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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown Development Authority Ordinance

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

DDA Ordinance: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serving on the joint council-DDA committee for the council are: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Representing the DDA are Sandi Smith, Joan Lowenstein, Bob Guenzel, and Roger Hewitt.

The Aug. 26 committee meeting was dominated by political squabbling. The only substantive concept that was batted around briefly at that meeting was the idea of defining some kind of fixed cap on TIF revenue. This approach would replace the existing ordinance language, which calibrates the DDA’s TIF capture with projections in the TIF plan. But the discussion never went as far as to include dollar amounts for the fixed cap.

DDA Ordinance: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time on Sept. 3, Jim Mogensen began by saying that municipal finance is “broken” particularly as it relates to cities. In the context of the spirited conversation that’s going on about the DDA, he wanted to comment on the topic of municipal finance. He categorized Michigan cities in different ways. As Category A he described cities like Pontiac, Benton Harbor and Detroit, which have their own concerns related to municipal finance. In Category B, he said, there are cities like Lansing, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – because they have lots of governmental non-taxable land and that creates its own set of issues. In Category C, he put, Northville, Birmingham, and Gross Pointe.

Mogensen noted that Ypsilanti is in Category B, but has sprinkles of Category A as part of its challenges. Ann Arbor, Mogensen continued, is in Category B, but has sprinkles of Category C. Oftentimes, he said, Ann Arbor tries, as does the general public, to deny these challenges exist, Mogensen said, when it comes to setting the budgets and making things work. Some people say, “Well, you know, it must be those liberals – they’re always making us spend money on things that we shouldn’t be spending money on!” He alluded to the old quip about Ann Arbor, particularly during the football season: “Fake left, run right.” The reality is that there’s not much of that kind of spending in the budget, he said.

When people look at the city, they overemphasize perceived mismanagement, and underestimate those structural problems, Mogensen said. So when people think about the DDA, people overestimate and overemphasize perceived management prowess, Mogensen said, and they underestimate the tremendous set of conditions the DDA has, which include: limited scope of responsibility, very high density, and the ability to capture taxes. When you look at all that, he said, it’s obvious why some things happen. Coming out of this conversation, there should be a way to make sure the city can function well. There should be a way of making that happen without discrediting people who are a part of different organizations, he said.

DDA Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off the deliberations, recalling the history of the proposal, and mentioning the meeting of the committee on Aug. 26. Not enough information was available to the committee when it met, he said. Staff had been directed to come up with draft language, he said. Kunselman told the council that he wanted to postpone action again, so the committee could meet again and bring back a recommendation that had more substance.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

The initial inclination was to postpone action until Oct. 7. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) reacted to that date, saying she might be out of town at that meeting. Kunselman asked city administrator Steve Powers if draft language could be ready as soon as the Sept. 16 council meeting. The joint council-DDA work session on Sept. 9, 2013 was floated as a possibility when the issue could be addressed. But Powers indicated that the Sept. 9 work session would be focused on the topic of the parking agreement – between the city and the DDA, under which the DDA manages the public parking system. He ventured it could be a challenge to schedule that many people to meet on an additional occasion. Mayor John Hieftje suggested postponing action until the next meeting, on Sept. 16, and assessing how things stand at that time.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), who’s a member of the council’s audit committee, noted that she’d requested that a review of Chapter 7 compliance be included in the city’s annual audit. [The DDA is a component unit of the city.] The answer that had come back from the auditor, Kailasapathy said, was that the ordinance language was unclear.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked if the DDA needed to be able to vote on something before the council acted. [The DDA board meets on the first Wednesday of the month, with its next regular meeting scheduled for Oct. 2.] Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board, indicated that he didn’t think the DDA would necessarily need to vote on anything before the council acted.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the DDA ordinance until its next meeting, on Sept. 16.

DDA Ordinance: Joint Committee Meeting – Sept. 10, 2013

The meeting of the council and DDA board joint committee – held the week after the council’s Sept. 3 session – was not attended by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) on the side of the council or by Bob Guenzel for the DDA. [Lumm was out of town due to a death in her family.]

The Sept. 10 meeting was different in tone from the Aug. 26 meeting, which featured bickering back and forth between councilmembers and DDA board members. The Sept. 10 session focused on a specific alternative to the current Chapter 7 language, which currently reads [emphasis added]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units. Only after approval of the governmental units may these restrictions be removed.

The last sentence of that section indicates that removal of those restrictions on TIF revenue to the DDA would require approval of the other taxing jurisdictions. However, the committee did not discuss that aspect of the current law, and appeared comfortable with the idea that the language could simply be replaced with a different conceptual approach – without approval or consultation with the other taxing jurisdictions.

The different conceptual approach would establish a basis level for the maximum captured taxable value in the DDA district and then set some clearly defined annual increase, keyed to a specific percentage or some variant of a consumer price index (CPI).

For example, the current taxable value on which the DDA captures taxes is roughly $137,000,000. That yielded roughly $3.76 million in TIF revenue to the DDA in fiscal year 2013, which ended on June 30. If that $137,000,000 were used as a basis for the cap, then a 3% increase applied annually would give the DDA a maximum of $5.063 million in 2023. In any given year, the DDA would receive the lesser of two values: (i) the unconstrained TIF captured on the taxable value; or (ii) the value of the cap.

The working document used by the committee showed two basic scenarios, one with a basis of $137,000,000 in taxable value for FY 2013, and a second one starting a basis of $167,000,000 for the following year, in FY 2014. The second one received more interest from the committee:

2. The maximum captured taxable value shall be fixed 
at a base value of $167,000,000 for tax year 2014. Each tax 
year thereafter, the maximum captured taxable value shall be 
increased by (CPI, 3%, 5%) per annum.

DDA TIF Capture Cap.
TIF value in millions with $167 million 
taxable value basis in FY 2014.
Columns correspond to yearly value of cap
assuming the increase indicated in the 
column header.
===================================
FY    CPI         3%     5%    10%
___________________________________
2013  $3.767  $3.767  $3.767 $3.767 (Actual)
2014   4.500   4.500   4.500  4.500
2015  tbd      4.635   4.725  4.950
2016  tbd      4.774   4.961  5.445
2017  tbd      4.917   5.209  5.990
2018  tbd      5.065   5.470  6.588
2019  tbd      5.217   5.743  7.247
2020  tbd      5.373   6.030  7.972
2021  tbd      5.534   6.332  8.769
2022  tbd      5.700   6.649  9.646
2023  tbd      5.871   6.981  10.611

-

The DDA would be projected to capture around $4.5 million in TIF this fiscal year (FY 2014), even on the Chapter 7 amendments given initial approval by the council. But under those amendments, the DDA’s TIF capture in FY 2015 would be $3.68 million, which compares to $3.75 million in the DDA’s 10-year planning document from earlier this year.

At the Sept. 10 committee meeting, not much interest was shown in defining the escalator in terms of a CPI. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) ventured that it might be appropriate to use 2.2% as an escalator – as that’s the figure used for the DDA’s 10-year planning document. DDA board treasurer Roger Hewitt objected that this was a fairly conservative number. Board chair Sandi Smith argued that any choice of a percentage would be “random” and that the choice of the escalator should be considered in the context of its implications for the DDA’s ability to complete projects described in a draft list of projects the DDA has recently assembled.

