View to the east from the Fourth & William parking structure, overlooking the former Y lot on March 30, 2014. The lot had been closed off to any vehicle access.

For the parcel to remain in use as part of the city’s public parking system, the pending purchaser of the property, Dennis Dahlmann, would need to reach an agreement on a leasing arrangement with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Eventually, Dahlmann intends to build a mixed-used development on the parcel, but wants to provide surface parking while the project is in the planning stages. A site plan could easily take a year to design, and to obtain necessary approvals from the planning commission and city council. The city council approved the sale of the land to Dahlmann last year at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting.

Ben Dahlmann, senior vice president with Dahlmann Properties, attended the March 26, 2014 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee to present a revision to the leasing proposal that Dahlmann had made in January. The original proposal had been for the DDA to lease the property back from Dahlmann for $150,000 a year.

The revised proposal would be for Dahlmann and the DDA to split the net income (after expenses) from the parking lot for the next two years. Dahlmann ballparked that number at around $180,000, which would translate to a $90,000 share for Dahlmann – less than the $160,000 per year that Dahlmann figured he’d owe in property taxes.

The final sale of the property by the city to Dahlmann – at a purchase price of $5.25 million – is scheduled for April 2. No agreement on Dahlmann’s offer to lease property to the DDA was reached at the March 26 meeting. But the committee will be taking up the issue again at its April meeting.

On March 26, DDA board members received Dahlmann’s new proposal with the same lack of enthusiasm they’d shown at their Jan. 29 committee meeting, when they discussed the original pitch of a $150,000 annual lease. In January, board members expressed concern that by leasing the property back from Dahlmann, the DDA would be providing an incentive not to develop the property. Dahlmann did not attend that January committee meeting. At the March 26 meeting, however, Ben Dahlmann pointed out that the rider agreement to the sales contract requires a certificate of occupancy by January 2018 for the new building on that site. [.pdf of rider agreement]

If Dahlmann does not develop the property, the city has the right to purchase the property back for $4.2 million, the asking price for the property. And that would translate to a $1 million loss for Dahlmann: “That, coupled with the $160,000 of annual taxes, is more than enough incentive for us to develop a project that I think we all will be proud of,” Dahlmann said.

Banner at the former Y lot on March 26, 2014.

At the March 26 meeting, members of the operations committee focused on their concern that the DDA would still lose money on the deal. They feared that by continuing to operate the former Y lot as a parking lot, the DDA would be decreasing parking activity at other facilities, where the DDA would receive 100% of the net income, not just 50% of it. They also wondered if Dahlmann would be willing to help pay for the cost of repairs to the lot that are currently needed. Further, they felt that there was adequate parking inventory in the immediate vicinity of the surface lot – roughly 1,700 spaces at the nearby Fourth & William and Library Lane structures, as well as 160 on-street metered spaces within a two-block radius.

Dahlmann countered by pointing out that a planned renovation to the Fourth & William parking structure – which could start in August 2014 – could have a negative impact on parking activity at that structure. He also noted that many people prefer surface parking to parking in a structure, and that it would be a convenience to the public that the DDA would be offering.

Dahlmann could not operate a parking facility himself, even if he charged nothing for people to park – without obtaining a special exception use from the city planning commission. Planning manager Wendy Rampson responded to an emailed query from The Chronicle with this explanation: “If there is a principal use of parking on the site – whether paid parking or free – it would require special exception use from the planning commission, unless it was owned or operated by an entity exempt from the zoning ordinance (e.g., the DDA).”

The DDA operations committee will take up the issue again at its April meeting, which is scheduled for April 30. In the meantime, the lot will not be available for parking. Based on committee discussion, it’s at least a possibility that some kind of agreement with Dahlmann might be reached, at which point motorists would again be able to park on the lot.

Motorists looking for parking in downtown Ann Arbor have already been given inconsistent messages about the former Y lot, as the DDA first announced that the lot would be closed around March 15. The DDA subsequently placed signs at the lot indicating that it would be closed on March 29.

Fifth & William Lot in Context

One of the concerns expressed by DDA committee members at their March 26 meeting was that patrons who might continue to park at the former Y lot would otherwise park at other nearby facilities in the system – where there is sufficient capacity, and where the DDA would receive 100% of the revenue from their parking fees.

Aerial photo of former Y lot from Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS mapping services. Numbering by The Chronicle.

The Chronicle reviewed historical revenue data for parking facilities in the Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue area. Based on that review, there is some merit to the idea that when a facility closes, the result is increased parking use at neighboring facilities. [See Chart 1 below.] For several years, The Chronicle has used data provided by the DDA to track revenue by facility and to calculate revenue-per-space statistics.

But a recent review by The Chronicle of the data provided by the DDA on the Fifth & William surface lot (the former Y lot) showed it’s been inconsistent with respect to the number of spaces available at the lot. In several instances, the number of spaces was reported at 141.

In fact, the lot offers 87-88 spaces. But in the DDA’s analysis of Dahlmann’s original proposal, the number of spaces is recorded as 141 for fiscal year 2012 and 87 for fiscal year 2013. The 54-space difference was portrayed in the DDA’s analysis as the result of spaces used by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority for staging of materials during the construction of the new Blake Transit Center (BTC). The BTC is sited just to the north of the lot. [.pdf of DDA financial analysis of Dahlmann's proposal]

However, in other DDA records, the number of spaces allotted initially for the BTC construction – which broke ground in November 2012 – is shown as 11. Toward the end of the construction, starting in November 2013, the AAATA was given permission to park two temporary trailers on the west side of the lot – when the old transit building was demolished. Those two trailers took up at least another eight spaces in the parking lot. For purposes of this analysis, The Chronicle has adjusted the number of spaces in the data based on 87 spaces at full capacity, 11 spaces lost during initial construction, and another 8 spaces lost during the final construction period.

In Chart 1 below, no adjustments have been made for parking rate increases, so the overall upward trend is at least in part due to increases in those rates.

Highlights from Chart 1 below include the two highest-performing facilities in the public parking system (in terms of revenue per space), both of which are surface lots: the Brown Block in red (bounded by Huron, First, Washington and Ashley) and the Kline Lot in blue (on Ashley, north of William). The Library Lane underground facility off of South Fifth is represented in black. It was previously just a surface lot, until construction started on the underground facility. The gap reflects the construction period for the underground structure. On the left side of the gap, the black line represents Library Lane as just a surface lot. On the right side of the gap, it has re-opened as an underground structure. The former Y lot surface parking is shown in purple.

Chart 1: Surface parking in Ann Arbor’s public parking system. (Data from the DDA, adjusted and charted by The Chronicle.)

