Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

The commission had recommended site plan approval at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting, and the project subsequently received city council approval on Oct. 7, 2013. The site is located in Ward 4.

A 50-foot-wide right-of-way easement on the front this site was recorded by the city as part of a previously approved land division for this parcel. That easement reduced the front setback of the Belle Tire building from 10 feet to roughly 3 feet. The minimum front setback for this site is 10 feet.

So the property owner, who also owns the adjacent site at 3975 S. State, has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement. In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback.

The planning staff recommended approval of this proposal. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

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

Hourly temperature data from WeatherSpark for part of November and December 2013. Chart by The Chronicle. Yellow horizontal line is 25 degrees. The red horizontal line is 10 degrees. The “weather amnesty” threshold – when the Delonis Center shelter opens for daytime hours – is 10 degrees. Advocates for the homeless community spoke at the city council’s Dec. 16 meeting in favor of a 25-degree threshold.

In some of its more significant business of the night, the council voted unanimously to deposit almost $1.4 million into the city of Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund. The council’s final vote was unanimous, although Jane Lumm (Ward 2) offered an amendment to cut that amount in half, which failed on a 2-9 vote. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) joined Lumm in supporting that failed amendment.

The dollar figure of $1,384,300 million reflects the $1.75 million in gross proceeds, less brokerage fees and seller’s costs, from the sale of a downtown city-owned parcel known as the old Y lot. In 2003, the city paid $3.5 million for the property, located on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues. The council approved the sale of the property to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. The city has made interest-only payments on a $3.5 million loan for the last 10 years.

Public commentary during the meeting was dominated by residents advocating in support of the Y lot resolution – several on behalf of the homeless community. A current point of contention for several of the speakers is the fact that the Delonis Shelter does not operate a warming center during daytime hours. Instead, the center allows the homeless to seek refuge there during the day when the temperature or wind chill drops to 10 F degrees. Addressing that issue is one of several possible ways to spend the money from the affordable housing trust fund. Others include using it to renovate properties managed by the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Two items in which the council also invested considerable time at its Dec. 16 meeting involved traffic safety. The council wound up adopting unanimously a resolution that directs city administrator Steve Powers to present a strategy for funding elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, by specific dates starting next year. The final version adopted by the council reflected a compromise on the exact wording of the resolution – which among other changes eliminated explicit mention of any specific technology. The original resolution had specifically cited rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), as does the non-motorized plan.

Thematically related to the funding plan for non-motorized transportation improvements was a proposal to allocate $125,000 from the current general fund reserve to pay for police overtime for traffic enforcement. The debate on police overtime centered on the question of whether chief of police John Seto had a plan to spend the money, which equates to about 70 additional hours a week for the remaining six months of the fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2014. The resolution eventually won the support of all members of the council except for mayor John Hieftje.

The police overtime item was sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who were part of a six-vote majority that had backed a significant revision to the city’s crosswalk law at the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. That change – which eliminated a requirement that motorists stop for pedestrians who were at the curb but not within the crosswalk – was subsequently vetoed by Hieftje. The text of that veto was attached to the council’s Dec. 16 meeting agenda as a communication.

The council’s focus on traffic and pedestrian safety will continue next year, on Jan. 6, when the council is supposed to make appointments to a pedestrian safety task force, which it established at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting.

Also generally related to the public right-of-way on streets at the council’s Dec. 16 meeting was an item that was postponed from the Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. The council was asked to consider assigning a specific cost to the removal of an on-street parking space caused by a development: $45,000. The original postponement stemmed from a desire to hold a public hearing on the matter before taking action. One person spoke at the public hearing on Dec. 16, and the council deliberated about a half hour before deciding to postpone again.

The council voted unanimously to make a roughly $65,000 allocation from the solid waste fund balance to pay for an initiative that will allow residents to add plate scrapings to their brown compost carts for curbside collection. The additional funds will cover an increased level of service at the compost processing facility – daily versus weekly grinding. The funds will also cover the cost of counter-top containers the city plans to give away to residents to encourage the initial separation of plate scrapings from garbage, and a subsidy for the sale of additional brown compost carts. Some of that allocation is expected to be recovered through reduced landfill tipping fees.

Also on Dec. 16, the council accepted a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service to be spent on a tree pruning initiative focused on the city’s largest street trees.

The council metered out its time generously on items involving large and small dollar amount alike at its Dec. 16 meeting. So nearly a half hour of deliberations went into a resolution that directed the city administrator to include $10,000 of support for the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair as he develops next year’s (FY 2015) budget. The council voted unanimously to support that resolution.

The council postponed an item that formally terminated a four-year-old memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan on the demised Fuller Road Station project. It had been added to the agenda the same day as the meeting, and that was the reason it was postponed. However, it was clear from remarks at the meeting that when the council takes up the resolution next year, it will have support.

Y Lot Proceeds

The council considered a resolution that deposits the proceeds of the sale of the city-owned former Y lot into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Affordable housing fund activity.

The approved $5.25 million sale price of the former Y lot will result in a gross difference of $1.75 million compared to the $3.5 million price paid by the city in 2003. The original resolution on the council’s agenda designated $1.56 million of that amount – which is all but a $190,000 brokerage fee – for deposit in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Later, before the meeting started, a revision was made to the resolution, which reduced the amount to $1,384,300 to accommodate the seller’s closing costs at well.

The specific connection between the affordable housing trust fund and the former Y lot is the 100 units of single-resident occupancy housing that previously were a part of the YMCA building that stood on the site.

Various efforts have been made to replace those units over the years. [See, for example, Chronicle coverage: "The 100 Units of Affordable Housing."] Recently, the Ann Arbor housing commission and its properties have started to receive more attention from the council as an integral part of the city’s approach to providing housing to the lowest income residents. The council approved a series of resolutions this summer that will allow the AAHC to convert many of its properties to project-based vouchers.

The history of the city policy on proceeds of land sales goes back at least 20 years.

The most recent history includes the following:

• Oct. 15, 2012: City council approves a policy that ultimately leaves the policy on the use of proceeds of city land to case-by-case decisions, but indicates that for the Y lot, the proceeds will:
  

  … first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund;”

• Nov. 8, 2012: City council transfers $90,000 from proceeds of the land sale to Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority into the affordable housing trust fund.
• March 4, 2013: City council directs the city administrator to select a broker for the Y lot.
• July 3, 2013: City administrator Steve Powers announces that he’s selected Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the marketing of the property.
• Nov. 18, 2013: City council approves the sale of the former Y lot for $5.25 million to Dennis Dahlmann.
• Dec. 4, 2013: Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board waives its claim to reimbursement from the sale of the Y lot.

The Dec. 16 resolution reflected a departure from the most recent policy adopted by the city council – which called for reimbursements for various costs before net proceeds of the Y lot sale would be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

But the resolution eliminates any wrangling between the city and the Ann Arbor DDA over how much in reimbursements might be owed for various purposes. The city has calculated, for example, that $365,651 in interest reimbursements could be owed, as well as $488,646 for the relocation of residents of the former Y building. The DDA has calculated $1,493,959 in reimbursements that it thinks it could claim – for interest payments and cost of demolition, among other items. But the DDA board has voted essentially to waive that claim.

It’s not clear if the DDA can waive all of that claim in light of the fact that the DDA used at least some TIF (tax increment finance) funds to pay for items like demolition and some of the interest payments on the loan. [.pdf of DDA records produced in response to Freedom of Information Act request by The Chronicle] If that were analyzed as a distribution of TIF to the city of Ann Arbor, then under state statute, the DDA would need to distribute a proportional amount to the other jurisdictions whose taxes are captured in the DDA district.

Y Lot Proceeds: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, several people addressed the council in support of the council’s resolution on the proceeds from the Y lot sale. Several of them mentioned the 10-degree threshold used by the Delonis Center shelter to determine when the homeless can seek refuge during the day.

Ray Gholston expressed his support for the allocation of funds from the proceeds of the Y lot sale to support affordable housing.

Tracy Williams introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor. He said that 700 people died from exposure last year, at least one of them here in Ann Arbor – someone who was a friend of his. “Shorty was a little guy but had a big heart,” Williams said. People like “Shorty” need more help, he added. The agencies who work in this area are doing the best they can, he said, but the Delonis Center weather “amnesty” of 10 degrees is too cold.

Mary Browning spoke on behalf of Religious Action for Affordable Housing. She said she was talking about affordable housing at the 30% of AMI (area median income) level, not 80% AMI. Folks who get help from the shelter need a place to go, she said. She strongly urged that the funds from the Y lot sale go toward affordable housing.

Ryan Sample told a story from three months ago, before the warming center opened. He was sleeping at the Baptist Church. He had to give his blanket to someone who needed it. Even at 40 degrees, when your clothes are wet, there can be the potential for hypothermia, he said, which isn’t covered by the “weather amnesty” of 10 degrees at the shelter. He wished he had a job and was able to work, he concluded.

Jim Mogensen spoke in support of the council’s resolution. The whole process has seemed endless, he said. He recounted the history from the mid-1980s, when the YMCA decided to create the 100 units of SRO housing, and tried to do that with conventional bank loans. That’s why the city of Ann Arbor had become involved, he said – to sign for the loans. And that’s why the city of Ann Arbor had a right of first refusal. The Y had not finally repaid what it owed the city until 2009, he pointed out. He wanted the council to think about those historical lessons as they thought about how to use the money that’s in the affordable housing trust fund.

Former city councilmember and former planning commissioner Jean Carlberg said that Mogensen had given a good history. She served on the city council when it faced the challenge of how to preserve the housing on the Y lot. The council felt it was in the public interest to exercise its right of first refusal on the Y lot, when the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority wanted to purchase the property. She urged the council to allocate the proceeds of the sale of the Y lot to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. With the loss of the Y housing, that increased the need for units – as determined in the Blueprint to End Homelessness – from 500 units to 600 units. The city council on which she served, she said, never expected the city to be repaid from the proceeds. It’s a chance to create a “pile of money” to be used for affordable housing.

Suzanne William was there to support her friends and family in the homeless community. She’d heard about and experienced the homeless situation in Washtenaw County for a long time, and said she supported the council’s resolution. She has a job in downtown Ann Arbor, she said, but can’t afford “affordable housing.” She told the council she earns $150 a week. It’s just absurd, she said, that the Delonis Center’s “weather amnesty” has a threshold of 10 degrees. She recalled curling up in a cardboard box even in the summer at 40 degrees and was cold. People are out there trying, she said, and they’re really hard workers. She suggested some counseling for those housed in affordable housing units.

James Hill asked all those who supported the agenda item on the Y lot proceeds to stand. At least 25 people stood up. He said that the council shouldn’t “skim off the top” for financial accounting reasons. He asked the council to inquire why the weather amnesty at the shelter’s warming center has been reduced from 25 degrees to 10 degrees.

Y Lot Proceeds: Weather Amnesty

During council communications, which came after the public commentary, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) talked about the “weather amnesty” that many public speakers mentioned. The Delonis Center had experimented with changing it from 10 degrees and making it 25 degrees last year. So the change to 10 degrees is the reversion to the previous policy, she explained. Briere’s reporting was based on talking to Ellen Schulmeister, head of the Delonis Center. [The Delonis Center operates an overnight warming center from mid-November to mid-March. It has a capacity of 65 beds, with another 25 spots in a rotating shelter. The discussion at the Dec. 16 council meeting focused on the possibility of a daytime warming center.]

Later, during public commentary at the end of the meeting, Seth Best allowed that the homeless community might have a short memory with respect to the weather amnesty policy changes, but he pointed out that when you’re homeless, you’re in survival mode, thinking about what to do tonight.

In a follow-up phone interview, Schulmeister confirmed Briere’s understanding – that the 25-degree weather amnesty for the daytime warming center was tried briefly last year, but that the 10-degree threshold had been a long-standing policy.

Schulmeister told The Chronicle that the experience they’d gained from the brief trial last year of a 25-degree weather amnesty policy was that it basically translated to operating an ongoing daytime warming center. [That conclusion is supported by hourly temperature data. Google Spreadsheet charting out hourly temps for 2013] She has estimated the cost of operating a daytime warming center at the Delonis Center at $160,000-$180,000 from November through March. The bulk of that cost would be for staffing, she said, though some would be needed for items like bathroom supplies, and increased water and electricity usage.

Y Lot Proceeds: Council Deliberations

During council communications near the start of the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she should have alerted the public to a revision to the dollar amount on the Y lot proceeds. The actual amount available is estimated to be $1,384,300, she said. The amount is an estimate, because the sale has not yet taken place, she stressed.

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

During mayoral communications, mayor John Hieftje invited Jennifer Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor housing commission, to the podium to address the council. She described the single resident occupancy (SRO) units at the former Y. It had a staffed front door and a desk, and was actually a “hotel,” she said. The front door staffing helped the residents maintain their tenancy, she noted. Hall described working with the nonprofit Avalon Housing, Washtenaw County’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS), and others to convert an AAHC property, Miller Manor, to a front-door staffed facility.

Hall said they’re working on a plan right now to secure the funding. She would be requesting some of the proceeds from the Y lot to make those services at Miller Manor happen. The maintenance area at Miller Manor is being converted to offices to facilitate the front-door staffing arrangement, she told the council.

When the council reached the resolution on its agenda, Briere reviewed how much money is in the affordable housing trust fund. She noted that the council still hasn’t heard from the Shelter Association – which runs the Delonis Center – about what it needs to get through the inclement weather. In the past, the council has used money from the affordable housing trust fund to support the shelter’s warming center, she said. [At its Oct. 17, 2011 meeting, the council authorized $25,000 in stop-gap funding for the shelter's overnight warming center – from the city's general fund reserve.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). In the background is Dave DeVarti, former city councilmember and former Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board member who has been a staunch advocate for affordable housing.

Briere noted that the city has not been effective at putting money back into the affordable housing trust fund. The strategy of having PUDs (planned unit developments) contribute to the trust fund has not been used much recently, she said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked for city CFO Tom Crawford. She said it’s a significant amount of money, and asked Crawford to walk the council through how much has been committed to affordable housing compared to the other council priorities.

After some back-and-forth between Lumm and Crawford, Briere pointed out that Crawford was talking about new and unique expenditures. Briere then reviewed various expenditures from the affordable housing trust fund.

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d support the resolution. Given the history of the property, it’s a relatively happy end to the story, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted clarification of why eight votes were required. He wanted to know what would happen if this resolution failed. In broad strokes, Crawford explained, most of it would go to the general fund. Kunselman said he’d support the resolution, venturing that most of the money would go to support the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Lumm characterized the amount as a huge transfer from the general fund to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Crawford replied that it’s important to weigh all the city’s needs. He described how much general fund balance would remain if the resolution passed.

Lumm asked for an amendment to reduce the amount of the transfer by half, to roughly $692,000.

Y Lot Proceeds: Amendment to Reduce by Half

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) responded to Lumm’s previous point about how much is spent on the council’s different priorities, by talking about how much the city spends on public safety compared to affordable housing – pointing out that the city spends $39.5 million a year on public safety.

Warpehoski’s remarks:

We say one of our budget priorities is police and fire. That gets $39.5 million dollars in our budget. It’s the biggest chunk of our budget. We say it’s a priority and that’s where we are putting our money – in police and fire. Infrastructure is one of those – roads is $14 million. We say it’s a priority, we are putting most of the money in those areas. But we say affordable housing is a priority – compared to the big ones, it’s minuscule. If this is a priority, let’s fund it. When the Y came down, there were two big losses to the community. One was the hundred units.

But the other loss we heard was the one that Jennifer Hall was telling us about. We lost the site that best served our most needy community members, by providing them a site that had a safe, 24-hour, seven-days-a-week staffed front door – for long-term housing. We don’t have anything else that does that. So for people who are hard to house – fighting addiction, worried about getting abused by people in their lives – they can walk in and they’ve got somebody stopping, watching their back when they get to the door, so they don’t get bullied or re-victimized and hurt. That’s the other thing we lost.

And that is why I was so delighted when I talked to Jennifer all last week, and she said: We have a plan [for converting Miller Manor to a front-door staffed facility] … Compared to what else we’re spending, we’re not putting the same money that we’re putting onto what we’re doing on the other priorities. … It still doesn’t help us move forward in terms of providing beds for those people we heard from who don’t have a warm place to sleep – tonight or when the warming shelter isn’t open. And so I think we need to be looking for other opportunities….

When I voted yes to sell the Y site to Dennis Dahlmann, I wasn’t doing it just to get the debt off the books – that was a good thing. I certainly wasn’t doing it to help him have one more property that wasn’t going to be a hotel to compete with him. I was doing it because I thought it was going to be a path to get money to fund affordable housing. This is our opportunity. We’re not going to get a lot of opportunities like this to put some money aside for affordable housing. We’ve got the needs. The 11 of us will all have a warm place to sleep tonight. We have a responsibility to do what we can to provide that for the rest in our community. Thank you.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) followed Warpehoski with three words: “What he said.” Briere was nearly as brief in saying she wished she could have said it as well as Warpehoski.

Lumm responded by expressing concern about the pressure that this would put on the general fund, saying she felt torn.

Outcome: The amendment to cut the amount in half failed on a 2-9 vote. Only Jane Lumm (Ward 3) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) voted for it.

Y Lot Proceeds: More Council Deliberations

Lumm noted that the council reached a different conclusion about what the policy should be last year after a long discussion – that there would be reimbursements. So she was torn, she said.

Eaton said he’d support the resolution, but he expressed concern that the city hasn’t approached the policy questions adequately. He allowed that more should be done for affordable housing, but said the city needs to “aim at the right targets.”

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Kunselman pointed out that the money is not actually being spent by passing the resolution. Rather, it would go into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Kunselman noted that previous councils have made decisions about this policy, but this council will make its own decision. The council has heard a lot of voices calling for the council to do something to support affordable housing, he said. The money is not going anywhere until the council spends it, he concluded.

Briere ventured that more than 30% of funding for affordable housing has been cut – by the federal Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and by the state. That came in response to Lumm’s citing the percentage reduction in funding and staffing levels for the Ann Arbor police department.

Briere allowed that Lumm’s point about 10% of proceeds that the council set as a policy last year is accurate for city-owned properties – but she pointed out that the resolution separated out the Y lot from other downtown properties. Briere noted that if the city tried to repay the reimbursements, there wouldn’t be much left. She also pointed out that this is the last year that this trust fund will exist separately as a fund – due to new accounting standards. In the future, it will simply be general fund money that’s allocated to affordable housing. It will no longer be a separate fund, she said.

By way of more specific background, city finance director Karen Lancaster explained in an emailed response to a Chronicle query that the relevant standard is GASB 54. The standard states, among other things, that if transfers from the general fund are the primary revenue source, then that fund must be displayed as part of the general fund.

During council deliberations, Briere noted that currently, the city’s housing and human services advisory board must make a recommendation on how money in the affordable housing trust fund is spent. She was not sure how that will play out in the future.

Hieftje then talked about how federal funding for affordable housing has been drying up. He didn’t think it was appropriate to include the public safety budget in this discussion. He called the recent turnaround at the Ann Arbor housing commission spectacular.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to deposit $1,384,300 million – the entire proceeds, less brokerage fees and seller’s costs – from the sale of the former Y lot into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Y Lot Proceeds: More Public Commentary

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, four people addressed the council with remarks related to the vote on the Y lot. Dave DeVarti thanked the council for their unanimous vote. He pointed out the property has never been on the tax rolls, because the Y is a nonprofit. He asked the council to look at the tax receipts from that property and consider using that revenue to fund supportive services.

By way of additional background, during his period of service on the DDA board, DeVarti was a staunch supporter of funding for affordable housing. DeVarti was not reappointed, and in late 2008 Keith Orr was appointed to replace him. After DeVarti left, board members sometimes have quipped that they were “channeling Dave DeVarti” when they spoke in support of affordable housing.

Caleb Poirier.

During public commentary at the DDA board’s Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, DeVarti had addressed the topic of the former Y lot, suggesting that the DDA purchase the lot outright, so that the need to repay the loan would be removed as the impetus for selling the lot. That approach would give the city a lot more flexibility, he had argued.

During the final public commentary at the council’s Dec. 16 meeting, Seth Best wished the council happy holidays. He thanked councilmembers for their vote on the Y lot. He invited councilmembers to participate in national homelessness awareness day, on Dec. 21. He told the council that the homeless community operates in “survival mode.” When the “weather amnesty” temperature changes, they have a short memory, he said, because they are thinking about what they have to do tonight. He talked about the proposal from McKinley for affordable housing on South State Street – which considers “affordable housing” to start at $900 a month.

Caleb Poirier updated the council on a property that the homeless community has acquired. He alerted councilmembers that there will eventually be requests coming to the council in connection with that property.

Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Funding

The council considered a directive to the city administrator to provide a funding plan for elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan.

The council approved the updated plan at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting.

The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

Additional flashing beacon locations identified in Ann Arbor’s non-motorized transportation plan.

The Dec. 16 resolution – which is co-sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – was structured in part based on those main sections.

Among other specific instructions, the resolution directed city administrator Steve Powers to present a strategy for funding the plan’s recommended midblock deployments of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB).

Examples of planning and policy issues in the non-motorized transportation plan include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.”

Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands.

Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

The city’s non-motorized transportation plan is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the updated plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]

Non-Motorized Plan Funding: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) led things off by reviewing the content of the resolution. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked for systems planning unit manager Cresson Slotten to field questions. She first got confirmation from Slotten about a correction to the plan – that there are supposed to be only 20 RRFBs in the plan, not 24. She asked how the RRFBs were determined as the technology to be deployed as solutions. Slotten regretted that transportation program manager Eli Cooper was out of town, because Cooper could give a more detailed answer.

But Slotten assured Kailasapathy that a detailed analysis had been done. He allowed that Pat Cawley and Les Sipowski, city traffic engineers, had been involved in the determination of the RRFBs as solutions and their locations.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Kailasapathy wanted to propose an amendment to make clear that traffic engineers would be involved in the final determination, which she then moved.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) ventured that the sponsors of the resolution had not contemplated any other engineering solutions other than RRFBs. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) responded to Eaton by asking Slotten a series of questions.

Briere asked if it’s always the case that when a city plan calls for putting some type of infrastructure in a location, that the infrastructure specified in the plan is always installed. Slotten described how there’s a lot more detailed analysis when a project is actually measured out in the field. Briere asked who would do that work. Slotten said that city traffic engineers working with in-house surveyors would probably do that work. In response to another question from Briere, Slotten allowed that sometimes the final project is not the same as what was in the plan.

Mayor John Hieftje then engaged in some back-and-forth with Slotten to establish what the role of traffic engineers is in determining RRFBs as a solution in a particular location. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she wanted to know that staff has the latitude to determine the exact locations and details. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) ventured that a plan is a plan, and that plans change. Kunselman got confirmation from Slotten that there could be conditions that warrant looking outside the plan for a solution. Kunselman supported Kailasapathy’s amendment.

Taylor noted the “juicy bit” that the council was talking about removed specific reference to the RRFBs. The idea is not to predetermine what engineering features go into any particular crosswalk, Taylor said – which made sense to him. So Taylor indicated support for at least part of Kailasapathy’s amendment.

Kailasapathy explained that she wanted to avoid creating the impression for staff that there is a “mandate” for RRFBs. Briere said that plans are not solid but rather a little “squishy.”

Briere cited some of the specific words from Kailasapathy’s amendment: “implement recommendations of the city’s traffic engineers.” Briere ventured that “as applied by the city traffic engineers” could work.

City administrator Steve Powers weighed in by suggesting that if the direction from the council is to revisit previous evaluations and recommendations that are contained in the non-motorized transportation plan, then that direction from the council needed to be made clear.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that a lot of improvements had been made in engineering technology. Anglin asked if the locations designated for RRFBs are not eligible for HAWK signals. He contended that RRFBs ask motorists to interpret a yellow light as requirement to stop. He appeared to be advocating for HAWK signals instead of RRFBs. Anglin said he’s heard that HAWK lights are too expensive, but asked what the cost of safety should be.

Hieftje responded to Anglin by venturing that the city traffic engineers are up to date on the latest technology. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) raised the question of how this resolution relates to the establishment of the pedestrian safety task force.

Eaton said his understanding is that there’s no detailed and particularized engineering study that’s been done of the general locations of the RRFBs in the non-motorized plan. He wanted to make sure it’s done right.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that there were three elements to the amendment offered by Kailasapathy: (1) it should be technology neutral; (2) traffic engineers should be involved; and (3) the downtown is highlighted specifically. Warpehoski said he was fine with (1). He thought (2) was redundant but didn’t have a problem with it. He had some ideas about (3).

At that point the council decided to recess to hammer out some language they could all agree on. The language the council considered after emerging from recess was as follows:

RESOLVED, That the City Council directs the City Administrator to report to City Council by January 1, 2014, his plan to enhance and improve traffic enforcement at and around crosswalks;

RESOLVED, That the City Council directs the City Administrator to report to City Council by March 1, 2014, his plan to fund, effect, and otherwise implement the 2013 Update to the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan’s actionable recommendations to improve midblock crosswalks;

RESOLVED, That the City Council directs the City Administrator to report to City Council by April 21, 2014, his plan to fund, effect, and otherwise implement actionable Near-term Recommendations of the 2013 Update to the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan;

RESOLVED, The City Council directs the City Administrator to report to the City Council by March 1, 2014, his plan to direct the City’s traffic engineers to recommend solutions to improve pedestrian safety in downtown;

RESOLVED, That the City Council directs the City Administrator to report to City Council by June 30, 2014, his plan to fund, effect, and otherwise implement actionable Long-term Recommendations of the 2013 Update to the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan; and

RESOLVED, That the City Council desires that the foregoing plans include elements of the 2013 Update to the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan related to pedestrian, driver, and cyclist education; improved signage; improved engineering of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle interface zones; and increased enforcement attention to pedestrian safety.

Kunselman said he wanted remove the dates specified in the resolution, saying that he wanted to give the city administrator more flexibility. He pointed out that the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, would have a lot of responsibility for the implementation of the non-motorized plan. Kunselman took the occasion to reiterate the fact that he dislikes the fact that Cooper serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

Kunselman said he’d prefer that all of Cooper’s energy go into his responsibilities as transportation program manager and none of it go into the AAATA. [Kunselman voted against Cooper's appointment two years ago at the council's Dec. 19, 2011 meeting.]

In response to a question from Hieftje, Taylor said that the dates in the resolution were characterized by the city administrator as “feasible.” Lumm indicated support for the amendment, saying she’d support it.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct the city administrator to present a funding and implementation plan for the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. The version passed by the council was amended at the table. [.pdf of amended non-motorized implementation resolution]

$125K for Traffic Enforcement

The council considered an allocation of $125,000 from the general fund balance to pay for police overtime required for additional traffic enforcement. The item began conceptually as a $500,000 allocation described by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who was persuaded by co-sponsors Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) that $125,000 would be a more reasonable amount to spend.

Data from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), compiled with previous CAFRs, shows that traffic citations have continued for the past three years at significantly lower levels than previously:

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Some insight into the question of how much time AAPD officers have available for proactive policing activities – like traffic enforcement – has been provided to councilmembers in the form of timesheet data that officers have been logging since the beginning of 2013.

In the charts below (by The Chronicle, with data from the city of Ann Arbor), green shading indicates unassigned time and time dedicated to proactive policing activities. Dedicate policing activities include: bicycle patrol, business contact, check person, citizen/motorist assist, code citation, community event, community meeting, downtown foot patrol, extra patrol (general), extra patrol (parks), felony, impound, liquor inspection, misdemeanor, parking citation, property check, recontact, traffic enforcement (general), traffic enforcement (laser), traffic enforcement (radar), traffic problem, and traffic stop.

Ann Arbor police department timesheet analysis. AAPD provided a range of time periods, to cover for the data entry training period, as officers learned the new system and became accustomed to coding their activities in a standard way. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

In a memo to the city administrator dated Nov. 4, 2013, chief of police John Seto indicated that he’s already begun to assign additional proactive duties to officers, based on the results of the timesheet analysis:

As a result of this data, supervisors and officers have been identifying additional dedicated proactive policing activities to engage in for the remainder of 2013. Staffing modifications will also be taking place for 2014. An additional officer will be assigned to Special Services to address traffic complaints. The distribution of Patrol Officers will also be modified to increase the number of officers assigned to the swing shift, where the volume of calls for service is greater.

$125K for Traffic Enforcement: Council Deliberations

During council communications at the start of the meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reported on a meeting on traffic safety held at Bach Elementary School the previous week. His remarks were largely positive.

From left: Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and city administrator Steve Powers.

About 100 people attended, he said. This is the kind of approach the city should be taking, he said, noting that the meeting was well attended by staff. Three councilmembers attended, he said, including Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1)

When the council reached the item on the agenda, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led things off by quipping that the discussion should be short, because the resolution was short. He allowed that he’d wanted to put a lot more funding in police chief John Seto’s hands than the $125,000 that’s in the resolution. Revenues have been down from traffic citations, he noted. And there’s a need to curtail motorists from speeding. Things like cars passing stopped school buses have also been raised as concerns, he said.

Lumm thanked Kunselman for leading this effort. She thought everyone could support the idea that increased traffic enforcement is an important part of improving traffic safety.

Mayor John Hieftje said he understood the motivation for the resolution. But it’s unusual to give staff money to spend without asking how staff would specifically solve the problem the council has identified, he said. He also pointed to the timesheet breakdown for police officers showing that officers may have time to implement additional traffic enforcement within the existing staffing levels, without using overtime.

Briere wanted Seto to explain how this money would be spent. Seto said there’s not a specific plan for using this overtime money. There are various general ways: individual officers assigned to specific locations, or officers can be dedicated to a promotion and educational effort. Briere asked Seto if he could provide a specific plan and a budget for implementation by Jan. 22, the council’s second meeting in January. “It depends,” replied Seto.

Briere observed that even if Seto just followed the simple resolution, he’d still have to come up with a plan. She wanted Seto to tell the council how much it might cost to implement increased traffic enforcement. She ventured there might be various levels of implementation – which could cost even more than $125,000. She wanted Seto to develop a specific plan for implementation.

Seto said that if the council directed him to do so, he could come back with a specific traffic enforcement enhancement plan. He said that the $125,000 translates into 1,800 additional hours and indicated a lack of certainty that it could all allocated right now. Briere asked if Seto could come back with the cost for a plan that he would implement.

In a reference to a remark by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) from a previous council meeting, Kunselman exclaimed: “Talk about micromanaging!” He noted that the $125,000 figure came from the city administrator. Seto didn’t have to spend it all, Kunselman said. He called it a small amount in response to community concerns. He allowed that it would require eight votes to pass [because it was a budget amendment] and he invited those who wanted to vote against it to do so.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked Seto for attending the Bach Elementary School meeting on traffic safety. He ventured that Seto has heard directly about some of these citizen concerns.

Responding to Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Seto said that $125,000 translates to 26 weeks of eight 8-hour shifts.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated he’d support the resolution, citing concerns that were reflected in the recent National Citizens Survey. [For the open-ended response survey item, which asked respondents to identify the city leaders’ top three priorities to maximize the quality of life in Ann Arbor, public safety was one of the top three items, with 19% of the open-ended responses identifying safety, crime and police as a concern. Also cited in 19% of responses were government, taxes and communication. However, the dominant concern in the open-ended responses was mobility issues – as 57% of responses were coded as related to roads, transportation, traffic, traffic enforcement, bikes and pedestrians.]