The development of the draft list came partly in response to pressure from the city council – dating back to April of this year – asking the DDA to explain what projects would not be undertaken if the DDA didn’t continue to receive TIF revenue based on its preferred interpretation of the city’s ordinance. An ordinance amendment included in the revisions given initial approval by the council would require closer integration of the DDA’s projects with the city’s capital improvements plan. The amendment was put forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

The authority shall submit their capital budgets to incorporate them into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The authority shall at the time they submit their budget for Council approval identify that portion of the budget which is operating and that which is capital projects.

The project list was introduced at the Sept. 4, 2013 DDA board meeting. [.pdf of draft five-year plan]

Based on the committee conversation, the next step for the DDA appears to be comparing the different definitions for the escalator to its 10-year planning document and to the draft five-year project list. And based on that analysis, the DDA would come back with a recommendation for how the escalator should be defined.

For the council, the consensus appeared to be that the council will delay again at its Sept. 16 meeting – either by postponing or tabling a vote. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated a willingness to start with a fresh draft of ordinance changes, which would allow the council to shed the changes in the original proposal that would affect DDA board governance, including term limits. That would reset the requirement that the council approve the ordinance revisions at a first reading and then again at a second reading at a subsequent council meeting.

There’s an outside chance that a fresh first reading of the ordinance changes could be brought to the council for its consideration by Oct. 7, the first meeting in October. Even if a fresh first reading is not ready until Oct. 21, the second council meeting in October, an approval then would set up the council to give final approval on Nov. 7. That follows the Nov. 5 election, but the current composition of the council would still be at the table, no matter the general election outcome. So even if independent incumbent Jane Lumm were not to prevail in the Ward 2 race – which is also contested by Democrat Kirk Westphal and independent Conrad Brown – she would still be able to vote on Nov. 7.

Appointments to Boards, Commissions

At its Sept. 3 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council was asked to confirm just three of the four nominations made at the council’s previous meeting on Aug. 19.

One nomination that had been made on Aug. 19 – for Leigh Greden’s reappointment to the Ann Arbor housing commission – was withdrawn prior to the start of the Sept. 3 meeting.

Two nominations from Aug. 19 were confirmed: Devon Akmon’s appointment to fill a vacancy on the public art commission; and Logan Casey to fill a vacancy on the human rights commission. Akmon is an Ann Arbor resident and the new director of the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn. Casey is a graduate student at the University of Michigan.

Considered separately was the nomination of Al McWilliams’ appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor DDA.

Appointments: Background

The nomination of former city councilmember Leigh Greden to the Ann Arbor housing commission had been withdrawn before the Sept. 3 meeting, around 2:30 p.m. that same day.

Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje.

No conversation took place at the Sept. 3 meeting about Greden’s nomination. His initial appointment to the AAHC board in January 2011, replacing Jayne Miller, had been unanimous.

Earlier this year, at the council’s April 1 meeting, Nickolas Buonodono had been nominated to replace Greden on the AAHC board, after Greden had reached the end of his first term. Buonodono is an attorney, and a member of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party executive committee. However, that nomination was not on the council’s April 15 meeting agenda for confirmation. According to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall, who spoke to The Chronicle in a telephone interview in mid-April, Greden was going to seek reappointment for a second term if he could accommodate his schedule to the meeting times. The housing commission is undergoing a major transition to a project-based voucher system, which the council authorized at its June 3, 2013 meeting on a unanimous vote.

The nomination of Al McWilliams to the Ann Arbor DDA also came forward from mayor John Hieftje with a wrinkle. Before he was nominated at the council’s Aug. 19 meeting, McWilliams’ name had appeared on an early version of the list of nominees for the council’s Aug. 8 meeting. The final version for that meeting, however, did not include his name.

McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Appointments: Council Deliberations – DDA

Mayor John Hieftje led off the conversation by noting that there are currently some openings on the DDA board. He asked for the council’s support on Al McWilliams’ nomination. Hieftje said he had wanted to find someone representing the Main Street business district and the entrepreneurial community, and he thought that McWilliams fit that description.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated that she’d asked for a list of those who’d applied for the appointment to the DDA. She’d been told that the person in charge of the list was on vacation, but the list would be provided next week.

The second issue, she continued, was that McWilliams’ company, Quack!Media, is a vendor for the AAATA. The DDA grants money to the AAATA, she said, calling that a conflict of interest.

Hieftje told Kailasapathy that his assistant was out of town, and he had not had time to “rustle up those files” of applications. [Former DDA board member and local developer Ed Shaffran has indicated a willingness in serving again on the DDA board.]

Hieftje reviewed the fact that the process calls for him, as mayor, to make nominations. And he’d wanted to nominate McWilliams after reviewing the applications on file. Hieftje noted that there is an additional seat open on the DDA board, and that he’d be looking forward to bringing a nomination to fill that additional seat to the council’s next meeting. [The two seats that currently need to be filled are those of Newcombe Clark, who made an employment-related move to Chicago after serving out a four-year term on the board, and Nader Nassif, who resigned from the board this summer after being arrested for sexual assault.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that she’d asked the city attorney about the conflict-of-interest question. Briere indicated that she didn’t think it was clear that a conflict of interest arose out of the situation that Kailasapathy had described. Briere asked city attorney Stephen Postema to comment on the question.

Postema essentially indicated that he didn’t think there’s an inherent conflict for McWilliams in serving on the DDA board, but if any conflict-of-interest issue arose while serving on the board, it could be dealt with when it came up.

Postema stressed that if there are two public entities involved, it’s not considered to be a conflict under the statute. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said that even though the state doesn’t define it as a conflict, the council has rules on the question. She didn’t think the state law is stringent enough. She ventured that McWilliams would need to recuse himself quite frequently, possibly including votes on the DDA budget.

Responding to Petersen, Postema indicated that the state statue is not as stringent as many people would like it to be. Postema noted that while Petersen might perceive a conflict, he was looking at it as a matter of state law.

By way of background, one state statute on conflicts of interest for a public official is Act 317 of 1968 “Contracts of Public Servants with Public Entities.” It’s the state statute to which DDA legal counsel Jerry Lax had appealed at the DDA board’s meeting three and a half years ago – on May 5, 2010. It involved a question about whether mayor John Hieftje and then-councilmember Sandi Smith should participate in a vote to allocate $2 million to the city of Ann Arbor, given the fact that they’re paid salaries as elected officials by the city of Ann Arbor.

The statute prohibits the public servants from soliciting contracts with entities by whom they are employed:

(2) Except as provided in section 3, a public servant shall not directly or indirectly solicit any contract between the public entity of which he or she is an officer or employee and any of the following: (a) Him or herself. (b) Any firm, meaning a co-partnership or other unincorporated association, of which he or she is a partner, member, or employee. [...]

In analyzing the situation for Hieftje and Smith in 2010, Lax pointed out that there was a specific exemption for contracts between two public entities [emphasis added]:

15.324 Public servants; contracts excepted; violation as felony. Sec. 4. (1) The prohibitions of section 2 shall not apply to any of the following: (a) Contracts between public entities.

Under that statute, Lax concluded it was not a problem for Hieftje and Smith to participate in the deliberations and vote on the resolution that the DDA board was considering.

