 2009. In that email, Benson put responsibility for meeting on both the MSA and the city council:

This lack of meeting is a shared responsibility between the the Michigan Student Assembly and the Council … MSA did not appoint any representatives to the committee in the 2009-2010 academic year and the two Council members did not attempt to hold a meeting nor to ask that the MSA appoint its members. To my knowledge, the current MSA administration has not appointed either a City Council Liaison or the student membership of the student relations committee. As a comparison, when I was serving as MSA’s student general counsel, we appointed the student members of the committee in the spring, directly after taking office at the end of the Winter 2008 term.

The city council’s current representatives on the student relations committee are Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Benson had also reminded the council in an April 5, 2010 turn at public commentary that the student relations committee had not met in over a year at that point.

Comm/Comm: Skatepark

At the start of city council meetings, a slot called “introductions” is used by the council to invite guests to give short presentations or to hand out proclamations. At Monday’s meeting, Scott Rosencrans – former chair of the city’s park advisory commission, who is now working as a board member of the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark – gave the council an update on that group’s efforts. He began by thanking the council for their support in collaborating on a government grant application.

By way of background, the council decided at its March 21, 2011 meeting to re-prioritize two grant applications the city was making to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE). The result of that re-prioritization was that a grant for the proposed skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park was ranked higher than the other grant – for improvements to the Gallup livery and park. For both grants, the city applied to MDNRE’s Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund.

The city’s park advisory commission recommended approval of the applications at its March 2011 meeting. [Chronicle coverage: "PAC Supports Grants for Skatepark, Gallup"] The argument for changing the rank order of the prioritization was based on the opportunity to leverage $400,000 of matching funds from Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation, which will expire unless the skatepark’s construction is under contract by Jan. 1, 2012.

At the council’s June 20 meeting, Rosencrans alerted the council to Go Skateboarding Day at Wheeler Park. [It took place the following day, June 21, from 4-8 p.m.] He also told the council about merchandise sales that support the skatepark: T-shirts, coffee mugs and skateboard decks, which are available from a range of local merchants: Acme Mercantile, Launch Board Shop, Play It Again Sports, Vault of Midnight, Roos Roast and Produce Station.

Rosencrans gave a presentation emphasizing that skateboarding is a safe sport. He described in detail the work the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark had done collaborating with the city’s commission on disability issues to ensure that the skatepark facility planned for Ann Arbor would be accessible to everyone.

After the presentation from Rosencrans, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) – in whose ward the proposed park location sits – thanked Rosencrans. Hohnke said he continued to be impressed by how professionally the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark have moved the project forward. He asked Rosencrans what kind of helmets or pads might be required. Rosencrans told him that based on past experience serving on the park advisory committee, those kind of rules are produced by a rules committee working with city staff and the commission. He said if he were on such a committee, he’d recommend that helmets, wrist pads, elbow pads, and knee pads be required.

Comm/Comm: Housing, Not Skating

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for the disadvantaged and called on the public to get behind the movement to give due priority to matters most paramount to those who are disabled. A priority item should not be the “risky sport” of skateboarding, he contended. Priority should instead be given to planning and constructing affordable housing, providing a countywide public transportation system and extending affordable educational services to all members of the public.

Partridge called on the council to bring about a truly equitable health care system. Partridge said we need to support the effort to recall Gov. Rick Snyder and to expand it to include the lieutenant governor, the attorney general and other elected officials.

Comm/Comm: West Park Renaming?

Steven Thorp, a former city planning commissioner, began by saying it had been good to see mayor John Hieftje and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Sabra Briere at West Park for the Father’s Day get-together. He thanked the city for organizing event. He said that city park planner Amy Kuras and the planning staff deserve many thanks. He noted that the park is around 100 years old – it was once a farm. It’s near Allen Creek, near the place where the first settler cabins were located. The park’s eastern boundary is also the downtown boundary.

Thorp told the council that he and Bob Dascola would like to offer “Central Park West” as the new name for the park. Based on an informal survey of friends and neighbors, there’s support for that idea, he said. The name offers an association with one of the most beautiful and famous urban parks in the world. He noted the park’s “Olmsteadean vistas” and forested places, broad play areas, curvilinear path system. Thorp encouraged the council to give it some thought, so that maybe that name can come about.

Comm/Comm: Library Lot

Alan Haber said he had not visited the council recently, but wanted to remind them that there’s still great enthusiasm for a place in the center of town for meeting, gathering, and for cultural events. When the RFP process for the Library Lot was terminated, he said, residents were promised a robust public process to look at the future of the city-owned lot, but have not heard anything from council or the DDA, he contended. [For recent Chronicle coverage of how the Downtown Development Authority is working to put together that process, see "DDA Preps Downtown Ann Arbor Process" and "Ann Arbor DDA Continues Planning Prep"]

Haber told the council that the public is continuing its own process to develop a vision for a gathering place. He’s been told it’s the most valuable piece of property in town and that the city should get top dollar for it. But it’s so valuable, he said, that it should not be sold at all. There’s plenty of room around downtown for density. A central park would be a complement for that. He said he’s also been told that the need to sell the land is based on $5 million of investments in foundational support for something to be built on the top of the structure. He contended there’d been no authorization to build anything.

[Later during council communications time, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) questioned the dollar figure for the investments, saying his recollection was that the extra foundation strength was a lower figure. The city's chief financial officer Tom Crawford indicated he did not recall off the top of his head what the figure was. Contacted after the meeting, Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, told The Chronicle that a dollar figure isolating the cost of the beefier footings had not been calculated.]

Comm/Comm: Recall Gov. Snyder

Thomas Partridge addressed the council at the conclusion of the meeting as an advocate for all those people who are vulnerable in the trying economy and trying political time. He called on the true Democratic members of the council to support the recall of Gov. Rick Snyder.

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

Absent: Tony Derezinski

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

Purely a plug: The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!