The circled numbers in the chart correspond to the following descriptive observations:

1. From October 2008 through September 2009, the library lot surface parking facility (black) clearly outperformed the former Y lot surface parking lot (purple), but did not approach the performance of the Brown Block or the Kline Lot. During that period, the revenue per space generated by the Library Lane surface parking facility was roughly the same as in the Maynard structure, which is located one block east of the Library Lane lot.
2. When the Library Lane surface parking lot closed, to begin construction of the underground structure, starting in October 2009, the revenue per space generated in the former Y lot (purple) – located just across the street – dramatically increased. Performance at the former Y lot  approached that of the two highest-performing facilities.
3. When South Fifth Avenue was closed down during a later phase of the Library Lane construction project, in August 2010, revenue per space dropped for the former Y lot – and stayed roughly flat for the next two years. During that period, revenue per space roughly mirrored the performance of the Maynard structure.
4. When the new Library Lane structure opened in the summer of 2012, revenues per space started to decline at the former Y lot.
5. The downward trend at the former Y lot continued when the Blake Transit Center started construction in November 2012.
6. Likely unrelated to any issues in the Fourth and Fifth Avenue area of downtown is the increase in the difference between the Brown Block surface lot’s performance compared to the Kline Lot. In the first two years of data shown in Chart 1, the Brown Block performed 7-9% better than the Kline Lot, as measured by revenue per space. In the last year, however, that gap had grown to 27%.

Fourth & William Structure

One of the arguments that Ben Dahlmann made at the March 26 DDA operations committee meeting was that upcoming renovations to the southeast elevator tower of the Fourth & William parking structure could have a negative impact on parking activity at that facility. It’s just across the street from the former Y lot. He reasoned that the former Y lot, if it continued to be used as a surface parking lot under a lease arrangement, could serve as a kind of “overflow parking.”

The background to Dahlmann’s point began at the DDA board’s Jan. 8, 2014 meeting, when it authorized up to $40,000 for Carl Walker Inc. to develop architectural renderings for renovations to the southwest stair tower and elevators.

The Fourth & William parking structure, at 994 spaces, is one of the largest in Ann Arbor’s parking system – but has elevators that are more than 30 years old. [A recent trip from the ground floor to floor 7 was timed by The Chronicle at 45 seconds. The comparable trip at the newer Washington & Fourth parking structure took about 17 seconds.]

Also at the March 26 operations committee meeting, Mike Ortlieb, of Carl Walker Inc., presented two possible timelines, based on either a two-phase or three-phase approach to the construction. The basic cost was estimated at $2.45 million. Pursuing the three-phase approach would cost an additional $150,000. The two-phase approach would last about a year – from August 2014 through July 2015. The three-phase approach would take five months longer – through about December 2015. In both scenarios, the goal is to keep the parking structure open for business.

Chronicle chart of potential timeline for renovations to the southwest elevator at the Fourth & William parking structure based on Carl Walker estimates.

The operations committee will take up the Fourth & William renovation again at its April meeting.

March 26, 2014 Operations Committee Deliberations

When the DDA operations committee reached the former Y lot on its March 26 agenda, board members and Ben Dahlmann began with basic introductions. DDA members at the meeting included Roger Hewitt, Keith Orr, John Splitt, John Mouat, Joan Lowenstein and Bob Guenzel.

Dahlmann complimented a large clock that stands in the corner of the DDA boardroom, which is actually designed for outdoor use and looks more or less like a lamp post, but with a large clock face at the top. He quipped that it might be a hint that he should be brief.

Dahlmann first updated board members on the status of the sale: Closing is scheduled for April 2. There had been some delays, he explained, due in part to the need to conduct an environmental study. There are portions of the old YMCA building that are still underground on the parcel. He reminded the board that Dahlmann had agreed to pay $5.25 million for the property – which was about $1 million above the asking price. Alluding to the rider to the sales agreement, Dahlmann noted: “We have three years and nine months to develop it. And if we don’t do that, the city has the option to buy back for $1 million less than what we paid for it. That, coupled with the $160,000 of annual taxes, is more than enough incentive for us to develop a project that I think we all will be proud of.”

At the March 26 operations committee meeting. From left: DDA board member Roger Hewitt and Ben Dahlmann.

Dahlmann told the board it was his understanding that roughly 30,000 cars parked on the former Y lot on an annual basis. He described the surface lot as having a nice central location, and ventured that above-ground parking was more convenient. That convenience, he said, would be a true benefit to the citizens of Ann Arbor and to those who work and dine and shop in the area.

Dahlmann also pointed out that keeping the former Y lot open would help with issues associated with the Fourth and William elevator renovation. It could be an “overflow lot,” he suggested. Based on the information he had, it was his understanding that the former Y lot generates about $250,000 of revenue annually, and that there are roughly $70,000 worth of expenses. Dahlmann’s proposal was to take that $180,000 of net profit and split it between the DDA and Dahlmann. “That is it in a nutshell,” he concluded, and thanked the committee for listening.

Roger Hewitt said that when the DDA first installed equipment to create a surface parking lot at that location, the Library Lane parking structure was not in existence. The surface lot parking equipment had been installed at the request of the Ann Arbor city council, Hewitt said. And since then, the DDA had built and opened the Library Lane underground parking structure.

Hewitt asked Republic Parking manager Art Low: In that immediate neighborhood, how many parking spaces are there without that YMCA lot? Low broke down the parking inventory into two categories: on-street metered parking and off-street parking.

There are about 161 metered spaces within a two-block radius of the old Y lot, Low reported. He said that the numbers he was going to present on usage were not hard numbers, but were pretty accurate. Between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. those meters are about 70- 75% occupied. Between noon and 6 p.m. they are about 80% occupied. So there’s still a pretty good flow in terms of availability and turnover, he concluded. Low said there was a good turnover in the on-street part of the system.

Within a two-block radius there are just over 2,100 off-street parking spots, Low said. The Fourth & William parking structure is generally about 75% occupied between 10 a.m. and 9 p.m. From Wednesday through Saturday that picks up, he said, to be a lot higher. The Library Lane structure has hit a good threshold at about 72% occupied, he said, noting that Library Lane is not as busy at nighttime as it is during the daytime. The Library Lane underground garage is more of a daytime garage, Low said. You have to keep in mind too, Low continued, that the Library Lane facility also has 33 surface parking spaces. There are also 12 on-street spots on the Library Lane the mid-block cut-through between Fifth and Division.

A little farther to the north, the Fourth & Washington garage has high occupancy levels, but is still at something like an 85% threshold, Low said. The South Ashley lot Kline lot is also very busy and is about 85-87% occupied, Low said. The numbers he was giving, Low reiterated, were general numbers through the day, but he felt they were pretty accurate. There are 87 spaces in the old Y lot, Low said – without considering spaces that had been taken up by the Blake Transit Center construction. Through the last eight months, Low said they’ve only had a portion of those 87 spots available. Through “natural progression,” Low felt, people have found other places to park.

Looking at the dollars-and-cents issue, Hewitt said, if the lot were now operated at its original size of 87 spaces, it would probably be full – because it is a surface lot. But people would be parking there, drawing from other facilities where they are already paying the DDA for parking. It seemed to him that although the DDA would make money on the former Y lot, the DDA would then lose money on surrounding facilities. He asked Low if that would be a fair statement. Yes, Low replied. Low allowed that this kind of debate goes on quite a bit. The system overall is getting more and more full – but in that specific area, the system has a lot of parking availability. There are other areas in the system that could use more parking – but that is a different discussion, Low said.