Later in the May 5, 2010 meeting, however, the resolution considered by the DDA was proposed to be altered so that the $2 million payment was not described as part of any contract – because at that point the existing parking agreement between the city and the DDA had expired, and no money was owed under that contract. At that point, Lax indicated that the state statute did not provide an exemption – because the DDA was contemplating a grant. So Lax expressed his view that Hieftje and Smith should sit out the vote on amending the resolution, which they did. The attempted amendment failed, however, and the two subsequently returned to the table to vote on the resolution.

So in considering whether Al McWilliams would be able to participate in a vote to allocate money for getDowntown, for example – given that AAATA is a client of his company – it’s not obvious at first glance that Act 317 of 1968 would apply. If the money allocated to the AAATA’s getDowntown program takes place outside of a contractual agreement, then the inapplicability of the statute could be based on the same reasoning Lax used in the May 5, 2010 vote involving Hieftje and Smith.

However, based on the annual signed agreements that AAATA provided to The Chronicle in response to a request under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, some basic getDowntown program funding is granted to AAATA by the DDA under that annual signed contractual agreement. Funding for getDowntown’s go!pass program, which was $479,000, does not appear to be covered by that annual contract. [.pdf of 2013 getDowntown agreement]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

During the council’s Sept. 3 deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) contended that there’s no conflict at all for McWilliams. As an example, Taylor cited employees of the University of Michigan who serve on the council. [Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is currently an employee, as is Hieftje. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was previously, but is no longer a UM employee.] Using the same standard would require the recusal of these councilmembers on any UM-related matter, Taylor contended.

If there were an actual conflict on a particular occasion, then it’s well established that someone can simply stand down for a particular vote, Taylor said. [Taylor has himself on occasion asked that councilmembers vote to excuse him from votes the council has taken, for example, when a bar that is a client of his law firm – Hooper Hathaway – had requested a special event street closure that required council approval.]

At that point in the deliberations, Kunselman asked if the other nominations to be considered that night could be separated out. Hieftje proposed voting on the confirmations of Devon Akmon and Logan Casey separately, which the council did.

Outcome: The council voted to confirm Akmon to the public art commission and Casey to the human rights commission.

Kunselman said he appreciated the fact that the issue had been raised about the appearance of a conflict, even if there’s not a legal conflict. However, Kunselman asserted that he had the prerogative to vote as he liked. So Kunselman was interested in confirming the appointment to the DDA board of someone who might be able to accept some “reform” of the DDA. And Kunselman didn’t think that McWilliams, as a DDA supporter, would be open-minded with respect to following city ordinances. So Kunselman stated that he would vote against the appointment of McWilliams.

Hieftje asked Kunselman if he’d met with McWilliams. No, Kunselman replied, but he’d read McWilliams’ public statements.

Briere said she has not met with McWilliams, but she’d talked with Maura Thomson, director of the Main Street Area Association, who was very enthusiastic about McWilliams being appointed. Briere then talked about the issue of perceived conflict of interest. Briere said she’s heard that she could have a conflict due to her spousal relationship. [Briere is married to local attorney David Cahill.] She’d heard that she’d had a conflict when she worked for a nonprofit that received city funding. If the council gets interested in the question of whether someone is even just “dimly friendly” with someone, then that will shrink the pool of those who are eligible to serve, Briere said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Briere noted that there were two former mayors who were UM faculty. She was surprised that people are considering this kind of thing to be a conflict. If a councilmember feels a nominee falls short of the mark, then they should be voted against based on the merits, she said.

Taylor added that if one of the goals is to have people who are involved in local business to be involved in civic life, then this level of relationship can’t be a prohibitive factor. The council’s conversation that night was already doing damage to the possibility that others will want to step forward, Taylor ventured.

By way of background, by state statute a 12-member DDA board must include either the mayor or the city administrator, and at least seven members having an interest in property located in the DDA district or be an officer, member, or trustee, principal, or employee of a legal entity having an interest in property located in the downtown district. And at least one of the DDA board members is required to be a resident of the downtown district. Three at-large members fill out the other seats.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) stated there are three questions to consider: qualifications, perspective, and conflict. He was not upset that the council was discussing any of these questions. Warpehoski reported that he’d met McWilliams only once. Based on that interaction, he said McWilliams has a sharp mind. So Warpehoski concluded McWilliams is qualified. Warpehoski wasn’t familiar with McWilliams’ perspective on the DDA, except for what Kunselman had reported earlier during deliberations.

On the question of conflict, Warpehoski stated that McWilliams should not vote on contracts that his company would service – but he didn’t think there would be that many votes fitting that description. He thought that the question of conflict is still a fair one to ask.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was supportive of McWilliams’ nomination. Responding to Kunselman’s point about McWilliams’ attitude toward the DDA, Teall said that it’s natural that someone who wants to serve on the DDA would be supportive of the DDA.

Kailasapathy was skeptical that there would be only a few votes from which McWilliams would need to refrain. She stated that she thought there was a direct conflict of interest.

Hieftje asked for the ability to withdraw the nomination, so that some of the issues that had been raised could be explored.

Outcome: The council did not vote on McWilliams’ nomination because Hieftje withdrew it. The council’s vote looked like it might have failed on a 5-4 vote with Kunselman, Petersen, Kailasapathy, and Anglin possibly voting against it.

Council Rules Changes

The council’s Sept. 3 agenda included an item related to changes to its internal rules. This revision to the set of council rules was first presented to the council on June 17, 2013. However, a vote was postponed at that meeting.

The revisions were prompted by a desire to allow for public commentary at council work sessions – to eliminate any question about whether councilmembers were engaged in deliberative interactions at those sessions. By allowing for public commentary at work sessions, the council would ensure compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The council’s rules committee also recommended additional changes, including a shortening of the individual speaking turns for public comment as well as shortening of time for councilmembers. Those additional changes were included in the June 17 version of the rules.

After again postponing a vote at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council used its following meeting, on July 15, 2013, to eliminate one of the proposed rule changes – the shortening of public speaking turns. But the council postponed further revisions and a vote until Sept. 3.

The council’s rules committee – consisting of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje – was supposed to meet before the Sept. 3 meeting to consolidate input from other councilmembers and perhaps present a clean slate of proposed revisions. However, in the interim, the rules committee did not meet.

Among the other changes that were part of the proposed revisions was the addition of a rule to disallow the use of mobile electronic communication devices at the council table. Another possible change would affect the council’s standard agenda template by moving nominations and appointments to boards and commissions to a slot earlier in the meeting, instead of near the end.

Council Rules Changes: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a 2010 Michigan senate candidate and 2012 candidate for the Michigan house of representatives, who’s now a write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council this year. He spoke as an advocate supporting Martin Luther King Jr.’s agenda. Partridge called for emphasis on affordable housing, public transportation, and fair access to public meetings. He called for 3- to 5-minute public participation time. There should be no reductions in the amount of time offered to the public, he said. A forward-looking city council would look for new ways to increase public participation time, not to constrain it, he concluded.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Partridge called on the council to be aware of the need for greater public participation. He complained that there’s been scant information on a recent murder of a UM student.