Warpehoski said that traffic safety is the one area where increased investment in safety services is justified. He said he was frustrated that he wasn’t able to get benchmark data about traffic safety. The question Warpehoski had submitted to staff before the meeting and its response was as follows:

Question: Do we have any data by which to benchmark Ann Arbor’s traffic safety compared to other communities (e.g. within the SEMCOG region, peer cities of similar size, or other appropriate comparisons)? In particular, I would like to see data for accidents per vehicle miles traveled, excluding freeways such as I-94, US-23, and M-14. (Councilmember Warpehoski)

Response: We do not have data on vehicle miles traveled within the City of Ann Arbor.

Taylor said that he didn’t disagree that traffic enforcement is deeply important. But he thought that the resolution the council was considering amounted to pre-funding a plan that’s not yet in front of the council. [He was referring to the council's direction to city administrator Steve Powers, taken earlier in the meeting, to develop an implementation strategy for the non-motorized transportation plan.] Taylor wanted to postpone until the next meeting.

$125K for Traffic Enforcement: Council Deliberations – Postponement

Petersen punched the air, raising her hand to be called on. She argued against Taylor’s contention that this resolution was somehow at odds with the previous resolution on the non-motorized transportation plan. She contended that this police overtime actually strengthens that resolution “I don’t know why we wouldn’t do this now,” she said.

Mayor John Hieftje.

Kailasapathy said that this resolution is basically choosing something that seems reasonable – echoing Warpehoski’s sense that this amount is roughly the equivalent of adding an FTE for traffic enforcement. She said she’d support the resolution.

Responding to a question from Hieftje, Seto said there are currently four traffic enforcement staff, plus one administrative position. On Jan. 1 Seto was already planning to assign an additional person to traffic enforcement. This resolution would essentially bring the total to six.

Eaton said that it’s important to be safe – not just from rapes and murders. He described some neighborhoods where cars speed so fast that they leave the roads and run into people’s houses.

Hieftje said he wanted to hear the plan before the council throws the money at it. He supported the postponement. Lumm said she wouldn’t support the postponement. She talked about the overall staffing levels of the AAPD, noting that the number of sworn officers currently is down to 119. She cited the number of emails that she receives asking for more traffic enforcement.

Kunselman said he wouldn’t support a postponement, contending that Seto has already described a plan. He indicated that success will be measured by the number of traffic citations issued.

Taylor pointed out that the previous resolution on implementation of the non-motorized transportation plan does address enforcement around crosswalks.

Outcome on postponement: The motion for postponement failed with support only from Hieftje, Briere and Taylor.

$125K for Traffic Enforcement: More Council Deliberations

Warpehoski noted that the “results” that Kunselman had highlighted are in terms of revenue and citations, but Warpehoski wanted results measured in a way that’s related to traffic safety. He didn’t think police services should be treated as a cash register.

Hieftje said one reason that traffic citations are down is that penalties – for drunk driving, for example – are harsher and people pay more attention. Hieftje said he didn’t want to just throw money at a problem.

Teall echoed Hieftje’s sentiments. She was concerned about a possible backlash from increased enforcement. Briere affirmed there are as many people who are angry about lack of traffic enforcement as who are angry about too much traffic enforcement. Briere described herself as not very gung ho when it comes to rules, but she believed in traffic enforcement. She’d prefer that Seto tell the council how much money he needed, rather than the council tell the chief.

Briere asked Seto if 70 additional hours a week in traffic enforcement is actually feasible. Seto described how his intent would not be to just implement some speed traps – saying that high crash locations can be targeted using a new city system. Seto said he can start this additional enforcement on Jan. 1. Petersen said she couldn’t think of a better day to start than Jan. 1, because of the NHL’s Winter Classic that’s planned for that day.

From left: Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Petersen asked for and received confirmation that the figure of $125,000 had been vetted with the city administrator and that Seto had called it feasible. Kunselman followed up on Petersen’s remarks by saying that not only had the number been vetted, but Seto had also described a plan for implementation. He agreed with Warpehoski’s point that revenues are not the only measure of success. He said he wouldn’t mind hearing complaints about too much traffic enforcement.

Taylor allowed that the $125,000 had been “vetted.” He asked Seto if the plan that starts Jan. 1 will cost about $125,000. Seto replied: “It could.” Taylor allowed that the existence of a budget doesn’t necessitate the spending of that budget. Seto agreed that it might not be necessary to spend all of that $125,000.

Taylor concluded by saying “I think this is sloppy,” pointing out that the council is a couple weeks away from having a plan with a dollar figure on it [an allusion to the non-motorized transportation plan implementation strategy the council had voted to direct the city administrator to develop earlier in the meeting]. It’s not a professional way to approach things, Taylor said. But he had a lot of confidence in Seto’s ability to produce a plan the city is proud of – a plan that will be effective and not just burn through the money just because it is there.

Outcome: The council voted over the lone dissent of mayor John Hieftje to approve $125,000 to pay for overtime so that Ann Arbor police officers can provide additional traffic enforcement.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth?

Postponed from the council’s Dec. 2 meeting was a resolution that would define how much developers would need to pay the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority if a developer’s project requires removal of a metered on-street parking space. The proposed amount is $45,000 per space. The payment would go to the Ann Arbor DDA because the DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city.

The rationale for postponing the item – offered by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the council’s Dec. 2 meeting – was that because it amounts to a fee, a public hearing should be held on the matter before the council votes.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The resolution was sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects.

Based on Taylor’s reasoning on the TIF question, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, would be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation. The city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) parking program allows a developer (as one option) to satisfy an onsite parking space requirement by paying $55,000. (The other option is to enter into a 15-year agreement to purchase monthly parking permits at a 20% premium.)

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could be calculated by taking the actual costs and dividing by 738 – the number of spaces in the structure. Based on a recent memo from executive director Susan Pollay to city administrator Steve Powers, about 30% or $15 million of the cost of the project was spent on items “unneeded by the parking structure.” That included elements like oversized foundations to support future development, an extra-large transformer, a new alley between Library Lane and S. Fifth Avenue, new water mains, easements for a fire hydrant and pedestrian improvements.

The actual amount spent on the Library Lane structure, according to DDA records produced under a Freedom of Information Act request from The Chronicle, was $54,855,780.07, or about $1.5 million under the project’s $56.4 million budget. Adjusting for those elements not needed for the parking structure yields a per-space cost of about $52,000. [(54,855,780.07*.70)/738] [.pdf of Nov. 22, 2013 memo from Pollay to Powers][.pdf of budget versus actual expenses for the 738 space Library Lane structure]

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a past candidate for public office. To his knowledge, he said, the resolution contained no language specifying how parking spaces should be provided for pickup and dropoff for people with disabilities. He said that the proposal should be referred back to a committee for further review. He said the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has been functioning as a stealth government, an agent of the city of Ann Arbor.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the item by saying there had been several amendments to the resolution and he hoped that the amendments had been disseminated. [.pdf of amended version of policy]

Taylor then reviewed the resolution: It would charge developers for removing parking meters. He characterized the process as a “long and slow burn.” He called the charge a replacement fee. He argued for having such a fee by saying that the city’s parking system is a finite resource. There’s a choice to allow removal or not, he said. So the amount required to be paid as a fee, he said, is $45,000, which is approximately the cost of creating a new parking space in a structure. There’s a caveat whereby the cost could be waived if the removal is deemed to be a public benefit, he noted.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked for staff to approach the podium to answer some questions, and Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, came forward. Kailasapathy said she saw a parking space as a capital asset. She asked if the money that is paid as a fee should be segregated into a separate fund, saying it should not be treated as simple revenue. Pollay replied that this has not yet been thought through in detail, but the DDA’s operations committee would be taking that up. Kailasapathy wanted to add an amendment that would require the segregation of funds into something like a sinking fund.

Taylor had no objection to segregating the funds, but was not sure that the city council should be telling the DDA exactly how to do the accounting. City administrator Steve Powers weighed in, saying that the city could work with the DDA to reserve the funds in some manner.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) offered some generally supportive comments about the concept of charging some kind of fee. Pollay indicated she understood that the council is keen to see the capital funds set aside and separated somehow.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked if the money that’s paid could be used to build any capital project or if it had to be a parking space. She was worried about having enough critical mass of funding to undertake the building of a new parking structure. Pollay said that this money to be paid would not necessarily be the only money used to build a new parking structure. The money from the fee would be added to the pot when it comes time to build a new parking structure, Pollay said.

Petersen wanted to know if the money could be used to add on to an existing structure. Pollay’s response was affirmative, as she pointed out that the Fourth and William structure had been extended upward.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that if the money is earmarked for new construction, that makes accounting challenging because it’s not known when construction will happen. Why not just use the money for debt service on parking structures? he asked. Kunselman asked how many spaces have been removed recently. Pollay told Kunselman that about 50 had been removed in the last five years. She allowed that some on-street spaces have also been added through projects like the Fifth and Division street improvement project.

Mayor John Hieftje asked the council to think about whether the issue could be worked out that evening or if it should be put off. Taylor then read aloud wording of a proposed amendment about “financial controls” to segregate the funds so that they can be reinvested in construction of new parking spaces. Kailasapathy wanted the language to be flexible enough to construct new spaces or also replace existing spaces.

The wording of the amendment, which had been forwarded to the press during the meeting by city clerk Jackie Beaudry on request of the council, was: “Therefore, the City of Ann Arbor and the DDA will establish financial controls to segregate cash flows from the removal of on-street parking in order to reinvest these funds in the creation of parking spaces.”

Hieftje asked again if it might be a good idea to put off the question. Taylor was content to see it postponed, as was Kailasapathy.

Lumm then raised an issue she described as a “nit.” There are references in the resolution to development projects taking spaces out of the system, she noted. Lumm asked if the DDA operations committee would consider describing it differently, when that committee reviewed the policy. Many of the spaces that have been “gobbled up” recently have not been by developers but rather by UM or the city itself, Lumm said.

Petersen then said she had an amendment she wanted to add into the mix. Hieftje told her to send it to the DDA operations committee for their discussion.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone until the first meeting in January a vote on a policy that sets the price for removal of an on-street parking space at $45,000.

Solid Waste: Plate Scrapings

The council considered allocating $64,550 from the solid waste fund to support a food-scrap composting initiative. That request came in the context of the council’s recent adoption of an update to the city’s solid waste plan. When the city council adopted the solid waste plan update on Oct. 7, 2013, a modification was made during deliberations.

An inventory of a sample of contents of Ann Arbor garbage trucks showed that about half of the weight is due to food waste. (Chart from the city’s solid waste plan update.)

The amendment undertaken by the council at that meeting eliminated mention of a possible transition to bi-weekly trash pickup or pay-as-you-throw initiatives.

However, one of the recommendations that is thought possibly to lead to a reduction in curbside garbage pickup – which would have been the basis for any decision to reduce the frequency of trash pickup – was left in the plan.

That recommendation is to allow plate scrapings to be placed in residents’ brown composting carts that the city uses to collect yard waste for processing at the city’s composting facility. That facility is operated by a third-party – WeCare Organics. The goal is to reduce the proportion of the city’s landfilled solid waste stream that’s made up of food waste. A recent inventory of the contents of some city trash trucks showed that about half of the weight is made up of food waste.

[Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan.] [Appendices to Waste Less] [Previous Chronicle coverage: Waste as Resource: Ann Arbor's Five Year Plan.]

The $64,550 allocation breaks down this way:

• $14,950 for an increased level of service from WeCare Organics at the compost processing facility (daily versus weekly grinding). The city is estimating no increased net cost for this increased service based on a reduction in landfill tipping fees. The city pays $25.90 per ton for transfer and disposal of landfilled waste. That’s $7.90 more than the city pays WeCare organics ($18 per ton) for processing compostable material. City staff is estimating that the program will divert 2,100 tons from the $25.90 category – for a savings of 2,100*$7.90=$16,590.
• $24,600 for the cost of 6,000 Sure-Close counter-top containers the city plans to give away to residents to encourage the initial separation of plate scrapings from garbage.
• $25,000 for a subsidy to sell an estimated 1,000 additional brown compost carts to residents at a cost of $25 per cart instead of $50 per cart. About 12,000 carts are already in use.

A Doppstadt slow speed grinder/shredder used by WeCare Organics. (Image provided by WeCare)

Solid Waste: Plate Scrapings – Public Commentary

Barbara Lucas spoke in support of the expanded food waste composting. Her family had participated in a pilot program. Where she currently lives, there are various wildlife that makes composting food scraps challenging. She said that during the pilot program, there wasn’t a problem with odor. When there’s other yard waste in the composting cart, that helps, she said.

Solid Waste: Plate Scrapings – Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the resolution. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) confirmed that this resolution would not change the seasonal compost collection schedule. Solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie was invited by mayor John Hieftje to demonstrate the counter-top containers, which would be offered free to residents.

City solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie demonstrates a counter-top food-scrap storage container that the city will be giving away to residents to encourage them to place their food waste in brown compost carts instead of the regular trash.

Eaton asked how many households use a garbage disposal and would not use this service. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she thought that the estimates of how many tons would be added to the compost and diverted from garbage are optimistic. She called the giveaways “gimmicky.” But she said it’s not a huge investment to give it a try.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) questioned the viability of the city’s estimates. If the 2,100 ton estimate is not accurate, then the city would pay for the additional service of grinding the compost plus the giveaways, she ventured. McMurtrie allowed that Kailasapathy was right about that.

Kailasapathy wanted to know if a pilot could be conducted, just for Monday route collection, for example. McMurtrie said in such a pilot. it would be logistically difficult to maintain the separation of the material at the composting site.

McMurtrie explained that WeCare set the price for the additional grinding at below its cost, because WeCare wants to see the program succeed. For a pilot, WeCare would need to bring in the equipment for the same frequency – but for a limited pilot, it would be over a much smaller tonnage base.

Briere argued for the resolution. She wondered how residents might deal with raccoons. McMurtrie suggested modifying the compost cart by adding a bungee cord – but cautioned that residents need to remember to take the bungee off when they set out the cart. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) re-confirmed Eaton’s point from early in the deliberations – that compost will still not be collected in the winter months.

Kunselman ventured that a considerable educational effort will be required. He asked about the mention of the MDEQ requirements in the staff memo. McMurtrie explained that the city’s proposal is consistent with MDEQ guidelines. The daily processing is what WeCare views as appropriate procedures for dealing with this type of material, he said.

Kunselman asked about the end product: Will adding food waste have an impact on the quality of the end product? No, said McMurtrie.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appropriate $64,550 to fund the food-scrap composting initiative.

Tree Pruning

The council considered a resolution accepting a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service – to put toward a tree pruning initiative. The pruning program would target those trees in the public right-of-way that are most in need of pruning (Priority 1). The initiative is also focused on the larger of the city’s street trees – those bigger than 20 inches in diameter. Those are the trees that have the greatest impact on the mitigation of stormwater.

Here’s where the trees targeted by the program are located:

Street trees in Ann Arbor greater than 20 inches in diameter. (Map by the city of Ann Arbor.)

From the city’s online tree inventory, The Chronicle queried those trees greater than 20 inches in diameter and designated as Priority 1 for pruning. A total of 684 trees fit those criteria. Here’s how they broke down by height, diameter and species.

Priority 1 trees by diameter. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by height. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by species. Maples are the dominant species among those that will be targeted by this pruning program. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without discussion to approve the receipt of the $50,000 USDA Forestry Service grant for tree pruning.

Killing Fuller Road Station MOU

An item added to the Dec. 16 meeting agenda on the day of the meeting would officially terminate a four-year-old memorandum of understanding between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan on Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. [.pdf of Nov. 5, 2009 MOU text as approved by the city council] However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sponsored the Dec. 16 resolution. The idea to terminate the MOU has its origins in election campaign rhetoric. He had stated at a June 8, 2013 Democratic primary candidate forum that he intended to bring forth such a resolution to “kill” the Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that forum:

Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project. Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

The city continues to pursue the possibility of a newly built or reconstructed train station, but not necessarily with the University of Michigan’s participation, and without a pre-determined preferred alternative for the site of a new station. At its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, the council approved a contract with URS Corp. Inc. to carry out an environmental review of the Ann Arbor Station project – which should yield the determination of a locally-preferred alternative for a site.

Killing Fuller Road Station MOU: Council Deliberations

Kunselman lead off by saying he would like to postpone the resolution. He indicated that he thought he’d managed to add the item to the agenda on the Friday before the Monday meeting, but it turned out he had not done so. In light of the council’s discussion at their Dec. 9 budget planning session – when councilmembers had said they’d strive to avoid adding resolutions at the last minute – Kunselman said he wanted it postponed.

Mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) both indicated they’d vote for the resolution – but also said they didn’t think the resolution was necessary. They indicated they were willing to vote for the resolution without postponing. Kunselman nevertheless wanted to postpone it, because it was added late to the agenda.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the Fuller Road Station resolution until its next meeting.

Community Events Funding: Street Art Fair

At its Dec. 16 meeting, the council considered a resolution directing city administrator Steve Powers to include in the fiscal year 2015 budget an additional $10,000 in community events funding to support the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair. The city’s FY 2015 begins on July 1, 2014.

A memo supporting the resolution noted that the AASAF has run an annual deficit for several years. An email sent to Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) by Maureen Riley, executive director of the AASAF, specified those annual deficits as follows:

• 2013 – anticipated to be approximately ($8,000)
• 2012 – ($6,316)
• 2011 – ($5,769)
• 2010 – ($6,040)
• 2009 – ($33,693)

Lumm and Taylor sponsored the resolution. Lumm is a former AASAF board member.

The rationale for providing support for the AASAF but not the other three art fairs is based on the additional costs the AASAF has to pay to the University of Michigan, as well as the provision by AASAF of community benefits that reduce its opportunity to gain revenue – including the Demo Zone, Art Activity Zones, Street Painting Exhibition, and the Fountain Stage. The background memo also indicated that the other three art fairs have offered written support for the $10,000 to the AASAF.

The dollar amount roughly corresponds to the allocated cost to the AASAF from the total that is charged by the city for various services to the four art fairs collectively.

At the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting, Taylor had announced his intent to bring forward the resolution asking that an additional $10,000 be included in the city’s FY 2015 budget.

Ann Arbor Street Art Fair: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) led off by reviewing the background of the resolution. He explained why the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair is different from the other art fairs in its revenue challenges.

Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Margie Teall (Ward 4) responded to Taylor by relating her experience in allocating the community events funding serving on the council’s community events fund committee. She was concerned about doing something for one organization, but possibly not others.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) described her volunteer work with the AASAF and her service on the board. There’s only so much you can raise in booth fees, she said. She then ticked through the specific challenges the AASAF faces. Lumm called the AASAF one of Ann Arbor’s “icons.” She said that $10,000 is a small amount for the city, but is crucial for the AASAF.

Mayor John Hieftje described the AASAF as a special situation, so he’d support the resolution. Hieftje noted that it’s a small item. He then referred to the council budget planning session from Dec. 9, and highlighted the council’s expressed desire at that session to keep its meetings moving along. He hoped this item could be dispatched without a lot more discussion.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) asked if the proposal is for the support of the AASAF to be recurring. Taylor replied by saying he’d expect it to be reconsidered in each subsequent year.

The executive director of the AASAF, Maureen “Mo” Riley, was asked to come to the podium. She responded to a question by saying that the rent paid to the University of Michigan is about $5,000.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that this approach doesn’t guarantee that AASAF would get the money as a result of the community events funding disbursements. He pointed out that the funds could have been appropriated from this year’s FY 2014 budget and the council would then be done with the issue.

Teall responded to Kunselman’s point by saying that typically when community events are funded, the council would ask what exactly the money would go toward. Taylor responded by ticking through some of the background in the memo. Teall said she can’t not support it, calling the AASAF her favorite art fair.

But Teall said she questioned this resolution partly because the AASAF is required to pay rent to the UM, and she wished UM would “pony up,” too. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) indicated that she considered the art fairs a kind of public art. By way of background, Petersen had submitted a question to staff in advance of the meeting exploring the possibility that public art funds could be tapped. From the staff responses to councilmember questions:

Question: What is the current balance of the City’s various funds dedicated to public art. Can these funds be tapped to support this effort? (Councilmember Petersen)

Response: $1,392,395.72. No. All of these funds are restricted for purposes related to their origin. Most of the funds were derived from the utility funds and streets. [.pdf of staff answers to pre-meeting (Dec. 16, 2013) councilmember questions]

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) pointed out that the community events fund does fund FestiFools, Dancing in the Streets, and other nonprofit events – for the fees that they incur from the city. So he tied the resolution back to that aspect – the fees that AASAF must pay to the city of Ann Arbor for various services.

Lumm spoke again in support of the resolution. Teall said she thought that this should go through the regular community events fund allocation process – through the council’s committee. She was very hesitant. She wanted to see an application from AASAF for the funding.

Responding to Teall, Hieftje said that he thought this was a completely different category from other events. It’s more like the Ann Arbor Summer Festival, he said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct the city administrator to include $10,000 of funding for the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair when he prepares next year’s (FY 2015) budget.

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: Snow Plowing

City administrator Steve Powers invited public services area administrator Craig Hupy to report on the snow plowing activity after the Friday and Saturday snowfall. Hupy summarized the snow accumulation citywide at 5.5-7.5 inches. He said there was some drifting due to wind. The city’s goal is to have all roads plowed within 24 hours. For this storm, it took 26 hours to plow the travel lanes and 30 hours for the cul de sacs, Hupy said.

Comm/Comm: Self-Discipline, Dissemination of Information

The council discussed a couple of issues involving how councilmembers behave during meetings. The first issue involved dissemination of information during meetings and the second involved councilmembers exceeding the time limits on their speaking turns.

During council communications time toward the end of the meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said that he had a previous practice of announcing that he was breaking the rules when he disseminates information during the meetings. [Those occasions involve the text of amendments made to resolutions during the meeting, which councilmembers send via email.] He’d missed an instance of that, so he wanted to rectify that by announcing it retroactively. He said that as a member of the rules committee, he will work on an “above-board” ways of disseminating information.

Related to the topic of disseminating information, the staff’s answers to the council’s “caucus questions” – submitted in advance of the meeting – were attached to the city’s online Legistar agenda management system under the city administrator’s communications. [.pdf of staff answers to pre-meeting (Dec. 16, 2013) councilmember questions]

Also during council communications time toward the end of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje took the pulse of the council for their view on managing councilmember speaking time. Under the council’s rules, for each question before the council, councilmembers get two turns – five minutes for the first turn and three minutes for the second turn.

Hieftje raised the possibility of having the city clerk time councilmember speaking turns. [This possibility had been broached at a rules committee meeting last summer on June 13, 2013. The consensus at that meeting had been that it would put the clerk in an awkward spot, and would require her to exercise judgment on whether to start the timer if a councilmember was simply asking questions of staff, or whether the councilmember then also used the time to argue for a position.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) ventured that councilmembers should set their own timers. Hieftje said he thought a solution where councilmembers self-policed their speaking time would be best, because it would be a burden on the clerk to ask her to do that. Kunselman quipped that he’d bring forward a budget resolution for kitchen timers.

Comm/Comm: Local Officers Compensation Commission

During council communications at the start of the meeting, Jack Eaton (Ward 4) reported that he was disappointed that the agenda didn’t include any appointments for the local officers compensation commission.

From the LOCC meeting of Dec. 16, which failed to achieve a quorum: Roger Hewitt and Eunice Burns.

The commission has only two members, but it needs four commission members to achieve a quorum, he noted.

He pointed out that the city attorney and several councilmembers had received an email from Dave Askins [this reporter and Chronicle editor] in May of this year noting the vacancies on the commission.

A few minutes later during mayoral communications, mayor John Hieftje reported that the LOCC had met but had not achieved a quorum.

Hieftje said that he saw no harm in not having a quorum this year. [For more background, see "Ann Arbor Mayor, Council Pay: No Action" and " Column: What Do We Pay Ann Arbor's Mayor?"]

Comm/Comm: Rabhi Says Thanks

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Washtenaw County board chair Yousef Rabhi addressed the council, saying he was attending the meeting as a citizen. But as one elected official to others, he thanked them for serving with honor, dignity and respect. The thoughtful discussion that evening was telling of their willingness to come to the table to work in good faith, he said. As the year wraps up, he wanted to extend a thank you.

Comm/Comm: Blighted Properties

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Ed Vielmetti told the council about eight properties that were coming before the building board of appeals at its meeting later in the week, on Dec. 19. He said it’s unfortunate that many properties are now in need of demolition.

Comm/Comm: Winter Classic

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Kai Petainen reminded the council that the NHL’s Winter Classic is coming up. He drew a laugh – because Petainen hails from Canada and has previously plugged the event to the council. He told councilmembers that they’ll need some additional police, but stated “I’m sure the Canadians will be nice.” He told John Hieftje, in a light-hearted way, that it would not be a good idea to meet with the mayor of Toronto if he requests a meeting. Hieftje responded by saying: “He may have smoked crack cocaine, but I believe him when he said he did it during one of his drunken stupors.”

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent candidate for various public offices. He said he plans to campaign for office in the future as well – to make sure there’s a candidate committed to protecting the rights of the most vulnerable. He referred to the recent murder of a 71-year-old Ann Arbor resident, saying that residents deserve the respect of the council. Residents deserve discrimination-free planning, he said. If every item on the agenda were passed, there still won’t be any progress in protecting the most vulnerable residents, he said.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Jan. 6, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

The Ann Arbor city council’s last regular meeting of the year, set for tonight, features an agenda with about a dozen substantive voting items.

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

Added to the agenda on the Friday before tonight’s meeting is an item that relates to proceeds from the city’s sale of property known as the former Y lot. The sale of the property to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million will result in a gross difference of $1.75 million compared to the $3.5 million price paid by the city in 2003.

The item added to the Dec. 16 agenda would designate $1.56 million of that amount – which is all but a $190,000 brokerage fee – for deposit in the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

That would reflect a departure from the policy set in a 2012 council resolution, which called first for reimbursement of costs out of the proceeds, including interest paid over the last 10 years, before depositing those net proceeds into the affordable housing trust fund.

Although the city administrator is not required to present next year’s FY 2015 budget to the council until April 2014, at least three items on the council’s Dec. 16 agenda could have an impact on preparation of that budget. Some of those items relate to mobility and traffic issues.

First, the council will consider directing city administrator Steve Powers to include in the FY 2015 budget an additional $10,000 in community events funding to support the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair.

Second, the council will consider directing Powers to present a plan for funding elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan by specific dates: by Feb. 1, 2014, the plan’s recommended midblock deployments of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB); by April 21 the near-term recommendations of the plan; and by June 30 the long-term elements of the plan.

Thematically related to the funding plan for non-motorized improvements is a third budget item: a proposal to allocate $125,000 from the current general fund reserve to pay for police overtime for traffic enforcement.

That item is sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who were part of a six-vote majority that had backed a significant revision to the city’s crosswalk law at the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. That change – which eliminated a requirement that motorists stop for pedestrians who were at the curb but not within the crosswalk – was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. And the text of that veto is attached to the council’s meeting agenda as a communication.

Also generally related to the public right-of-way on streets is a Dec. 16 item that was postponed from the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. The item assigns a specific cost to the removal of an on-street parking space caused by a development: $45,000. The postponement stemmed from a desire to hold a public hearing on the matter before taking action.

Several of the other Dec. 16 items relate generally to the theme of the environment. In the area of solid waste management, the council will consider a roughly $65,000 allocation from the solid waste fund balance. That allocation will pay for an initiative that will allow residents to add plate scrapings to their brown compost carts for curbside collection. The additional funds will cover an increased level of service at the compost processing facility (daily versus weekly grinding). The funds will also cover the cost of counter-top containers the city plans to give away to residents to encourage the initial separation of plate scrapings from garbage, and a subsidy for the sale of additional brown compost carts. Some of that allocation is expected to be recovered through reduced landfill tipping fees.

Other solid waste items on the Dec. 16 agenda include one to allocate about $63,000 to rebuild a baler at the city’s materials recovery facility. And the council will consider an amendment to the contract with Waste Management, which provides commercial waste collection services – to factor in special event service pricing on Sundays for up to five collection containers that are otherwise serviced daily. The council will also consider authorizing the purchase of about 150 300-gallon carts per year ($42,000) for the next four years – which will be used as part of the city’s commercial and multi-family recycling program.

Also part of the environmental theme on the Dec. 16 agenda is an item that accepts a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service to be spent on a tree pruning initiative focused on the city’s largest street trees.

Additional items include two standard rezoning approvals in connection with annexations from townships into the city. The recommending body for zoning approvals is the city planning commission. Also on the Dec. 16 agenda is an item that asks the council to approve changes to the planning commission bylaws. Those bylaws changes relate to the required notice for special accommodations like a sign-language interpreter – changing the notification requirement from 24 hours to two business days.

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

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the Dec. 16 meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. Updates might begin somewhat sooner.

Y Lot Proceeds

The history of the city’s policy on the proceeds of city-owned land and the connection to the city’s affordable housing trust fund goes back at least 20 years.

Affordable housing fund activity.

Some highlights are laid out in a timeline below.

The specific connection between the affordable housing trust fund and the former Y lot is the 100 units of single-resident occupancy housing that previously were a part of the YMCA building that stood on the site.

Various efforts have been made to replace those units over the years. [See, for example: "The 100 Units of Affordable Housing."] Recently, the Ann Arbor housing commission and its properties have started to receive more attention from the council as an integral part of the city’s approach to providing housing to the lowest income residents. The council approved a series of resolutions this last summer that will allow the AAHC to convert many of its properties to project-based vouchers.

The approved $5.25 million sale price of the former Y lot will result in a gross difference of $1.75 million compared to the $3.5 million price paid by the city in 2003. At the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting, consideration will be given to a resolution that would designate $1.56 million of that amount – which is all but a $190,000 brokerage fee – for deposit in the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

This would reflect a departure from the most recent policy adopted by the city council, but would eliminate any wrangling between the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority over how much in reimbursements might be owed for various purposes. The city has calculated, for example, that $365,651 in interest reimbursements could be owed, as well as $488,646 for the relocation of residents of the former Y building. The DDA has calculated $1,493,959 in reimbursements that it thinks it could claim – for interest payments and cost of demolition, among other items. But the DDA board has voted essentially to waive that claim.

It’s not clear if the DDA can waive all of that claim in light of the fact that the DDA used at least some TIF funds to pay for items like demolition and some of the interest payments on the loan. [.pdf of DDA records produced in response to Freedom of Information Act request by The Chronicle] If that were analyzed as a distribution of TIF to the city of Ann Arbor, then under state statute DDA would need to distribute a proportional amount to the other jurisdictions whose taxes are captured in the DDA district.