Hewitt also ventured that the porous asphalt surface at the Y lot might need some repair. Low responded by indicating that Republic Parking would be inspecting the surface more closely in the next few days and make a determination. He said there were definitely some repairs that need to be done – including some curb stops that have been smashed over the winter. And there are certain issues with the surface itself that need to be addressed, but he could not offer a view on the cost at this point.

DDA executive director Susan Pollay then reviewed some of the logistical considerations. The sale closing is set for April 2. She asked Dahlmann what he was looking for in terms of a timeline for the lease. Dahlmann said he was thinking two years. Pollay asked Dahlmann if his proposal to the board included paying for repairs – as the owner of the lot. Dahlmann told Pollay that he had walked past the lot on his way to the meeting and that there were definitely some issues with the surface of the pavement in some areas and there’s still a fair amount of construction debris, he said. He wondered what kind of responsibility the AAATA’s contractor has for putting a lot back into the same condition it was when construction started. Pollay said that no conditions were set, because the lot was already starting to deteriorate.

Dahlmann asked if the AAATA was responsible for repairing any of the damage. Pollay responded: “Nothing specific, no.” If the ownership were not changing, Pollay explained, the DDA itself would be taking on the repairs to the lot.

Dahlmann ventured that from his observations walking around the pavement, although there were issues, they didn’t seem problematical. “We would be open to figuring that out, for sure,” he said. Pollay asked if Dahlmann was proposing that he first fix the lot and then the DDA would operate the repaired lot for Dahlmann. He said he was not sure – because he was not sure what was included in the $70,000 worth of expenditures. “What we’re saying basically here is, look, here is the gross profit and here’s the expenses – let’s split the net profit 50-50.” That would come nowhere near to even covering the taxes on the property, he ventured.

Keith Orr said he looked at the issue in two ways. First, whatever would be split should be the net profit. All expenses would come out first before anything was split. The other concern Orr had was that if it’s a 50-50 split, then the DDA would still be “competing with itself” with its other facilities. At other facilities, the DDA would be receiving 100% of the revenue. That would mean trading a spot where they were getting 100% of revenue for one where they were only getting 50%.

Hewitt said he first wanted an estimate of what it would take to repair the lot sufficiently to operate the lot for two years. He also did not feel that the lot should be looked at in isolation – because there’s so much parking capacity on either side of the lot. He wanted to factor in the revenues from the Library Lane structure and the Fourth & William parking structure. The DDA would need to consider what the profitability is of all of its parking facilities, Hewitt said.

Dahlmann asked if the DDA knew how often the lots in the vicinity were 100% full. Republic Parking manager Art Low told Dahlmann that information was absolutely available, but he did not have it off the top of his head. When the peaks are reached, it tends to be Wednesday through Saturday or the evening hours, Low offered. DDA deputy director Joe Morehouse said he did not think that 100% capacity had been reached since New Year’s Day – adding that it did not happen all that frequently.

Photo taken March 30, 2014 – the first day the former Y lot was closed to the public. The view is looking north. The new Blake Transit Center is on the far side of the lot.

Morehouse pointed out how the Library Lane doesn’t have the evening traffic that Fourth & William does. Hewitt said that the DDA had a fiduciary responsibility that if it entered into an agreement, it would not be one that risked taking a loss. He ventured that it would be kind of a complex deal to put together. So Hewitt wanted first to get some idea of the cost that it would take to make the lot operational for two years. Hewitt wanted Morehouse and Low to put something together that made financial sense.

Dahlmann ventured that it might not be a large factor, but he felt that convenience would be a factor. He felt that the data probably suggest that when the former Y lot is fully operational, people would prefer to park there. As a consumer, he said, he would not eat dinner on Main Street if he knew that he was going to have to park on an upper floor in a parking structure. There has to be some value in that, he said, although he did not know how much.

Pollay stated her understanding that the DDA was supposed to provide the property “free and clear” at the closing of the sale. She said that meant that the parking equipment would be taken off the lot – but she would ask Republic Parking how easy it would be to reinstall it. She did not think it would be that difficult.

Republic would be told that equipment can be removed, but it might be the case that it needed to be reinstalled. That was the direction that Pollay had received from the city, she said. Hewitt added that “it’s the city’s choice on that.” Pollay said that even though the DDA was operating the lot, it was officially city property. That’s why she needed to be respectful of the direction that she was receiving from the city, Pollay said. She understood her direction from the city to be a clean, unencumbered provision of the lot.

Dahlmann countered that if the purchaser feels it’s fine to leave the equipment there, that should mean something. Pollay said she would follow up with the city and let everyone know what direction she received.

Next Steps

The DDA operations committee is expected to take up the issue of possibly leasing the former Y lot again at its April 30 meeting. It’s not currently an agenda item for the DDA board’s April 2, 2014 meeting.

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

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

The Thursday meeting, shifted from its usual Monday slot due to the Tuesday elections, is the last one with the current composition of the 11-member council. The outcome of Tuesday’s elections left all incumbents in place except for Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), whose departure was decided in the August Democratic primary. Ward 4 primary winner Jack Eaton will be the single new face on the council at its Nov. 18 meeting. At the Nov. 7 meeting, Higgins will likely receive a customary parting gift from her colleagues, to acknowledge her 14 years of service on the council.

The agenda is relatively heavy, featuring at least 34 voting items. This preview includes a more detailed explanation of several of those items, but first provides a thematic overview.

The city’s downtown factors prominently on the agenda in at least three ways. The city council will be asked to consider passing a resolution to direct the city administrator to negotiate a sales agreement for the city-owned property along William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues, known as the old Y lot. The council will also be considering a revision to the city ordinance regulating the tax increment finance (TIF) capture of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That’s been on the agenda since February, but now a committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has put forth a competing recommendation, which will also be on the Nov. 7 agenda.

Also related to downtown, the council will be formally accepting a report completed by the city’s park advisory commission with recommendations related to downtown parks.

Non-motorized issues also factor prominently as a theme of the Nov. 7 agenda. In addition to an update of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, the council will consider establishing a pedestrian safety task force. The council’s agenda also includes the first of a series of resolutions for two separate sidewalk projects – one on Stone School Road and another on Scio Church Road. The council’s resolutions for those projects, directing the design work and detailed cost estimates, are the first actions necessary for some of the funding of the sidewalks to be special assessed to the adjacent property owners.

An additional project related to non-motorized issues, but not obviously so, is a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to resurface a portion of Huron Street from Main Street westward as Huron becomes Jackson Avenue on to I-94, as well as a section of South Maple. The intent is to re-stripe the roadway, reducing the lanes from four to three and adding bicycle lanes.

The sidewalk and street projects are among several capital improvement-related items on the agenda, including one that would help stabilize the earthen berm adjacent to Barton Dam. The council will also be considering a half dozen resolutions that will authorize applying for state grants that could fund capital asset projects for the city.

In addition to the items related to the city’s physical infrastructure, the council has several items that could be described as relating to the city’s social infrastructure. Those items relate to grants from the state and federal government to the 15th District Court for several of its specialty courts that focus on drug offenses, domestic violence, and veterans issues. The council will also be asked to approve a modified continuation of its coordinated funding approach to human services.