Mark Koroi reminded councilmembers that he’d spoken to the council previously on the topic of public commentary at working sessions. He said he wants to see the issue taken care of. He noted that Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was not in attendance at that night’s council meeting and referred to her a “the invisible woman.” More public commentary means that the council will hear more from Thomas Partridge and Blaine Coleman, Koroi allowed, adding that the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Open Meetings Act should be upheld.

Council Rules Changes: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) recited the history of the proposal, but observed that time is the enemy of all and so the committee had not met. He reported that the rules committee was committed to meeting in a swift fashion. He suggested postponing the vote.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that part of the rationale offered for postponing until that night’s meeting – instead of waiting until Sept. 16 – was to change the rules to require public commentary at work sessions in time for the Sept. 9 work session. Warpehoski asked if postponement would preclude allowing public commentary at the Sept. 9 meeting.

City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that public commentary wouldn’t be precluded. From Postema’s remarks on Sept. 3 [emphasis added]:

You could just simply direct that public notice be given that there will be public commentary, if you wanted to put that as a part of the motion with a further direction I suppose to, in setting the agenda that public commentary will be listed. There’s certainly no prohibition of adding public commentary. Without it, I think what you’re focusing on, without it, the council rule says nothing about work session, and on the other hand the issue really is what’s going to be done at that meeting.”

Warpehoski asked that a postponement include direction to notice the public that public commentary will be provided and that it be added to the work session agenda.

By way of background, the actual wording of the current council rules contradicts Postema’s assertion that the council rule on agenda setting says nothing about work sessions. The rule actually sets forth an order of business for the council’s meetings and work sessions [emphasis added]:

RULE 3 – Agenda
3A – Preparation of the Agenda
The agenda for each Regular Council meeting and Council Work Session shall be prepared by the City Administrator. A resolution approving a contract shall only be included on the agenda if the City Attorney has reviewed the contract and the result of that review is included or with the proposed resolution.
The agenda will be prepared in accordance with the following order of business:

Moment of Silence
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call of Council
Approval of the Agenda
Introductions
Public Commentary – Reserved Time
Communications from Council
Public Hearings
Communications from Council
Approval of Council Minutes
Consent Agenda
Ordinances – Second Reading
Ordinances – First Reading
Motions and Resolutions
Council Business
Boards and Commissions
Staff
Communications from the Mayor
Communications from Council
Communications from the City Administrator
Communications from the City Attorney
Clerk’s Report of Communications, Petitions and Referrals
Public Commentary – General
Adjournment

Specification of an order of business – as opposed to required elements of any agenda – makes the listing as suitable for either work sessions or regular meetings.

As deliberations continued, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked if signing up would be required to speak at the work session. Postema indicated that he imagined it would simply be general time.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the change to council rules, but indicated it would allow public commentary at its next work session on Sept. 9. At that session, Thomas Partridge and Jim Mogensen addressed the council during public commentary time.

Council Rules Changes: Committee Meeting – Sept. 10

The rules committee met on Sept. 10. Mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) attended the meeting. Hieftje reported that the committee chair, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), had texted him that she would not be able to attend.

In reviewing the proposed changes, the committee determined that based on the July 15 full council deliberations, some rules proposed initially to be changed should be left intact. At the July 15 meeting, the council had voted explicitly to leave the duration of all types of public commentary speaking turns (public hearings, reserved time, general time) at three minutes.

And at the Sept. 10 committee meeting, the view of committee members was that the general sentiment of the council on July 15 indicated little enthusiasm for changing speaking times for councilmembers, or for changing the way that public speaking time is reserved.

Among the substantive changes that will likely be presented by the committee to the council at its Sept. 16 meeting will be: adding public commentary to work sessions; changing the order of the agenda to move nominations and appointments to earlier in the meeting; prohibiting the use of personal electronic communications devices while at the council table.

Pall-Gelman Plume

The council considered a resolution directing staff to explore actions available to the city on the issue of cleanup standards for an existing 1,4-dioxane plume on the city’s west side. Those options include meeting with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and petitioning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to help set cleanup criteria for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane in Michigan.

Map of Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume, by Washtenaw County. Black arrow added to indicate baseball field at West Park. The yellow region is the estimated plume area where the 1,4-dioxane concentration is greater than 1 ppb (parts per billion). That area encroaches well into the city of Ann Arbor and extends outside the well prohibition zone (red border).

The actions to be undertaken by staff can be related to the Pall-Gelman plume or also site specific criteria for the Pall-Gelman plume. The goal would be to improve the cleanup standard for 1,4-dioxane. [.pdf of resolution as amended and approved] The resolution was sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje.

The history of Gelman Sciences, which caused the 1,4-dioxane contamination, goes back 40 years. The company was based in Scio Township and later acquired by Pall Corp. The MDEQ’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But an EPA criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb.

The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and according to the council’s resolution, is anticipated to miss a new deadline set for a year later in December 2013.

Pall-Gelman Plume: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Roger Rayle introduced himself as chair of Scio Residents for Safe Water. He spoke in support of the resolution on the agenda calling on the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality to tighten up the standards for the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane cleanup. When the standards were loosened back in 1985, he said, it happened overnight. Implicitly addressing the potential criticism that the resolution might not be strong enough, Rayle noted that this doesn’t have to be the last resolution on this topic.

Rayle was glad that the council’s attention is back on this topic, he said. Ann Arbor’s water system could eventually be threatened, he observed, noting that a “new hit” was recorded on a well where nobody expected it. He described his work with GoogleEarth to show how the plume has spread. He called on Gov. Rick Snyder to get involved and to get the MDEQ straightened out, as well as the state attorney general’s office.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, after the council had acted on the issue, Kai Petainen thanked the council for passing the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane resolution. But he called it insulting that some councilmembers weren’t previously aware of the issue, asking them where they’ve been. He complimented the city for its disclosure of a raw sewage spill recently.

Pall-Gelman Plume: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the deliberations by describing the chemical properties of 1,4-dioxane. She also described the long history of the problem. Briere noted that some people had voiced concern that the people who have been involved in advocacy should have been involved in the drafting of the resolution – specifically, the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD). Briere agreed with that sentiment. So she said she had a substitute resolution she wanted the council to consider. She described the changes as minor, but noted that they included an added “whereas” clause.

That added clause was as follows:

Whereas, Thousands of residents of The City of Ann Arbor and neighboring municipalities including Scio Township, Ann Arbor Township, have been working for over 20 years for the protection of the surface and ground waters of the State from the continuing threat and actual contamination from 1, 4-dioxane contamination originating at the Pall/Gelman Sciences, Inc. (“PGSI”) Wagner Road facility, and for effective containment and proper treatment of waters already impacted by the contamination; [.txt of original resolution] [.txt of modified resolution]

Briere described the MDEQ as eager to talk to the city about the issue and as welcoming the resolution.

Mayor John Hieftje, who’d co-sponsored the resolution with Briere and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), indicated that the city’s lobbyist, Kirk Profit, has been working hard to keep the issue in front of the state. Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked Briere and Warpehoski for their work on the resolution. Teall said she was glad there might be some movement on the part of the MDEQ.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) complained that the resolution came to the council only late last week. She characterized the resolved clauses as not having “enough teeth.” The language could be strengthened by defining specific cleanup criteria, defining, goals and consulting the expertise of CARD members, Petersen said. So she wanted the resolution postponed.