In timeline overview form:

• April 15, 1996: City council establishes a policy that put half of the proceeds from city-owned land sales into the affordable housing trust fund. The minutes of the meeting show that Jane Lumm (Ward 2) voted against an amendment, made at the council table, to divide the proceeds of land sales (less costs) between “infrastructure needs and the housing trust fund regardless of budget year.” But the minutes show that the vote on the amended resolution was declared unanimous on a voice vote (not a roll call). In 1996, part of the impetus for consideration of a land sale policy was driven by city-owned property at Packard and Main, which eventually became a part of the Ashley Mews development.
• Nov. 5, 1998: City council votes to increase the portion of proceeds of city-owned land sales that would be earmarked for the affordable housing trust fund – from half to all. Lumm joined her Ward 2 colleague David Kwan in voting against this policy shift.
• Dec. 8, 2003: City council approves purchase of Y property – on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues – for $3.5 million, financing the purchase with a five-year loan. The Ann Arbor DDA had agreed to pay some of the interest on that loan through an action taken not by its full board, but rather by its executive committee, on Dec. 5, 2003.
• Oct. 20, 2005: Pipe bursts in YMCA building, displacing residents. The building is ultimately determined to be not worth the cost of renovation.
• June 4, 2007: City council votes to rescind the policy that put the proceeds from the sale of city-owned land into the affordable housing trust fund. The policy shift in 2007 took place as part of a relatively small land transaction: The city was selling a piece of land on East Eisenhower for $23,750. The proceeds were earmarked for the construction fund of the new municipal center, built at the corner of Fifth and Huron. But in order to put the money from the sale into that construction fund, the council needed to change the existing policy on land sales. So one of the “resolved” clauses in the resolution was the following:
  

  RESOLVED, That City Council revoke Resolution R-481-11-98 which provided that the proceeds from the sale of excess City property be deposited into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund;

  In the course of deliberations, the council agreed to amend the resolution so that the $23,750 in proceeds from this particular land sale would still be deposited in the affordable housing trust fund – but left the basic policy change intact. The council had an eye toward changing the policy anyway – so that the roughly $3 million in proceeds of the sale of the First & Washington parcel (to Village Green for construction of the City Apartments project) could be put toward the new police/courts building.

• Dec. 1, 2008: City council authorizes five-year extension of the renewal on terms from the Bank of Ann Arbor to finance the Y lot loan. During deliberations, some of the focus is on the need to divest the city of the property. Sandi Smith (Ward 1), at her second meeting after winning election to the council a month earlier, put the interest payments in the context of the cost of supporting a homeless person:
  

  In deliberations, councilmember Sandi Smith said that she would support the continued financing of the property, because they had no other choice, but that she urged her colleagues to begin thinking of master planning the area so that the city could divest itself of the property as soon as possible. [The master planning of the area was eventually realized in the form of the Connecting William Street project.] Smith noted that given the $5,000 cost of supporting a homeless person, the interest-only payments could be used to support 27 people. The math goes like this: ($3,500,000)*(.0389)/5,000.

• Sept. 19, 2011: City council approves the sale of a strip of the former Y lot for $90,000 to facilitate construction of new Blake Transit Center by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The total parcel area of the strip was 792 square feet.
• April 26, 2012: Board of the AAATA approves the purchase of a strip of the former Y lot for $90,000 to facilitate construction of new Blake Transit Center.
• Sept. 5, 2012: DDA board passes a resolution urging the city council to dedicate proceeds of the sale of city land to support affordable housing.
• Sept. 5, 2012: Washtenaw County board of commissioners passes a resolution urging the city council to dedicate proceeds of the sale of city land to support affordable housing. [At the time, county commissioner Leah Gunn served on the DDA board, along with former county administrator Bob Guenzel, who continues to serve on the board.]
• Sept. 17, 2012: City council considers but postpones action on a policy for proceeds of the sale of city-owned land.
• Oct. 15, 2012: City council approves a policy that ultimately leaves the policy on the use of proceeds of city land to case-by-case decisions, but indicates that for the Y lot, the proceeds will:
  

  … first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund;”

• Nov. 8, 2012: City council transfers $90,000 from proceeds of the land sale to AAATA into the affordable housing trust fund.
• March 4, 2013: City council directs the city administrator to select a broker for the Y lot.
• July 3, 2013: City administrator Steve Powers announces that he’s selected Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the marketing of the property.
• Nov. 18, 2013: City council approves the sale of the former Y lot for $5.25 million to Dennis Dahlmann.
• Dec. 4, 2013: DDA board waives its claim to reimbursement from the sale of the Y lot.

Community Events Funding

At its Dec. 16 meeting, the council will consider directing city administrator Steve Powers to include in the fiscal year 2015 budget an additional $10,000 in community events funding to support the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair. The city’s FY 2015 begins on July 1, 2014.

The memo supporting the resolution notes that the AASAF has run an annual deficit for several years. An email sent to Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) by Maureen Riley, executive director of the AASAF, specified those annual deficits as follows:

• 2013 – anticipated to be approximately ($8,000)
• 2012 – ($6,316)
• 2011 – ($5,769)
• 2010 – ($6,040)
• 2009 – ($33,693)

Lumm and Taylor are sponsoring the resolution. Lumm is a former AASAF board member.

The rationale for providing support for the AASAF but not the other three art fairs is based on the additional costs the AASAF has to pay to the University of Michigan, as well as the provision by AASAF of community benefits that reduce its opportunity to gain revenue – including the Demo Zone, Art Activity Zones, Street Painting Exhibition, and the Fountain Stage. The background memo also indicates that the other three art fairs have indicated written support for the $10,000 to the AASAF.

The dollar amount roughly corresponds to the allocated cost to the AASAF from the total that is charged by the city for various services to the four art fairs collectively.

At the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting, Taylor had announced his intent to bring forward the resolution asking that an additional $10,000 be included in the city’s FY 2015 budget.

Traffic Enforcement

On the Dec. 16 agenda is an item that would allocate $125,000 from the general fund balance to pay for police overtime required for additional traffic enforcement. The item began conceptually as a $500,000 allocation described by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who was persuaded by co-sponsors Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) that $125,000 would be a more reasonable amount to spend.

Data from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), compiled with previous CAFRs, shows that traffic citations have continued for the past three years at significantly lower levels than previously:

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Some insight into the question of how much time AAPD officers have available for proactive policing activities – like traffic enforcement – has been provided to councilmembers in the form of timesheet data that officers have been logging since the beginning of 2013.

In the charts below (by The Chronicle, with data from the city of Ann Arbor), green shading indicates unassigned time and time dedicated to proactive policing activities. Dedicate policing activities include: bicycle patrol, business contact, check person, citizen/motorist assist, code citation, community event, community meeting, downtown foot patrol, extra patrol (general), extra patrol (parks), felony, impound, liquor inspection, misdemeanor, parking citation, property check, recontact, traffic enforcement (general), traffic enforcement (laser), traffic enforcement (radar), traffic problem, and traffic stop.

Ann Arbor police department timesheet analysis. AAPD provided a range of time periods, to cover for the data entry training period, as officers learned the new system and became accustomed to coding their activities in a standard way. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

In a memo to the city administrator dated Nov. 4, 2013, chief of police John Seto indicated that he’s already begun to assign additional proactive duties to officers, based on the results of the timesheet analysis:

As a result of this data, supervisors and officers have been identifying additional dedicated proactive policing activities to engage in for the remainder of 2013. Staffing modifications will also be taking place for 2014. An additional officer will be assigned to Special Services to address traffic complaints. The distribution of Patrol Officers will also be modified to increase the number of officers assigned to the swing shift, where the volume of calls for service is greater.

Council deliberations on the $125,000 overtime allocation could feature a discussion of the ability of the AAPD to conduct additional traffic enforcement activities, without drawing on overtime.

Non-Motorized Plan Funding

On the Dec. 16 agenda is a directive to the city administrator to provide a funding plan for elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan.

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

The council approved the updated plan at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting.

The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

And the Dec. 16 resolution – which is co-sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – is structured in part based on those main sections.

The resolution directs city administrator Steve Powers to present a plan for funding elements of the city’s non-motorized plan by specific dates: by Feb. 1, 2014, the plan’s recommended midblock deployments of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB); by April 21 the near-term recommendations of the plan; and by June 30 the long-term elements of the plan.

Examples of planning and policy issues include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.”

Additional flashing beacon locations identified in Ann Arbor’s non-motorized transportation plan.

Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands.

Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

The city’s non-motorized transportation plan is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the updated plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]

With respect to the adoption of the master plan, the council and the planning commission are on equal footing. That is, they must adopt the same plan. So in this case, the commission is not merely the recommending body.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth?

Postponed from the council’s Dec. 2 meeting is a resolution that would define how much developers would need to pay the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority if a developer’s project requires removal of a metered on-street parking space. The proposed amount is $45,000 per space. The payment would go to the Ann Arbor DDA because the DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city.

The rationale for postponing the item – offered by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the council’s Dec. 2 meeting – was that because it amounts to a fee, a public hearing should be held on the matter before the council votes.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The resolution is sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects.

Based on Taylor’s reasoning on the TIF question, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, would be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation.

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could provide a more current estimate, but the DDA has not made public a breakdown of how that project’s actual costs lined up with its project budget. The DDA has exercised its statutory right to extend the deadline in response to a request from The Chronicle for that information under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually.

Solid Waste: Plate Scrapings

The Dec. 16 city council agenda item – to allocate $64,550 from the solid waste fund to support a food-scrap composting initiative – comes in the context of the council’s recent adoption of an update to the city’s solid waste plan. When the city council adopted the solid waste plan update on Oct. 7, 2013, a modification was made during deliberations.

An inventory of a sample of contents of Ann Arbor garbage trucks showed that about half of the weight is due to food waste. (Chart from the city’s solid waste plan update.)

The amendment undertaken by the council at that meeting eliminated mention of a possible transition to bi-weekly trash pickup or pay-as-you-throw initiatives.

However, one of the recommendations that is thought possibly to lead to a reduction in curbside garbage pickup – which would have been the basis for any decision to reduce the frequency of trash pickup – was left in the plan.

That recommendation is to allow plate scrapings to be placed in residents’ brown composting carts that the city uses to collect yard waste for processing at the city’s composting facility. That facility is operated by a third-party – WeCare Organics. The goal is to reduce the proportion of the city’s landfilled solid waste stream that’s made up of food waste. A recent inventory of the contents of some city trash trucks showed that about half of the weight is made up of food waste.

[Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan.] [Appendices to Waste Less] [Previous Chronicle coverage: Waste as Resource: Ann Arbor's Five Year Plan.]

The $64,550 allocation from the solid waste fund balance on the Dec. 16 agenda would pay for the initiative that will allow residents to add plate scrapings to their brown compost carts for curbside collection. The additional funds break down this way:

• $14,950 for an increased level of service from WeCare Organics at the compost processing facility (daily versus weekly grinding). The city is estimating no increased net cost for this increased service based on a reduction in landfill tipping fees. The city pays $25.90 per ton for transfer and disposal of landfilled waste. That’s $7.90 more than the city pays WeCare organics ($18 per ton) for processing compostable material. City staff is estimating that the program will divert 2,100 tons from the $25.90 category – for a savings of 2,100*$7.90=$16,590.
• $24,600 for the cost of 6,000 Sure-Close counter-top containers the city plans to give away to residents to encourage the initial separation of plate scrapings from garbage.
• $25,000 for a subsidy to sell an estimated 1,000 additional brown compost carts to residents at a cost of $25 per cart instead of $50 per cart. About 12,000 carts are already in use.

A Doppstadt slow speed grinder/shredder used by WeCare Organics. (Image provided by WeCare)

Tree Pruning

The council will be considering the receipt of a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service – to put toward a tree pruning initiative. The pruning program would target those trees in the public right-of-way that are most in need of pruning (Priority 1). The initiative is also focused on the larger of the city’s street trees – those bigger than 20 inches in diameter. Those are the trees that have the greatest impact on the mitigation of stormwater.

Here’s where the trees targeted by the program are located:

Street trees in Ann Arbor greater than 20 inches in diameter. (Map by the city of Ann Arbor.)

From the city’s online tree inventory, The Chronicle queried those trees greater than 20 inches in diameter and designated as Priority 1 for pruning. A total of 684 trees fit those criteria. Here’s how they broke down by height, diameter and species.

Priority 1 trees by diameter. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by height. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by species. Maples are the dominant species among those that will be targeted by this pruning program. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

4:31 p.m. Agenda addition: Fuller Road Station MOU termination. An agenda item added this morning, Dec. 16, would officially terminate a four-year-old memorandum of understanding between the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan on Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station was a planned joint city/UM parking structure, bus depot and possible train station located at the city’s Fuller Park near the UM medical campus. The council had approved the MOU on the Fuller Road Station project at its Nov. 5, 2009 meeting on a unanimous vote. [.pdf of Nov. 5, 2009 MOU text as approved by the city council] However, a withdrawal of UM from the project, which took place under terms of the MOU, was announced Feb. 10, 2012. So it’s been clear for nearly two years that the MOU was a dead letter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) sponsored the Dec. 16, 2013 resolution. The idea to terminate the MOU has its origins in election campaign rhetoric. He had stated at a June 8, 2013 Democratic primary candidate forum that he intended to bring forth such a resolution to “kill” the Fuller Road Station project. From The Chronicle’s report of that forum:

Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project. Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

The city continues to pursue the possibility of a newly built or reconstructed train station, but not necessarily with the University of Michigan’s participation, and without a pre-determined preferred alternative for the site of a new station. At its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, the council approved a contract with URS Corp. Inc. to carry out an environmental review of the Ann Arbor Station project – which should yield the determination of a locally-preferred alternative for a site.

4:47 p.m. Council questions. Councilmembers have now received written responses to several questions about agenda items, which they submitted to staff prior to the meeting. [.pdf of staff answers to pre-meeting (Dec. 16, 2013) councilmember questions]

5:01 p.m. Revision to Y lot resolution: The council will be considering a revised version of the resolution previously made public. The revision adjusts the amount of the proceeds from the Y lot sale downward to reimburse not just the broker’s commission, but also the seller’s closing costs. The revised amount to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund is $1,384,300. [For more background, see Y Lot Proceeds above.]

6:19 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Council chambers are empty. The sound of custodial staff vacuuming the second floor clerk’s office lobby area is audible. City clerk’s staffer Anissa Bowden arrives and distributes the council nameplates to their respective places at the table.

Police chief John Seto comes through the chambers and asks Bowden if he can get a copy of the council’s agenda. Yes, she says, they’re coming “hot off the presses” in the clerk’s office. So Seto continues through the council workroom to the clerk’s office. CTN technician is now testing mics.

6:39 p.m. Public art administrator Aaron Seagraves has arrived. He’s setting up a laptop with a presentation on the Detroit DIA Inside|Out program, which is receiving a proclamation tonight. Seagraves ventures that it will be public art commissioner John Kotarski who gives the presentation.

6:41 p.m. Audience members are starting to arrive. About 10 people here so far, most in support of the resolution designating proceeds of the Y lot sale for the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Point of conversation: “the working homeless.”

6:46 p.m. No councilmembers have arrived yet. Check that. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is the first councilmember arrive.

6:49 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers has now arrived. His neckwear features snowmen and Christmas trees.

6:53 p.m. People are starting to arrive at a brisk clip. Former city councilmember Jean Carlberg, who’s signed up to speak during public commentary reserved time, is among those to arrive.

6:57 p.m. Kotarski has now arrived. His choice of neckwear: bowtie.

7:03 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is the only councilmember not yet spotted in chambers.

7:09 p.m. Call to order. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Moment of silence, pledge of allegiance, roll call of the council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. The agenda is approved.

7:15 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers announces the regular holiday trash collection. He invites public services area administrator Craig Hupy to report on the snow plowing activity after the Friday and Saturday snowfall. Hupy summarizes the snow accumulation citywide at 5.5-7.5 inches. He says there was some drifting due to wind. The city’s goal is to have all roads plowed within 24 hours. For this storm, it took 26 hours to plow the travel lanes and 30 hours for the cul de sacs, Hupy says.

7:15 p.m. INT-1 Proclamation for Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out Program. The mayoral proclamation honors the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum, the Ann Arbor Art Center, and the Ann Arbor public art commission for their collaboration on implementing the Detroit Institute of Arts Inside|Out program in Ann Arbor this past summer. The program features installations of framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection in public places. Volunteer docents led 20 tours that included a total of 150 people, according to the text of the resolution. Chronicle coverage of the public art commission’s meetings on the topic includes the Jan. 23, 2013 meeting. At least one of the tours was noted in a Stopped.Watched. item: “Fourth & Catherine.”

7:16 p.m. Public art commissioner John Kotarski is now at the podium giving a presentation on the Inside|Out program.

7:21 p.m. Representatives of the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum and the Ann Arbor Art Center are now approaching the podium, and mayor John Hieftje is now reading forth the proclamation.

7:22 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Eight speakers and two alternates are signed up to speak on the issue of the allocation of funds from the proceeds of the sale of the old Y lot: Ray Gholston, Tracy Williams, Mary Browning, Ryan Sample, Jim Mogensen, Jean Carlberg, Suzzanne William, James Hill, Tate Williams and Deborah Clark. Barbara Lucas is signed up to speak about the food waste composting item. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about general issues like ending discrimination and to call for the resignation of Gov. Rick Snyder and mayor John Hieftje, as well as the proceeds of the Y lot sale.

7:27 p.m. Ray Gholston expresses his support for the allocation of funds from the proceeds of the Y lot sale to support affordable housing.

7:29 p.m. Tracy Williams introduces himself as a resident of Ann Arbor. He says that 700 people died from exposure, at least one of them here in Ann Arbor, who was a friend of his. “Shorty was a little guy but had a big heart,” Williams says. People like “Shorty” need more help, he adds. The agencies who work in this area are doing the best they can, he says. The Delonis Center weather “amnesty” of 10 degrees is too cold, he says.

7:31 p.m. Mary Browning is speaking on behalf of Religious Action for Affordable Housing. She says she’s talking about affordable housing at the 30% of AMI (area median income) level, not 80% AMI. Folks who get help from the shelter need a place to go, she says. She strongly urges that the funds from the Y lot sale go towards affordable housing.

7:34 p.m. Ryan Sample tells a story from three months ago, before the warming center opened. He was sleeping at the Baptist Church. He had to give his blanket to someone who needed it. Even at 40 degrees when your clothes are wet, there can be the potential for hypothermia, he says, which isn’t covered by the “weather amnesty” of 10 degrees at the shelter. He wishes he had a job and was able to work, he concludes.

7:37 p.m. Jim Mogensen speaks in support of the council’s resolution. The whole process has seemed endless, he says. He’s recounting the history from the mid-1980s, when the YMCA decided to create the 100 units of SRO housing and tried to do that with conventional bank loans. That’s why the city of Ann Arbor had become involved, he says – to sign for the loans. And that’s why the city of Ann Arbor had a right of first refusal. The Y had not finally repaid what it owed the city until 2009, he pointed out. He wanted the council to think about those historical lessons as they thought about how to use the money that’s in the affordable housing trust fund.

7:40 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for various public offices. He says he plans to campaign for office in the future as well – to make sure there’s a candidate committed to protecting the rights of the most vulnerable. He refers to the recent murder of a 71-year-old Ann Arbor resident, saying that the residents deserve the respect of the council. Residents deserve discrimination-free planning, he says. If every item on the agenda is passed, there still won’t be any progress in protecting the most vulnerable residents, he says.

7:43 p.m. Barbara Lucas speaks in support of the expanded food waste composting. Her family had participated in a pilot program. Where she currently lives, there are various wildlife that makes composting food scraps challenging. She says that during the pilot program, there wasn’t a problem with odor. When there’s other yard waste in the composting cart, that helps, she says.

7:47 p.m. Jean Carlberg says that Mogensen had given a good history. She served on the city council when it faced the challenge of how to preserve the housing on the Y lot. The council felt it was in the public interest to exercise its right of first refusal on the Y lot, when the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority wanted to purchase the property. She’s urging the council to allocate the proceeds of the sale of the Y lot to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. With the loss of the Y housing, that increased the need for units – as determined in the Blueprint to End Homelessness – from 500 units to 600 units. As a city council, she says, they never expected the city to be repaid from the proceeds. It’s a chance to create a “pile of money” to be used for affordable housing.

7:50 p.m. Suzzanne William is here to support her friends and family in the homeless community. She’s heard and experienced and known about the homeless situation in Washtenaw County for a long time. She’s supporting the council’s resolution, she says. She has a job in downtown Ann Arbor, she says, but can’t afford “affordable housing.” She says she earns $150 a week. It’s just absurd, she says, that the “weather amnesty” is for 10 degrees. She recalls curling up in a cardboard box even in summer at 40 degrees. People are out there trying, she says, and they’re really hard workers. She suggests some counseling for those housed in affordable housing units.

7:53 p.m. James Hill asks all those who support the agenda item on the Y lot proceeds to stand up. At least 25 people are standing. He says that the council shouldn’t “skim off the top” for financial accounting reasons. He asks the council to inquire with the shelter why the weather amnesty at the warming shelter has been reduced from 25 degrees to 10 degrees.

7:53 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:55 p.m. Sabra Briere is talking about the “weather amnesty” that many public speakers mentioned. The Delonis Center had experimented with changing it from 10 degrees and making it 25 degrees. So the change to 10 degrees is the reversion to the previous policy. Briere’s reporting is based on talking to Ellen Schulmeister, head of the Delonis Center.

7:57 p.m. Mike Anglin is reporting out on a meeting at Bach School last week on traffic safety. His remarks are largely positive. About 100 people attended, he says. This is the kind of approach the city should be taking, he says, noting that the meeting was well attended by staff. Three councilmembers attended, he says.

7:59 p.m. Jack Eaton says he’s disappointed that the agenda doesn’t include any appointments for the local officers compensation commission. The commission has only two members, but it needs four commission members to achieve a quorum, he says.

8:00 p.m. Briere says she should have also alerted the public to the revision to the dollar amount on the Y lot proceeds. The actual amount available is estimated to be $1,384,300, she says. The amount is an estimate, because the sale has not yet taken place.

8:00 p.m. Communications from the mayor. Mayoral communications are typically just the nominations and confirmations of appointments to various city boards and commissions.

8:00 p.m. MC-1 Confirmation of Edith Bletcher to the Elizabeth Dean fund committee. This nomination was made at the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. Nomination at one meeting followed by confirmation at the next is the standard process for appointments to city boards and commissions. For some historical background on the Elizabeth Dean Fund, see “Dean Tree Fund Committee Changed.”

8:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has confirmed the appointment of Edith Bletcher to the Elizabeth Dean fund committee.

8:01 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Tonight Kristin Tomey is being nominated to fill a vacancy left by Wiltrud Simbuerger on the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC) and Benjamin Bushkuhl is being nominated for reappointment to the city’s historic district commission (HDC).

8:02 p.m. Hieftje says that the LOCC had met but not achieved a quorum. Hieftje says that he saw no harm in not having a quorum this year.

8:08 p.m. Hieftje has now invited executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission to the podium to address the council. She’s describing the SRO units at the Y. It had a staffed front door and a desk and was actually a “hotel,” she says. The front door staffing helped the residents maintain their tenancy, she says. She’s describing working with the nonprofit Avalon Housing, Washtenaw County’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS), and others to convert Miller Manor to a front-door staffed facility. Hall says they’re working on a plan right now to secure the funding. She’ll be requesting some of the proceeds from the Y lot to make those services at Miller Manor happen. The maintenance area at Miller Manor is being converted to offices to facilitate the front-door staffing arrangement, she says.

8:08 p.m. Public Hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Three public hearings appear on tonight’s agenda. The first two are standard rezoning requests – from township zoning to city residential zoning. This type of rezoning is a routine part of annexation of property into the city.

The third public hearing is on the cost to be charged to a developer ($45,000) for causing an on-street metered public parking space to be removed. The item was postponed from the council’s Dec. 2 meeting to allow for a public hearing to be held.

8:11 p.m. PH-1 Higgins zoning. Thomas Partridge is addressing the council, saying that he hope the next mayor will not begin every public hearing with a series of warnings. Hieftje responds by saying Partridge has to speak on the topic of the hearing. Partridge says he is doing that. He characterizes the zoning change as involving “redlining.”

8:12 p.m. No one else speaks on PH-1.

8:12 p.m. PH-2 Weller zoning. No one speaks on this public hearing.

8:15 p.m. PH-3 Policy on removal of on-street metered public parking spaces. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a candidate for public office. To his knowledge, he says, the resolution contains no language specifying how parking spaces should be provided for pickup and dropoff for people with disabilities. He says that the proposal should be referred back to a committee for further review. He says the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has been functioning as a stealth government, an agent of the city of Ann Arbor.

8:15 p.m. Minutes. Approval of the previous meeting’s minutes.

8:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the previous meeting’s minutes.

8:15 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes an amendment to the contract with Waste Management, which provides commercial waste collection services – to factor in special event service pricing on Sundays for up to five collection containers that are otherwise serviced daily. Also a part of the consent agenda is the authorization of the purchase of about 150 300-gallon carts per year ($42,000) for the next four years – which will be used as part of the city’s commercial and multi-family recycling program.

8:16 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. No one does this.

8:16 p.m. The council has approved the consent agenda.

8:16 p.m. B-1 Higgins zoning. This is a standard rezoning request of 0.51 acre from TWP (township district) to R1A (single family dwelling district), for the Higgins property, 2121 Victoria Circle, as a result of annexation into the city.

8:17 p.m. John Hieftje notes that this property is someone’s house. Sabra Briere describes the property as off Newport Road. Recently the city extended sewer and water service. It makes it possible for these properties to be annexed, she says. They’re not affected by the Pall-Gelman 1,4 dioxane plume.

8:17 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Higgins rezoning.

8:17 p.m. B-2 Weller zoning. This is a standard rezoning request 0.51 acre from TWP (township district) to R1A (single family dwelling district) for the Weller property at 2119 Victoria Circle, as a result of annexation into the city.

8:17 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Weller rezoning.

8:17 p.m. DC-1 City policy on removal of on-street metered public parking spaces. This resolution would establish the cost for removing a metered on-street parking space at $45,000. [For more background, see How Much Is a Parking Space Worth? above.]

8:20 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) says that there are several amendments to the resolution and he hopes that the amendments have been disseminated. Here’s the amended version: [.pdf of amended version of policy]

8:22 p.m. Taylor is now reviewing the resolution – it would charge developers for removing parking meters. He characterizes the process as a “long and slow burn.” It’s a replacement fee, he says. The parking system is a finite resource. There’s a choice to allow removal or not, he says. So the amount required to be paid as a fee, he says, is $45,000. That’s approximately the cost of creating a new parking space in a structure. There’s a caveat whereby the cost could be waived if the removal is deemed to be a public benefit.

8:23 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asks for staff. Executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay comes to the podium. Kailasapathy says she sees a parking space as a capital asset. She asks if this money that is paid should be segregated into a separate fund.

8:25 p.m. Kailasapathy says it should not be treated as simple revenue. Pollay says that this has not yet been thought through in detail, but the DDA’s operations committee would be taking that up. Kailasapathy wants to add an amendment that would require the segregation of funds into something like a sinking fund.

8:26 p.m. Taylor has no objection to segregating the funds, but is not sure that the city council should be telling the DDA exactly how to do the accounting.

8:27 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers says that the city could work with the DDA to reserve the funds in some manner.

8:29 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) offers some generally supportive comments. Pollay says she understands that the council is keen to see the capital funds set aside and separated somehow.

8:30 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asks if the money that’s paid could be used to build any capital project or if it had to be a parking space. She’s worried about having enough critical mass of funding to undertake the building of a new parking structure.

8:31 p.m. Pollay says that this money to be paid would not necessarily be the only money used to build a new parking structure. The money would be added to the pot when it comes time to build a new parking structure, Pollay says.

8:32 p.m. Petersen wants to know if the money could be used to add on to an existing structure. Pollay points out that the Fourth and William structure had been extended upward.

8:33 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that if the money is earmarked for new construction, that makes accounting challenging because we don’t know when construction will happen. Why not just use the money for debt service on parking structures? he asks.

8:34 p.m. Kunselman asks how many spaces have been removed recently. Pollay says about 50 in the last five years. She allows that some on-street spaces have also been added through projects like the Fifth and Division street improvement project.

8:35 p.m. Hieftje asks if this can be worked out tonight or if it should be put off.

8:36 p.m. Taylor reads aloud a proposed amendment about “financial controls” to segregate the funds so that they can be reinvested in construction of new parking spaces.

8:37 p.m. Kailasapathy wants the language to be flexible enough to construct new spaces or also replace existing spaces.

8:38 p.m. Hieftje asks again if it might be a good idea to put it off. Taylor is content to see it postponed, as is Kailasapathy.

8:40 p.m. Lumm offers what she calls a “nit.” There are references to development projects taking spaces out of the system. She asks if the DDA operations committee would consider describing it differently. Many of the spaces that have been “gobbled up” recently have not been by developers but rather by UM or the city itself.

8:42 p.m. Here’s the text of the amendment as forwarded by city clerk Jackie Beaudry: “Therefore, the City of Ann Arbor and the DDA will establish financial controls to segregate cash flows from the removal of on-street parking in order to reinvest these funds in the creation of parking spaces.”

8:43 p.m. Petersen has an amendment she wants to add into the mix. Hieftje says that she should send it to the DDA operations committee for their discussion.

8:44 p.m. Hieftje has been trying to move the council toward postponing this, which seems where it’s headed.

8:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone until the first meeting in January a vote on a policy that sets the price for removal of an on-street parking space at $45,000.

8:45 p.m. DC-2 Non-motorized transportation strategy. This resolution would instruct the city administrator to develop a non-motorized transportation plan implementation strategy. Specifically, the resolution directs Steve Powers to present a plan for funding elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan by specific dates: by Feb. 1, 2014, the plan’s recommended midblock deployments of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB); by April 21 the near-term recommendations of the plan; and by June 30 the long-term elements of the plan. [For more background, see Non-Motorized Plan Funding above.]

8:46 p.m. Taylor is reviewing the content of the resolution.

8:51 p.m. Kailasapathy asks for Cresson Slotten to field questions. She says there’s just supposed to be 20 RRFBs in the plan, not 24, which Slotten confirms. She asks how the RRFBs were determined as solutions. Slotten regrets that  transportation program manager Eli Cooper is out of town, because he could give a more detailed answer, but he assures Kailasapathy that a detailed analysis had been done. He allows that Pat Cawley and Les Sipowski, city traffic engineers, had been involved in the determination of the RRFBs as solutions and their locations.

8:53 p.m. Kailasapathy wants to propose an amendment to make clear that traffic engineers would be involved in the final determination. It’s not clear what the exact language of the amendment is, but it’s now before the council for its consideration.

8:54 p.m. Eaton ventures that the sponsors of the resolution have not contemplated any other engineering solutions other than RRFBs. Briere is responding to Eaton by asking Slotten a series of questions.

8:57 p.m. Briere asks if it’s always the case that when the plan says to put some type of infrastructure in a location, that the infrastructure specified in the plan is always installed. Slotten describes how there’s a lot more detailed analysis when a project is actually measured out in the field. Briere asks who would do that work. Slotten says that city traffic engineers working with in-house surveyors would probably do that work.

8:58 p.m. Slotten allows, in response to a question from Briere, that sometimes the final project is not the same as what was in the plan.

9:00 p.m. Hieftje is establishing with Slotten what the role of traffic engineers is in determining RRFBs as a solution in a particular location.

9:01 p.m. Teall says she wants to know that staff has the latitude to determine the exact locations and details. Kunselman ventures that a plan is a plan and that plans change. Kunselman gets confirmation from Slotten that there could be conditions that warrant looking outside the plan.

9:03 p.m. Kunselman supports the amendment. Taylor says the “juicy bit” that the council is talking about removes specific reference to the RRFBs. The idea is not to predetermine what engineering features go into any particular crosswalk, Taylor says, which makes sense to him.