The agenda includes some council initiatives announced at the council’s previous meeting on Oct. 21. One of those is a resolution requesting that the University of Michigan decommission a recently constructed digital billboard near the football stadium.

Another one is a resolution directing the education of city officials on professional conduct. Related tangentially to those ethical considerations are the approvals of new bylaws for two of the city’s boards and commissions – the planning commission and the design review board.

This article includes a more detailed preview 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 Thursday evening on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

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

Downtown

The agenda includes several items related to the downtown area.

Downtown: DDA Ordinance

On the Nov. 7 agenda are now two possible revisions to the city’s ordinance regarding how the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s TIF capture is regulated (Chapter 7). The first version has been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013.

The second version is the result of recommendations by 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 are Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Representing the DDA are Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel and Joan Lowenstein.

A range of possible parliamentary mechanisms are available to the council for handling the two competing versions of the ordinance amendment. One approach would be to put off deciding between the two versions at the Nov. 7 meeting – by postponing the first version and giving the second version an initial approval. That could move the debate to the council’s Nov. 18 meeting – after the new composition of the city council is seated.

Another parliamentary approach on Nov. 7 could be to amend the first version through substitution of the second. Or the council could vote down the first version and consider the second version. The council could also vote to give the first version final approval and not consider the second version when it’s reached on the agenda. The first version appears first on the agenda – but that order could be re-arranged at the start of the meeting.

The first version, which is in front of the council for final approval, would clarify the existing language of the ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF capture in a way that would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction on TIF revenue. The restriction that’s already expressed in the ordinance language is defined by reference to the amount of growth in taxable value in the DDA district that’s anticipated in the DDA’s TIF plan – a foundational document of the DDA. When those restrictions are applied to the DDA’s TIF revenue, then the amount of TIF received by the DDA would be roughly $4 million in FY 2015. By way of comparison, in the current fiscal year (FY 2014), under its preferred interpretation, the DDA looks to capture approximately $4.5 million of the taxes levied by other jurisdictions.

Under the first version revision, that roughly $0.5 million difference would 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%). So out of a $500,000 return to other taxing jurisdictions, the city of Ann Arbor would receive $300,000. However, that $300,000 would be distributed proportionally to the funds generating Ann Arbor’s levy. Part of Ann Arbor’s levy is a transportation tax that is passed through to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. So of the $300,000 that would be returned to the city, about $40,000 of it would be passed through to the AAATA.

However, the total amount that would be returned on the first version revision is projected to rise each year from that roughly $0.5 million, to somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million in FY 2017 based on projects in the downtown under construction and in the approval process.

The second version, proposed by the committee, would set a cap on DDA TIF revenue that would not apply at all until FY 2017 and would result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year, with an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions. The city’s portion of that would be roughly $180,000, distributed proportionally across all its funds that get income from a captured levy, including the general fund.

Another major difference between the first version and the committee-recommended version of the Chapter 7 ordinance change is that the first version includes revisions to governance of the DDA, which the committee-recommended version omits. Those governance revisions include (1) a two-term limit for service on the DDA board; (2) a prohibition against elected officials, other than the mayor, serving on the DDA board; and (3) service of the mayor on the board (a possibility explicitly provided in the DDA state enabling legislation) subject to annual approval by the city council. If the council did not approve the mayor’s service on the DDA board in a given year, then that spot would go to the city administrator.

Downtown: Y Lot Sale

A resolution added to the agenda on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013 would direct city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the purchase of the city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. Dahlmann has offered $5.25 million for the property, known as the Y lot. It had been listed at $4.2 million. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

If those negotiations are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). City sources report that city administrator Steve Powers won’t be altering his recommendation to negotiate first with Dahlmann, despite the CA Ventures increase of its offer to $5.35 million – because that increased amount was received after the deadline for offers, which was firm and clearly communicated to bidders. The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. [.pdf of summary page by broker Jim Chaconas]

The memo accompanying the Nov. 7 resolution states:

The offers from Dennis Dahlmann and CA Ventures are the strongest (cash, no contingencies, sales agreement, close in 2013) of the five proposals. Differences between the two offers are slight, but may be significant to city council. Dahlmann is proposing a purchase price of $5,250,000. CA Ventures is proposing $5,150,000. Dahlmann is proposing to build to less than the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning. CA Ventures’ offer assumes the ability to build to the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning.

The Nov. 7 resolution directs the city administrator to provide a purchase agreement for the property for the council’s consideration at its Nov. 18 meeting. That purchase agreement is supposed to include protections against the property not being developed.

While the council’s Nov. 7 meeting follows the Nov. 5 city council elections, the Nov. 18 meeting is the first meeting of the newly constituted council. There will be only one new councilmember – Jack Eaton, who defeated incumbent Marcia Higgins in the August Ward 4 Democratic primary. The Nov. 7 resolution is sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale, as the city faces a $3.5 million balloon payment this year from the purchase loan it holds on that property. The city has owned the land for a decade.

If the sale is not completed by the end of the year when the balloon payment is due, the Bank of Ann Arbor would, according to city sources, maintain the existing interest rate on the loan (3.89%) and extend it for up to a year to allow for the city to finalize a sale.

Downtown: Parks

A subcommittee of the park advisory commission (PAC) has been meeting since early 2013 to explore the possibilities for a new downtown park. The subcommittee delivered its recommendations at the Oct. 15, 2013 meeting of PAC. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report] On Nov. 7, the city council will be asked to formally accept the subcommittee’s report.

Ingrid Ault chaired the subcommittee, which also included Julie Grand, Alan Jackson and Karen Levin. The subcommittee’s work is also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project.

The subcommittee’s work was guided by this mission statement:

To determine whether and what additional parks are wanted and/or needed in downtown Ann Arbor, focusing on city-owned parcels in the DDA district while maintaining awareness of additional nearby properties, for example: Liberty Plaza, 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington. The “deliverable” will be a set of recommendations for the City Council.

The eight recommendations are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process. The AADL board and staff discussed this recommendation at their Oct. 21, 2013 meeting.

Downtown – and Citywide: Park Fee Waiver

The council will be giving initial consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs 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, which is a downtown park.

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 a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when the city staff considered applying fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church. The proposal recommended by PAC on Sept. 17, and on the council’s Nov. 7 agenda, would amend Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language]

It would be 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.

Non-Motorized Issues

Several items on the council’s Nov. 7 agenda relate to non-motorized issues.

Non-Motorized Issues: Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Update

The council is being asked to adopt an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, which is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.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 a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

Non-Motorized Issues: Pedestrian Safety

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) announced at the council’s Oct. 21 meeting that they’d be bringing forward a proposal to establish a pedestrian safety task force. At the Oct. 21 meeting, Warpehoski stated that the effort was not meant as an alternative to the efforts that other councilmembers are making to bring forward a repeal of the city’s pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the 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 to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk. The resolution establishing the task force acknowledges that many residents are concerned that current city policies create an unsafe environment for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

The pedestrian safety and access task force would 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.” Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application] The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting.