Briere asked assistant city attorney Abigail Elias to explain the “teeth” of the resolution. Elias described the settlement between the city and Pall-Gelman related to the northwest supply well. Elias was not sure what might be added to strengthen the resolution any further.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said she didn’t want to bring up the issue, but as long as Petersen had done so, she was going to pursue it – that of involving those who’ve been advocating on the issue for a long time. She described herself as a social-scientist-turned-CPA, and thus valued the input of more people. She had mixed feelings about the process used to develop the resolution.

Petersen indicated she wanted to move to postpone the resolution. Hieftje asked city environmental coordinator Matt Naud to approach the podium.

Hieftje ventured that the resolution was about as strong as it could be made at this time. Naud responded by describing the Pall situation as very complicated. CARD has worked hard on the issue and there’s a long list of things they’d like done, Naud said. What’s clearly expressed in this resolution, Naud said, is that the federal government, the EPA, now thinks 1,4-dioxane is more cancer-causing than the EPA previously thought. The state of Michigan’s job is to take that and promulgate it under the Clean Water Act, but that hasn’t been done, Naud said.

Environmental coordinator Matt Naud answered questions from the podium.

Naud said the resolution is a message to the MDEQ. Changing the standard would radically change the attention being paid to the Pall-Gelman site, he said. Michigan has had an 85 ppb standard for a very long time, when everyone else has had a much lower [that is, more demanding or stronger] standard, Naud says.

Petersen asked what the risk would be in using the resolution language to identify a specific standard for cleanup as a goal. Naud explained that he wasn’t sure what number would come out of the state of Michigan’s algorithm. Naud went on to describe part of the problem as getting access to data, and noted that some of Rayle’s work has included hand-entering data from paper copies. Petersen wanted to postpone a vote on the resolution, in order to add CARD’s “wish list” to the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Naud why the state is dragging its feet. Naud indicated that it’s a broader problem than just the 1,4-dioxane issue.

Kunselman asked what the city is doing in the way of contingency planning – in the event that a 1,4-dioxane plume reaches Barton Pond, which is the source of most of the city’s drinking water. That’s the question that needs to be addressed, Kunselman said. “What would we do?” Would the city have to filter out the 1,4-dioxane before pumping drinking water to residents? He had no problem postponing or voting on the resolution that night. But he wanted the city to think about what it’s doing itself, as opposed to asking others to do something.

From left: Ward 5 councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) characterized the problem as one of court decisions, saying that the courts are generally going to find in favor of Pall-Gelman. He said that when he started serving on the council, he attended some CARD meetings and it was very confusing. Anglin said he wanted the city council to hold a work session on the topic of the 1,4-dioxane plume. He pointed out that the issue had arisen in connection with the City Apartments project: Who would be responsible if the 1,4-dioxane contamination were to penetrate to that site? Anglin indicated he was in favor of postponement, because of the magnitude of the issue. But he thanked Briere and Warpehoski for their effort.

Briere characterized the issue as “not a new emergency,” saying that it’s an ongoing problem. The first step seems to be to get MDEQ to act, Briere ventured. Naud indicated some agreement with that idea. The change at the federal level should have trickled through to the state level, Naud said. But it hasn’t and so Pall-Gelman says that currently they don’t have to worry about areas that have concentrations below 85 ppb.

Briere said she had assumed that other councilmembers were already up to speed on the issue, and she thought that the opportunity to achieve something should be seized. Naud said there’s no question that the state should have acted in some way, and that’s why the resolution focuses on that.

Petersen asked if the purpose of the resolution was just to put MDEQ on notice. Naud indicated basic agreement with that characterization. Petersen ventured that a delay of two more weeks shouldn’t be a problem, saying she wanted to hear from CARD on the question, to see if the language can be strengthened. She then formally moved for postponement.

Hieftje said he didn’t think that the resolution could be strengthened and characterized it as providing a start to a conversation. The resolution would give the city’s lobbyist something to work with, Hieftje said. He was impressed that Roger Rayle had been consulted and had spoken in favor of the resolution during public commentary. So Hieftje indicated he’d vote against postponement.

Kunselman expressed concern that the city is “going it alone.” Briere says she’s talked to other elected representatives – county commissioners, Scio Township representatives, and members of the state legislature. She said it’s not Ann Arbor going it alone, but rather Ann Arbor taking the first step. Taking that first step, she says, seems to be vital. She’d attended a briefing with Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, and the message at that briefing was that the first step is for MDEQ to change the 85 ppb number. [Based on remarks made at the most recent meeting of the Washtenaw board of commissioners, the board will be considering a similar resolution on 1,4-dioxane at its Sept. 18, 2013 meeting.]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked for a basic status report on how things stand with respect to the city’s water supply. Naud indicated that when 1,4-dioxane was detected in the city’s northwest supply well in 2003, the city stopped using that well.

Naud described various locations where the city tests for 1,4-dioxane. Taylor described himself as delighted the proposers had brought the resolution forward, saying that a revised version might be a “scootch” more detailed. He indicated that he didn’t think that a delay of two weeks would matter.

Teall asked about the testing locations. Naud described how there are a couple hundred monitoring wells. Anglin asked about the city’s conversations with the EPA.

Warpehoski indicated he was going to violate the council rules by sending the media Briere’s revisions to the resolution via email. [Because Warpehoski did that, The Chronicle was able to include the revised resolution in its brief on the resolution filed from the meeting.]

Warpehoski supported the approach that Briere had taken as “more surgical” than to try to hang a bunch of wish-list items on it, as if the resolution were a Christmas tree. He summarized the intent of the resolution as saying to the MDEQ: “Do your job!” Warpehoski indicated that Briere had done a lot of heavy lifting on the resolution.

Outcome on postponement: On a 4-5 vote, the motion to postpone failed. Voting against postponement were Teall, Warpehoski, Anglin, Hieftje and Briere. Voting for postponement were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Taylor and Kunselman. Lumm and Higgins were absent.

The council continued with deliberations on the resolution. Kunselman indicated he’d support it. He ventured that if the city’s water system were compromised, then Ann Arbor would connect to the Detroit system. But responding to a question from Briere, Naud indicated that he wasn’t sure that connecting to Detroit would be the city’s first option. Kunselman noted that it’s important to hear what the contingency plan is.

Kunselman asked what the criteria would be for shutting down Barton Pond as a water source. City administrator Steve Powers indicated he’d follow up on that. Hieftje stated that shutting down Barton Pond is not imminent. Briere asked Naud if there’s any imminent risk. Naud replied that the geology in this area is complicated. There’s a lot of science and research that would need to be done to determine if the plume could get to Barton Pond and if so, how fast, Naud said. He allowed that 1,4-dioxane has shown up in places where it was not expected.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct city staff to take action related to helping set cleanup standards for 1,4-dioxane.

Energy Commission Recommendations

Two resolutions sponsored by the city’s energy commission were considered by the council on Sept. 3. The first called on the city’s employee retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies. The second directed city staff to work with DTE to create a community solar pilot project.

Energy Commission Recommendations: Fossil Fuels

An energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommended that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. The resolution defined a “fossil fuel company” to be any of the top 100 coal companies or top 100 gas and oil extraction companies. The top three coal companies on the list are: Severstal JSC; Anglo American PLC; and BHP Billiton. The top three gas and oil companies on the list are: Lukoil Holdings; Exxon Mobil Corp.; and BP PLC. The basic consideration of the resolution is the importance of the role that greenhouse gas emissions play in global warming.