9:05 p.m. Kailasapathy wants to avoid creating the impression for staff that there is a “mandate” for RRFBs. Briere says that plans are not solid but rather a little squishy. Briere cites some of the specific words from Kailasapathy’s amendment: “implement recommendations of the city’s traffic engineers.”

9:08 p.m. Briere ventures that “as applied by the city traffic engineers” could work. City administrator Steve Powers suggests that if the direction is to revisit previous evaluations and recommendations that are contained in the non-motorized transportation plan, then that direction from the council needs to be made clear.

9:09 p.m. Anglin is talking about the improvements in engineering technology. Anglin asks if the locations designated for RRFBs are not eligible for HAWK signals. He thinks that RRFBs ask motorists to interpret yellow as stop. He seems to be advocating for HAWK signals instead of RRFBs.

9:10 p.m. Anglin said he’s heard that HAWK lights are too expensive, but asks what the cost of safety should be.

9:12 p.m. Hieftje responds to Anglin by venturing that the city traffic engineers are up to date on the latest technology. Petersen raises the question of how this resolution relates to the establishment of the pedestrian safety task force.

9:17 p.m. Eaton says his understanding is that there’s no detailed and particularized engineering study that’s been done of the general locations of the RRFBs in the non-motorized plan. He wants to make sure it’s done right.

9:17 p.m. Warpehoski says that there’s three elements to the amendment: (1) it should be technology neutral; (2) traffic engineers should be involved; and (3) the downtown is highlighted specifically. Warpehoski says he’s fine with (1). He thinks (2) is redundant but doesn’t have a problem with it. He has some ideas about (3).

9:17 p.m. The council decides to recess to work out the language of the amendment.

9:17 p.m. Recess. We are in recess.

9:26 p.m. We’re back.

9:30 p.m. The amendment on the floor is now being distributed by Taylor to the other councilmembers and the clerk.

9:32 p.m. Kunselman wants to remove the dates specified in the resolution. He takes the occasion to reiterate the fact that he dislikes the fact that the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. Taylor says, in response to a question from Hieftje, that the dates were characterized by the city administrator as “feasible.”

9:32 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support it.

9:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the city administrator to present a funding and implementation plan for the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. The version passed by the council was amended at the table.

9:33 p.m. DC-3 Street Art Fair community events resolution. This resolution would instruct the city administrator to incorporate $10,000 of funding in the FY 2015 community events funding budget to support the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair. [For more background, see Community Events Funding above.]

9:34 p.m. Taylor is reviewing the background of the resolution. He’s explaining why the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair is different from the other art fairs in its revenue challenges.

9:38 p.m. The resolution on the non-motorized transportation plan was passed in this form, based on what the city clerk has forwarded: [.pdf of non-motorized implementation resolution ]

9:40 p.m. Teall relates her experience in allocating the community events funding. She’s concerned about doing something for one organization, but possibly not others.

9:41 p.m. Lumm describes her volunteer work with the AASAF and her service on the board. There’s only so much you can raise in booth fees, she says. She’s ticking through the specific challenges the AASAF faces.

9:43 p.m. Lumm calls the AASAF one of Ann Arbor’s “icons.” She says that $10,000 is a small amount for the city but is crucial for the AASAF.

9:45 p.m. Hieftje says it’s a special situation, so he’ll support this resolution. Hieftje notes that it’s a small item. He references the budget planning session from Dec. 9, and highlights the council’s expressed desire to keep its meetings moving along. He hopes this item can be dispatched without a lot more discussion.

9:46 p.m. Eaton asks if the proposal is for this support to be recurring. Taylor says he’d expect it to be reconsidered in each subsequent year.

9:47 p.m. The executive director of the AASAF, Maureen “Mo” Riley, says that the rent paid to UM is about $5,000.

9:48 p.m. Kunselman notes that this approach doesn’t guarantee that AASAF would get the money as a result of the community events funding disbursements. He points out that the funds could have been appropriated from FY 2014 and they’d have been done with it.

9:50 p.m. Teall says that typically when community events are funded, the council would ask what exactly the money would go toward. Taylor responds by ticking through some of the background in the memo. Teall says she can’t not support it. She calls the AASAF her favorite art fair.

9:51 p.m. Teall says that she questions this partly because the AASAF is required to pay rent to the UM, and she wishes UM would “pony up” too. Petersen says she considers this a kind of public art.

9:53 p.m. Warpehoski points out that the community events fund does fund FestiFools, Dancing in the Streets, and other nonprofit events – for the fees that they incur from the city. So he ties the resolution back to that aspect – the fees that AASAF must pay to the city of Ann Arbor for various services.

9:55 p.m. Lumm is speaking again in support of the resolution.

9:55 p.m. Teall says she thinks that this should go through the regular community events fund allocation process – through the council’s committee. She’s very hesitant. She wants to see an application from AASAF for the funding.

9:57 p.m. Responding to Teall, Hieftje says that he thinks this is a completely different category from other events. It’s more like the Summer Festival, he says.

9:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the city administrator to include $10,000 of funding for the Ann Arbor Street Art fair when he prepares next year’s (FY 2015) budget.

9:57 p.m. DC-4 Resolution to allocate $125,000 to fund police overtime for traffic enforcement. This resolution comes after a long debate about a change to the city’s crosswalk ordinance that resulted in a 6-4 vote at the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting – to eliminate a requirement that motorists stop for pedestrians who are at the curb next to a marked crosswalk, not just within a crosswalk. But mayor John Hieftje exercised his power of veto on that change. So the law will remain intact.

That debate featured support from all sides for the idea that enforcement was an important component of making the city safer for pedestrians and motorists. This item also comes forward in the context of increased concern about motorists speeding on city streets. As a change to the budget, this will require an 8-vote majority. [For more background, see Traffic Enforcement above.]

9:57 p.m. Kunselman quips that the discussion should be short, because the resolution is short.

9:58 p.m. He allows that he’d wanted to put a lot more funding in police chief John Seto’s hands. Revenues have been down from traffic citations, he notes. And there’s a need to curtail motorists speeding. Things like cars passing stopped school buses have also been raised as concerns, he says.

10:00 p.m. Lumm thanks Kunselman for leading this effort. She says that she thinks everyone can support the idea that increased traffic enforcement is an important part of improving traffic safety.

10:02 p.m. Hieftje says he understands the motivation for the resolution. It’s unusual to give staff money to spend without asking how staff would specifically solve the problem the council has identified. He also points to the timesheet breakdown for police officers that showed that officers may have time to implement additional traffic enforcement within the existing staffing levels, without using overtime.

10:04 p.m. Briere wants Seto to explain how this money would be spent. Seto says there’s not a specific plan for using this overtime money. There are various general ways: individual officers assigned to specific locations, or officers can be dedicated to a promotion and educational effort. Briere asks Seto if he could provide a specific plan and a budget for implementation by Jan. 22, the council’s second meeting in January. “It depends,” says Seto.

10:06 p.m. Briere says that even if Seto just followed the simple resolution, he’d still have to come up with a plan. She wants Seto to tell the council how much it might cost to implement increased traffic enforcement. She ventures there might be various levels of implementation – which could cost even more than $125,000. She wants Seto to develop a specific plan for implementation.

10:07 p.m. Seto says that if the council directs him to do so, he can come back with a specific traffic enforcement enhancement plan. He says that the $125,000 translates into 1,800 additional hours and he seems unsure that could be re-allocated right now. Briere asks if Seto can come back with the cost for a plan that he would implement.

10:09 p.m. Kunselman says, “Talk about micromanaging!” He notes that the $125,000 figure came from the city administrator. Seto doesn’t have to spend it all, Kunselman says. He calls it a small amount in response to community concerns. He allows that it will require 8 votes and invites those who want to vote against it to do so.

10:11 p.m. Anglin thanks Seto for attending the Bach School meeting on traffic safety and ventures that Seto has heard directly some of these citizen concerns. Responding to Petersen, Seto says that $125,000 translates to 26-weeks of eight eight-hour shifts.

10:13 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support the resolution, citing concerns that were reflected in the recent National Citizens Survey. He says that traffic safety is the one area where increased investment in safety services is justified. He says that he’s frustrated that he wasn’t able to get benchmark data about traffic safety.

10:16 p.m. Taylor says that he doesn’t disagree that traffic enforcement is deeply important. But he thinks that this resolution amounts to pre-funding a plan that’s not yet in front of the council. He wants to postpone this until the next meeting.

Petersen punches the air, raising her hand to be called on. She’s arguing against Taylor’s contention that this resolution is somehow at odds with the previous resolution on the non-motorized plan. She contends that this police OT actually strengthens it. “I don’t know why we wouldn’t do this now,” she says.

10:17 p.m. Kailasapathy says that this is basically like choosing something that seems reasonable – echoing Warpehoski’s sense that this is roughly the equivalent of adding an FTE for traffic enforcement. She’ll support this.

10:18 p.m. Responding to a question from Hieftje, Seto says there are four traffic enforcement staff, with one administrative. On Jan. 1 Seto was already planning to assign an additional person to traffic enforcement. This resolution would essentially bring the total to six.

10:20 p.m. Eaton says that it’s important to be safe – not just from rapes and murders. He describes some neighborhoods where cars speed so fast that they leave the roads and run into people’s houses.

10:20 p.m. Hieftje says he wants to hear the plan before the council throws the money at it. He supports the postponement. Lumm says she won’t support the postponement.

10:22 p.m. Lumm is talking about the overall staffing levels of the AAPD, noting that the number of sworn officers currently is down to 119. She cites the number of emails that she receives asking for more traffic enforcement.

10:24 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t support a postponement, noting that Seto has already described a plan. He indicates that success will be measured by the number of traffic citations issued.

10:25 p.m. Taylor points out that the previous resolution on implementation of the non-motorized transportation does address enforcement around crosswalks.

10:26 p.m. Outcome on postponement: The postponement fails with support only from Hieftje, Briere and Taylor.

10:27 p.m. Warpehoski notes that the “results” that Kunselman has lifted up are in terms of revenue and citations, and he wants results that are related to traffic safety. He doesn’t think police services should be treated as a cash register.

10:28 p.m. Hieftje says one reason that traffic citations are down is that penalties – for drunk driving, for example – are harsher and people pay more attention. Hieftje just doesn’t want to throw money at a problem.

10:31 p.m. Teall echoes Hieftje’s sentiments. She is concerned about a possible backlash from increased enforcement. Briere says there are as many people who are angry about lack of traffic enforcement as who are angry about too much traffic enforcement. She’s not very gung ho when it comes to rules, but she believes in traffic enforcement. She’d prefer that Seto tell the council how much money he needed, rather than the council tell the chief.

10:33 p.m. Briere asks Seto if 70 additional hours a week in traffic enforcement is actually feasible.

10:34 p.m. Seto describes how his intent would not be to just implement some speed traps – saying that high crash locations can be targeted using a new city system.

10:35 p.m. Seto says he can start this additional enforcement on Jan. 1. Petersen can’t think of a better day to start than Jan. 1, because of the NHL’s Winter Classic.

10:35 p.m. Petersen asks for confirmation that the $125,000 number has been vetted with the city administrator and that Seto has called it feasible.

10:37 p.m. Kunselman follows up on Petersen’s remarks by saying not only has the number been vetted, Seto has also described a plan for implementation. He agrees that revenues are not the only measure of success. He wouldn’t mind hearing complaints about too much traffic enforcement.

10:38 p.m. Taylor allows that the $125,000 has been “vetted.” He asks Seto if the plan that starts Jan. 1 will cost about $125,000. Seto says: “It could.”

10:40 p.m. Taylor allows that the existence of a budget doesn’t necessitate the spending of that budget. Seto agrees that it might not be necessary to spend all of that $125,000.

10:41 p.m. Taylor says “I think this is sloppy,” pointing out that the council is a couple weeks away from having a plan with a dollar figure on it. It’s not a professional way to approach things, he says. But he has a lot of confidence in Seto’s ability to produce a plan the city is proud of – a plan that will be effective and not just burn through the money just because it is there.

10:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted over the lone dissent of mayor John Hieftje to approve $125,000 to pay for overtime so that Ann Arbor police officers can provide additional traffic enforcement.

10:42 p.m. DC-5 Y Lot proceeds resolution. The sale of the property to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million will result in a gross difference of $1.75 million compared to the $3.5 million price paid by the city in 2003. This item, added to the Dec. 16 agenda last Friday, originally designated $1.56 million of that amount – which was all but a $190,000 brokerage fee – for deposit in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The council will be considering a revised version of the resolution that also subtracts the seller’s closing costs from the amount to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. That results in a total amount to be deposited into the trust fund of $1,384,300. [.pdf of revised resolution] [For more background, see Y Lot Proceeds above.]

10:44 p.m. Briere is reviewing how much money is in the affordable housing trust fund. She notes that the council still hasn’t heard from the Shelter Association – which runs the Delonis Center – about what it needs to get through the inclement weather. In the past, the council has used money from the affordable housing trust fund to support the shelter’s warming center.

10:46 p.m. Briere notes that the city has not been effective at putting money back into the affordable housing trust fund. The strategy of having PUDs (planned unit developments) contribute to the trust fund has not been used much recently.

10:48 p.m. Lumm asks for city CFO Tom Crawford. She says it’s a significant amount of money. She asks Crawford to walk the council through how much has been committed to affordable housing compared to the other council priorities.

10:51 p.m. Briere points out that Crawford was talking about new and unique expenditures.

10:57 p.m. Briere is reviewing various expenditures from the fund.

10:58 p.m. Hieftje says he’ll support the resolution and says that given the history of the property, it’s a relatively happy end to the story.

11:00 p.m. Kunselman wants clarification of why 8 votes are required. He wants to know what would happen if this resolution failed. In broad strokes, most of it would go to the general fund. Kunselman says he’ll support the resolution, venturing that most of the money would go to support the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

11:04 p.m. Lumm says it’s a huge transfer from the general fund to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Crawford replies that it’s important to weigh all the city’s needs. He’s describing how much general fund balance would remain if the resolution passed. Lumm asks for an amendment to reduce the amount of the transfer by half, to roughly $692,000.

11:06 p.m. Warpehoski is comparing how much the city spends on public safety compared to affordable housing, pointing out that the city spends $49 million $39.5 million a year on public safety. The amount that the city spends on affordable housing is miniscule in comparison, he says. He’s pleased with the news shared by Jennifer Hall, executive director of the housing commission, about the plan to convert Miller Manor to a front-desk staffed facility.

11:08 p.m. Warpehoski says he did not vote to sell the property to Dahlman in order to get the debt off the books, or to give Dahlmann a way to avoid competition for his hotels.

11:08 p.m. Taylor follows Warpehoski with: “What he said.” Briere says she wishes she could have said it as well as Warpehoski.

11:10 p.m. Lumm responds by talking about the pressure that this puts on the general fund.

11:10 p.m. Outcome: The amendment to cut the amount in half fails on a 2-9 vote. Only Lumm and Eaton vote for it.

11:11 p.m. Lumm notes that the council reached a different conclusion last year after a long discussion – that there would be reimbursements. So she’s torn, she says.

11:15 p.m. Eaton says he’ll support the resolution, but he’s concerned that the city hasn’t approached the policy questions adequately. He allows more needs to be done for affordable housing, but says the city needs to “aim at the right targets.” Kunselman points out that the money is not actually being spent with this resolution. Rather, it will go into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. Kunselman notes that previous councils have made decisions about this policy, but this council will make its own decision. The council has heard a lot of voices calling for the council to do something to support affordable housing. The money is not going anywhere until we spend it, he concludes.

11:16 p.m. Briere ventures that more than 30% of funding for affordable housing has been cut – by HUD and by the state. This is a response to Lumm’s citation of the percentage reduction in funding and staffing levels for the Ann Arbor police department.

11:19 p.m. Briere allows that Lumm’s point about 10% of proceeds that the council set as a policy last year is accurate for city-owned properties – but she notes that the resolution separated out the Y lot from other downtown properties. Briere notes that if the city tried to repay the reimbursements, there wouldn’t be much left. She also points out that this is the last year that this fund will exist separately as a fund – due to new accounting standards. In the future, it will simply be general fund money that’s allocated to affordable housing. It will no longer be a separate fund, she says.

11:20 p.m. Briere notes that currently HHSAB (the city’s housing and human services advisory board) must make a recommendation on how money in the affordable housing trust fund is spent. She’s not sure how that will play out in the future.

11:21 p.m. Hieftje is talking about how federal funding for affordable housing has been drying up. He doesn’t think that it’s appropriate to include the public safety budget in this discussion. He calls the recent turnaround at the Ann Arbor Housing Commission spectacular.

11:23 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to deposit $1,384,300 million (the entire proceeds, less brokerage fees and seller’s costs) from the sale of the former Y lot into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

11:25 p.m. Fuller Road Station MOU termination. Kunselman says he would like to postpone it. Hieftje and Briere say they’ll vote for it and don’t want to postpone it. Kunselman still wants to postpone, because it was added late to the agenda.

11:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the Fuller Road Station resolution until its next meeting.

11:26 p.m. DS-1 Planning commission bylaws. The bylaws change relates to the required notice for special accommodations like a sign-language interpreter – changing the requirement from 24 hours to two business days. The planning commission is currently weighing another change to its bylaws, that’s not a part of this change. [See Chronicle coverage of the planning commission's Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.] That additional change would define speaking turns during public hearings. This change was postponed from an earlier council meeting, with an eye towards having the council approve both bylaws changes at the same time. But the planning commission has not yet taken action on that second change.

11:27 p.m. Briere notes there’s also another bylaws revision possibly pending and indicates a desire to postpone.

11:28 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the revision to the planning commission’s bylaws until the second council meeting in February.

11:28 p.m. DS-2 Food waste composting. The resolution would appropriate $64,550 from the solid waste fund balance to fund the city’s intiative to allow residents to add food scraps for regular collection in their curbside compost carts. Here’s how the allocation breaks down:

• $14,950 for an increased level of service from WeCare Organics at the compost processing facility (daily versus weekly grinding). The city is estimating no increased net cost for this increased service based on a reduction in landfill tipping fees. The city pays $25.90 per ton for transfer and disposal of landfilled waste. That’s $7.90 more than the city pays WeCare organics ($18 per ton) for processing compostable material. City staff is estimating that the program will divert 2,100 tons from the $25.90 category – for a savings of 2,100*$7.90=$16,590.
• $24,600 for the cost of 6,000 Sure-Close counter-top containers the city plans to give away to residents to encourage the initial separation of plate scrapings from garbage.
• $25,000 for a subsidy to sell an estimated 1,000 additional brown compost carts to residents at a cost of $25 per cart instead of $50 per cart. About 12,000 carts are already in use.

It will require an 8-vote majority. [For more background, see Solid Waste: Plate Scrapings above.]

11:30 p.m. Briere introduces the resolution.

11:30 p.m. Eaton confirms that this resolution would not change the seasonal compost collection schedule.

11:30 p.m. Solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie is demonstrating the counter-top containers, which would be offered free to residents.

11:32 p.m. Eaton asks how many households use a garbage disposal and would not use this service. Lumm says she thinks that the estimates of how many tons would be added to the compost and diverted from garbage are optimistic. She calls the giveaways “gimmicky.” But she says it’s not a huge investment to give it a try.

11:34 p.m. Kailsaspathy questions the viability of the city’s estimates. If the 2,100 ton estimate is not accurate, then we’ll pay for the additional service of grinding the compost plus for the giveaways. McMurtrie allows that Kailasapathy is right about that.

11:35 p.m. Kailaspathy wants to know if a pilot could be conducted, just for Monday route collection, for example. McMurtie says it would be logistically difficult to maintain the separation of the material at the composting site.

11:36 p.m. McMurtrie says that WeCare set the price at below its cost, because they want to see the program succeed. For a pilot, WeCare would need to bring in the equipment for the same frequency – but for a limited pilot, it would be over a much smaller tonnage base.

11:39 p.m. Briere is arguing for the resolution. She wonders how residents might deal with raccoons. McMurtrie suggests modifying the compost cart by adding a bungee cord – but cautions that residents need to remember to take the bungee off when they set out the cart. Kunselman re-confirms that compost will still not be collected in the winter months.

11:41 p.m. Kunselman ventures that a considerable educational effort will be required. He asks about the mention of the MDEQ requirements. McMurtrie says the city’s proposal is consistent with MDEQ guidelines. The daily processing is what WeCare views as appropriate procedures for dealing with this type of material. Kunselman asks about the end product: Will adding food waste have an impact on the quality of the end product? No, says McMurtrie.

11:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to appropriate $64,550 to fund the food scrap composting initiative.

11:41 p.m. DS-3 Accept and appropriate USDA Forest Service grant ($50,000). This resolution would authorize receipt of a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service – to put toward a tree pruning initiative. The pruning program would target those trees in the public right-of-way that are most in need of pruning (Priority 1). The initiative is also focused on the larger of the city’s street streets – those bigger than 20 inches in diameter. Those are the trees that have the greatest impact on the mitigation of stormwater. [For more background, see Tree Pruning above.]

11:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to approve the receipt of the $50,000 USDA Forestry Service grant for tree pruning.

11:42 p.m. DS-4 MRF baler rebuild. This resolution would reimburse Resource Recovery Systems for the cost of repairing a baler at the city’s material recovery facility, which has already been done. The cost is $62,613.

11:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to authorize $62,613 for the baler repair.

11:44 p.m. Communications from council. Warpehoski says that he had a previous practice of announcing that he was breaking the rules when he disseminates information from the meetings. He’d missed an instance of that, so he wanted to rectify that by announcing it retroactively. He says that as a member of the rules committee, he will work on “above-board” ways of disseminating information.

11:46 p.m. Hieftje is taking the pulse of the council on the issue of having the clerk time councilmember speaking turns. Kunselman ventures that councilmembers should set their own timers. Hieftje says he thinks that would be best, because it would be a burden on the clerk. Kunselman quips that he’ll bring forward a budget resolution for kitchen timers.

11:47 p.m. Clerk’s report. The clerk’s report has been received.

11:47 p.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

11:50 p.m. Washtenaw County board chair Yousef Rabhi is addressing the council. He’s attending the meeting as a citizen. As one elected official to another, he’s thanking them for serving with honor, dignity and respect. The thoughtful discussion today is telling of their willingness to come to the table to work in good faith, he says. As the year wraps up, he’s extending a thank you.

Dave DeVarti thanks the council for their unanimous vote on the Y lot. He points out the property has never been on the tax rolls. He asks the council to look at the tax receipts from that property and consider using that revenue to fund supportive services.

11:52 p.m. Ed Vielmetti is addressing the council on the eight properties that are coming before the building board of appeals at its meeting on Thursday of this week. He says it’s unfortunate that there are that many properties that are now in need of demolition.

11:55 p.m. Seth Best is now wishing the council happy holidays. He thanks the council for their vote on the Y lot. He invites councilmembers to homelessness awareness day, on Dec. 21. He tells the council that the homeless community operates in “survival mode.” When the “weather amnesty” temperature changes, they have a short memory, he says, because they are thinking about what they have to do tonight. He talks about the proposal from McKinley for affordable housing on South State Street – which considers “affordable housing” to start at $900 a month.

12:00 a.m. Kai Petainen reminds the council that Winter Classic is coming up and draws a laugh. He tells the council that they’ll need some additional police, though he says “I’m sure the Canadians will be nice.” He tells Hieftje, in a light-hearted way, that it’s not a good idea to meet with the mayor of Toronto. Hieftje responds by saying: “He may have smoked crack cocaine, but I believe him when he says he did it during one of his drunken stupors.”

Caleb Poirier follows Petainen by updating the council on a property that the homeless community has acquired. He says that there will eventually be requests coming to the council.

12:01 a.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss land acquisition and written attorney-client privileged communication. Briere dissents on the vote, which has no effect.

12:36 a.m. The council has returned to open session.

12:36 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Dec. 16 meeting agenda.

Added to the agenda on Friday before the Monday meeting is an item that relates to proceeds from the city’s sale of property known as the former Y lot. The sale of the property to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million will result in a gross difference of $1.75 million compared to the $3.5 million price paid by the city in 2003.

The item added to the Dec. 16 agenda would designate $1.56 million of that amount – which is all but a $190,000 brokerage fee – for deposit in the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

That would reflect a departure from the policy set in a 2012 council resolution, which called first for reimbursement of costs out of the proceeds, including interest paid over the last 10 years, before depositing those net proceeds into the affordable housing trust fund.

Although the city administrator is not required to present next year’s FY 2015 budget to the council until April 2014, at least three items on the council’s Dec. 16 agenda could have an impact on preparation of that budget. Some of those items relate to mobility and traffic issues.

First, the council will consider directing city administrator Steve Powers to include in the FY 2015 budget an additional $10,000 in community events funding to support the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair.

Second, the council will consider directing Powers to present a plan for funding elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan by specific dates: by Feb. 1, 2014, the plan’s recommended midblock deployments of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB); by April 21 the near-term recommendations of the plan; and by June 30 the long-term elements of the plan.

Thematically related to the funding plan for non-motorized improvements is a third budget item: a proposal to allocate $125,000 from the current general fund reserve to pay for police overtime for traffic enforcement.

That item is sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who were part of a six-vote majority that had backed a significant revision to the city’s crosswalk law at the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. That change – which eliminated a requirement that motorists stop for pedestrians who were at the curb but not within the crosswalk – was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. And the text of that veto is attached to the council’s meeting agenda as a communication.

Also generally related to the public right-of-way on streets is a Dec. 16 item that was postponed from the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. The item assigns a specific cost to the removal of an on-street parking space caused by a development: $45,000. The postponement stemmed from a desire to hold a public hearing on the matter before taking action.

Several of the other Dec. 16 items relate generally to the theme of the environment. In the area of solid waste management, the council will consider a roughly $65,000 allocation from the solid waste fund balance. That allocation will pay for an initiative that will allow residents to add plate scrapings to their brown compost carts for curbside collection. The additional funds will cover an increased level of service at the compost processing facility (daily versus weekly grinding). The funds will also cover the cost of counter-top containers the city plans to give away to residents to encourage the initial separation of plate scrapings from garbage, and a subsidy for the sale of additional brown compost carts. Some of that allocation is expected to be recovered through reduced landfill tipping fees.

Other solid waste items on the Dec. 16 agenda include one to allocate about $63,000 to rebuild a baler at the city’s materials recovery facility. And the council will consider an amendment to the contract with Waste Management, which provides commercial waste collection services – to factor in special event service pricing on Sundays for up to five collection containers that are otherwise serviced daily. The council will also consider authorizing the purchase of about 150 300-gallon carts per year ($42,000) for the next four years – which will be used as part of the city’s commercial and multi-family recycling program.

Also part of the environmental theme on the Dec. 16 agenda is an item that accepts a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service to be spent on a tree pruning initiative focused on the city’s largest street trees.

Additional items include two standard rezoning approvals in connection with annexations from townships into the city. The recommending body for zoning approvals is the city planning commission. Also on the Dec. 16 agenda is an item that asks the council to approve changes to the planning commission bylaws. Those bylaws changes relate to the required notice for special accommodations like a sign-language interpreter – changing the requirement from 24 hours to two business days.

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

Y Lot Proceeds

The history of the city’s policy on the proceeds of city-owned land and the connection to the city’s affordable housing trust fund goes back at least 20 years.

Affordable housing fund activity.

Some highlights are laid out in a timeline below.

The specific connection between the affordable housing trust fund and the former Y lot is the 100 units of single-resident occupancy housing that previously were a part of the YMCA building that stood on the site.

Various efforts have been made to replace those units over the years. [See, for example: "The 100 Units of Affordable Housing."] Recently, the Ann Arbor housing commission and its properties have started to receive more attention from the council as an integral part of the city’s approach to providing housing to the lowest income residents. The council approved a series of resolutions this last summer that will allow the AAHC to convert many of its properties to project-based vouchers.

The approved $5.25 million sale price of the former Y lot will result in a gross difference of $1.75 million compared to the $3.5 million price paid by the city in 2003. At the council’s Dec. 16, 2013 meeting, consideration will be given to a resolution that would designate $1.56 million of that amount – which is all but a $190,000 brokerage fee – for deposit in the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

This would reflect a departure from the most recent policy adopted by the city council, but would eliminate any wrangling between the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority over how much in reimbursements might be owed for various purposes. The DDA has calculated $1,493,959 in reimbursements that it thinks it could claim – for interest payments and cost of demolition, among other items. But the DDA board has voted essentially to waive that claim. And the city has calculated, for example, that $365,651 in interest reimbursements could be owed, as well as $488,646 for the relocation of residents of the former Y building.

In timeline overview form:

• April 15, 1996: City council establishes a policy that put half of the proceeds from city-owned land sales into the affordable housing trust fund. The minutes of the meeting show that Jane Lumm (Ward 2) voted against an amendment, made at the council table, to divide the proceeds of land sales (less costs) between “infrastructure needs and the housing trust fund regardless of budget year.” But the minutes show that the vote on the amended resolution was declared unanimous on a voice vote (not a roll call). In 1996, part of the impetus for consideration of a land sale policy was driven by city-owned property at Packard and Main, which eventually became a part of the Ashley Mews development.
• Nov. 5, 1998: City council votes to increase the portion of proceeds of city-owned land sales that would be earmarked for the affordable housing trust fund – from half to all. Lumm joined her Ward 2 colleague David Kwan in voting against this policy shift.
• Dec. 8, 2003: City council approves purchase of Y property – on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues – for $3.5 million, financing the purchase with a five-year loan. The Ann Arbor DDA had agreed to pay some of the interest on that loan through an action taken not by its full board, but rather by its executive committee, on Dec. 5, 2003.
• Oct. 20, 2005: Pipe bursts in YMCA building, displacing residents. The building is ultimately determined to be not worth the cost of renovation.
• June 4, 2007: City council votes to rescind the policy that put the proceeds from the sale of city-owned land into the affordable housing trust fund. The policy shift in 2007 took place as part of a relatively small land transaction: The city was selling a piece of land on East Eisenhower for $23,750. The proceeds were earmarked for the construction fund of the new municipal center, built at the corner of Fifth and Huron. But in order to put the money from the sale into that construction fund, the council needed to change the existing policy on land sales. So one of the “resolved” clauses in the resolution was the following:
  

  RESOLVED, That City Council revoke Resolution R-481-11-98 which provided that the proceeds from the sale of excess City property be deposited into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund;

  In the course of deliberations, the council agreed to amend the resolution so that the $23,750 in proceeds from this particular land sale would still be deposited in the affordable housing trust fund – but left the basic policy change intact. The council had an eye toward changing the policy anyway – so that the roughly $3 million in proceeds of the sale of the First & Washington parcel (to Village Green for construction of the City Apartments project) could be put toward the new police/courts building.

• Dec. 1, 2008: City council authorizes five-year extension of the renewal on terms from the Bank of Ann Arbor to finance the Y lot loan. During deliberations, some of the focus is on the need to divest the city of the property. Sandi Smith (Ward 1), at her second meeting after winning election to the council a month earlier, put the interest payments in the context of the cost of supporting a homeless person:
  

  In deliberations, councilmember Sandi Smith said that she would support the continued financing of the property, because they had no other choice, but that she urged her colleagues to begin thinking of master planning the area so that the city could divest itself of the property as soon as possible. [The master planning of the area was eventually realized in the form of the Connecting William Street project.] Smith noted that given the $5,000 cost of supporting a homeless person, the interest-only payments could be used to support 27 people. The math goes like this: ($3,500,000)*(.0389)/5,000.