The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

Some of the recent community conversation has included the fact that traffic crashes involving a pedestrian have shown an increase in the last two years, the period during which Ann Arbor adopted its local ordinance that requires more of motorists than the UTC. The charts below are by The Chronicle using data from Michigan Traffic Crash Facts.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: Ann Arbor

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG region.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG Region by County

Pedestrian Crashes by Year: Washtenaw County Outside Ann Arbor

Capital Projects

The Nov. 7 city council agenda includes a number of resolutions involving capital projects and expenses, some of which relate to non-motorized issues.

Capital Projects: I-94 Business Loop ($301,600)

This project would resurface the section of Huron Street from Main Street westward as Huron becomes Jackson Avenue on to I-94. The project will include a re-striping to reduce the number of lanes from four to three and add bicycle lanes. An agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is required because the city must contribute 12.5% of the funding for the resurfacing. That accounts for $198,700. Additional funding is needed to pay for the resurfacing of the portion of South Maple Road, as part of the project. South Maple is a city-owned street. MDOT has agreed to include the South Maple resurfacing as part of the project, but it will be funded by the city of Ann Arbor for $102,900.

Capital Projects: Stone School Road Sidewalk

On the council’s agenda is the first of a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Stone School Road for constructing sidewalks, curbs and gutters as part of a road reconstruction project. The resolution simply directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed.

Capital Projects: Scio Church Sidewalk

Also on the council’s agenda is the first in a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Scio Church, west of Seventh Street, for constructing a sidewalk there to eliminate a gap. The resolution directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed. The Scio Church resolution appropriates $35,000 for the design work. [For Chronicle coverage of a neighborhood meeting on the Scio Church sidewalk, see "Sidewalks: Build, Repair, Shovel"]

Capital Projects: Barton Dam Repair

The council will be asked to approve a contract with Catskill Remedial Contracting Services Inc. to install a “drainage blanket” for the earthen berm adjoining Barton Dam ($123,685). A drainage blanket is a pervious but stable layer of material installed directly at the base of a structure to facilitate drainage. The installation is meant to repair a “boil” that has surfaced in the drainage ditch at the base of the right embankment at the dam. The boil has been identified as a potential cause of failure for the embankment by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – which is responsible for regulating the dam, because the dam generates electric power.

The contract is recommended to be awarded to Catskill, even though Pranam GlobalTech provided the lowest bid. The staff memo cites “substandard performance” by Pranam GlobalTech on two other city projects, which led to the disqualification of their bid. The cost of the project will be split between the water fund (as the dam creates a pond from which the city draws the majority of its drinking water) and the general fund (for the hydroelectric operations).

The council had been alerted to the need for this project earlier this year, at a Feb. 11, 2013 work session on the FY 2014 budget. From The Chronicle’s report of that session:

In addition to the concrete and steel part of the dam, a roughly 3/8-mile long earthen embankment is part of the structure that forms Barton Pond, [public services area administrator Craig] Hupy explained. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) has required the city to do some investigative work, and the city thinks there’ll be some follow-up work required when that investigative work is completed. [FERC is involved as a regulator because the Barton Dam generates electricity.]

Responding to a question from [Ward 3 councilmember Christopher] Taylor about the anticipated cost of the additional work, Hupy indicated that it would be “six figures.” The city is putting about $400,000 total in various parts of the budget for it. But until the study work is completed later this spring, the amount can’t be more precise, Hupy indicated. Because Barton is a federally controlled dam, whatever the work the city does will be what the regulator demands that the city does or doesn’t do. “Stay tuned,” Hupy told Taylor.

Capital Projects: Technical Engineering Services

The council will be asked to approve two different contracts that resulted from a bid it put out in June 2013 – for technical engineering services to support the water treatment services unit with capital, operation, and maintenance project support for the water system, dams, and hydroelectric generating stations. One of the contracts is with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. ($250,000). The other contract is with Tetra Tech of Michigan ($250,000).

Capital Projects: Ozone

The council will be asked to approve a purchase order with Ozonia for ozone generator dielectrics ($68,209). The city uses ozone in the disinfection process for its drinking water. The city is currently out of spare dielectric units, which are the components that convert oxygen gas to ozone gas. So this resolution would allow the city to have replacement parts on hand if the units fail.

Capital Projects: State Funding of Water Asset Projects

Six resolutions appear on the council’s agenda related to state legislation passed in 2012 that forms the statutory framework of the Stormwater, Asset Management and Wastewater (SAW) program – a grant program. The legislation funds grants and loans for what the staff memo accompanying the resolutions describes as “funding for grants and loans for asset management plan development, stormwater management plan development, sewage collection and treatment design plan development, and state-funded loans to construct projects identified in the asset management plans.” [.pdf of FAQ by the State of Michigan on the SAW program] [PA 511 of 2012] [PA 560 of 2012] [PA 561 of 2012] [PA 562 of 2012]

Although communities that are awarded grants can receive a maximum of $2 million in total grant funds through the SAW program, the city of Ann Arbor is applying for the following six grants, on the idea that it will maximize its chances if the state uses a lottery type system. The first $1 million has a 10% local match requirement, and the second $1 million of grant money has a 25% local match requirement.

The city is applying for funding for some projects that have already been started, because money awarded through the SAW program can be spent retroactively as early as Jan. 2, 2013. The council will be considering six resolutions corresponding to grant requests from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for the following projects.

• Asset Management Plan for the Sanitary System ($1.1 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($25,000) for a total of $125,000.
• Asset Management Plan for the Stormwater System ($1.1 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($25,000) for a total of $125,000.
• Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Evaluation Project (retroactive) ($1.2 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($50,000) for a total of $150,000.
• Stormwater Model Calibration Project (retroactive) ($750,000): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($75,000) or 25% of second million ($187,500) for a maximum of $187,500.
• Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Asset Management Program ($350,00): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($35,000) or 25% of second million ($87,500) for a maximum of $87,500.
• Asset Management Plan for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Sanitary Sewer System ($1.5 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($125,000) for a total of $225,000.

Social Infrastructure

In addition to physical infrastructure items, the council’s Nov. 7 agenda also includes several pieces of business that could be described as related to social infrastructure.