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

Energy Commission Recs: Fossil Fuels – Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Mike Shriberg spoke on behalf of the city’s energy commission, asking the council to support the community solar resolution and the fossil fuel divestment resolution. He mentioned Seattle, San Francisco, State College and Boulder as examples of cities that have divested from fossil fuel companies. He described the increased financial risk as minimal.

From left: Ward 3 councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman. Visible in the audience is Jeff Hayner.

Monica Patel also spoke in support the resolutions on community solar and fossil fuel divestment – on behalf of the Ecology Center. She delivered the council petitions signed by Ann Arbor residents in support of the resolutions.

During public commentary reserved time, Jeff Hayner – who’s running as an independent for city council in Ward 1 against incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere – talked about the balance between vision and common sense. He spoke in support of the community solar resolution. He also spoke in support of the divestment of fossil fuels companies, but urged caution and warned of possible financial losses. Is social gain worth the financial risk? he asked. Hayner thanked Roger Rayle for speaking during public commentary about the 1,4-dioxane resolution, saying that it’s a complex problem that is not going away.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Kai Petainen said it doesn’t make sense to divest from an entire sector of the economy – a reference to the fossil fuel divestment resolution. [.pdf of statement from Kai Petainen emailed to The Chronicle following the Sept. 3 meeting]

Energy Commission Recs: Fossil Fuels – Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje led things off by saying, as a member of the energy commission, he could say that the issue had been thoroughly reviewed and researched. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) referred to Jeff Hayner’s public commentary, which indicated that there could be a financial impact. Have there been any other examples of divestment along these lines? Briere asked.

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the last time it came up was in connection with South Africa. So it was a long time ago, Briere concluded. Briere asked Nancy Walker, executive director of the retirement system, to come to the podium and comment. Briere wanted to know if Walker would be concerned if the council were to approve the resolution.

Walker said the board had been made aware of the resolution and had some discussion at its meeting just that afternoon. The board had not taken a position, she said, but would certainly consider a council resolution. She indicated that there would be some financial implications. Right now, the trustees have made a conscious effort over the last several years to shift the investments away from separately managed accounts, to either co-mingled funds or mutual funds – particularly indexed funds. That’s a very low-cost way to invest the money, she said. For example, 25% of the fund is invested in domestic large cap equity, and on that, the blended rate is about 2.5 basis points – on more than $100 million.

On initial investigation, Walker said, there really aren’t any indexed funds that exclude fossil fuel companies. If the city were to pull more money out of an indexed fund and put it into a separately managed fund, there would probably be a fee of 20-30 times the fees for an indexed fund.

There are really three separate considerations, Walker explained: fiduciary duty (beneficiaries are the primary concern); cost impact; and consideration of other options. Some of the other options included environmentally-friendly, socially-responsible, corporate-governance type funds. There are not a lot of such funds out there, Walker said, based on initial investigation.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wanted to know what the differential would be of an indexed fund compared to a socially-responsible fund. Walker indicated that they had not gotten to that point of being able to say. But assuming that the return was equal, Walker said, you could anticipate a 30-40 basis point differential on the return, just due to the increased cost of fees.

Outcome: A 5-4 vote fell short of the six-vote majority needed to pass on the 11-member council. Voting against the resolution were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) were absent.

Energy Commission Recommendations: Community Solar

The second energy-related resolution also stemmed from an energy commission recommendation – that the council direct city staff to work with DTE to develop a “community solar” pilot program. A “community solar” program would allow people to invest in a solar energy system, even if the energy that’s generated would be located off-site from their own electric meter.

The goal is to create a program that would assist the work of the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association (GLREA), which has a grant to work statewide, investigating the feasibility of and constraints facing this collective approach to alternative energy generation. As an example of this approach, the council resolution cited the Cherryland Electric Cooperative in Traverse City. The resolution asked that details of a pilot program be ready for consideration by the Michigan Public Service Commission by March 31, 2014.

The goal of community solar is to allow people who don’t own the property where they live, or whose own property is shaded or poorly oriented for solar energy production, to support the production of solar energy.

Outcome: The council voted to direct staff to work with DTE to develop a community solar pilot program.

Ann Arbor Greenbelt

The council considered two deals adding land to the city’s greenbelt program. The program is funded by the voter-approved open space and parkland preservation millage.

The Sheldon and Wolf property is indicated in red. The green highlighted area denotes area already protected as a part of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. The heavy green line is the boundary encompassing eligible properties. This is the northwest corner of the boundary area.

The first deal – the Sheldon and Wolf property – involved 20 acres in Webster Township. It’s located on Zeeb Road, next to active farmland and other property that has already been protected by the city’s greenbelt program.

The purchase price, after deducting a $6,500 landowner donation, is $47,500. Webster Township is contributing $2,000 and Cherry Republic is contributing another $2,300, leaving the city’s share of the purchase price at $43,200. Due diligence, closing costs and a contribution to the endowment brings the city’s total contribution to $82,067.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the acquisition of development rights on the Sheldon and Wolf property.

The second deal involved participation in the acquisition of two pieces of land owned by DF (Domino’s Farms) Land Development LLC. The appraised value of the land is $322,000, of which the city would contribute up to $32,200. The lead agency on the deal is the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, which voted to approve the purchase of the two parcels at its Aug. 13, 2013 meeting. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended the city’s participation at its July 11, 2013 meeting.

According to the city administrator’s report from the Sept. 3 meeting, there will be a motor coach tour of the city’s greenbelt program’s protected properties on Saturday, Sept. 21 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. The cost is $10. People can register by calling 734.794.6000 ext. 42798.

Outcome: The council voted to authorize the city’s participation in the acquisition of the DF Land Development property.

Hampton Inn on Jackson Road

The council considered a proposal to build a new Hampton Inn at 2910 Jackson Ave., across the street from Weber’s Inn.

A drawing of the proposed Hampton Inn on Jackson Avenue – next to the larger existing Clarion Inn – was shown to planning commissioners at their July 2 meeting. The design includes improved pedestrian features.

The four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, will include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet. A 163-room Clarion Hotel stands on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel.

The planning commission gave this “planned project” a recommendation of approval at its July 2, 2013 meeting.

Planning commissioners had discussed the proposal at length during their June 18, 2013 meeting. Ultimately, they unanimously voted to postpone action on that occasion, instead asking the developer to address concerns over pedestrian access within the site.

The planned project status was sought so that the existing foundation can be used. In 2008, an earlier site plan had been approved, but nothing beyond the foundation was built. At the time, no maximum front setback had been required. Now, however, a maximum front setback of 50 feet is required on at least one of the site’s three front property lines. A planned project status would allow that requirement to be waived.

Hampton Inn: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge told the council that he is wary of the planning commission’s approval of the project. We don’t want more pedestrian casualties or deaths, he said. Many people use this stretch of Jackson Road to deliberately speed, he contended.

Andy Wakeland with Giffels-Webster Engineers of Washington Township, Mich. – the civil engineer for the Hampton Inn project – addressed the council. He discussed the pedestrian issues, calling it a pedestrian-friendly site and said, “We’re pretty proud of it.”