• Sept. 19, 2011: City council approves the sale of a strip of the former Y lot for $90,000 to facilitate construction of new Blake Transit Center by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The total parcel area of the strip was 792 square feet.
• April 26, 2012: Board of the AAATA approves the purchase of a strip of the former Y lot for $90,000 to facilitate construction of new Blake Transit Center.
• Sept. 5, 2012: DDA board passes a resolution urging the city council to dedicate proceeds of the sale of city land to support affordable housing.
• Sept. 5, 2012: Washtenaw County board of commissioners passes a resolution urging the city council to dedicate proceeds of the sale of city land to support affordable housing. [At the time, county commissioner Leah Gunn served on the DDA board, along with former county administrator Bob Guenzel, who continues to serve on the board.]
• Sept. 17, 2012: City council considers but postpones action on a policy for proceeds of the sale of city-owned land.
• Oct. 15, 2012: City council approves a policy that ultimately leaves the policy on the use of proceeds of city land to case-by-case decisions, but indicates that for the Y lot, the proceeds will:
  

  … first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund;”

• Nov. 8, 2012: City council transfers $90,000 from proceeds of the land sale to AAATA into the affordable housing trust fund.
• March 4, 2013: City council directs the city administrator to select a broker for the Y lot.
• July 3, 2013: City administrator Steve Powers announces that he’s selected Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the marketing of the property.
• Nov. 18, 2013: City council approves the sale of the former Y lot for $5.25 million to Dennis Dahlmann.
• Dec. 4, 2013: DDA board waives its claim to reimbursement from the sale of the Y lot.

Community Events Funding

At its Dec. 16 meeting, the council will consider directing city administrator Steve Powers to include in the fiscal year 2015 budget an additional $10,000 in community events funding to support the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair. The city’s FY 2015 begins on July 1, 2014.

The memo supporting the resolution notes that the AASAF has run an annual deficit for several years. An email sent to Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) by Maureen Riley, executive director of the AASAF, specified those annual deficits as follows:

• 2013 – anticipated to be approximately ($8,000)
• 2012 – ($6,316)
• 2011 – ($5,769)
• 2010 – ($6,040)
• 2009 – ($33,693)

Lumm and Taylor are sponsoring the resolution. Lumm is a former AASAF board member.

The rationale for providing support for the AASAF but not the other three art fairs is based on the additional costs the AASAF has to pay to the University of Michigan, as well as the provision by AASAF of community benefits that reduce its opportunity to gain revenue – including the Demo Zone, Art Activity Zones, Street Painting Exhibition, and the Fountain Stage. The background memo also indicates that the other three art fairs have indicated written support for the $10,000 to the AASAF.

The dollar amount roughly corresponds to the allocated cost to the AASAF from the total that is charged by the city for various services to the four art fairs collectively.

At the council’s Dec. 2, 2013 meeting, Taylor had announced his intent to bring forward the resolution asking that an additional $10,000 be included in the city’s FY 2015 budget.

Traffic Enforcement

On the Dec. 16 agenda is an item that would allocate $125,000 from the general fund balance to pay for police overtime required for additional traffic enforcement. The item began conceptually as a $500,000 allocation described by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who was persuaded by co-sponsors Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) that $125,000 would be a more reasonable amount to spend.

Data from the city’s most recent comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), compiled with previous CAFRs, shows that traffic citations have continued for the past three years at significantly lower levels than previously:

Ann Arbor traffic violations. (Data from city of Ann Arbor CAFR. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Some insight into the question of how much time AAPD officers have available for proactive policing activities – like traffic enforcement – has been provided to councilmembers in the form of timesheet data that officers have been logging since the beginning of 2013.

In the charts below (by The Chronicle, with data from the city of Ann Arbor), green shading indicates unassigned time and time dedicated to proactive policing activities. Dedicate policing activities include: bicycle patrol, business contact, check person, citizen/motorist assist, code citation, community event, community meeting, downtown foot patrol, extra patrol (general), extra patrol (parks), felony, impound, liquor inspection, misdemeanor, parking citation, property check, recontact, traffic enforcement (general), traffic enforcement (laser), traffic enforcement (radar), traffic problem, and traffic stop.

Ann Arbor police department timesheet analysis. AAPD provided a range of time periods, to cover for the data entry training period, as officers learned the new system and became accustomed to coding their activities in a standard way. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

In a memo to the city administrator dated Nov. 4, 2013, chief of police John Seto indicated that he’s already begun to assign additional proactive duties to officers, based on the results of the timesheet analysis:

As a result of this data, supervisors and officers have been identifying additional dedicated proactive policing activities to engage in for the remainder of 2013. Staffing modifications will also be taking place for 2014. An additional officer will be assigned to Special Services to address traffic complaints. The distribution of Patrol Officers will also be modified to increase the number of officers assigned to the swing shift, where the volume of calls for service is greater.

Council deliberations on the $125,000 overtime allocation could feature a discussion of the ability of the AAPD to conduct additional traffic enforcement activities, without drawing on overtime.

Non-Motorized Plan Funding

On the Dec. 16 agenda is a directive to the city administrator to provide a funding plan for elements of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan.

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

The council approved the updated plan at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting.

The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

And the Dec. 16 resolution – which is co-sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) – is structured in part based on those main sections.

The resolution directs city administrator Steve Powers to present a plan for funding elements of the city’s non-motorized plan by specific dates: by Feb. 1, 2014, the plan’s recommended midblock deployments of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB); by April 21 the near-term recommendations of the plan; and by June 30 the long-term elements of the plan.

Examples of planning and policy issues include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.”

Additional flashing beacon locations identified in Ann Arbor’s non-motorized transportation plan.

Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands.

Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

The city’s non-motorized transportation plan is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the updated plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]

With respect to the adoption of the master plan, the council and the planning commission are on equal footing. That is, they must adopt the same plan. So in this case, the commission is not merely the recommending body.

How Much Is a Parking Space Worth?

Postponed from the council’s Dec. 2 meeting is a resolution that would define how much developers would need to pay the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority if a developer’s project requires removal of a metered on-street parking space. The proposed amount is $45,000 per space. The payment would go to the Ann Arbor DDA because the DDA manages the public parking system under a contract with the city.

The rationale for postponing the item – offered by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the council’s Dec. 2 meeting – was that because it amounts to a fee, a public hearing should be held on the matter before the council votes.

In this matter, the council would be acting on a four-year-old recommendation approved by the Ann Arbor DDA in 2009:

Thus it is recommended that when developments lead to the removal of on-street parking meter spaces, a cost of $45,000/parking meter space (with annual CPI increases) be assessed and provided to the DDA to set aside in a special fund that will be used to construct future parking spaces or other means to meet the goals above. [.pdf of meeting minutes with complete text of March 4, 2009 DDA resolution]

The contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system for the city was revised to restructure the financial arrangement (which now pays the city 17% of the gross revenues), but also included a clause meant to prompt the city to act on the on-street space cost recommendation. From the May 2011 parking agreement:

The City shall work collaboratively with the DDA to develop and present for adoption by City Council a City policy regarding the permanent removal of on-street metered parking spaces. The purpose of this policy will be to identify whether a community benefit to the elimination of one or more metered parking spaces specific area(s) of the City exists, and the basis for such a determination. If no community benefit can be identified, it is understood and agreed by the parties that a replacement cost allocation methodology will need to be adopted concurrent with the approval of the City policy; which shall be used to make improvements to the public parking or transportation system.

Subject to administrative approval by the city, it’s the DDA that has sole authority to determine the addition or removal of meters, loading zones, or other curbside parking uses.

The $45,000 figure is based on an average construction cost to build a new parking space in a structure, either above ground or below ground – as estimated in 2009. It’s not clear what the specific impetus is to act on the issue now, other than the fact that action is simply long overdue. In 2011, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research expansion was expected to result in the net removal of one on-street parking space. [For more background, see: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine."]

The resolution is sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Taylor participated in recent meetings of a joint council and DDA board committee that negotiated a resolution to the question about how the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) revenue is regulated. In that context, Taylor had argued adamantly that any cap on the DDA’s TIF should be escalated by a construction industry CPI, or roughly 5%. Taylor’s reasoning was that the DDA’s mission is to undertake capital projects and therefore should have revenue that escalates in accordance with increases in the costs to undertake capital projects.

Based on Taylor’s reasoning on the TIF question, and the explicit 2009 recommendation by the DDA to increase the estimated $45,000 figure in that year by an inflationary index, the recommended amount now, four years later, would have be closer to $55,000, assuming a 5% figure for construction cost inflation.

The actual cost of building an underground space in the recently completed (2012) underground Library Lane parking structure could provide a more current estimate, but the DDA has not made public a breakdown of how that project’s actual costs lined up with its project budget. The DDA has exercised its statutory right to extend the deadline in response to a request from The Chronicle for that information under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act

The last two month’s minutes from the DDA’s committee meetings don’t reflect any discussion of the on-street parking space replacement cost. Nor has the issue been discussed at any recent DDA board meeting.

By way of additional background, the Ann Arbor DDA’s most recent financial records show that last year, on-street parking spaces generated $2,000 in gross revenue per space or $1,347 in net income per space annually. The contract with the city under which the DDA operates the public parking system stipulates that the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues. So the city’s revenue associated with an on-street parking space corresponds to $340 annually.

Solid Waste: Plate Scrapings

The Dec. 16 city council agenda item – to allocate $64,550 from the solid waste fund to support a food-scrap composting initiative – comes in the context of the council’s recent adoption of an update to the city’s solid waste plan. When the city council adopted the solid waste plan update on Oct. 7, 2013, a modification was made during deliberations.

An inventory of a sample of contents of Ann Arbor garbage trucks showed that about half of the weight is due to food waste. (Chart from the city’s solid waste plan update.)

The amendment undertaken by the council at that meeting eliminated mention of a possible transition to bi-weekly trash pickup or pay-as-you-throw initiatives.

However, one of the recommendations that is thought possibly to lead to a reduction in curbside garbage pickup – which would have been the basis for any decision to reduce the frequency of trash pickup – was left in the plan.

That recommendation is to allow plate scrapings to be placed in residents’ brown composting carts that the city uses to collect yard waste for processing at the city’s composting facility. That facility is operated by a third-party – WeCare Organics. The goal is to reduce the proportion of the city’s landfilled solid waste stream that’s made up of food waste. A recent inventory of the contents of some city trash trucks showed that about half of the weight is made up of food waste.

[Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan.] [Appendices to Waste Less] [Previous Chronicle coverage: Waste as Resource: Ann Arbor's Five Year Plan.]

The $64,550 allocation from the solid waste fund balance on the Dec. 16 agenda would pay for the initiative that will allow residents to add plate scrapings to their brown compost carts for curbside collection. The additional funds break down this way:

• $14,950 for an increased level of service from WeCare Organics at the compost processing facility (daily versus weekly grinding). The city is estimating no increased net cost for this increased service based on a reduction in landfill tipping fees. The city pays $25.90 per ton for transfer and disposal of landfilled waste. That’s $7.90 more than the city pays WeCare organics ($18 per ton) for processing compostable material. City staff is estimating that the program will divert 2,100 tons from the $25.90 category – for a savings of 2,100*$7.90=$16,590.
• $24,600 for the cost of 6,000 Sure-Close counter-top containers the city plans to give away to residents to encourage the initial separation of plate scrapings from garbage.
• $25,000 for a subsidy to sell an estimated 1,000 additional brown compost carts to residents at a cost of $25 per cart instead of $50 per cart. About 12,000 carts are already in use.

A Doppstadt slow speed grinder/shredder used by WeCare Organics. (Image provided by WeCare)

Tree Pruning

The council will be considering the receipt of a $50,000 grant from the USDA Forestry Service – to put toward a tree pruning initiative. The pruning program would target those trees in the public right-of-way that are most in need of pruning (Priority 1). The initiative is also focused on the larger of the city’s street streets – those bigger than 20 inches in diameter. Those are the trees that have the greatest impact on the mitigation of stormwater.

Here’s where the trees targeted by the program are located:

Street trees in Ann Arbor greater than 20 inches in diameter. (Map by the city of Ann Arbor.)

From the city’s online tree inventory, The Chronicle queried those trees greater than 20 inches in diameter and designated as Priority 1 for pruning. A total of 684 trees fit those criteria. Here’s how they broke down by height, diameter and species.

Priority 1 trees by diameter. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by height. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

Priority 1 trees by species. Maples are the dominant species among those that will be targeted by this pruning program. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.)

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!

Swearing in of the councilmembers who won election on Nov. 5, 2013. From left: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Administering the oath was city clerk Jackie Beaudry. (Photos by the writer.)

Earlier in the evening, an hour-long chunk of the meeting was taken up by deliberations on the admission of Ypsilanti Township as a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. After an hour of discussion and questioning, the council voted unanimously to approve the addition of the township as a member of the AAATA. The council’s action brought the number of AAATA member jurisdictions to three: the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, and Ypsilanti Township.

The council also deliberated for almost an hour before giving initial approval to a repeal of the city’s crosswalk law – so that vehicles would have the option of slowing (in addition to stopping) to yield to pedestrians. The repeal also eliminates the explicit need for motorists to yield to pedestrians who are standing at the curb – making motorists responsible for yielding only to those pedestrians who are “within a crosswalk.” The repeal passed on a 9-2 vote, but will need a second vote at a future meeting to be enacted. Back-channel discussion of some kind of compromise approach has unfolded since the meeting, but it’s not clear what, if any, impact that might have.

On an issue related to the crosswalk ordinance change, 40 minutes was spent on council discussion on a pedestrian safety task force – which had been postponed from its Nov. 7 meeting. Ultimately the council voted to establish a nine-person pedestrian safety task force with a charge of delivering a report with recommendations by February 2015. Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Dec. 2, 2013, with the task force members to be appointed on Dec. 16. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application]

The council also spent about a half hour deliberating on final approval to a change to the ordinance that regulates the tax increment finance (TIF) capture of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The change replaced the restriction in the ordinance originally enacted in 1982 with one that in the next few years will result in about $2 million in additional TIF revenue annually, compared to the amount the DDA would have received under strict enforcement of the 1982 language. Dissenting on that vote were Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Near the start of the meeting, Teall was selected as mayor pro tem, on a 6-5 vote. The council left its other organizational business – adoption of rules and assignment to committees – until Dec. 2.

The members of the rules committee will have a fresh assignment based on other action of the council on Nov. 18. The council passed a resolution that in part directs the rules committee to develop a set of standards for the conduct of councilmembers, based on “applicable statutes, regulations, existing city policies, and best practices such as Section and 2a of Public Act 196 of 1973 and the Ethics Handbook for Michigan Municipalities.”

Other business handled by the council included the final approval of a revision to the city’s ordinance on park use fees – to allow for a waiver for groups using a public park for the charitable distribution of goods to address basic human needs. Council chambers were filled with supporters of that resolution.

The council also formally adopted an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, after having postponed the item on Nov. 7. And as a part of its consent agenda, the council approved various street closings associated with New Year’s festivities – The Puck Drops Here in downtown Ann Arbor and the National Hockey League’s Winter Classic at Michigan Stadium.

Former Y Lot Sale

Although it did not appear on the agenda until mid-afternoon on Nov. 18, the council had expected to see a sales agreement for the former Y lot presented for their consideration. The city-owned property is located north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. The council had voted on Nov. 7 to direct the city administrator to negotiate with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the land and to present a sales agreement for approval on Nov. 18.

Former Y lot from the northwest corner of William and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor, looking northwest. In the background, the new Blake Transit Center is under construction. The photo dates from mid-October 2013.

It was not clear until mid-afternoon on Nov. 18 that Powers would be able to comply with that Nov. 7 council directive. In emails to councilmembers spaced just 14 minutes apart, Powers first indicated that negotiations with Dahlmann were continuing and that he didn’t expect to have a sales agreement ready for that night’s meeting (3:41 p.m.) and then that Dahlmann had agreed to all the city’s terms (3:55 p.m.). City attorneys were preparing the sales agreement, Powers wrote in the later email, and he expected it to be ready for consideration at that evening’s meeting, which it was.

The Nov. 7 resolution had been added to the agenda on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013. Dahlmann offered $5.25 million for the property. It had been listed at $4.2 million. The city purchased the property from the YMCA for $3.5 million 10 years ago and has been making interest-only payments on the property for that time. A balloon payment is due at the end of this year. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

The sales price is important because the net proceeds of the sale are supposed to be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund. A year ago at the council’s Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a resolution that indicated the proceeds of the sale would:

“… first be utilized to repay the various funds that expended resources on the property, including but not limited to due diligence, closing of the site and relocation and support of its previous tenants, after which any remaining proceeds be allocated and distributed to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund …

The original Nov. 7 resolution included direction to ensure eventual development of the site. But during the Nov. 7 deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) put forward amendments that were far more detailed about how protection against non-development was to be achieved. Those amendments were adopted by the council as part of the direction to the administrator. [.pdf of Taylor's amendments.]

Taylor’s amendments included a minimum 400% floor area ratio (FAR), with mixed use on the bottom floor, office space on the mid-floors and residential on the top floors. The deadline for building something is January 2018. There’s a prohibition against selling to another third party except that the city has a right of first refusal. The amendments also gave direction on requirements for energy efficiency and a required conversation with the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, which operates the Blake Transit Center next door to the parcel.

If negotiations with Dahlmann had not been successful, then the Nov. 7 resolution directed the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). CA Ventures had increased its offer to $5.35 million – but that increased amount was received after the deadline for offers, which was firm and clearly communicated to bidders, according to the city’s broker.

The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale. [.pdf of summary page by Chaconas]

Former Y Lot Sale: Council Deliberations

City administrator Steve Powers led off by saying that thanks to the work of Colliers and the city attorney’s office, there’s a sales agreement for consideration. The rider reflects the Nov. 7 council resolution, he explained.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he disliked the idea of Dahlmann’s downtown hotel monopoly. [Dahlmann's holdings include the Campus Inn and Bell Tower hotels.] However, Warpehoski felt like the council should let the “best bid win.” He also looked forward to the benefit to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. [By council resolution, the net proceeds of the sale are to go to the city's affordable housing trust fund.]

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said she thought that the parcel is too small for a hotel anyway, noting there are other city-owned parcels where a hotel could be built. Mayor John Hieftje reiterated the idea that there are several other sites where a hotel could be built, including private property that’s owned by developers.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stated: “I am so happy this is before us.” He recalled serving on the planning commission in 2004 when that body had approved a plan for a hotel on the site, which didn’t get built. “I’m not in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace,” Kunselman said. It’s 10 years of history, he said. He missed the Y building – as he remembered taking swim lessons there. He called Dahlmann a well-respected businessman in the community.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he’d support the sale. He’d queried his constituents and on that basis he’d come to the conclusion that he’d support it. The Key Bank building was given as an example of the kind of quality of work that Dahlmann did. Taylor said he’s looking forward to getting this property back on the tax rolls.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) called Dahlmann’s proposal “head and shoulders” above the other proposals. Lumm thanked Kunselman for kicking off the effort. Lumm recalled serving in 1993 on something called the Ann Arbor Inn task force. She echoed Kunselman’s remarks about not picking winners and losers. It’s an exciting proposal, she said. It’s going to be a “shining development” for downtown, she said. Lumm contended that Dahlmann’s proposal was the only one that proposed to involve the community with the development.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to sell the former Y lot to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million.

Former Y Lot Sale: Coda

During council communications at the end of the meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that the council had that evening approved a sales agreement with someone [Dahlmann] who’d contributed money to several council campaigns. He said there’s nothing wrong with that, but it was the same kind of situation that some councilmembers – who’d received money from Dahlmann – had criticized at previous meetings with respect to membership on a city board.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Ed Vielmetti expressed concern about the fact that the land sale was put on the agenda at the last possible minute. At 5:11 p.m. the relevant documents were not available, he said. So the public was not invited to be a part of the process. He didn’t have an opportunity to see the documents before the council voted, let alone prepare comments to share during public commentary. He then called the council’s attention to some very old minutes from various boards and commissions that were only just now for that night’s meeting attached to the city council’s agenda.

Ypsilanti Township Membership in AAATA

The city council considered for a second time a revision to the articles of incorporation of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to admit Ypsilanti Township as a member and to increase the board membership from 9 to 10 members so that the township can appoint a member. The council had postponed the action at its Oct. 21, 2013 meeting. The vote to postpone was 8-3 with dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Green indicates the geographic area included by the AAATA.

At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board already approved the membership of Ypsilanti Township. That action was contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

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

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

The AAATA could place a millage request on the ballot in May 2014, probably at the level of 0.7 mills, to support a 5-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed. A schedule of 13 public meetings to introduce that plan ended on Nov. 14. The series of meetings began on Oct. 17 before the council’s Oct. 21 decision to postpone. [For more background, see "Council Agenda: Transportation Governance"]

The current, more localized expansion of the AAATA contrasts with a now demised effort in 2012 to incorporate all of Washtenaw County into a single countywide transportation authority. When the Ann Arbor city council withdrew Ann Arbor’s participation in that effort, at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, it gave encouraged the AAATA “to continue to discuss regional transportation options among Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Ann Arbor Township, Pittsfield Township, and Scio Township, leading to a better understanding and process for improving local transit options…”

Over the course of the last year, the AAATA held a series of meetings with officials from those municipalities, a group that came to be called the “urban core” communities.

One outcome of those conversations was an interest in membership in the AAATA on the part of the two Ypsilanti jurisdictions. The city of Ann Arbor (pop. ~116,000), the city of Ypsilanti (pop. ~19,500) and Ypsilanti Township (~53,000) make up a bit more than half the population of Washtenaw County (pop. ~351,000).

Ypsi Twp. in AAATA: Public Commentary

Jim Mogensen spoke in favor of expanded transit in the urban area. He called it the continuation of a process that began over 40 years ago.

Jim Mogensen.

He recounted the history of changes that allowed the expansion to happen. In the mid-1970s after the city of Ann Arbor passed its millage, the AATA was expanded in a way that allowed the municipalities on the eastern side of the county to be included – through POSAs (purchase of service agreements).

What those communities pay, he said, is the local match for federal funds. Ann Arbor Township is the only community that’s no longer a part of that expansion, he said. Now, the AAATA has come up with a good plan to enhance service on the east side of the county, Mogensen said.

Ypsi Twp. in AAATA: Council Deliberations

After the consent agenda was approved, around 9 p.m., the council adjusted its agenda to accommodate the schedule of Ypsilanti Township officials. Township clerk Karen Lovejoy Roe had arrived at the meeting and had a constrained schedule.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by saying he’d attended some of the AAATA meetings that were held over the last month and he did not hear anyone say they were opposed to Ypsilanti Township joining the authority. He urged the council to vote unanimously to support Ypsilanti Township as a member.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said he strongly supported expanding transportation in the urban core. But he contended that the plan to ask for a millage would result in an inequitable funding arrangement. He ticked through the amount of millage each community would pay. He wanted a uniform total millage across all communities.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) responded to Eaton by saying that the amount of service in Ann Arbor is much higher, and that it’s natural that the amount contributed by Ann Arbor would be greater.

Teall asked Michael Ford, the AAATA’s CEO, to the podium. Ford said that 84% of the AAATA’s service is provided in Ann Arbor. He stressed that the question before the council that evening was membership in the AAATA.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know what would happen if a millage didn’t pass: Would Ypsilanti Township convert their general fund allocation to a transit millage? Ford said he wouldn’t speak for the township. Karen Lovejoy Roe took the podium to respond to Lumm’s question. She thanked the council for moving up the item on the agenda. She said that Ypsilanti Township has had some sort of POSA for several years, and as a member of the AAATA, the township would be willing to make a longer-term commitment. [.pdf of draft MOU] She was excited about having transit that connects the west and east sides of the county.

Lumm asked if Ypsilanti Township would convert the general fund funding to a millage, if an AAATA millage didn’t pass. Lovejoy Roe said that right now, the township would lock in the current POSA agreement in perpetuity – but that wouldn’t necessarily result in the township itself asking for a millage of its residents.

Lumm said it’s not been clarified what the standards are for being admitted as a member of the AAATA. Lovejoy Roe asked what difference it would make, if the township board is entering into a legally binding agreement to pay the cash.

Lumm asked Ford what the standards are for admitting a municipality as a member. Ford referred to the council’s resolution for exploring conversations with the urban core communities, a community’s ability to pay, where population density is, and other factors.

Lumm reported that she attended one of the public outreach meetings, and there were questions asked about routes in Ward 2. She contended that it’s not clear whether the AAATA’s series of outreach meetings had been a “sales tour” or a “listening tour.” In the “marketing materials,” she said, there was an indication that the improvements will require a 0.7 mill tax. Ford stressed that the AAATA board has not made a decision to place a millage on the ballot. The point of the meetings was to hear input and make adjustments and refine the plan, he said. “We are listening to people. … That’s what we do!” he added. Lumm complained there is not enough service improvement in Ward 2.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) thanked Ford for providing the MOU between AAATA and Ypsilanti Township. She contended the goal of long-term planning is undercut by the monthly invoicing to which the MOU refers. Ford described that as just an operational issue – and stressed that it’s in draft form. The MOU simply operationalizes the exchange of money, he said. Kailasapathy asked if the planning would take place on an annual basis. Ford indicated that planning is a continuous process, quarterly and annual. Planning is in the AAATA’s DNA, Ford said – “that’s what we do.”

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that for him, it’s a simple question of whether it’s good for Ypsi Township to be a member. Leaving aside the “soul-sucking micromanagement” of the AAATA – an allusion to the line of questioning pursued by Lumm – Taylor said the answer to the question is yes. Taylor characterized Eaton’s worry about the amount of support there would be for a millage as a fair point. But Taylor said that this idea will be put into the marketplace (of voters). It’s natural that Ann Arbor will receive most of the service, he said, as it’s the economic engine of the region.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) recalled a remark from township supervisor Brenda Stumbo at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting – that you can’t get from the city of Ypsilanti to the city of Ann Arbor without going through Ypsilanti Township. If the buses will go through the township anyway, it makes sense that the township has a voice on the board, Petersen said. She was less concerned about the funding, saying she gave Ypsi Township the benefit of any doubt that they’ll continue to pay the POSA.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked Ford to review the city of Ann Arbor’s increase in service over the five-year period. Ford explained that over the five-year period, service would increase 33%. Warpehoski concluded that’s about commensurate with the percentage that an additional 0.7 mill tax would mean. [Ann Arbor taxpayers currently pay a bit more than 2 mills in transit tax.] Warpehoski invited Lovejoy Roe to confirm that Ypsilanti Township would not have the demand for the same level of service as Ann Arbor – which is to have a bus stop within 1/4 mile of every household. She confirmed that such demand in Ypsilanti Township doesn’t exist at this point.

Warpehoski concluded that it wouldn’t make sense to define equity by having every jurisdiction levy equal total millages and let the variance follow from differences in property values. [The levy that AAATA would impose, upon voter approval, would be uniform. But taxpayers in the two cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti would be paying their own millages in addition to the AAATA millage.] He confirmed with Ford that the costs per service hour charged for POSAs include all the overhead costs.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked why Pittsfield Township isn’t joining the AAATA as a member. Ford explained that Pittsfield is leaning toward a longer-term POSA, so that they wouldn’t participate in an AAATA millage. He didn’t want to speak for Pittsfield. Briere said Ypsilanti Township has been asked to take a leap of faith. And the township is making a significant financial commitment, she said. Briere related some vignettes from her own experience. She wrapped up by saying she hoped that the council would support the resolution.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) recalled the council’s December 2012 direction to the AAATA after the demise of its countywide effort. The council had decided it wanted to focus not across the county but more locally, and that’s what the AAATA had done, he said. So he was going to support the resolution.

From left: Jack Eaton (Ward 4), mayor John Hieftje.

Eaton asked Ford if there is a standard for adding members to the AAATA. Ford responded by saying the council in part defined that for the AAATA with its urban core resolution from late 2012. There are other factors – geographical considerations, where people live, where trips are generated, as well as willingness to pay. Back and forth ensued between Eaton and Ford about standards for admission into the AAATA. Eaton wanted to know: If Ypsilanti Township were willing to pay for improvements without an AAATA millage, would the AAATA provide additional service. Eaton pointed out that a neighborhood in Ann Arbor can’t choose a reduced level of service. Ford finally said to Eaton: “What is your question?” Part of Eaton’s point was that the financial burden is not equal across neighborhoods within the city: In some parts of the city, there is less transportation service.

Lovejoy Roe said that this approach would lock in at least the current level of service for Ypsilanti Township. She pointed out that Ypsilanti Township will have only one vote on the AAATA board.

City administrator Steve Powers and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Lumm returned to the idea of criteria for admission into the AAATA. She didn’t think there was a rigorous enough standard for admission. Lumm called Ford to the podium again. She noted that the riders-per-service-hour goal of the AAATA is 25 passengers, but complained that the commuter express service has less than that. Ford responded by saying that the commuter express service no longer uses any local Ann Arbor millage dollars.

Briere asked if there are any buses that are completely internal to Ypsilanti Township. No, answered Ford. She asked if there are any routes specific to some ward. No, said Ford.

Petersen stressed that there’s an economic value that’s generated by a worker from Ypsilanti riding the bus to Ann Arbor.

Lumm appeared to want to speak on the question but Hieftje advised that Lumm was considered to have spoken twice, having interspersed her questions of Ford with her own commentary.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) argued against “intellectualizing” the issue and said he wanted a unanimous vote. He stressed that Ypsilanti Township would have just one vote on the AAATA board. He’d been a vocal opponent of the countywide transit effort out of concern that that proposal would have yielded majority control. [Ann Arbor would have had 7 of 15 board seats under that countywide proposal.] As far as the standards for admission, the standard is clear, said Kunselman: Ypsilanti Township is the second largest community in the county and this is about “mass transit.”

Kunselman wanted a clear majority vote by the council to send a clear message of support. Hieftje followed up with standard arguments in favor of public transportation. Hieftje said if there’s a millage on the ballot put forward by the AAATA, then he’ll support it. For now, he hoped for a unanimous vote on welcoming a new member into the AAATA.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the amended articles of incorporation so that Ypsilanti Township is now a member of the AAATA. The vote drew applause.

Crosswalk Ordinance

The council considered the repeal of language in the city crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists explicitly to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk.

The proposal the council was asked to consider would change the law so that slowing (not necessarily stopping) would be a legal way to yield to pedestrians within crosswalks. The ordinance would be further changed so that only pedestrians within crosswalks (not those standing at the curb) would need to be accommodated by motorists.

Crosswalk Ordinance: Public Commentary

Kathy Griswold stated that she’s previously spoken in favor of a state crosswalk law. She asked four questions: (1) How were Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition members “hoodwinked” into supporting an ordinance change instead of supporting pedestrian infrastructure? (2) Why is lighting inadequate in many neighborhoods, especially at crosswalks? (3) Why are councilmembers supporting a pedestrian safety task force to report back in February 2015? She said it’s a duplication of the efforts of the transportation safety committee; and (4) Why do we continue to ignore overgrown vegetation at intersections?