Social Infrastructure: 15th District Court

The council will be asked to consider authorizing five grant-related items involving the specialty court functions of the 15th District Court. [For background on the 15th District Court and some of its functions, see Chronicle coverage: "Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court"]

• Accept three-year $300,000 supplemental grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to enhance countywide efforts to prevent domestic violence, effective Sept. 12, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2016. Of the grant total, $181,000 will reimburse the city for the salaries for a full-time domestic violence probation officer, a half-time system coordinator, and a part-time data entry clerk. Another $5,000 will reimburse the city for training expenses required by the U.S. Dept. of Justice. The remaining $114,000 will reimburse the city for a contract with SafeHouse Center to provide domestic violence prevention services.
• Authorize contract with SafeHouse to provide domestic violence prevention services ($114,000). Under terms of the contract, SafeHouse Center will provide confidential support, information and referrals for victims of domestic violence cases in the 15th District Court, 14A District Court and 14B District Court; monitor court and probation activity as it relates to victim safety; work collaboratively to enhance victim safety; and offer advice and training to judges, magistrates, probation and compliance officers and community partners.
• Accept Michigan Supreme Court drug court grant ($144,000). The 15th District Court’s sobriety court is “hyper-intensive probation,” which follows sentencing. The court assigns a full-time probation officer to the sobriety court for a program that lasts 18-24 months and includes monitoring of participants’ attendance at treatment programs, their progress in treatment, how they’re spending their time at work and doing community service. Reporting requirements are extensive. Participants must take frequent portable breath tests (PBTs) and urine tests. The majority of sobriety court participants are second-offender DWI cases, but offenses need not be driving-related. Also eligible to participate in sobriety court are, for example, retail fraud (shoplifting) offenders and misdemeanor drug possession offenders. Some of that grant money will fund a contract with Dawn Farm.
• Authorize contract with Dawn Farm ($88,000). The contract is for out-patient drug abuse counseling as part of the 15th District Court’s sobriety court.
• Accept Michigan Supreme Court veterans treatment court program grant ($92,279).

Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding

The council will be asked to authorize the basic approach that it has taken to human services funding in the past, but with some modifications. The funds would continue to be managed through Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development, using the coordinated funding approach.

The county is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010; this is the second time that the program has been extended.

The coordinated funding process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The approach targets six priority areas, and identifies lead agencies for each area: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

Last year, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended. One of those changes is that funding would not necessarily be allocated to the six priority areas based on the proportion of funding allocated in the past. Instead, allocations among the six priority areas would be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized. An additional change would broaden the pre-screening process so that smaller nonprofits could be accommodated.

Recommendations for specific funding allocations will be made in spring 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process. One of the goals of coordinated funding is to attract more partners, such as private foundations.

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners gave initial approval to the continued use of the coordinated funding approach at its Oct. 16, 2013 meeting.

Ethics

The council’s agenda includes a couple of items that relate to ethics.

Ethics: Professional Standards of Conduct

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) is bringing forward a resolution that does not include “ethics” in the title, but addresses the kind of issues that could be described under the general rubric of “ethics.” The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute.

A final “resolved” clause directs 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 final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard that’s recommended by the council rules committee and it’s strictly followed – would end any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government.

Ethics: Consent Agenda – Planning Commission Bylaws

The Nov. 7 consent agenda includes approval of new bylaws for two entities – the city’s design review board and the city planning commission.

The planning commission had given approval to changes in its bylaws at its July 16, 2013 meeting. Those changes related to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations, such as sign language interpreters. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws on Nov. 7 city council agenda]. The design review board has not had bylaws up to now.

Not the subject of a revision, but still the source of some recent community interest, is the following clause from the planning commission bylaws, which imposes a limitation on the ability of a councilmember to address the city planning commission:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.

That part of the bylaws surfaced recently, when councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy on separate occasions sought to address the planning commission – Warpehoski on July 16, 2013 and Kailasapathy on Aug. 13, 2013.

Based on an analysis in the Michigan Municipal League’s “Handbook for Municipal Officials,” it may be problematic for a city councilmember to address a body like the planning commission. That’s not based on having a property interest in a matter, but rather because the council is the appointing body for the commission. The handbook presents the following scenario as an ethical exercise – using the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). From the MML Handbook:

Situation #2 Before you were elected to the city council you served on your city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), so you know the ZBA procedures very well. A few months after your election to council, your neighbor and campaign manager files a petition with the ZBA seeking a variance. Since you know how the ZBA works, he asks you to accompany him to the ZBA and to speak on his behalf. Should you do it?

The analysis offered by the handbook is the following:

No. The Michigan Court of Appeals has labeled this situation as “patently improper” and an abuse of public trust for the reason that the person making the argument to the ZBA is also one of the people charged with appointing the ZBA. This creates duress on the ZBA, raising doubt about the impartiality of the ZBA’s decision. Any decision made by the ZBA under these circumstances is void. See Barkey v. Nick, 11 Mich App 361 (1968).

The implication of the Ann Arbor city planning commission bylaw is that it’s permissible for a city councilmember to address the commission exactly when the councilmember is not the petitioner or does not have an interest in the matter. That situation appears to be explicitly deemed unethical by the MML Handbook, if the handbook’s analysis is extended from the ZBA to the planning commission.

Ethics: Consent Agenda – Rental Housing Inspection

A consent agenda item increases the amount of a contract the city has with the accounting firm Plante Moran for a thorough review of the city’s permitting processes. That review comes in the context of the discovery that some rental housing permits had not been properly verified, according to city sources. Steps taken by the city staff to correct the problems included a review of all questionable permits. That included site visits to eight residential properties, six of them occupied, to ensure no one was living in unsafe conditions.

Re-inspection continues of residential and business properties to verify issued permits, to ensure the accuracy of the city’s records. Property owners are not being charged additional costs for re-inspection. The city anticipated that over 80 properties would be re-inspected as of Oct. 30. The permits for those 80 properties compare to a total number of 10,000 building and rental permits issued annually.

Miscellaneous

A number of other items appear on the agenda. Here are a few highlights.

Misc: Consent Agenda

Three other consent agenda items include a $60,000 contract with Utilities Instrumentation Service for electrical and instrumentation support services. According to a staff memo, the scope of UIS work will include “transformer testing, infrared testing of switchgear, testing of medium voltage breakers at City substations and generators, programming and calibration of instrumentation, Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) support and troubleshooting, Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) programming, and tuning and testing of dam and hydroelectric generator controls.”

A fourth item on the consent agenda sets a public hearing for establishing an industrial development district (for potential tax abatements) at 1901 E. Ellsworth. That hearing will be held on Dec. 2, 2013.

Misc: Church Site Plan

The council will be asked to approve a site plan for the expansion of the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. The city planning commission recommended approval of the project at its Oct. 1, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view of site for the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway.

The site plan proposal calls for tearing down five existing buildings and constructing a 12,850-square-foot, two-story addition to the rear of the church. The addition would be used for educational activities at the church, which is located on a 4.3-acre site in Ward 1, southwest of Broadway’s intersection with Plymouth Road.

According to a staff memo, only minor changes are proposed for the existing 142-space parking lot. Additional sidewalks will be added, including a roughly 20-foot extension of the public sidewalk along Broadway Street, which currently stops short of the south property line.

Because the church is located in an area zoned for single-family residential use (R1C zoning), a special exception use approval was needed from the planning commission. The city’s planning staff noted that the church has been located there for about 50 years. The church has a capacity of 126 seats, which will remain unchanged. At their Oct. 1 meeting, planning commissioners unanimously voted to grant approval for a special exception use.

The project is estimated to cost about $3 million. No approval is required from the city council for the special exception use, but the council must consider the site plan for approval.

6:50 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. Several people are here in support of the ordinance revision to waive fees for park usage if the purpose is to distribute goods to address basic human needs.

6:55 p.m. Fox 2 News is here to cover homelessness issues.

6:58 p.m. Based on overheard conversation, Tom Wall is reportedly going to address the council in his cape and tights as Captain Driver Ed.