The architect for the project – Jeff Ryntz of Victor Saroki and Associates – also addressed the council. He recalled how the project was started several years ago, and the foundations had been completed. In the interim, the city had changed its area, height and placement zoning ordinance, and those concerns had to be addressed. He noted the planning commission voted 8-0 to recommend approval.

Hampton Inn: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to answer questions. He asked if there’s any plan to install signalization of crosswalks like HAWK or rapid flashing beacons. No, she answered. He asked for some explanation of the traffic analysis. Rampson reported that city planner Jill Thacher and traffic engineer Pat Cawley had visited the site. The location of the crossing was the best one available, Rampson explained.

Warpehoski ventured that of the bad options, he can see how this could be the best one. But as consultations with MDOT continue and as the project goes through the building permit phase, he wanted attention paid to the issue, and urged that every appropriate analysis and protection is put in.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the planning commission [on which she serves as the city council representative] delayed the project, asking for additional pedestrian amenities within the site. However, the crosswalk had been a part of the initial proposal, she says.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) suggested that he and Warpehoski could meet with Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority staff about the bus stop.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the stormwater detention pond. He ventured that the overflow discharge goes to the expressway. Yes, and that will need to be approved by MDOT, explained a representative of the developer. Kunselman asked if MDOT would dictate the signage on the crosswalk. Rampson was not sure if the signs would be different from the other signs next to crosswalks in the city.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor has the highest hotel occupancy rate in the state.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Hampton Inn planned project.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru

The council was asked to give initial approval to a drive-thru at the Shell station and Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway.

The requested changes to the PUD (planned unit development) regulations would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The businesses are located on a 1.44-acre site.

The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. Access to the drive-thru lane would be off of the site’s existing entrance from Ann Arbor-Saline Road. A PUD had previously been approved by the council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, but without plans for a drive-thru restaurant. The city planning commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request for a revision at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

Tim Hortons: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) led off deliberations by asking for a representative of the project to come forward. He noted that the area plan doesn’t support a car wash. But possible use of a car wash was left in the PUD description, so Warpehoski said he wanted it removed. The developer’s representative did not have any objection. Warpehoski also wanted to strike the language that described the ability for someone to get food and beverage without leaving their vehicle as a public benefit.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

One of the requirements of the rezoning allowed on a discretionary basis by the city council under a planned unit development (PUD) is that the project have some public benefit. Warpehoski objected to inclusion of the drive-thru as a public benefit: “To say that somebody now doesn’t have to spend the 10 extra calories between getting out their car to get their salt-sugar-fat fix?! I don’t see that as a public benefit and I don’t want us to list that as some big thing that we’re modifying our zoning for in our ordinance.”

Warpehoski also didn’t like the idea of describing the drive-thru as a “gateway.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4) followed Warpehoski’s turn with questions of the developer’s representative. She ventured that the adherence to architectural design standards would ensure appropriate development of the “gateway site.” All that was being requested at this point, the developer said, was a small drive-thru window, which amounted to 109 square feet of space. Teall wanted to make sure the design of the window fit the architecture. The developer indicated that he proud of the building’s appearance.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled the planning commission discussion. [She serves as the council's representative on the commission.] She asked for an explanation of why the proposed seating area is an appropriate place for such an area.

The developer indicated that the location can be a welcoming symbol or a “gateway.” At the citizens participation meeting, they were told there was quite a bit of pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area – so the seating area was thought to be a good amenity. Briere asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to comment on the number of residents in the area. Rampson indicated that there are a lot of people who cross through the area. So there’s a lot of pedestrian travel, in addition to the auto travel, Rampson said.

Briere ventured that confusion results from the fact that there’s a list of eight items of benefit, and it’s not clear if each item is a discrete benefit. So she had no problem removing an item from the list. Briere asked Rampson to explain how it’s determined what counts as a public benefit for the purpose of evaluating a PUD.

“It’s fairly unusual to have a gas station PUD,” Rampson replied. The property was originally owned by the school district, she reported. She said that the planning commission felt that as a whole, the items were felt to be a benefit. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the previous iterations of the PUD. Did more public benefits get added to the list each time? Kunselman questioned whether an amendment to a PUD really requires an additional benefit above and beyond the original public benefit.

Kunselman stated that if the word “gateway” were removed, he’d be fine with everything else. Rampson reported that the owners of the project have expressed concern about making a substantive change, which would require an additional reading and approval by the city council. City attorney Stephen Postema ventured that the proposed change by Warpehoski wouldn’t be substantial enough to require additional council approvals.

From left: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Briere said that the advantage of putting items in the PUD language is that the developer can be held accountable for those items.

Teall appreciated Briere’s remarks about accountability. She didn’t have a problem with stating more benefits or with the word “gateway.” She appreciated the attention to detail the developer was giving the project. She said she wouldn’t support Warpehoski’s proposed amendments to the language. [The property is located in Ward 4, which Teall represents.]

Mayor John Hieftje said he didn’t think the change was substantial. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) thought it was important to consider the gas station as a gateway based on its entry location. She also pointed out that Tim Hortons has healthy choices on its menu. Anything that helps beautify the corridor should be supported, Petersen said.

Warpehoski suggested separating his proposed amendment into the part about the car wash and the part about the public benefits.

Outcome on amending the public benefits language: The council approved that amendment over dissent from Teall, Anglin, and Petersen.

Outcome on amending out “car wash”: The council approved eliminating the word “car wash.”

Outcome on changes in the Tim Hortons/Shell PUD: The council voted to give initial approval to the PUD changes. The council will need to vote again at a subsequent meeting, after a public hearing, to give the changes final approval.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Crosswalk Ordinance

During council communications time, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) reported that she’s been working with city staff on getting a report from a professional traffic engineer regarding a recommendation for the city’s crosswalk ordinance.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

She indicated that she might bring forward a resolution at the next meeting calling for an independent review of the crosswalk ordinance and the associated infrastructure.

During his report to the council, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that he’ll be providing an update to the council on the review of the new crosswalk ordinance, and of the sanitary sewer overflow in the Arboretum that had taken place at the start of the weekend.

That memo was released subsequent to the meeting. [.pdf of crosswalk memo] [.pdf of WMU study mentioned in memo]

Comm/Comm: Regional Transit Authority

During communications time toward the end of the evening, mayor John Hieftje noted that an October city council work session [likely to be set for Oct. 14] will include representatives from the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA).

Comm/Comm: Fuller Road Station

During council communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) alerted his council colleagues that he’d be bringing forward a resolution that would rescind the memorandum of understanding between the city and the University of Michigan in connection with the Fuller Road Station. [Rescinding the memorandum of understanding is something that Kunselman talked about during his Democratic primary re-election campaign, at a June 8, 2013 candidate forum. Kunselman prevailed in the Aug. 6 primary over challenger Julie Grand.]

Comm/Comm: North Main Huron River Corridor Task Force

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave an update on the work of the North Main Huron River Corridor task force. Their final report has been submitted. [It's now on the Sept. 16 council agenda as a resolution that would formally accept the report.]

The report includes some before-after photos depicting possible improvements, like a pedestrian bridge across the Huron River connecting the Argo berm to the DTE-MichCon property. The task force was established at the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting, and a report had been due at the end of July. But Briere had apprised the council at previous meetings of the slight delay.