Erica Briggs addressed the council as chair of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. She supported the city’s current version of the ordinance. She said she was delivering a petition signed by 587 people supporting the current ordinance. She was also delivering a letter signed by several organizations supporting the current ordinance. She called the current ordinance a recognized best practice. She cited Traverse City as an example of a community where the Uniform Traffic Code is enforced so that motorists are supposed to stop for pedestrians who are standing at the curb.

Chris Hewett spoke for the neighborhood group Safety on Seventh. Whatever side of the vote councilmembers are on for the crosswalk ordinance, he said, it’s important to focus on the safety of pedestrians. He challenged councilmembers to leave their cars at home and see what it’s like to experience the city as a pedestrian. He challenged the council to make people and neighborhoods their highest priority, not traffic flow and vehicle speeds.

Crosswalk Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by venturing that there was a time of the council’s history when there were no questions at first readings of ordinance changes. That time has passed, she said. She wanted to know if traffic engineers participate in approving ordinance language.

City administrator Steve Powers and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

City administrator Steve Powers said no, that’s the council’s job. Traffic engineers provide input into the language, but an ordinance doesn’t require traffic engineer approval, Powers explained. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy confirmed for Briere that a traffic engineer would evaluate how the policy choices would be applied. Hupy said that if the ordinance were repealed, signage would have to be changed from “stop” to “yield.” And the cost of that would be $14,000, Hupy estimated.

Briere asked for data on accidents before the council’s previous ordinance change and after that change. Hupy indicated that some of the data can be shown by hour of the day.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) shared that the crosswalk ordinance has been a very emotional topic for her. She and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) had met with representatives of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition to learn about the impetus for the previous change back in 2010 and 2011. Petersen contended that the approach of “increasing pedestrian rights” just hasn’t worked. From 2009 to 2012, pedestrian crashes rose 42%, she said. For a five-year period prior to that, there was a decrease. She contended that while you can’t say the change to the ordinance caused the increase, you could say that safety did not increase.

It’s too dangerous to tell pedestrians that “they rule,” Petersen said.

Kailasapathy stated that in addition to repealing the ordinance, more action is needed. Infrastructure improvements are also important, including more HAWK lights, she said. The focus should be on safety, not on rights, she said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported that she, Petersen and Kailasapathy had begun working with city staff several weeks ago on the issue. She thanked the staff for their work. Lumm contended that Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique and this change would make Ann Arbor’s local law conform with the UTC. She contended that the local ordinance is not consistent with local signage. She contended that “pedestrians rule” is a mindset that is dangerous.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked Hupy about the RFB (rapid flashing beacon) and HAWK (high-intensity activated crosswalk beacon) implementations and why a regular stoplight isn’t simply installed. Hupy explained that a traffic signal has to meet a “warrant” – a standard that would allow it to be installed. He couldn’t say that the mid-block locations would or wouldn’t meet that standard.

Warpehoski asked Ann Arbor police chief John Seto if he thought that changing the ordinance will affect pedestrian safety in Ann Arbor. Seto replied that he couldn’t say. Warpehoski gave examples of enforcement techniques used in Florida, using plainclothes policemen, cone placement, etc. He asked Seto if that type of enforcement action would be possible, if the ordinance were changed. Seto said enforcement would be challenging, because the pedestrian would need to be in the roadway. Warpehoski explained the technique for enforcement was in fact to have the pedestrian step into the roadway. It could be done, Seto said, setting aside staffing constraints.

Warpehoski got clarification that under the UTC if there’s enough time for a motorist to stop, then it’s legal for a pedestrian to step into the roadway. Assistant city attorney Bob West confirmed Warpehoski’s understanding. Warpehoski wanted to know what the responsibility is for motorists in multi-lane situations. West explained that vehicles traveling in the same direction of travel have the same responsibility.

Assistant city attorney Bob West was at the podium to answer questions about the UTC. He had brought a copy of the UTC with him, but he did not read it aloud. In the background is Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

West said the intent of the law is not to make pedestrians say, “I can make these guys stop.” Pedestrians have more to lose, West noted.

Warpehoski asked Seto and West how confident they’d been in making citations and making them stick. They indicated they were comfortable with making citations stick.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) picked up on Lumm’s contention that Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. He himself had asked for other examples. He noted that pedestrian advocates in Ann Arbor contended that Traverse City interprets the UTC to mean that “within a crosswalk” includes the curb. But Kunselman contended that the vehicle code defines the crosswalk as measured between the curbs. Kunselman said that by having different language from other cities, it’s causing confusion. How could Traverse City possibly be giving the UTC the claimed interpretation? asked Kunselman.

Seto didn’t know. Seto told Kunselman that the Traverse City police chief’s response to his question was to provide the ordinance language. Kunselman wanted to know if the UTC can be enforced as meaning “at the curb” – the same intent that’s explicit in the existing ordinance. West didn’t think so.

Mayor John Hieftje encouraged councilmembers to wrap up this item by pointing out that there were a lot of items left on the agenda and this was just the first reading.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) invited councilmembers to ask themselves how often they’ve come close to hitting a pedestrian.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted the asymmetry between the claim that the ordinance is so powerful that it causes pedestrians to step in front of cars, yet it’s not powerful enough to compel a motorist to do what they should do in any case: Yield to pedestrians at a curb at a crosswalk. Taylor also noted the increases in pedestrian accidents in other cities, which had nothing to do with Ann Arbor’s ordinance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and city administrator Steve Powers.

Hieftje echoed Taylor’s sentiments, and said he also wouldn’t support the repeal of the ordinance, even on first reading.

Lumm read aloud a message she’d received from a resident who complained that they have had to slam on their brakes for pedestrians who were crossing against the light. [The ordinance in question actually applies to non-signalized crosswalks.]

Kunselman said it’s more important to install HAWK and RFBs than to focus on ordinance language. He also wanted to add FTEs (full-time equivalent positions) to the police department so there can be more traffic enforcement. AAPD staffing levels are dramatically down and can’t enforce basic traffic law, he contended. He questioned why the law should be different in Ann Arbor.

Petersen shared a voicemail relating an anecdote that demonstrated support for her point of view.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) weighed in supporting the existing ordinance.

Warpehoski pointed out that if a car can stop or yield, then the UTC states that a pedestrian can step into the crosswalk. Warpehoski refuted Kunselman’s contention that Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique, by citing Boulder’s ordinance, which includes “approaching” not just “within” a crosswalk. He also cited Seattle’s definition of crosswalk, which extends to the farthest sidewalk line, including the curb.

From left: Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Warpehoski confronted Kunselman’s characterization of the existing ordinance as a “pedestrian convenience” ordinance by reflecting on the recommendations in the Federal Highway Administration guide “How to Develop A Pedestrian Safety Action Plan.”

Warpehoski announced that he’d vote for the ordinance revision on first reading, but will ask for postponement at the second reading until after the yet-to-be established pedestrian safety task force could make a recommendation. [The task force was established later in the meeting, after Warpehoski's bid to have the task force's recommendation be submitted sooner than February 2015 failed. His intent was to set up a situation where the same group of councilmembers could consider the ordinance at second reading, after a long postponement but with a task force recommendation.]

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) indicated he’d support the crosswalk ordinance revision at first reading. He thought the correct forum for this type of revision is the state legislature.

Outcome: The council voted 8-3 to give initial approval to the repeal of the crosswalk law. Dissent came from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and mayor John Hieftje.

Pedestrian Safety Task Force

In front of the council for consideration on Nov. 18 for a second time was a resolution to appoint a pedestrian safety task force. It had been postponed on Nov. 7 amid concerns about the budget needed to support the task force’s work. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy had described the staff and other support for the task force as costing on the order of $100,000. [.pdf of Nov. 7 memo on pedestrian safety]

The pedestrian safety task force will consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.”

The resolution considered on Nov. 7 was swapped out with a substitute version on Nov. 18 that added some items to the proposed group’s tasks, including addressing sidewalk gaps and creating a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps. That allows the group to tap some of the $75,000 the council allocated this spring in a FY 2014 budget amendment for the prioritization of sidewalks gaps to be eliminated.

The timeframe for membership application shifted in the substitute resolution to Dec. 2, with the appointments to be made at the Dec. 16 council meeting. The task force’s report would also not be due until the council’s first meeting in February 2015. [.pdf of substitute pedestrian safety task force resolution]

Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Dec. 2, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application]

The task force’s report, due by early February 2015 – would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The task force sponsors, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), have indicated their intent is not to make the task force an alternative to repealing the city’s mid-block crosswalk ordinance.

Pedestrian Safety Task Force: Council Deliberations

Before the council reached the item on the agenda, during council communications time, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked the people who’ve worked on Safety on Seventh. The area needs a lot of attention because vehicles go really fast through that area, he said. When you live on a busy street, you don’t give up your rights as a citizen, he said. People who live on active streets are a part of the community, he continued. Anglin contended that speeders are in fact people who live here. There will be a meeting at Slauson Middle School on the topic, with the date and time to be determined, he said.

When the council reached the item on the agenda, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the resolution. The problem is engineering, enforcement and education, she said. It’s going to cost time, energy and budgetary wherewithal, she continued. Drivers will resent getting a ticket, she said. She then related her views about bicyclists, drivers and pedestrians. She talked about meetings she’s had with University of Michigan officials and Downtown Development Authority officials. Briere contended that this issue includes sidewalk gaps. So sidewalk gaps have been added to the mission of the task force, she explained. She wanted the council to move forward on this.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said he wouldn’t support the task force resolution because he thought this task should be taken up by an existing body – the Ann Arbor Public Schools transportation safety committee.

Standing is city administrator Steve Powers leaning over to chat with Jack Eaton (Ward 4) before the start of the Nov. 18 meeting.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stated that he supports pedestrian safety. He talked about the fact that there are no jaywalking laws. He also noted that it’s legal to ride a bike on a sidewalk, which he does because he feels safer there. “Cars are bigger than I am. Cars can kill me.” He said that maybe pedestrians have been “pampered” by the city making them think that cars will stop just by standing by the side of the road. He wanted people to understand that it’s dangerous out there, and to have a sense of risk. He wanted the task force to focus on that aspect of education – understanding the sense of risk. He’d support the task force.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) told Kunselman that it’s not true that he’s safer riding on the sidewalk.

Anglin echoed Eaton’s point about having the transportation safety committee handle the task. He wanted there to be a broader conversation with the schools and the University of Michigan.

Warpehoski responded to Anglin’s idea that the task force should cast a wide net by pointing out how the resolution names the various interested groups. He noted that the AAPS transportation safety committee does not have UM representation. He said he’s become something of an evangelist for the FHA manual on how to develop a pedestrian safety strategy. [.pdf of "How to Develop A Pedestrian Safety Action Plan"] He ticked through some examples from the manual. The task force would be an opportunity to step back from the controversy of the crosswalk ordinance, he said.

Warpehoski then proposed an amendment that the pedestrian task force make its recommendation for an ordinance change by the first meeting in October 2014. His plan was to put off the final vote on the crosswalk ordinance until after that. He said if councilmembers won’t support putting off the ordinance change when it comes before the council for a second reading, they shouldn’t vote for this amendment.

Outcome: The amendment accelerating the timeline for the task force’s report failed, getting support only from Warpehoski, Briere, Taylor, Teall, and Hieftje.

Kunselman said he wonders how the city will be working with UM, if the city’s crosswalk ordinance language is different from the university’s rule. Briere responded by saying that as long as Kunselman has announced how he’s going to vote on rescinding the ordinance and assuming everyone else on the council does the same, the city’s ordinance would be reverting to the UTC, which has the same language as the UM rule.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked if the sponsors would be willing to put this off until some additional questions could be answered – noting that she didn’t disagree with the underlying premise of establishing the task force. Briere asked Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, to the podium to respond to Lumm’s concern about what the staff’s plan would be.

Hupy explained that staff has not figured out completely how to move this resolution along with the sidewalk gap process. Briere wanted to know how long it would take to pull together that information. Probably by the middle of December, answered Hupy. Briere asked if that would represent a conflict with the appointment schedule of the task force. Hupy told Briere that’s up to the council.

Briere said she was struggling to find a rational reason to postpone this. She didn’t want to put this on the back burner for another construction season. Hupy said he’s not sure that a postponement would have a dramatic negative impact. Briere cited the numerous emails that she’s received from people who don’t realize the city has a program for addressing sidewalk issues. Briere apologized for making Hupy sit through a speech from her.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated: “For reasons articulated by councilmember Briere, I support the resolution.” Warpehoski quizzed Hupy about the impact on staff work.

Kunselman said he’d be looking at installing a flashing beacon at Easy Street and Packard Road. He wondered if at budget time next year he’d be told he has to wait for the task force recommendation. Hupy said that he was at that moment “brain dead enough” due to the late hour [after 1 a.m.] that he wasn’t sure – but he thought that intersection is already under consideration for a flashing beacon. Kunselman recalled that there’d been rubber hoses out in the street doing traffic counts.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) wanted to make sure there’s no moratorium on pedestrian infrastructure. Hupy assured her that won’t be the case.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the resolution establishing a pedestrian safety task force.

DDA TIF, Governance

In front of the council for final approval at the Nov. 18 meeting was a change to the ordinance (Chapter 7) regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance capture and its board governance.

The outcome of deliberations at the council’s Nov. 7 meeting was to table a version of the Chapter 7 changes that had been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013.

The council then gave initial approval on Nov. 7 to a different version of the Chapter 7 changes. Those recommendations came from a committee of DDA board members and city councilmembers that has met four times since Aug. 26, most recently on Oct. 30. That committee was established at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting – after the first version achieved initial approval at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. Representing the council on the joint committee were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Representing the DDA were Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel and Joan Lowenstein.

The committee’s version of the Chapter 7 ordinance change allows for several million dollars in additional TIF (tax increment finance) capture by the DDA, compared to the tabled version. The version in front of the council on Nov. 18 set a cap on DDA TIF revenue that does not apply at all until FY 2017 and will result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year. It will also mean an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions.

That amount will be proportionally divided among the taxing jurisdictions, which together levy roughly 27.5 mills of taxes in the DDA district. Proportionally, that translates to: city of Ann Arbor (60%), Washtenaw County (21%), Washtenaw Community College (13%), and Ann Arbor District Library (6%).

David Blanchard addressed a mid-October joint committee of DDA members and city councilmembers. As chair of the city’s housing and human services board, he advocated for a DDA commitment to affordable housing, which ultimately was included in the ordinance at $300,000 annually for residents at 50% AMI. At the council’s Nov. 18 meeting, Blanchard was nominated to be reappointed to that board. That nomination will be put to the council for a vote at its first meeting in December.

The $300,000 total to be divided by the other taxing jurisdictions in FY 2017 compares to roughly $2 million that would be divided among them under the tabled version of the Chapter 7 revision. The tabled version essentially clarified the enforcement of existing language in the ordinance. In both versions – assuming that new construction in the DDA district continues to take place at a healthy pace – taxing jurisdictions would continue to receive additional funds into the future after FY 2017.

The city’s share of the estimated $300,000 in excess TIF in FY 2017 will be about $180,000. But that will be distributed proportionally across the city’s funds based on the levy associated with the fund. For example, out of the $180,000, the general fund would get about $65,000. That compares to $430,000 that the city’s general fund would receive based on the tabled Chapter 7 approach.

On Nov. 7, after debating the issue, the council amended the committee’s recommended version to include a limitation on board terms. The version that was up for final consideration on Nov. 18 imposed a limit of three four-year terms, with additional terms possible only after a four-year lapse.

On Nov. 7, during deliberations, the council also added a requirement that the DDA budget at least $300,000 each year for affordable housing projects, with “affordable” defined as targeting residents with 50% area median income (AMI).

DDA TIF/Governance: Public Hearing

Nine people spoke at the Nov. 18 public hearing on this item. Thomas Partridge talked about how he went to Washington D.C. to study law and to work for senators McNamara and Hart. He called the ordinance a furtherance of corruption and discrimination. The entire DDA ordinance should be repealed and substituted, he said. The DDA needs enough revenue to give equal opportunity to every commercial area of the city, he said.

From left: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association.

Maura Thomson addressed the council as executive director of the Main Street Area Association, which represents 175 businesses. She supported the ordinance change. Councilmembers had wanted clarity, she said. The ordinance would not have negative impact on the work the DDA is doing now and could do in the future, she said. She challenged the idea of downtown interests “versus” the rest of the city, by saying the downtown belongs to everyone. The downtown has a social, economic, and cultural purpose, she said. Looking at the interests of the downtown and the rest of the city as separate is not a productive way to think about it, she said.

Tom Heywood of the State Street Area Association called the solution that had been crafted a win-win. It allowed the DDA to continue its work while returning millions of dollars to the brother and sister jurisdictions over several years, he said.

Jim Osborne asked for stricter council oversight of the DDA. Instead of begging the DDA money to give money back, the council should control the DDA, he said.

Sandi Smith, current chair of the DDA, read a prepared statement. She appealed to the idea that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The premise of the ordinance change was to achieve clarity, she said, but she complained about the cap that was being proposed. She described the proposed ordinance as cutting the DDA’s bonding capacity in half. [That claim relies on a comparison that ignores the existing language in the ordinance. Compared to the existing language in the ordinance, the DDA's revenues will be about $2 million greater annually than they would be if the strict language of the ordinance were enforced. ]

Lou Glorie took the podium to counter Smith. She characterized the ordinance change as re-establishing some equity between the DDA and the other taxing authorities.

Omari Rush, education manager at the University Musical Society, described the role of downtowns in cities and how much he enjoys Ann Arbor’s downtown. He appreciated what’s been done to make Ann Arbor’s downtown clean, safe and vibrant.

Dug Song recalled that the last time he attended a council meeting, he was lobbying for a skatepark – and now that’s being built. He expressed general support for the DDA. He recalled how the local tech firm Arbor Networks grew from five people to 300 people, but most of those jobs were in Boston, because there’s not adequate space in downtown Ann Arbor. He supported the “love economy,” an allusion to remarks from Alan Haber made earlier in the meeting, but he also supported small companies (two people and some laptops) that grow into something larger.

Peter Baker introduced himself as a resident of Water Hill and employee of DuoSecurity. He chose Ann Arbor because of the interplay between downtown and neighborhoods.

DDA TIF/Governance: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led of deliberations by saying he was really pleased that there was support for this, based on the public hearing commentary. The discussion had lasted for many months, he said. [The initial proposal this year dates back to February, but a budget amendment that was similar in spirit had been proposed by Kunselman in May 2012.] He urged the adoption of the ordinance without any amendments.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) then announced that she’d just emailed other councilmembers a proposed amendment to the ordinance change. The amendment was the result of a housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) resolution, she said. The amendment clarified that the first year of the $300,000 affordable housing allocations is tax year 2016. Thereafter the DDA is required to increase the allocation by the same amount that the cap escalates. Kunselman indicated he was fine with the amendment, if it was not considered a big enough change that it would reset the proposal to a first reading in front of the council.

Briere conferred with city attorney Stephen Postema and assistant city attorney Mary Fales on the question. Postema concluded: “It’s fine.” Kunselman noted that he’d touched base with David Blanchard, chair of HHSAB, and Kunselman thought it’s probably not an amendment that’s necessary, but he didn’t have a problem with it. He accepted it as a friendly amendment.

Executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority Susan Pollay.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) was worried that the DDA would not be able to continue funding the nonprofit Dawn Farm, which does not have a 50% AMI requirement. [The ordinance revision specifies 50% AMI as the definition of affordable housing.] Executive director Susan Pollay indicated that she understood the ordinance language to mean that additional dollars, beyond the $300,000, could be allocated for Dawn Farm.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported that she had attended the recent DDA partnerships committee meeting as well as the HHSAB meeting. She characterized the conversations at those different meetings as “schizophrenic.” The DDA had wanted more flexibility, she reported. DDA board chair Sandi Smith – who had taken the podium – responded to Lumm, saying there was not pushback on the $300,000 amount that the DDA had to allocate for affordable housing. Rather, it was the 50% AMI standard that was problematic, she said.

Lumm asked for an explanation of the DDA’s policy to invest in areas outside the DDA district when those investments were felt to have a positive impact on the district. The standard in the policy is within 1/4 mile of the district, Pollay said. Smith ventured that using the wording “downtown area” would be consistent with the DDA’s policy on investing in housing projects within 1/4 mile of the district. Briere came to the podium to show Smith her iPad with the text of her proposed amendment.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he had a concern about the city’s own budget. He believed there were going to be millions of dollars of investment required in the Ann Arbor housing commission properties. So he wanted the “downtown area” to stretch as far as Miller Manor, which is an AAHC property. Lumm wanted to add “near downtown area” to the ordinance language. Kunselman wanted to make sure that any change in the wording would not reset the ordinance to the first reading. Fales confirmed that such a change in wording would not reset the reading, because it’s consistent with the DDA renewal plan.

Briere got confirmation from Smith that the DDA’s definition of “near downtown area” means within 1/4 mile of the district boundary. Pollay and Briere weren’t sure if Miller Manor was within 1/4 miles of the district. [It is.] Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wanted confirmation that Miller Manor meets the 50% AMI criterion.

Lumm recited the reasons she was supportive of the ordinance revision – which included the fact that there would be 55% growth in TIF for the DDA over the next three years. She thought it would have been better to impose the cap in an earlier year so that sharing of additional revenue with the other jurisdictions would have begun sooner.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) announced that he was going to violate the council’s rules by emailing the amendments to the media. [.pdf of Briere amendment]

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said he would have preferred a lower cap and a shorter term limit for DDA board members. [The terms were limited to three 4-year terms in the ordinance revision.] However, Eaton applauded the effort of the committee that made the recommendation.

From left: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Taylor said he wouldn’t support the ordinance revision. The DDA had proven itself a reliable steward of taxpayer funding, he contended. He recited familiar arguments in support of the DDA. Taylor went on to claim that the resulting proposal before the council was not a compromise, but rather a “power play.” He contended that people had been told that if they organized and spoke against the revision, “there would be trouble.”

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated she wasn’t happy with the ordinance revision [because the TIF revenue to the DDA was greater than she had wanted], but would still support it.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) stated she would not support the ordinance revision.

Hieftje recited some standard arguments and history of the DDA and its impact. Hieftje characterized the proposal as a compromise, disagreeing with Taylor. Hieftje wanted to “get this behind us” and let the DDA get back to work.

Teall contended that the proposal went way beyond clarifying the language and contended that Taylor was “calling it like it is.”

Outcome: The council voted to approve the ordinance change, with dissent from Taylor and Teall.

Council Organization

The council had a handful of items on its agenda at the start of the meeting associated with the new, post-election composition of the council. In Ward 4, Jack Eaton joined the council in the seat formerly held by Marcia Higgins.

Council Organization: Swearing In

Those taking the oath administered by city clerk Jackie Beaudry were: Sabra Briere (Ward 1); Jane Lumm (Ward 2); Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3); Jack Eaton (Ward 4); and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). The oath is from Section 2 of Article XVI of the Michigan state constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of [city councilmember] according to the best of my ability.”

Council Organization: Mayor Pro Tem

Under the city charter, the council is required to “elect” a mayor pro tem at the first meeting after the seating of new councilmembers:

At its first meeting after the newly elected members have taken office following each regular city election, the Council shall elect one of its members Mayor Pro Tem for a term expiring at the first Council meeting following the next regular city election. The election of the Mayor Pro Tem shall be by the concurring vote of at least six members of the Council.

In the event that the mayor is temporarily not able to fulfill his duties, the mayor pro tem has all the powers of the mayor, save the power of veto. In Ann Arbor’s council-manager form of government, where the city administrator has day-to-day responsibility for city operations, those mayoral duties are somewhat limited and include: presiding over meetings of the council; voting as a councilmember; making nominations to committees, commissions and boards; and exercising certain powers during emergencies.

The procedure used by the council to “elect” a mayor pro tem is to move a resolution proposing that some particular councilmember serve as mayor pro tem. One possible reason for this procedure – as opposed to asking councilmembers on a roll call vote administered by the city clerk to name the person they’d like to serve – is the charter requirement that:

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

However, it’s not clear that a charter requirement would prevent taking an informal straw poll at the council table, with the outcome of that straw poll determining the content of the resolution on which the council would then formally vote.

In any case, the council’s procedure is to begin with a motion to select someone as mayor pro tem, which on Nov. 18 was made by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who’d been recognized by mayor John Hieftje – to name Margie Teall (Ward 4) to that position.

Taylor began by calling mayor pro tem an “honorary post.” He stated that it was his understanding that it was filled “on the basis of seniority.” [Marcia Higgins had most recently served as mayor pro tem, each year since 2008, and was for that period the most senior member on the council. However, prior to that, mayor pro tem was Chris Easthope, who was at that time not the most senior member of the council – as that distinction belonged to Higgins.] Taylor continued his remarks by quipping that while Teall is young at heart, she is old by measure of the length of her council service, so he supported her for mayor pro tem.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) responded to Taylor’s remarks by saying he wouldn’t support Teall as mayor pro tem, saying that the council didn’t always need to do things the same way. He wanted to see fresh blood and fresh thinking at the position. He’d support Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Kunselman said.

Mayor John Hieftje contended that the position is honorary, and that it’s rare for someone to need to fill in. He gave the date of his last absence at a meeting as July 3, 2012.

Outcome: The council voted 6-5 to appoint Margie Teall as mayor pro tem for the coming year. Dissenting were Kunselman, Anglin, Eaton, Kailasapathy, and Lumm. After Hieftje and Teall, the order of succession first by seniority, then alphabetically would be: Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Christopher Taylor, Stephen Kunselman, Jane Lumm, Sally (Hart) Petersen, Sumi Kailasapathy, Chuck Warpehoski and Jack Eaton.

Council Organization: 2014 Council Committee Appointments

Mayor John Hieftje began by noting that when there’s a new member of the council, it’s been customary to delay voting on committee appointments until the following meeting, so that the appointments can all be sorted out. He invited a motion to postpone, which he received.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said it’s important for councilmembers to be able serve on those committees that they want to serve on. He went on to contend that the mayor pro tem has an obligation to work with councilmembers on appointments. He wanted that brought up before councilmembers are appointed to those committee members. He pointed out that the liquor license review committee’s responsibility has evolved over time. Anglin called for a slower and more deliberative process for the committee appointments.

Hieftje said the process over the last few years was that he’d worked with Marcia Higgins, in her capacity as mayor pro tem, to gather up preferences for assignments from councilmembers. Hieftje said he would be happy to see councilmembers get the assignments they wanted.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that she would not be attending the next council meeting.

Outcome: The council voted to delay consideration of the council committee appointments until its first meeting in December – Dec. 2, 2013.

Council Organization: 2014 Council Rules

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) suggested that in accordance with past practice, the item setting the council rules be delayed until the rules committee could have a chance to look at it. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the rules had just recently been amended. She also noted that it would be the existing rules committee that would do the review.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked for a future amendment to Rule 8, swapping in “personal attack” for “personality” as the thing to be avoided during council deliberations. [In an archaic meaning, "personality" can mean a disparaging remark about someone.]

Outcome: The council voted to delay action on the council rules until its first meeting in December so that the council’s rules committee could review the existing rules. The existing council rules committee now consists of Mayor John Hieftje, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1)

Ethics Resolution

The council considered a resolution directing an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute.

A final “resolved” clause directed the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor. The point of PA 196 appears to be designed to prevent unauthorized leaks of information.

The resolution was first considered on Nov. 7, but its sponsor, Sally Petersen (Ward 2), moved immediately to postpone consideration of the resolution, due to the very heavy agenda that night. It was taken up again on Nov. 18.

Ethics: Public Commentary

Jeanine Delay offered her strong support for the ethics resolution that Petersen was sponsoring. Delay works with a group called A2 Ethics. She acknowledged Stephen Kunselman’s support of the resolution. There are many persistent misconceptions about local ethics, Delay said. One misconception is that upon election, an official will somehow magically recognize the various conflicts that might arise. The second misconception is that good character will ensure good ethical practice. “We’re all in this together, so we need a collective process,” she said. In passing this resolution, Ann Arbor would join other cities that have recognized the importance of ethics in civic life, she said.

Nancy Schewe of the local League of Women Voters also indicated support for the ethics resolution. Setting our own standards will allow us to reflect our own local values, she said. This resolution would help avoid problems before they come along. The standards should be known, codified and enforced, she said. She added that this would shape a community of high ethical standards.

Erin Mattimoe introduced herself as a youth developer and a volunteer with A2 Ethics. Democracy depends on trust in elected officials, she said. That requires regular training and education, she said.

Joanna DeCamp introduced herself as a volunteer with A2 Ethics. She supported the resolution on ethics sponsored by Petersen (and also Kunselman). Trust in government is low at the national and state levels, she said. Comprehensive training and education would allow common expectations of behavior to be developed, she said, and that will allow for constructive dialogues with conflicts arise.

Ethics: Council Deliberations

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) thanked A2 Ethics for their work, but cautioned that the resolution is not really about an ethics policy. This was a first step in the conversation, she said. Issues of conflict of interest are “top of mind” for the community, she said. She wanted everyone to be on an even playing field, and that’s why the resolution called for an educational effort.

City administrator Steve Powers and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Petersen responded to the question of what the problem is – by saying there doesn’t need to be a problem that needs solving in order to start working along these lines.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she was the one who’d asked what the problem was to be solved. Briere said there’s a “perception” that there might be conflict of interest and there could be a need to address that. She was not comfortable with trying to apply PA 196 because it doesn’t get at the issue of undue influence.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) said he’s an enthusiastic supporter of exploring this issue, saying he thought standards should be established so that councilmembers have a clear measure by which to guide their conduct. Like Briere, he was concerned about inclusion of Act 196 because it deals with premature disclosure of information.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) then proposed amending the resolution by naming Act 196 just as an example of a resource that can be drawn upon, among others. That was considered friendly by Petersen. [.pdf of Warpehoski's ethics amendments]

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she thought the resolution was a good idea, but had concerns about the practical implementation. She wondered how much burden that would be on the city attorney’s staff. City attorney Stephen Postema characterized it as just another assignment.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated support for the resolution. It’s important that people have confidence in their elected officials, she said.

Kunselman thanked Petersen for her work. He asked if anyone wanted to trade positions with him on the rules committee – as he’s currently on that committee. It’s all about learning, he said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the ethics resolution.

Public Park Use Fee Waiver

The council gave final consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – such as food – could be conducted in city parks without incurring a fee for park use. The proposal is not restricted to downtown parks, but the idea originated from an issue that emerged in connection with Liberty Plaza, a downtown park. Volunteers with the Vineyard Church were distributing pizza in Liberty Plaza through its weekly Pizza in the Park program.

The building adjacent to Liberty Plaza on the west is owned by First Martin. Church volunteers were using the private parking lot to the rear of the building as a drop off for the Pizza in the Park event, and the area under the building overhang as an area for gathering and for dispensing food. Earlier this year, that had prompted the city to contemplate assessing the fee for public park usage.

By way of additional background, at the Oct. 10, 2011 Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board meeting, John Teeter of First Martin had described for the DDA board the regular cleanup activities First Martin undertakes in public parks, including Wheeler Park, the corner of Main and Depot streets, and Liberty Plaza. In a more recent telephone interview with Teeter, he said that the park maintenance work had been done for a few years prior to 2011 and continues to the present. First Martin maintains Liberty Plaza through regular trash pickup, and certain improvements – most recently to the irrigation system and through contributions to a new “sensory garden.”