7:02 p.m. Councilmembers are signing cards for Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is here. She’d called in sick to the planning commission meeting last night. Most councilmembers are now here, but we seem to be a few minutes away from starting the meeting.

7:04 p.m. Confirmed sighting of Tom Wall as Captain Driver Ed. He’ll be addressing the city council during public commentary reserved time about pedestrian safety. He has a guitar with him.

7:09 p.m. Marcia Higgins has just arrived. And we’re off.

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

7:12 p.m. Approval of agenda. Margie Teall (Ward 4) wants to move coordinated funding (DS-19) to after the consent agenda. That appears amenable to everyone. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) wants to move B-1 (DDA ordinance) after C-2 (DDA ordinance – joint subcommittee version).

7:14 p.m. Communications from city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers thanks the Ann Arbor police department for their work in arresting three suspects in Paul DeWolf homicide. He also says that the Main Street lightpoles have been inspected and that he’ll bring a proposal to the council at their Nov. 18 meeting.

7:14 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.]

Six people are signed up to talk about the ordinance change that would waive the park permitting fee for distribution of goods to address basic human needs: Timothy W. Green, Ray Gholston, Stephan Pate, Ryan Sample, Andrew Mutschler, and Raytheon Jones as well as an alternate speaker, Chris Mckeown.

Ingrid Ault is signed up to speak on the resolution accepting the park advisory commission’s downtown parks report. And two people are signed up to talk about the resolution establishing a pedestrian safety task force – Tom Wall and Kathy Griswold. Dina Kurz is signed up to talk about the Y lot sale. The second alternate speaker is Emily Tondreau, who’s signed up to talk about the evictions of homeless people from their camp sites and the capacity of the shelter.

7:16 p.m. Timothy W. Green introduces himself as a member of Camp Take Notice. He’s been a part of the demonstration in front of city hall on behalf of the homeless community. In response to the count of 165 homeless people, he contends there’s at least triple that number. If you find yourself in a camp, it’s not safe, because AAPD tells you they have to go, he says. If you’re being run off, he asks, where do you go? You pack up and walk around the streets all night, he says. He took the podium to applause and his remarks conclude with applause. He refers to the amount spent on the Dreiseitl fountain next to their protests.

7:18 p.m. Ingrid Ault is addressing the council on behalf of the park advisory commission. She’s chair of that group and was chair of the subcommittee on downtown parks. She describes how the committee met several times over several months. She describes the survey the committee conducted that received over 1,600 responses. She highlights the eight recommendations in the committee’s report.

7:23 p.m. Ray Gholston invites everyone to stand who supports more support for homeless people. Almost everyone in the middle section of the chambers is standing in support. The way Ann Arbor treats the homeless is a human rights violation, he says. He says that if there were a pack of dogs out on Huron Street, people would go make sure they had shelter, but Ann Arborites won’t do the same for the homeless. There’s not enough space in the shelter, he says.

7:25 p.m. Dina Kurz, a member of the city’s energy commission, is addressing the council on the topic of the sale of the old Y lot. She wants the city to negotiate additional features of development on the site that are in line with the climate action plan and sustainability framework. It could become a shining example of what can be done to have less impact on the environment and offer greater sustainability. LEED Gold and the AIA 2030 standards are some of the covenants that the city could instruct the city administrator to write into the legal agreement, she says. She wants the council to “seize this moment.”

7:27 p.m. Stephan Pate introduces himself as a member of the homeless community. AAPD are running people off of property without giving them enough time to gather up their belongings, he says. He asks for enough time to gather up their belongings and live in peace.

7:29 p.m. Kathy Griswold is telling the council about the Ann Arbor Public Schools’ transportation safety committee, which is described on the AAPS website as “Advisory Committee to the Board of Education, the Ann Arbor City Council and, in a less formal manner, other governmental units including the Pittsfield Township Trustees and the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” [Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is listed on Legistar as the council's representative to the committee.]

Griswold is essentially arguing for the expansion of the existing committee, which includes representatives of the University of Michigan, the Center for Independent Living and the Washtenaw Biking and Walking Coalition. Griswold thanks Warpehoski and Briere for their work to bring forward the task force resolution. The TSC was established in 1969, she says. She was a consultant for the TSC back in 2001, she says. It’s time to reassess the situation. She describes legislation in Lansing in the works that would make the Uniform Traffic Code the state law.

7:31 p.m. Andrew Mutschler introduces himself as a member of the Camp Misfit homeless community who are protesting out in front of city hall. He describes how he’d come back to his encampment to find all his belongings gone. He emphasizes that everyone needs stability, a place to call home – even if it’s just a 6×6 roof over your head.

7:34 p.m. Tom Wall is addressing the council as Captain Driver Ed. His son wasn’t allowed to introduce him on account of the speaking rules. He offers to the city, once they’ve decided what to do, his driver ed school, saying it’s very good at education. He’s now singing “Captain Driver Ed, Captain Driver Ed …” People are sort of singing along. “Don’t get distracted, it’s not attractive.” He tells people to clap for him. They do.

7:37 p.m. Raytheon Jones is speaking on behalf of the homeless. It’s a serious problem, he says. “Many of us are troubled, with nowhere to go,” he says. He’s speaking for the disenfranchised, the poor, the homeless and the people who have no voice. He first arrived in Ann Arbor in July a few months ago. He was sitting in a park, not being boisterous, he said. But AAPD had called him over and asked him what he was doing. They’d told him there were people there with their families and he needed to find somewhere else to go. There was no room in the shelter, he said. The homeless need somewhere to go, he says.

7:37 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:40 p.m. Briere is talking about the parking situation at Argo Cascades. The result of the city’s work was to put parking at Longshore Park. The neighborhood was not impressed with that, she says, and it had stopped after one weekend. On Nov. 21, at 7 p.m. the city is holding a public meeting on the parking needs at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Traverwood branch.

7:42 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) responds to the public commentary. She asks if the city administrator can contact the churches that provide a rotating shelter to see if that can be started earlier this year. Mayor John Hieftje says that it’s handled through the Shelter Association center. The warming center will open on Nov. 18, Hieftje says. He’d been in communication with the Shelter Association.

7:44 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) acknowledges that four AAPD officers were honored as officers of the year by the Washtenaw 100 Club. Oct. 24 was the date of this year’s event, she says. She lists off the names of the four officers. They’d entered a burning building and saved woman’s life on Jan. 13, 2013, she reports.

7:48 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) also responds to the public commentary. He points out that there are not only churches but also synagogues. What triggers an eviction? he asks. City administrator Steve Powers says that by ordinance, camping is not allowed in city parks. Warpehoski confirms that it’s complaint driven. Powers also indicates there’s a 48-hour orange notice that’s posted saying: Please move. Powers indicates that he’s discussing the issue with the members of Camp Misfit and with Chief Seto.

Warpehoski says we don’t solve the problem of homelessness just by moving people around. He calls for upholding our laws with maximum humanity. He’s concerned about people’s belongings being respected.