Briere apologized for the delay in the delivery of the report. She hoped there would be a presentation at the next council meeting on Sept. 16.

Comm/Comm: D1 Zoning Review

During her council communications, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that the D1 zoning review could be delayed. More public meetings have been added than were originally planned.

Comm/Comm: Sensory Garden

During council communications, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) announced that on Sept. 15 at 1 p.m. a Sensory Garden will be dedicated at Liberty Plaza – the downtown park at Division and Liberty. It’s a project of the Ann Arbor commission on disability issues, in collaboration with the city’s adopt-a-park program and the University of Michigan Matthaei Botanical Gardens. A ceremony will be held to honor former commissioner Pamela Baker-Trostle.

Comm/Comm: Anti-Israel Protests

During public commentary reserved time, Henry Herskovitz cited two news articles about the protests in front the Beth Israel Congregation on Washtenaw Avenue, in which he regularly participates. He noted that at the previous council meeting [on Aug. 19, 2013], the council had been asked to express its displeasure about the protests. He objected to comments made by mayor John Hieftje and other councilmembers. Herskovitz noted that Hieftje had indicated that the city had tried all legal methods to stop the protests, which Herskovitz feared could be interpreted by some to mean that now illegal methods should be used. He reported that three days earlier, someone had spat on a protestor. A police officer had come out to investigate and to view video of the incident, Herskovitz said.

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

Absent: Jane Lumm, Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: Sept. 16, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Leigh Greden’s nomination to the Ann Arbor housing commission had been withdrawn before the meeting. And one of the remaining three nominations was withdrawn during deliberations. Mayor John Hieftje withdrew Al McWilliams’ appointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority during the meeting. But the dynamic of the meeting, which included the absence of two councilmembers, suggested that McWilliams’ appointment might be brought forward for a vote at a future session.

The two other nominations from Aug. 19 were confirmed: Devon Akmon’s appointment to fill a vacancy on the public art commission; and Logan Casey to fill a vacancy on the human rights commission. Akmon is an Ann Arbor resident and the new director of the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn. Casey is a graduate student at the University of Michigan.

No conversation took place on the nomination of former city councilmember Leigh Greden to the Ann Arbor housing commission – because his nomination was withdrawn earlier in the day, around 2:30 p.m. Greden’s initial appointment to the AAHC board in January 2011, replacing Jayne Miller, had been unanimous.

Earlier this year, at the council’s April 1 meeting, Nickolas Buonodono had been nominated to replace Greden on the AAHC board, after Greden had reached the end of his first term. Buonodono is an attorney, and a member of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party executive committee. However, that nomination was not on the council’s April 15 meeting agenda for confirmation. According to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall, who spoke to The Chronicle in a telephone interview in mid-April, Greden was going to seek reappointment for a second term if he could accommodate his schedule to the meeting times. The housing commission is undergoing a major transition to a project-based voucher system, which the council authorized at its June 3, 2013 meeting on a unanimous vote.

The nomination of McWilliams to the Ann Arbor DDA also came forward from mayor John Hieftje with a wrinkle. Before he was nominated at the council’s Aug. 19 meeting, McWilliams’ name had appeared on an early version of the list of nominees for the council’s Aug. 8 meeting. The final version for that meeting, however, did not include his name. McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Council deliberations centered on the possibility that McWilliams might have a recurring conflict of interest stemming from his company’s work for the AAATA, which receives funding for its getDowntown program from the DDA. Councilmembers Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) felt that the potential conflict was substantial. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that the possible appearance of a conflict was a problem for him, even if there were no legal conflict. Kunselman also indicated that he would prefer a nominee who was prepared to accept some reform of the DDA. And based on remarks of Mike Anglin (Ward 5) at the table, it was not clear whether Anglin would support McWilliams nomination either.

Because two councilmembers were absent – Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – four votes against the nomination would have been sufficient to defeat it. So during deliberations, mayor John Hieftje withdrew the nomination, so that questions about McWilliams’ potential conflicts could be answered more fully.

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crosswalks

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

Crosswalks: Ordinance Revision – Background

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

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

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

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

Crosswalks: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crosswalks: Ordinance Revision – Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crosswalks: Flashing Beacons – Background

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

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

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

Crosswalks: Flashing Beacons – Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University Bank, Hoover Mansion Rezoning

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

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

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

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

Hoover Mansion: Public Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hoover Mansion: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayoral Appointments of City Employees

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

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

Mayoral Nominations: Meeting Bookends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayoral Nominations: Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

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

Mayoral Nominations: Economic Development Board

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

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

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

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

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

Mayoral Nominations: Eli Cooper to AATA Board

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayoral Nominations: Opposing City Employee Nominations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pay Increase for Poll Workers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Attorney Performance Review, Contract Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drop-Off Recycling Contract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solar Money

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

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

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

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

Reimbursement for MRF Magnet

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

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

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

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

Bond Re-Funding

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

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

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

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

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

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Vacant Properties

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

Comm/Comm: Property Tax

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Immigration

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Spirit of Christmas

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

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

Comm/Comm: Coordinated Funding

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

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

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

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

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

The “resolved” clause read: “Therefore be it resolved, That Council opposes Mayoral nominations of City of Ann Arbor employees to office appointments.”

Reasons cited in the “whereas” clauses include the possible appearance of conflicting interests and commitments, as well as a clause in the city charter that might be construed as limiting the rights of city employees who are appointed to boards or commissions: “The personnel of the City, other than the elective and appointive officers, shall be deemed City employees.”

The resolution came in the context of mayor John Hieftje’s nomination at the council’s previous meeting (on Dec. 5, 2011) of a city employee to serve on a board. Hieftje nominated the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

The council’s vote on Dec. 19 to confirm Cooper filled the vacancy on the AATA board left by another city employee, Sue McCormick. McCormick was, until Dec. 16, the city’s public services area administrator. She left to take a job as head of the Detroit water and sewerage department.

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]

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

The “resolved” clause, as it currently appears on the agenda, simply records the view that those voting in the affirmative are opposed to such appointments: “RESOLVED, Those council members voting in the affirmative to this resolution oppose Mayoral nominations of City of Ann Arbor employees to office appointments.”

Update: As of Friday, Dec. 16, the resolved clause has been revised to read: “Therefore be it resolved, That Council opposes Mayoral nominations of City of Ann Arbor employees to office appointments.” Sabra Briere (Ward 1)  has also been added as a fourth sponsor.

Reasons cited in the “whereas” clauses include the possible appearance of conflicting interests and commitments, as well as a clause in the city charter that might be construed as limiting the rights of city employees who are appointed to boards or commissions: “The personnel of the City, other than the elective and appointive officers, shall be deemed City employees.” [.pdf of resolution on mayoral nominations of city employees to boards and commissions]

The resolution comes in the context of mayor John Hieftje’s nomination at the council’s last meeting (on Dec. 5, 2011) of a city employee to serve on a board. Hieftje nominated the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. On confirmation by the city council, Cooper would fill the vacancy on the AATA board left by another city employee, Sue McCormick.

The council will be asked to vote to confirm Cooper’s nomination at its Dec. 19 meeting.

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

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

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