The recommendation for the ordinance change came from the city’s park advisory commission at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting. This broader policy change comes three months after the Ann Arbor city council waived all rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, based on a PAC recommendation. That city council action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

The Liberty Plaza fee waiver was approved in response to the Pizza in the Park situation. The proposal recommended by PAC on Sept. 17, and on the council’s Nov. 18 agenda, amended Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language]

The ordinance change provides a permanent fee waiver for this specific purpose – the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – but it would still require that organizations get a permit to use the park, and follow permitting procedures, including clean-up obligations.

The council gave initial approval to the ordinance change at its Nov. 7 meeting. All changes to city ordinances require an initial approval, followed by a final vote at a subsequent meeting. That’s why it appeared on the council’s Nov. 18 agenda.

Public Park Use Fee Waiver: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge addressed the council about the use of parks for people to gather. He said issues of free speech are being ignored in the ordinance change, so he wanted the change delayed for further review.

Seth Best asked everyone to stand who supported the ordinance change. There were about 70 people standing in chambers in response. He read off a list of people that he wanted to thank. Dan Reim, minister for hispanic/latino ministry and social justice at St. Mary’s student parish, supported the ordinance change in part by recounting the parable of the good Samaritan.

When Seth Best invited people to stand in support of the ordinance change, roughly 70 people, by The Chronicle’s count, were standing in city council chambers.

Rev. Lindsay Conrad of First Presbyterian Church also addressed the council supporting the ordinance change. Jim Osborne urged passage of the resolution. Osborne told the council that he’d organized a group to distribute food at West Park and he’s found the city’s fees and process to be a burden.

Lily Au said that the Delonis Center homeless shelter in Ann Arbor has not increased its capacity. She asked the council to help poor people. Odile Hugot Haber spoke in support of the ordinance change. Alan Haber also rose to speak in favor of the ordinance change. It’s obvious that a church should be able to distribute free food in a park, Haber said. There’s an economy of love, he said: making available what we have with each other.

Michael Brinkman introduced himself as a resident next to Wheeler Park. Severe weather in the Philippines and in the Midwest had resulted in new homeless people, he said. He asked the council to support the microcosm of that larger context. Three others rounded out the public hearing, all in support of the ordinance change.

Public Park Use Fee Waiver: Council Deliberations

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) suggested a “friendly” amendment to add “and/or services” in addition to “goods.” Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) replied that the distinction between goods and services was material to PAC’s review of the proposal. Adding services would expand what was contemplated, Taylor said. Taylor recited the history of that issue. PAC had “interrogated” the proposal thoroughly, Taylor said.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked the members of Camp Take Notice and everyone who’d met with her about the issue. She said it was enjoyable to be able to respond to a request like this.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) called the solution of the ordinance change very “elegant.” Mike Anglin (Ward 5) praised Camp Take Notice members for being very good at political action. It was hard to deny their humanitarian message, he said.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) offered her thanks. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said Camp Take Notice members “know how to catch bees with honey.”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the possible park fee waiver. The vote received applause.

Non-Motorized Plan

In front of the council for the second time was the adoption of an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan. A postponement on Nov. 7 came in deference to a request from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who indicated she had not had an opportunity to read it through as closely as she wanted.

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

The city’s non-motorized transportation plan is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the updated plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update] With respect to the adoption of the master plan, the council and the planning commission are on equal footing. That is, they must adopt the same plan. So in this case, the commission is not merely the recommending body.

The update is an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

Examples of planning and policy issues include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.” Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands. Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

Non-Motorized Plan: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off by asking city planning manager Wendy Rampson, city transportation program manager Eli Cooper and public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium to answer questions. She asked about bike boulevards. She wanted to an amendment to the plan to include a statement that any bike boulevard implementation plan would need to engage the neighborhood.

Rampson pointed out that an amendment by the council would require the planning commission to reconsider the plan, because the council and the commission need to adopt the same plan.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Hupy to explain how the community engagement typically happens. If a bike boulevard were proposed, Briere ventured that the staff would have public engagement without any particular direction from the council. Hupy confirmed Briere’s understanding.

Lumm said her concern is that when you adopt a plan, the plan then gets implemented. Lumm thanked staff for answering her questions and all the work that went into developing the plan. Hearing it would have to go back to planning commission gave her pause. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) quoted out the section in the plan on bike boulevards and how the staff is supposed to engage the public. He also pointed out that the recommendations are in every case tentative. He didn’t see the need to amend the plan.

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) pointed to page 39 of the plan, which includes locations for additional rapid flashing beacons. Eaton asked what the implementation process would be. Cooper explained a process that starts with data collection. Council involvement would take place when the money was needed, Cooper said.

Mayor John Hieftje asked Cooper to sketch out the process for developing the non-motorized plan update. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted clarification of the reason why the planning commission would also need to approve any amendment.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the update to the non-motorized transportation plan.

New Year’s Events

As part of its consent agenda, the council considered two resolutions authorizing the closing of streets in connection with New Year’s celebrations – on New Year’s Eve for the Puck Drops Here, and on New Year’s Day for the NHL’s Winter Classic Hockey Game at Michigan Stadium.

The council considered authorization of the closing of public streets in connection with those New Year’s festivities.

New Year’s Events: Puck Drop

In connection with the NHL Winter Classic Game to be played on New Year’s Day, the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau is hosting a New Year’s Eve event called The Puck Drops Here, which will mimic the dropping of the lighted ball in Times Square, but with a 6-foot diameter lighted “puck” that is being fabricated by METAL.

Puck Drops Here street closures.

The name of the event is a play on words. In the game of ice hockey, the start of action is marked with an official dropping of the puck between two opposing players – the puck drop. It’s similar to the tip-off in basketball. The name of the event also plays on the expression popularized by U.S. President Harry Truman: “The buck stops here.”

The requested action from the council includes street closures downtown along Main Street all day on New Year’s Eve.

Specifically, the council will be asked to authorize street closures from 8 a.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2013 to 6 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The actual event runs from 8 p.m. until 12:30 a.m.

Streets to be closed include:

• S. Main from E. William to Huron
• Liberty Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)
• Washington Street for a block on either side of Main (from S. Ashley to Fourth Avenue)

Musical entertainment will feature Michelle Chamuel, who placed second in the most recent edition of the TV vocal competition “The Voice.” She lived in Ann Arbor for a time earlier in her musical career.

New Year’s Events: NHL Winter Classic

UM football game day street closures (pink) with detour route (purple). These same street closures will be in effect on Jan. 1 for the NHL Winter Classic.

The Winter Classic is an NHL hockey game between the Detroit Red Wings and the Toronto Maple Leafs scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014. The game will be played outdoors at the University of Michigan football stadium. Game start time is currently listed on the Ann Arbor Area Convention and Visitors Bureau as 1 p.m. The back-up date, in case of inclement weather, is Jan. 2.

The resolution that the Ann Arbor city council considered on Nov. 18 will implement many of the conditions that apply during University of Michigan home football games. For example, the newly implemented street closures for home football games will also be authorized for the Winter Classic:

• E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets, limiting access to parking permit holders on Greene Street from E. Hoover to Keech streets
• The westbound right turn lane on E. Stadium Boulevard (onto S. Main Street) just south of the Michigan Stadium
• S. Main Street closed to both local and through traffic from Stadium Boulevard to Pauline

Those closures will be effective three hours before the game and last until the end of the game – with the exception of southbound S. Main Street, which will be closed beginning one hour before the game until the end of the game.

The council also was asked to invalidate peddler/solicitor permits and sidewalk occupancy permits in the following areas:

• S. State Street from E. Hoover Street to the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks
• Along the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks from S. State Street to the viaduct on W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from the viaduct to S. Main Street
• S. Main Street from W. Stadium Boulevard to Hill Street
• Hill Street from S. Main Street to S. Division Street
• S. Division Street from Hill Street to E. Hoover Street
• E. Hoover Street from S. Division Street to S. State Street
• S. Main Street from Scio Church Road to W. Stadium Boulevard
• W. Stadium Boulevard from S. Main Street to Prescott Avenue

The council was also asked to authorize a special temporary outdoor sales area so that the owners of commercially and office-zoned property fronting on the following streets could use their private yard areas for outdoor sales and display:

• West side of S. Main Street between Stadium Blvd. and Hoover Street
• East side of S. Main Street from 1011 S. Main to Hoover Street
• North side of Hoover Street between S. Main and S. State streets
• North side of W. Stadium Blvd. between S. Main and S. State streets

In addition, the council was asked to designate the Winter Classic game as a date on which the usual front open space parking prohibition does not apply. So residents who customarily offer their lawns for home football game parking will be able to do so for the Winter Classic as well.

At the most recent meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board, executive director Susan Pollay described for the board how the DDA plans to charge public parking on New Year’s Day – a time when parking would ordinarily be free. That would allow the DDA to take reservations in advance, using the same strategy it uses for art fairs parking in the summer.

The Ann Arbor DDA manages the city’s public parking system under contract with the city, and has the ability to set rates under that contract. There’s a clause in the contract that requires public notice and input for long-term rate increases, but not for one-off changes.

Outcome: The resolutions in connection with The Puck Drops Here and NHL’s Winter Classic Hockey Game at Michigan Stadium passed unanimously as part of the council’s consent agenda.

3325 Packard Rezoning

The council was asked to give initial approval of a request that would rezone 0.27 acres from R1C (single-family zoning district) to R2A (two-family zoning district) at 3325 Packard Road. This would allow the construction of a duplex on the now-vacant property. The owner contends that constructing a duplex is economically viable but a single-family home is not. The planning commission recommended denial of the rezoning request at its Aug. 7, 2013 meeting.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, reviewed the planning commission’s reasoning in recommending against the rezoning.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked for planning manager Wendy Rampson to come to the podium to comment. The planning commission had struggled with the decision, because it’s a vacant lot, Rampson told Lumm. In addition, it’s a corner lot. It’s an established single-family neighborhood, she noted, and the planning commission is always hesitant to approve a “spot zoning.” The owner hasn’t been able to garner support from an entire blockface of owners who would join in a request, Rampson reported.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) praised the planning commission for following the master plan. He talked about the difficulty of redeveloping vacant lots in the eastern part of the city. Mayor John Hieftje said that he understood the planning commission’s decision.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to reject initial approval of the Packard Road rezoning request.

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: Streetlights

During communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that some streetlights he’d complained about being out on Packard were now on – near Mary Beth Doyle park. Kunselman said that there’s no moratorium on streetlights and stated that there was only a budget resolution in the past, which he didn’t consider a moratorium.

Comm/Comm: Financial Disclosures

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Kai Petainen addressed the council about the issue of getting financial records from nonprofits. Petainen had a few days earlier posted a piece on his Forbes blog about an episode that involved Ann Arbor SPARK. Petainen’s remarks to council came at nearly 2 a.m., and he told Jack Eaton (Ward 4) that the meeting’s late hour was Eaton’s “initiation.” [It was the first meeting for Eaton after being elected to the council on Nov. 5.]

Comm/Comm: John F. Kennedy

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council, as well as a candidate for the state house and senate. He was there to call for honoring the legacy of John F. Kennedy on the 50th anniversary of his death. Partridge called on the public to urge the council, the county board, the state legislature and the Congress to put forward Kennedy’s 1961 agenda. Partridge called for affordable housing, transportation and health care, as well as education.

Comm/Comm: Transgender Day of Remembrance

During public commentary at the end of the meeting, Seth Best called the council’s attention to the fact that the transgender day of remembrance was Nov. 20.

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

Next council meeting: Dec. 2, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listing 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!

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

The update is an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

Examples of planning and policy issues include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.” Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands. Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

The city’s non-motorized transportation plan is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the updated plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update] With respect to the adoption of the master plan, the council and the planning commission are on equal footing. That is, they must adopt the same plan. So in this case, the commission is not merely the recommending body.

A postponement on the decision to adopt the plan on Nov. 7 came in deference to a request from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who indicated she had not had an opportunity to read it through as closely as she wanted.

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]

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

The decision to postpone adopting the plan stemmed from a request by councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who said she had not had enough time to review it thoroughly. Her motion to postpone was supported by Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

The update is an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

Examples of planning and policy issues include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.” Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands. Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

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.

Architect and Ann Arbor planning commissioner Ken Clein shows evidence of his non-motorized transportation – his bicycle helmet. In the background is commissioner Diane Giannola. (Photos by the writer.)

Items in the city’s master plan must receive approval from both the planning commission and the council, so councilmembers will be asked to vote on the update as well. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]

The 79-page document includes sections on planning and policy, as well as recommendations for short-term and long-term projects, such as bike boulevards, crosswalks, sidewalks and larger efforts like the Allen Creek greenway and Border-to-Border Trail. An additional document – over 100 pages – outlines the update’s public participation process, including emails and comments received during public meetings.

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, briefed commissioners on this update, and much of their discussion centered on how to prioritize and implement the items in the plan – especially the funding for sidewalk “gaps.”

Cooper pointed out that implementation relies on including these projects in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP), which the planning commission reviews and recommends for approval each year. City planning manager Wendy Rampson suggested that the commission could reconvene its CIP committee to talk about these issues.

In its other item of business, commissioners unanimously recommended approval of a proposed expansion to the U-Haul business at 3655 S. State St., south of the I-94 interchange. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

The relatively short meeting – lasting about 90 minutes – was followed by a working session focused on Michigan’s “Redevelopment Ready Communities” program, in which the city of Ann Arbor is participating. [.pdf of program overview]

Rampson described the program as a tool to help communities put in place elements that would allow redevelopment to happen. Those things include master plans that are clear about what community expectations are for new developments, and zoning needs to reflect those expectations in a very specific way. It means that when developers look at a specific property, they’ll be able to know exactly what they can do.

If the city completes the state’s evaluation successfully, Rampson said, then it would be certified as a “Redevelopment Ready” community. This is a relatively new program, but the state has indicated that communities with this certification could receive priority points on grants from the Michigan Economic Development Corp. and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA).

Before the staff can proceed, Rampson explained, the city council must pass a resolution stating that the city can participate. On Oct. 14, the issue will be on the agenda for a joint city council and planning commission working session, although the main topics will be the current downtown zoning review and R4C/R2A zoning revisions.

Commissioners discussed how this program might be received by the community, with Sabra Briere – who also serves on the city council – pointing out that for some people “redevelopment ready” sounds like “tear down all the old stuff.” She noted that development is a very sensitive topic right now.

The issue of development also arose during a brief update from Rampson about the ongoing downtown zoning review. The consultants who are leading this effort – Erin Perdu and Megan Masson-Minock – have put together a workbook that they’ve been presenting at public forums. [.pdf of workbook] The same information is part of an online survey that’s underway through Sept. 17. A final public forum to review all of the feedback gathered so far will be held on Thursday, Sept. 19 starting at 7 p.m. at Workantile, 118 S. Main in downtown Ann Arbor.

The goal is to review the consultants’ recommendations at an Oct. 8 planning commission working session, and then take action on those recommendations at the commission’s Oct. 15 regular meeting. At that point, the recommendations will be transmitted to the council, Rampson said.

Non-Motorized Transportation Update

An update to the city of Ann Arbor’s non-motorized transportation plan, which is part of the city’s master plan, was on the Sept. 10 for approval by the planning commission. The commission was also asked to recommend that the plan be approved by the city council. Items in the city’s master plan must receive approval from both the planning commission and the council. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

The update will be an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

Examples of planning and policy issues include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.” Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands. Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, was on hand to review the update and answer questions. He noted that the update had been in the works for two years. Even so, that process was still about 18 months faster than when the original plan was adopted, he noted.

It’s important to evaluate individual projects regularly as well as the city’s overall strategy, Cooper said. The update also records the progress of the original plan, identifies challenges and outlines philosophies that have “come into vogue” since the 2007 report, he said.

Eli Cooper, the city of Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager.

For example, Cooper noted that funding for a new bicycle sharing program was recently approved by the city council. Such a concept hadn’t even been discussed when the 2007 plan was adopted. “Green” bike lanes is another approach that’s catching on – using painted green pavement to highlight the location of bike lanes.

Cooper also described the public outreach that had been conducted, including focus groups, public forums and surveys. The update document includes about 100 pages that outline the public process, as well as written communications and comments received during public meetings. [.pdf of public process section]

He reported that Ann Arbor’s bicycling community favors pavement markings compared to roadside signs to indicate bike lanes, so the city will be emphasizing that approach in the future.

Cooper also highlighted the plan’s recommendations – both near term and long term – for taking action in certain geographic areas. Locations for nearer-term improvements include Main Street, Jackson Avenue, South State, Washtenaw Avenue, and the University of Michigan campus-to-campus link. Longer term areas include the Allen Creek greenway and Border-to-Border Trail.

The key thing that Cooper said he wanted to share with commissioners is that this is more than just a plan. “We have a great plan, but we’ve been doing it,” he said. The city has gone from having about six miles of bike lanes scattered across the city to now having a network of about 40 miles of bike lanes, he reported.

Residents have told him that they are encouraged by what the city is doing, Cooper concluded, and are encouraging the city to do even more.

Non-Motorized Transportation Update: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona wondered how many people participated in the update. Eli Cooper replied that if he discounted the thousands of people who passed by the table that was staffed at the annual green fair for the past two years, there were a couple hundred who attended workshops, and about 90 who attended focus groups. Including survey respondents, Cooper estimated 300-500 people were involved in giving formal input.

Bona asked about the history of getting input for the 2007 plan. Cooper, who joined the city in 2005, said the public participation element of that initial plan was nearly done when he was hired. He deferred the question to planning manager Wendy Rampson. She reported that the 2007 plan had emerged from the previous northeast area transportation plan, and that’s where a lot of ideas about on-road bike lanes had been vetted. In the early 2000s, “there were some pretty lively debates about whether bikes belonged on roads,” Rampson said. That interest carried over into development of the plan adopted in 2007.

Bona also asked Cooper to explain why the city has a non-motorized transportation plan, and not just an integrated transportation plan. She cited the concept of “Complete Streets” as an example of an integrated approach.

From left: Planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona.

Cooper reported that in 2009, the city adopted its first comprehensive transportation plan update since the 1990s. As part of that update, the plan incorporated the entire non-motorized transportation plan, he noted.

He encouraged keeping a separate non-motorized plan. Noting that he facilitates the city’s alternative transportation committee, Cooper said non-motorized transportation is considered the alternative to this country’s primary means of transportation. “Ann Arborites are not that different than the rest of the country, where the overwhelming majority of travel is by motor vehicles,” he added. As a separate policy document that brings attention to these alternative options, the non-motorized transportation plan allows the community to acknowledge those options and work them into city projects.

Sabra Briere brought up the issue of sidewalks. She reported that she’d met with a former planning commissioner [Evan Pratt], who asked about how the city would ensure sufficient funding for sidewalks. She pointed out that this year, the city council approved a budget line item of $75,000 for sidewalk gap elimination planning, but there’s no money allocated to implementation. She wondered what the implementation and funding plan are for the items in the non-motorized transportation plan.

The plan sets aspirational goals, Cooper replied. Implementation relies on including these projects in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP), which the planning commission reviews and recommends for approval each year. As an example, Cooper noted that there are two miles of bicycle lanes on East Stadium Boulevard – because when the city was ready to make improvements to the road, the recommendation for bike lanes was in the non-motorized transportation plan.

Rampson reported that she’d received a letter late in the day from Pratt, who made two recommendations to add to the plan and the CIP: (1) to prepare a sidewalk/pathway gap analysis and prioritization system, similar to the one used to rank CIP projects; and (2) to consider a policy annually to fund high-priority gaps in the sidewalk system.

Briere noted that the council action taken earlier this year relates to planning, not implementation. Pratt’s view is to include sidewalk gaps in the CIP as an implementation action. Rampson explained that after something is added to the master plan, the process is for city staff to add it to the CIP. She didn’t think a statement regarding implementation needed to be added to the non-motorized transportation plan update.

Bona noted that she had served on the planning commission with Pratt for eight years, and he had talked about this prioritization the entire time. The prioritization process used for the CIP is sophisticated, she said, but that complexity also results in some holes. She wondered whether the sidewalk gap planning study that’s been approved by the council will create a “top-to-bottom” prioritization of the 80 sidewalk gaps that have been identified. It would be enlightening to know whether the CIP prioritizes those gaps in the same way as the planning study does. She felt that sidewalk gaps should be a higher priority, and thought that Pratt was trying to make that point.

Cooper replied with an explanation of how the sidewalk projects fit into other projects that are prioritized in the CIP, like road improvements. Sidewalk projects don’t necessarily get higher priorities, but “what happens is they begin to get placed, relative to other projects, using the matrices that are part of the prioritization process.” He joked: “I’m sure the folks at home are like, ‘My god – what’s he talking about?’” So the simple answer, he said, is that sidewalk projects aren’t rising to the top because the impact of a specific sidewalk is relatively minor, compared to larger improvements. And until sidewalk projects have a dedicated funding source, they remain priorities but are on the unfunded list. [The city's dedicate sidewalk millage is for repair of existing sidewalks, not construction of new sidewalks.]

Bona noted the irony – because relative to other capital projects, sidewalks don’t cost that much. Cooper encouraged commissioners, in their role of evaluating the CIP, to address that issue. It’s a healthy discussion to have, he said, saying he was glad that the council had funded a “deep dive” into the planning process that he hopes will result in strong recommendations.

Briere pointed out that one of the funding criteria for the CIP is whether a project has uncertain funding sources, such as special assessments. Because sidewalk gaps are typically funded through special assessments, those projects get lower priority “because it’s more difficult to get the funding.” That’s something the community should look at, she said.

Rampson noted that the criteria used for the CIP have been “blessed” by previous planning commissions. As a reviewing body, the commission can suggest that different criteria should be used. The commission could reconvene its CIP committee to talk about these issues, she said. Rampson also reported that the non-motorized transportation plan update does address sidewalk funding, on pages 34-35. [.pdf of extract from NTP update related to sidewalk funding]

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

Ken Clein thanked Cooper, saying it’s a great testament to the city that there are documents like the non-motorized transportation plan in place “so that there’s a roadmap – pun intended.” Pointing to his bike helmet, Clein said that as someone who likes to bike, it’s great to see more people on the streets, making a more sustainable community.

Jeremy Peters wondered what opportunities there might be in the future to add amendments, if warranted. Cooper reported that there’s an ongoing dialogue through the alternative transportation committee, which includes city staff and external stakeholders like the University of Michigan, Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), and the Washtenaw Biking and Walking Coalition (WBWC). If something arises that needs to be included in the plan, the staff would evaluate it.

Peters said he brought it up because a community member talked to him about safe routes to schools. He thought it might be too late for the current update, but he wanted to bring up the possibility of coordinating with Ann Arbor Public Schools to do a citywide review of all the routes to schools. It’s important as public schools move away from busing, Peters noted.

Cooper explained that the name “Safe Routes to Schools” is actually the name of a federal program, administered through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, that has a specific definition. Regarding the broader concept, Cooper reported that the non-motorized transportation plan acknowledges the importance of safe access to all of the city’s schools. So there are policies and provisions to address that issue.

Under the federal program, the city doesn’t have the authority to actually do the work, he said, although city staff can provide support and facilitate discussions.

To elaborate, Rampson read from the plan update: “The 2007 NTP sidewalk recommendations focused on major facilities and those that served pedestrian access to schools, therefore this inventory illustrates the progress made in those areas only.” She offered to scan sections of the update that highlight recommendations related to schools.

Briere said that many people are concerned about changes in transportation policy at the Ann Arbor Public Schools. She noted that city staff, representatives from the school system and the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority have been meeting routinely since last year. Out of those meetings emerged the list of sidewalk gaps that need to be filled, she said, and it’s those gaps that the council’s $75,000 in planning funds are meant to address.

The city and school system have jointly received several grants through Safe Routes to Schools, but other gaps are being addressed by residents, Briere said. Residents petition to have a sidewalk gap filled, then work with the city to find a funding mechanism. That approach doesn’t necessarily result in the highest priority or most dangerous sections being addressed first, she noted. Rather, it results in the highest priority “for the most vocal residents.” The same is true for the Safe Routes to Schools, she added. Parents or schools have to initiate a proposal. The city is supporting rather than leading, she said.

Kirk Westphal, who chairs the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Cooper acknowledged that much more attention has been paid to sidewalk gaps in recent years because of changes in the school transportation philosophy. Resources are allocated through the CIP, and high-priority sidewalk gaps are included – though they have typically remained unfunded, he said.

Briere also noted that Cooper had referred to the alternative transportation committee a couple of times. She said she’d heard it exists, but it’s not listed on the city’s website as a meeting that anyone can attend. It would be helpful to post the meeting times and dates. Cooper replied that he’d work with the city’s communications unit to make sure the meetings are publicized. Typically, the group meets on the second Thursday of each month at 1:30 p.m. in the Ann Arbor DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave. Cooper said anyone is welcome to attend.

Paras Parekh noted that he and some other commissioners on the master plan review committee had sent Cooper feedback on the draft plan, and he wondered where that stood. Cooper replied that each comment had been incorporated into the plan.

Kirk Westphal said he echoed Clein’s praise, particularly related to public input. He reported that there’s been an amazing increase in non-motorized use of roads that have adopted the “Complete Streets” approach, citing sections of Platt and Green roads that have been re-striped from two lanes to one lane in each direction. He cited safety benefits of making these changes.

Cooper replied that “road diets” aren’t actually implemented to improve non-motorized transportation. Rather, the implementation is in response to high crash rates, he said, and improves safety by adding a turn lane. Pedestrian crossings that are installed are also much more effective in roads that have a decreased number of lanes for motorists, he said.

Cooper reported that when the city was implementing the road diet on Platt, he was given a nickname – “Menace to Motorists” – because some people thought the road would be less safe with fewer lanes. But in fact, accidents have decreased. He said he’d provide that data to commissioners.

Westphal also raised the issue of enforcement, saying he’d gotten some feedback from residents who’ve asked about it. Vehicle speed is critical, he noted, as is compliance with crosswalk regulations. Cooper said there’s been a lot of “lawyering and engineering” about the city being ahead of the state in terms of its crosswalk ordinance. “I just think it’s bad practice to run somebody over in the street,” Cooper said. So the city is creating an environment that makes it possible for someone to walk across the street and not be a target.

City councilmember and planning commissioner Sabra Briere and Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager.

Cooper noted that a few years ago, the police did a targeted enforcement of the crosswalk ordinance in a couple of locations. Enforcement is intended to bring attention to the fact that there are rules, he said, and that the local government is enforcing those rules. There will always be people who say that more can be done, he added, and the staff continues to reflect on the city’s internal policies and processes, which includes outreach and communication, engineering and police enforcement. Enforcement takes resources, Cooper said, but he felt confident that in three or four years, the city would be able to say that enforcement has been stepped up.

Diane Giannola noted that in the past, someone had spoken to the commission during public commentary about the need to incorporate this update into the original 2007 plan, rather than have the update as a standalone document. She asked Cooper to address that issue.

Cooper responded to Giannola saying that when the update is adopted, each word will carry the same policy weight as the original plan – so in that sense, the documents are incorporated. About 60-70% of the 2007 plan remains valid, he said, and the update is meant to “freshen it up” with some new policy issues and recommendations. It’s more administratively efficient to use this approach, he said, noting that the update will cross-reference the original plan.

Westphal asked for Cooper’s insight into the use of the plan as it relates to bike parking for new developments. The city code requirements for bike parking are reviewed during the site plan process for new developments, Cooper noted, and that’s appropriate. The feedback he’s heard is that the city is doing a good job with new development, but there’s more concern about how existing developments can be retrofitted to provide more bicycle parking.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to add the non-motorized transportation plan update to the city’s master plan. The group also recommended that the city council take the same action.

Non-Motorized Transportation Update: Public Commentary

No one spoke at a public hearing on the plan update, held prior to the commission’s discussion and vote. However, during public commentary at the end of the meeting, Kathy Griswold addressed the commission. She said she’s been advocating for non-motorized transportation improvements and sidewalks for 20 years. Her first project was in the mid-1990s to push for constructing a sidewalk so that school children wouldn’t have to walk in the road along Penberton. It had been a simple process, she said. She’d gone to then-mayor Ingrid Sheldon, who talked to city staff and homeowners. The sidewalk was then constructed, Griswold said. “It hasn’t been that easy since then.”

Griswold said that city staff have been meeting with councilmembers from each ward, providing maps that show sidewalk gaps, although there are a few errors in the maps, she noted. Griswold said that until recently, she had served on the transportation safety committee for 15 years. There had been a process to identify sidewalks that were needed, she said. A member of the city’s engineering staff also serves on that committee, as well as staff from the public schools. However, the recommendations from that committee had been overruled by former city administrator Roger Fraser, she said. “Roger Fraser was not a supporter of sidewalks.” She reported that she had requested information under the state’s Freedom of Information Act and contended that she has more than 150 emails explaining why Fraser thought that no more sidewalks were needed in Ann Arbor.

In 2009, the transportation safety committee had recommended a sidewalk on Waldenwood. It has not been put in. A letter to current city administrator Steve Powers from Dave Comsa, the previous interim superintendent of Ann Arbor Public Schools, was written on July 23, 2013, asking that the city construct that sidewalk, Griswold said. A midblock crossing that’s used now requires a crossing guard at taxpayer expense, she noted. A new sidewalk would allow for a safer crossing at the nearby four-way stop. It’s despicable that the city isn’t committed to getting children to school safely when they walk, Griswold said, “and that needs to be done immediately.”

U-Haul Expansion

A proposed expansion to the U-Haul business at 3655 S. State St., south of the I-94 interchange, was on the planning commission’s Sept. 10 agenda. The project previously had been reviewed by commissioners on July 2, 2013, when they ultimately voted to postpone a vote so that the owner could address outstanding issues that had been raised by planning and engineering staff members.

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

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

This site is part of the area covered in the South State Street corridor plan, which the planning commission had voted to add to the city’s master plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting. That plan calls for office uses at that U-Haul location in the future. The plan also recommends “enhanced non-motorized access to buildings, and aesthetic improvements recognizing State Street as a gateway corridor to the City,” according to the memo. The city council, which also is required to approve anything that’s added to the city’s master plan, had postponed action on the South State corridor plan at its July 1, 2013 meeting. That postponement came after Marcia Higgins said she had some concerns. The council subsequently approved the corridor plan on July 15, 2013.

On July 2, planning commissioners had spent about an hour raising concerns and asking questions about the U-Haul project. Many of the issues related to landscaping, site visibility, and how the site will look from South State Street after the changes are made.

On Sept. 10, Matt Kowalski of the city’s planning staff reviewed the changes that had been made since July 2, noting that the owner had responded to the issues that were raised. A pedestrian connection to South State was moved from the north side of the building to the south side, and landscaping was revised to comply with the city’s right-of-way landscaping buffer.

Computer-generated image of U-Haul property as seen from South State Street, with the proposed landscaping. (Image included in the planning commission’s meeting packet.)

At the request of commissioners, the owner provided a computer-generated image of how the property would look from South State Street, after the landscaping is in place.

There had been concerns about lighting, so the owner had provided a revised photometric plan that staff has reviewed and accepted, Kowalski reported. An interior lighting plan was also submitted.

No changes will be made to the permanent signs, Kowalski said, although he noted that temporary signs that were illegally in the right-of-way have been removed.

Otherwise, there were no significant changes to the proposal, Kowalski said. He added that a development agreement is included in the meeting packet, which hadn’t been completed at the July 2 meeting. [.pdf of development agreement]

Staff recommended approval of the plan.

U-Haul Expansion: Public Hearing

Samantha Keating, principal planner in the construction department of Amerco Real Estate Co. of Phoenix, Arizona,  told commissioners that U-Haul has looked at all issues raised by the planning commission and had tried to address those. She said she was on hand to answer any further questions.

U-Haul Expansion: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere asked if there was any marking or grade change to indicate where the crosswalk is.

Samantha Keating, a representative for the U-Haul expansion project.

Matt Kowalski replied that the current proposal calls for painting stripes on the asphalt to indicate the crosswalk’s location. If “sufficient” pedestrian use of that crosswalk is anticipated, Briere said, it would be desirable to have a “stronger visual cue” than paint, which wears off. “That’s just a future reference comment, I guess,” she said.

Bonnie Bona asked whether the sidewalk that runs along the building is barrier-free. Samantha Keating, who represented U-Haul, replied that the sidewalk is flush with the pavement.

Bona also noted that the July 2 discussion had included the “oddness” of having the building expansion jut out toward South State, closer to the driveway traffic. The addition has nothing around it to protect it, she said. “The whole thing still feels like it’s vulnerable.” People who aren’t accustomed to handling large vehicles will be going in and out of the driveway, she noted, so there’s potential to hit the building.

Keating indicated that the design team had looked carefully at the location of the building addition, and they don’t anticipate any problem. There have been no problems with people driving onto the current section of the land where the addition will be located.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of this proposal. It will be forwarded to the city council for action. The project is also subject to approval by the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

Redevelopment Ready Communities Program

Following adjournment of the Sept. 10 regular meeting, planning commissioners relocated to city hall’s basement conference room for a 30-minute working session. The topic was a briefing on Michigan’s “Redevelopment Ready Communities” program, in which the city of Ann Arbor is participating. [.pdf of program overview]

Wendy Rampson, the city of Ann Arbor’s planning manager.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said that staff didn’t have the chance to consult with planning commissioners before applying to the new state program earlier this year. The application had been made on the heels of the city council and planning commission approving a new sustainability framework, she noted, and soon after the council had determined that economic development was a priority for the city. [.pdf of Ann Arbor application to the RRC]

The program was originally developed by the nonprofit Michigan Suburbs Alliance, she said, and later acquired by the state through the Michigan Economic Development Corp. [Both organizations have local connections. The suburbs alliance is led by Conan Smith, an Ann Arbor resident who also is an elected official serving on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. MEDC's CEO is Michael Finney, former head of Ann Arbor SPARK.]

Rampson described the program as a tool to help communities put in place elements that would allow redevelopment to happen. Those things include master plans that are clear about what community expectations are for new developments, and zoning that reflects those expectations in a very specific way. It means that when developers look at a specific property, they’ll be able to know exactly what they can do. Processes are documented and streamlined, so a developer doesn’t get “hung up in areas where time is money,” she said.

The program includes a list of best practices focused on six categories: (1) community plans and public outreach; (2) zoning policy and regulations; (3) development review process; (4) education and training; (5) redevelopment ready sites; and (6) community prosperity (economic strategies, marketing and promotion). [.pdf of best practices document]

Regarding zoning policy and regulations, Rampson referred to the city’s ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization) project, “if we can ever get it back on track. The idea of having ordinances that are easily understood is very, very important.”

The ZORO project, which started in 2009, is a comprehensive zoning code review aimed at streamlining the development-related city code, clarifying terminology, and eliminating inconsistencies and outdated material. It was last discussed in detail by planning commissioners at their April 23, 2013 retreat, when several commissioners expressed frustration that ZORO seemed to be languishing in the city attorney’s office. On Sept. 10, Rampson characterized the length of the project by noting that one of the city planners has had two children since ZORO was launched.

In March of 2013, the MEDC announced that 8 communities – including Ann Arbor – had been selected for the program’s first round to receive a formal Redevelopment Ready Communities evaluation. If the city completes this evaluation successfully, Rampson said, then it would be certified as a “Redevelopment Ready” community. The state has indicated that communities with this certification could receive priority points on grants from MEDC and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA). There isn’t a track record yet for what that really means, Rampson said, but staff felt it was worth pursuing.

Before the staff can proceed, Rampson explained, the city council must pass a resolution stating that the city can participate. On Oct. 14, the issue will be on the agenda for a joint city council and planning commission working session – although the main topics will be the current downtown zoning review and R4C/R2A zoning revisions.

Planning commissioner Paras Parekh.

Rampson said she and Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, attended the program’s first training session about a month ago on master planning, taught by Andrea Brown, executive director of the Michigan Association of Planning. Rampson offered to share the PowerPoint presentation with commissioners.

The MEDC is also pulling together planning tools that communities can use, even if they’re not getting certified, Rampson said. She highlighted a 30-page reference guide for techniques to solicit public participation, which the city of Ann Arbor plans to incorporate into its public processes.

As the city is evaluated, Rampson said she thinks Ann Arbor will get high scores for the accessibility of planning and development documents online. An area where the city might not score well is the clarity of its ordinances, she added – and that’s why the ZORO project is so important.

Rampson also noted that right now, even some relatively minor projects require city council approval. As an example, she cited the recent expansion of Allen Creek Preschool. Does that really need city council approval, just because the addition was more than 10% of the structure’s floor area? “Those are the types of discussions that I welcome, because the time that we’re not spending on unnecessary process can be used on other things.”

To receive certification, the city also has to show commitment to following up on recommendations from the program evaluation, Rampson said.

Redevelopment Ready Communities Program: Commission Discussion

Ken Clein asked if Rampson anticipated any opposition from city council to this program. It depends, Rampson replied. “I think people sometimes worry that by focusing on processes and improving opportunities for developers, that it throws open the door for developers to come in and do things that the community doesn’t want.” Coming fresh off the 413 E. Huron project, there might be some hesitation on the part of councilmembers, she said.

But in the context of the whole city and the corridor efforts, “I hope that people will see that there’s an overall benefit,” Rampson added. If the process isn’t working as the community wants, it should be fixed. But it shouldn’t be made onerous for everyone, simply because one project came through that people didn’t like.

Sabra Briere, who serves on the Ann Arbor city council and planning commission.

Sabra Briere, who also serves on the city council, said one of the problems is the concept of “redevelopment ready.” For some people, she said, “that sounds like ‘Tear down all the old stuff.’” She indicated that it might mean there needs to be an educational process.

Briere also pointed to the goal of making it simpler for new developers to come in and know – in a predictable fashion – how they can take advantage of development opportunities. Although that predictability might be desirable in many situations, “for quite a significant portion of the population that deeply cares about not seeing Ann Arbor change, that [predictability] is just enabling more development than Ann Arbor can stand.” Every time there’s a change downtown or in a neighborhood, people get more polarized, she said.

Finally, Briere addressed the idea of whether the planning commission should be able to approve anything without it being decided by the city council. “For many people, council is the last line of defense, as it were,” she said. That attitude is true for some councilmembers as well as for the public, she added. The 30-day gap between a vote by the planning commission and a vote by the city council is a gap that “people embrace, if they’re objecting to a proposed development.”

These are issues that might cause some problems at the council, Briere said. “I’m just predicting – I have no idea how any one person would feel, but right now development’s a very sensitive subject. And for some people, no development is the goal.” There are even people who think the city is going in the wrong direction when it spends money and staff time on corridor improvement projects, she noted. Briere said she personally would want to plan for the future, and decide on a set of goals for development on any particular piece of property. “But I have observed that there are people who think we shouldn’t even try.”

Clein replied, saying it’s ironic that a lot of times the people who object to projects are “a real small, vocal minority.” For most people, he said, development doesn’t rise to be an issue that compels them to get involved. So this small vocal minority in some cases is directing development or non-development in this town, he said.

Briere responded that she would “never discount the possibility that while we may have a vocal group of people who want to give input, that they are only representing themselves and not the tip of the pyramid.” People rarely communicate with members of council, or come to planning commission, because they’re not passionately engaged at that moment. That doesn’t mean they don’t care, Briere said. As the city saw with 413 E. Huron, even a tree can become a passionate rallying point for a lot of people, she noted, who otherwise wouldn’t have thought to voice an opinion to the council or the planning commission.

Referring to a “vocal minority” implies that those voices aren’t as significant as the voices that aren’t being heard, she said. “All we know is that we’re not hearing those other voices – we don’t know why.”

Diane Giannola noted that you can’t assume the majority of people who aren’t expressing an opinion agree or disagree with the people who are more vocal.

Jeremy Peters pointed out that redevelopment inevitably will occur – because property will change hands. The access to grant funding to accomplish goals and community benefits that the city wants is important. That’s why participating in this Redevelopment Ready Communities program is important, he added, “irrespective of what the trademarked name was.”

Briere said there are some things in the program that are virtues to be working toward, like increased community participation, as well as clearer and better-organized ordinances. She thought those two areas should be the focus when presenting the program to the council.

Communications & Commentary

During the meeting there were several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two general public commentary times. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: D1 Zoning Review

Planning manager Wendy Rampson gave a brief update on the current slate of public forums held by consultants who are developing recommendations as part of a downtown zoning review. The consultants – Erin Perdu and Megan Masson-Minock – have put together a workbook for presenting at these forums. [.pdf of workbook] [.pdf of slides from forum presentations] The same information is part of an online survey that’s underway through Sept. 17. The intent, Rampson said, is to get as much feedback as possible before the consultants make their recommendations.

Consultant Megan Masson-Minock, far left, leads a public forum on Sept. 11 at Bill’s Beer Garden to get feedback on the ongoing downtown zoning review. Four people attended.

The work is the result of a city council resolution passed on April 1, 2013. It directed the planning commission to address three specific questions: (1) whether D1 zoning is appropriately located on the north side of Huron Street between Division and South State (the location of the 413 E. Huron project, Sloan Plaza and Campus Inn) and the south side of William Street between South Main and Fourth Avenue (where a parking lot and DTE offices are located); (2) whether the D1 residential FAR [floor area ratio] premiums effectively encourage a diverse downtown population; and (3) whether a parcel on the south side of Ann Street adjacent to city hall should be rezoned “to the appropriate zoning for this neighborhood.” That parcel, currently a surface parking lot, is now zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development.

The council’s resolution set a deadline of Oct. 1 for the planning commission to deliver recommendations to the council.

However, Rampson reported that the schedule has changed slightly. Sabra Briere, the city council’s representative on the planning commission, has informed the council that the work will take a couple of additional weeks to complete. The goal is to review the consultants’ report at an Oct. 8 planning commission working session, and then take action on those recommendations at the Oct. 15 regular meeting of the commission. At that point it will be transmitted to the council, she said.

A final public forum to review all of the feedback gathered so far will be held on Thursday, Sept. 19 starting at 7 p.m. at the Workantile, 118 S. Main.

For more background, see Chronicle coverage: “Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review” and ”Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward.”

Communications & Commentary: R4C/R2A Advisory Committee

Bonnie Bona reported that the reconstituted R4C/R2A advisory committee had asked her to attend a Sept. 11 meeting to help them understand the planning commission’s discussions about the residential zoning revisions that were recommended to city council earlier this year. Bona said she’d do her best to represent the commission’s views, “but I will take full responsibility for everything I say.”

The Chronicle attended that meeting, which will be covered in a separate report. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “R4C/R2A Committee Focuses Its Work” and “Planning Commission Signs Off on R4C Draft.”

Communications & Commentary: Public Hearing

A public hearing is scheduled for the planning commission’s Sept 17 meeting on a rezoning request, site plan and wetland use permit for the proposed Traverwood Apartments at 2025 Traverwood. The plan calls for building 255 one- and two-bedroom apartments in 14 buildings, accessed by two new driveways from Traverwood Drive.

Communications & Commentary: Michigan Association of Planning Conference

Wendy Rampson reported that six people – staff and two commissioners – will be attending the Michigan Association of Planning annual conference on Oct. 2-4 in Kalamazoo. [.pdf of conference schedule] She plans to bring a resolution to the Sept. 17 meeting to authorize the attendance of the two planning commissioners, Paras Parekh and Sabra Briere.

By way of additional background, two city of Ann Arbor staff – Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, and Jamie Kidwell, who worked on the city’s sustainability framework – will be panelists at one of the sessions on Thursday, Oct. 3. The session is titled “Michigan Green Communities: Increasing Innovation through Peer Learning”

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods, Paras Parekh. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded entities like the city’s planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

The 182-page update will be an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

Examples of planning and policy issues include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.” Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands. Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border to Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, was on hand to review the update and answer questions. No one spoke at a public hearing on this item.

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

From left: Julie Grand (Ward 3 challenger), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3 incumbent), Jack Eaton (Ward 4 challenger), Mike Anglin (Ward 5 incumbent), Kirk Westphal (Ward 2 candidate), Sabra Briere (Ward 1 incumbent).

In the Aug. 6 Democratic primary, only two wards offer contested races. In Ward 3, Democratic voters will choose between incumbent Stephen Kunselman and Julie Grand. Ward 4 voters will have a choice between incumbent Marcia Higgins and Jack Eaton. Higgins was reported to have been sick and was unable to attend.

The format of the event eventually allowed other candidates who are unopposed in the Democratic primary to participate: Mike Anglin (Ward 5 incumbent), Sabra Briere (Ward 1 incumbent), and Kirk Westphal, who’s challenging incumbent Jane Lumm in Ward 2. Lumm, who was elected to the council as an independent, was in the audience at the forum but didn’t participate. The event was held at the Ann Arbor Community Center on North Main Street. The Chronicle’s coverage is presented in a multiple-part series, based on common threads that formed directly in response to questions posed to the candidates, or that cut across multiple responses.

One question posed to candidates explicitly involved transportation: What do we do to implement an effective transportation plan for Ann Arbor that would decrease congestion and encourage alternative modes of travel? But transportation fit into a broader set of themes at the forum that could be collected under the notion of “connection” – connectedness of citizens not just to physical locations, but to their local government.

Candidates had clearly prepared to talk about the topic of transportation generally. Jack Eaton criticized last year’s demised countywide planning effort, based on the fact that other communities were not asked to defray the costs of that planning. At the same time he called for better maintenance of roads, partly out of concern for bicyclist safety. He also called for more frequent bus service during extended hours – but cautioned that he was focused on spending Ann Arbor’s local transit millage money on transit in Ann Arbor.

As far as millages go, Mike Anglin was clear that he would vote for a possible new millage resulting from the admission of Ypsilanti to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. However, Anglin was emphatic that he did not support trains, but rather only buses – with a focus on moving people around inside the city.

Julie Grand said she was glad that the possibility of adding rail service was being studied, and that by council resolution, the question of possibly using the Fuller Road site for a new train station would go to the voters. She pointed out that the park advisory commission, on which she serves, focuses on the potential for non-motorized connections when it considers parcels to acquire as parkland. She called transit a regional issue, but said that ultimately we need to focus on transit within the community.

Stephen Kunselman was specific with a suggestion of how to return a focus to the city’s own transportation needs: Remove the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, from the AATA board – so that Cooper could focus on issues like sidewalk gaps and bicycle lanes. Kunselman also stated that he would be proposing that the city council rescind its memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan to build a parking structure as part of the Fuller Road Station project.

Although UM has withdrawn from participation in that project under the MOU, Kunselman said he wanted to “kill it.” That way, he said, the conversation could turn away from using the designated parkland at the Fuller Road Station site as a new train station, and could instead be focused on the site across the tracks from the existing Amtrak station.

Sabra Briere ventured that the community did not have a consensus about the basic question of what kind of transportation system is best for Ann Arbor – one that was geared primarily to commuters or one that was designed mainly for city residents as a replacement for personal automobiles.

Kirk Westphal told the audience that he’d chosen a house to buy in Ann Arbor based on its proximity to a bus line. He ventured that the transportation system needs to be robust enough to attract people out of their cars, and that to be financial viable, a certain amount of density is required. It’s important to support development near transit lines to provide that density, he said.

In addition to the question about connecting people to physical locations (i.e., transportation), candidates at the forum responded to a question about connecting people to local government. The question was specific to involving youth in local government. But candidates also delivered a range of comments throughout the forum related to the theme of connecting residents to government.

Among the specific suggestions was one from Westphal, who floated the idea of a “citizens academy” for general government along the lines of Ann Arbor’s citizens police, courts and fire academy.

Part 1 of this series focused on the candidates’ concept of and connection to Ann Arbor, while Part 2 looked at their personal styles of engagement and views of how the council interacts. Other themes from the forum will be presented in subsequent reports. Chronicle election coverage is tagged with “2013 primary election.”

Transportation: Non-Motorized, Safety

Non-motorized connections were part of the forum conversation, even when the topic was not explicitly about transportation. Sabra Briere told the audience that when she was first elected to the council, she’d asked why voters hadn’t been asked to approve a millage to fund sidewalk repair. [The city previously took the approach of requiring owners of property adjacent to a sidewalk to pay for repairs, when the city's inspection determined that a slab needed replacement or repair.] The answer she got was: Nobody would vote for a millage for this. So she was pleased that the request of the voters had been made and that the city was now fixing the sidewalks, and the cost is not being assessed to individuals.

Briere also said she was really pleased that the city is finally beginning to tackle sidewalk gaps. That’s a “weird issue to care about,” she allowed. But Briere reported that in her part of the city, there are lots of places where there’s no safe way to walk anywhere except in the middle of the street.

Jack Eaton also addressed non-motorized transportation. The infrastructure needs to be improved so that the pavement is good enough to ride a bicycle on, Eaton said. Potholes and the horrible surfaces that drivers complain about are even worse for bicyclists and pedestrians, he noted. Eaton also suggested improving the markings on roads and bicycle lanes so that they are clearly maintained – so that bicyclists feel secure in their bike lane.

Julie Grand told the audience that one of her interests during her service on the park advisory commission and in work on the PROS (parks and recreation open space) plan has been in connections for non-motorized use. When PAC prioritizes which parcels of land to acquire or when the city is planning for a new park, the potential for creating non-motorized connections is an important consideration. The North Main Huron River task force, on which she serves, had focused on the city-owned 721 N. Main property for its potential to make non-motorized connections. She ventured that if the city wants people to use bicycles for transportation on roads, then the city needs to encourage people to use their bikes in a recreational setting. It becomes more feasible for that person to think about using a bicycle to get to work, if they’re accustomed to riding a bicycle for fun, she said.

Not in the context of the question about transportation, but nevertheless related to that theme, were remarks from Mike Anglin about a stretch of road in Ward 5 along Seventh Street, between Pauline and Liberty. The downhill stretch results in excessive speeds, he said. So he was looking forward to supporting the efforts of a resident who recently began documenting the issue and who has set up a Facebook page: SOS (Safety on Seventh St.) Ann Arbor.

Anglin was critical of “traffic calming” as a policy that could address safety needs. “For me, it’s really hard to let [traffic calming] policy dictate safety in our community,” he said. Anglin characterized traffic calming as making the road narrower so that the driver gets nervous and says, “I’m going to have to slow down, because I may have an accident and ruin my car here.” Personally, Anglin said, he thinks a stop sign does a really good job at slowing down traffic.

We have control of the streets, Anglin said, and it’s important that we look at the things we have control of – and that we work to do things for the people who live here.

Transportation: Regional versus Local

Jack Eaton observed that transportation is really a regional question. About Ann Arbor’s local millage, he felt recently too much of it had been spent planning transit for communities outside of the city – who are not interested in participating in transit. One of the ways that you plan for regional transit is you make those other communities pay their share of the planning costs, Eaton said – because it shows that they are interested in participating when the plan is done. Rather than spending millions of dollars on a countywide system that dissipates due to lack of interest, he wanted to focus on improving the service that we have. We need to increase the frequency of buses, he said, and the buses need to run later in the evening.

As far as regional transportation is concerned, Ann Arbor needs to seek financial participation at the planning stage, he said, before service is expanded to Chelsea or Canton or Saline. Eaton said he’d be careful with the money that is collected for Ann Arbor’s local transit system. He would focus on improving what Ann Arbor has – showing how well it works for Ann Arbor – to make it an attraction to live inside the city of Ann Arbor.

Kirk Westphal noted that transportation is part-and-parcel of any kind of urban planning theory – in the functioning of the city and region as well. It is said that nobody buys or builds next to a bus line, he allowed, but he and his wife bought their house because it was on a bus line. Westphal said he uses public transit or bicycles every day.

Westphal called transit an equity issue that ties into issues of congestion. Coming from New York, he allowed that his view of congestion is a little different from that of people here. He quipped that a lot of cities in Michigan would like to have a problem with congestion. But transit has to develop along with density – and transit doesn’t work sustainably without density, he stressed. So density has to be part of that conversation. He indicated that roads also need attention and that road repair and transportation need to be discussed as a whole. Transportation service has to be robust enough to attract people out of their cars, he said. And it’s important to support development near transit lines, in order to make it a sustainable financial endeavor.

Julie Grand described transit as ultimately “for a region,” but as a city there’s only so much control that Ann Arbor has. The only regional transit decisions that the Ann Arbor city council can make involve reaching out to other communities, she said. Ultimately, the city should focus on transit needs within its community. Grand called for diversification of transit options. The park-and-ride system has been very successful for a lot of people, she said, and she would like to see more of that. At the point she delivered her remarks, Grand noted that no one had yet brought up the potential for trains – which Grand knew is a hot button issue – but she said she was really glad that the issue is being studied, and that it’s going to go to the voters.

Grand called for diversity in transportation but allowed that we need to recognize the limitations in the priorities of the communities around us – even though the approach should ideally be regional.

Sabra Briere ventured that we have a difference of opinion as a community about how transportation should work. Some people think public transportation should be our substitute for owning a car – that we should be able to go to the doctor, go to the grocery, go to the library, without having to own a car. And that means a lot of neighborhood service, Briere concluded.

Other people think that the transportation system should be the means for people who are driving their cars into town to go to work, Briere continued. People coming to work should actually be able to take the bus or the train or some other form of mass transit. She felt there was not a consensus about those two viewpoints – not in the community, not on the AATA board, and not in the public meetings she had attended on the topic.

There is a real tension back and forth about whether it’s this or that kind of transportation system, Briere said. In order to provide services for commuters, you might not be able to afford to provide neighborhood service. To provide neighborhood services, should you ignore the commuters?

Briere pointed out that Ann Arbor’s population has grown for the first time in over 20 years. She observed that a lot more cars are clogging up Ann Arbor’s streets and parking spaces. Briere reported hearing a complaint just recently that somebody couldn’t get to an event because there was no parking available downtown. She hears all the time that people don’t want to go downtown because the parking is so difficult. But she also hears people say it had not been necessary to build more parking downtown. The fact that the community has these very different, polarized opinions about transportation shows that this is not a simple problem, Briere concluded. She ventured that it’s not within our control to decide if the trains will come, or if there will be regional transportation all around Ann Arbor all the way to Detroit.

What is in our control is the possibility that Ann Arbor residents could be asked to vote for another millage, Briere pointed out – in order to provide decent transportation within the urban core. [That additional millage would be requested in the context of Ypsilanti's admission into the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The millage would be requested by the AATA itself.]

Transportation: Rail Service

Mike Anglin’s remarks were focused in large part on criticism of possible rail service. He blamed the fact that land designated as parkland along Fuller Road actually had the zoning classification of PL (public land) as allowing for the possibility that a train station could be proposed for that site.

The most economical way “to push people around the city” is on buses, Anglin contended. Buses are flexible and are much less expensive than trains. “If you think you can afford a train, you’re going to be really surprised how much that costs,” Anglin cautioned. While the majority of the cost of a bus system goes toward bus driver salaries, Anglin said, most of those salaries remain in the community, because the bus drivers work in the community and then spend their money in the community. “I’m a big supporter of the buses; I am not a supporter of the trains,” Anglin said. Amtrak should run the trains, Anglin said, and the city shouldn’t start getting into a business it knows nothing about.

Commenting on the AATA’s AirRide service between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metro airport, Anglin allowed that it’s starting to gain popularity. But there are people who still take their cars to the airport, he said.

Anglin stressed that the city should focus on the essentials – fixing roads, and providing police and fire protection. He ventured that it was more important to plant trees and fix roads – once the basics are covered, only then is it appropriate to look beyond that. He wasn’t saying: Don’t have a vision. So he supported buses. He noted that the council had just approved a change to the articles of incorporation to include Ypsilanti in the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. But he cautioned that “It’s going to cost you money, though.” Voters would be asked to approve a millage, Anglin said, “and I will vote for the millage for the buses.” He would not, however, vote for a train, saying that the area doesn’t have the population density necessary to support a train.

Following Anglin was Stephen Kunselman, who echoed Anglin’s sentiments, noting that Anglin had said everything Kunselman had wanted to say. The discussion of Fuller Road Station had taken up too much of the transportation discussion, Kunselman said: “And we need to actually kill it.” If he wins the Democratic primary in August, he plans to bring forward a resolution to rescind the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that made Fuller Road Station a possibility. The MOU doesn’t have an expiration date, Kunselman said.

Kunselman called the idea of a 99-year lease to the University of Michigan in connection with the Fuller Road Station concept “a clear effort to evade the city charter requirement on the sale of parkland,” which requires a popular vote. Eliminating Fuller Road Station from the conversation would allow focus to be returned to the transportation needs of the community – transportation to get people to their jobs, to their homes, and to their recreational activities. As a planner, Kunselman continued, he understands the importance of a plan – as a document and as a vision. In that plan, he said, the city should be talking about park-and-ride, van pool, border-to-border trails, airport service, University Michigan, Amtrak, and a train station.

Kunselman then expressed support for locating any new train station directly across from the existing Amtrak station. He contended it would be out of the flood plain, based on looking at the huge drop-off down to the Huron River. But he wanted Fuller Road Station to be pushed aside so that the dialogue about a new train station can be more open and transparent.

Kunselman ventured that the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority is going to be more robust, now that Ypsilanti will have board representation.

Sidewalks and bike lanes are all things the city council is supporting, Kunselman said. And the city has a staff person who’s assigned to plan for those things. [Kunselman didn't name the person, but Eli Cooper is the city's transportation program manager, who also serves on the board of the AATA. Kunselman voted against confirmation of Cooper's appointment to the board.]

But Cooper couldn’t do his job as the city transportation program manager, because he was appointed to the AATA, Kunselman contended. That had led to the countywide transit effort that “flopped,” Kunselman said. “That failed – because it didn’t have the people behind it.” He called the countywide planning effort a classic example of “poker politics.” So Kunselman called for removing Cooper from the AATA – noting that Cooper doesn’t live in the city, and doesn’t “have an egg in the nest.” That would get Cooper focused on the city’s transportation planning, Kunselman concluded.

Connection: People to Services

Julie Grand said when she’s out in the community, she hears people talking about safety, about water problems and things that she can’t address – like their schools. She felt that one issue related to providing core services to the neighborhoods is that people are feeling very disconnected from their government.

She didn’t know that every road could be paved, or that all the other problems could be fixed. But one thing she felt she could do was to provide responsive communication. She described herself as “a problem solver,” saying that a resident could come to her and that she could immediately connect them to the person in the city who can address the concern. She told the audience that she’s trying to reach those people who are feeling disconnected, so that their voices are heard, and so that there’s a good sense of what those needs are and of how to meet those needs.

Connection: Youth Involvement

The specific question posed to candidates about connecting residents to local government was this: How do you plan within your ward to stimulate an increase in youth interest and participation in local government?

Grand suggested that one way you get young people involved in the community is “you take them very seriously,” and you understand their strengths. One of the things that made her want to stay in this community was an admission interview she’d done with a young woman years ago, who served on the board of a not-for-profit. And that experience made her think: This is where I want to raise my kids; this is a place where we involve youth on our boards and we involve them in politics. She felt that more of that should be done.

Grand thought that encouraging youth to volunteer, getting them to take leadership positions, taking their voices seriously – that is the way that you get them involved in the community. You don’t just give them some envelopes to stuff. Rather, you really allow them to be a part of policy decisions and allow their voices to be heard. The youth of the community are just as capable of making decisions and they know what is effective, she concluded.

Jack Eaton allowed he didn’t have an easy answer to the question of youth involvement. He pointed out there are “gradients of youth.” If you look at the college students who live here just for a few years, it’s particularly difficult to get them interested in local issues, Eaton said. He attends meetings of the College Democrats in hopes of figuring out what matters to them, but he’s not sure that they have burning local issues. He said he would continue to do outreach and participate in their organization to see what they’re concerned about and try to incorporate it into what he’s doing as a councilmember.

For younger people who actually live in the community, Eaton said, in his neighborhood there’s an organization that takes care of a local natural area preserve [Dicken Woods]. The organization gets youth volunteers to come to the woods and help chip the trails or pick up trash or to clean up. It’s good to involve students in a civic task that has a schedule, because a structured environment like that helps them feel like they have actually accomplished something, Eaton said, and they come back year after year. So he’d encourage various neighborhood organizations to be seen as a mechanism to reach out to schools to encourage youth involvement.

Stephen Kunselman said the No. 1 way to try to encourage youth involvement is to lead by example. In his campaigns, his kids have been involved, and their friends have been involved, and the kids of his friends have been involved. He cited Yousef Rabhi as an example – and pointed out Rabhi’s mother in the audience. Rabhi had helped him in his campaigns in years past, Kunselman said. Rabhi had learned from that experience and then ran his own campaign, Kunselman noted. And now Rabhi is chair of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. That is how to engage the youth, Kunselman said. [When Kunselman concluded his speaking turn, moderator Mike Henry  quipped: "We call that the 'Yousef card' because we all love Yousef!"]

Kunselman also mentioned that recently he’d attended the Portfolio Day at Scarlett Middle School, where he’d sat down with kids and asked about their aspirations, and told them a little bit about himself. He tried to encourage them to remember every vote counts, every person’s voice is important, that you make the difference and that you should participate. [The "every vote counts" point could have been made specifically with respect to Yousef Rabhi's first campaign – as he prevailed by a single vote.]

At that Scarlett Middle School event, Kunselman had heard from two girls that they wanted to work in the foreign service. That means that youth have aspirations, Kunselman said, and we need to listen to those aspirations and encourage them. But we also have to recognize that out of a community of 116,000 people, there are 11 elected officials on the city council and it’s very difficult to get there, Kunselman said.

Connection: General Participation

The specific question about youth involvement wasn’t posed to the candidates who don’t have contested races in the primary. But some of them commented on the general issue of participation and involvement.

Kirk Westphal observed that he currently chairs the city planning commission – and he’s served on the commission since 2006. It’s been an extremely rewarding volunteer opportunity. He tries to say that as many times as he can, to try to get more people participating on boards and commissions.

Westphal felt that creating stronger links between local government and neighborhood associations could result in encouraging more people to serve on boards and commissions. He observed that for many boards and commissions, the application files aren’t filled with a lot of resumes. He ventured that it was important to get more people running for the city council.

A lot of cities have citizens academies, he noted. And the city of Ann Arbor’s safety services area provides such an academy, focused on police and fire services. Westphal suggested that a citizens academy of some kind could introduce people to how local government works. That could bear fruit in the long run, he thought.

On the general topic of participation in local government, Mike Anglin observed: “Our turnout in a primary election is devastatingly low. It’s embarrassingly low. And our community cannot be proud of that at all.”

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!