7:49 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) gives an update on the Safety on Seventh campaign. There’ll be a community meeting on possibly more traffic calming. He’s disappointed that two elementary schools have discontinued their walk-to-school programs. He wonders if Bach and Eberwhite ended their program because of the traffic on Seventh Street.

7:51 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) says she wants to change the tone. She recognizes that it’s the last meeting for Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Higgins is presented with a crown, which she puts on. She indicates she’ll be wearing it for the duration of the meeting.

7:53 p.m. Nominations. Nominations tonight include Peter Greenfield to the airport advisory council replacing Wilson Tanner, and Anthony Ramirez to be re-appointed to the cable communications commission. On the housing and human services board, Eleanor Pollack and Thaddeus Jabzanka are being nominated to fill the vacancies left by Ned Staebler and Anthony Ramirez, respectively. Mohammad Issa and Linda Winkler are being nominated for re-appointment to the city’s human rights commission.

On the Ann Arbor housing commission, Christopher Geer is being re-appointed to correct the end date of his term. On Jan. 7, 2013 the council confirmed his appointment for a term ending May 5, 2014. Tonight’s confirmation, which is taking place in one step and needs eight votes to be approved, corrects the end date of his term to May 1, 2017.

7:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve Geer’s re-appointment to the Ann Arbor housing commission.

7:54 p.m. Appointments. The council is being asked tonight to confirm appointments for nominations that were made at the council’s previous meeting on Oct. 21. Nominated to fill the remaining vacancy on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board – due to the resignation of Nader Nassif – was Cyndi Clark, owner of Lily Grace. The business is described on its website as a luxury cosmetics boutique in downtown Ann Arbor.

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

A replacement for Julie Grand on the park advisory commission was nominated at the Oct. 21 meeting – David Santacroce. He’s a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and he chaired the North Main Huron River corridor task force, which worked for a year and delivered its report recently to the council on recommendations to the corridor. Grand attended her last meeting of PAC on Oct. 15, 2013, after completing the maximum two terms of service. Amy Shepherd was nominated to serve on the city’s commission on disability issues. Shepherd is president of the Michigan Parents of Children with Visual Impairments. On the energy commission, Shoshannah Lenski was nominated to replace Mike Delaney, and Mike Shriberg was nominated for reappointment.

7:56 p.m. Hieftje describes Colenback’s credentials as assistant dean at the UM school of social work. Hieftje describes Cyndi Clark as having expertise in retail, in the cosmetics industry, on an international level. Hieftje also praises Santacroce’s work leading the North Main Huron River corridor task force.

7:58 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) highlights the energy commission appointment of Shoshannah Lenski, who works with DTE. Kunselman points out there are some issues with the timely repair of streetlights, citing some near Mary Beth Doyle Park that have been out for quite a while.

7:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the appointments.

8:01 p.m. Hieftje is now talking about the various services that the city of Ann Arbor offers for the homeless community. He recalls running for city council at the time when the building of the Delonis Center was being debated. [The shelter is located at 312 W. Huron, near the downtown.] He reiterates that the warming center is opening on Nov. 18. Hieftje describes how sometimes the AAPD posts notices and after the 48-hour period they return and they find no on there but possessions left behind. It’s something the AAPD is working on, he says.

8:03 p.m. Briere says the opening of the warming center is happening on about the same schedule as in the past. It’s not unusually late, she says. She asks Hieftje if the council will be asked for financial support for the warming shelter. She ventures that because she and Lumm serve on HHSB, they’d have occasion to meet with city and county staff and other nonprofits so that if there’s a need for funding, it can be brought back on Nov. 18.

8:03 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. Two public hearings are scheduled: (1) The council is being asked to adopt an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, which is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]; (2) a site plan for the expansion of the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. The city planning commission recommended approval of the project at its Oct. 1, 2013 meeting.

8:04 p.m. PH-1 Adopt 2013 update to non-motorized plan. Kathy Griswold says it’s an exciting night because there’s more than one item on the agenda involving pedestrian safety. She urges the council to not adopt the update to the plan. It fails to identify funding for all the improvements. The plan alludes to funding improvements with federal Safe Routes to Schools funding and she is “absolutely disgusted” by it because Ann Arbor can afford to fund that itself without tapping federal funds.

8:06 p.m. PH-2 Site Plan: Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:06 p.m. Approval of minutes for previous meeting.

8:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

8:07 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. Tonight’s consent agenda includes approval of new bylaws for two entities – the city’s design review board and the city planning commission. [For more background, see Ethics: Consent Agenda – Planning Commission By-laws above.]

Three other items include a $60,000 contract with Utilities Instrumentation Service for Electrical and Instrumentation Support Services. According to the staff memo, the scope of UIS work will include “transformer testing, infrared testing of switchgear, testing of medium voltage breakers at City substations and generators, programming and calibration of instrumentation, Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) support and troubleshooting, Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) programming, and tuning and testing of dam and hydroelectric generator controls.”

A fourth item on the consent agenda sets a public hearing for establishing an industrial development district (for potential tax abatements) at 1901 E. Ellsworth – for Dec. 2, 2013. And a final consent agenda item increases the amount of a contract the city has with the accounting firm Plante Moran for a thorough review of the city’s permitting processes. That review comes in the context of the discovery that some rental housing permits had not been properly verified, according to city sources. Steps taken by the city staff to correct the problems included a review of all questionable permits. [For more background, see Ethics: Consent Agenda – Rental Housing Inspection above.]

8:07 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Briere wants to pull out CA-2, the planning commission bylaws. Briere says that the planning commission is discussing an additional change to the bylaws, so she wants to postpone until Dec. 16.

8:09 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the consent agenda items, except for the planning commission bylaws, which have been postponed until the second meeting in December.

8:13 p.m. DS-19 Adopt FY 2015-16 human services funding process. The council is being asked to authorize the basic approach that it has taken to human services funding in the past, but with some modifications. The funds would continue to be managed through Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development (OCED), using the coordinated funding approach. The city is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are Washtenaw County, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010; this is the second time that the program has been extended. This resolution does not allocate any funds, but rather authorizes the process for allocation. [For more background, see Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding above.]

8:15 p.m. OCED director Mary Jo Callan is fielding questions from Teall and Lumm.

8:17 p.m. Callan stresses that there’s no “pooling of funds” and that each entity maintains control over the designation of its own funding.

8:18 p.m. Warpehoski asks how the model doesn’t just cherry-pick the easy-to-serve kids and leave out the hardest-to-serve. Callan notes that the targeted population are selected by “let’s start with the poorest folks first.” The funds are in fact for the hardest-to-serve kids, she says.

8:19 p.m. Callan is talking about the best evidence-based practices and that’s what will be funded.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the coordinated funding process.

8:20 p.m. B-1 DDA Ordinance. On the Nov. 7 agenda are two possible revisions to the city’s ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s TIF (tax increment financing) capture (Chapter 7). This is the first version, which has been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013. In summary strokes, this version is different from the competing version on the agenda in the following two ways. This version more nearly enforces the existing language in the ordinance with respect to the amount of TIF revenue the DDA would receive. It also proposes governance changes for the DDA board, which include term limits. [For more background, see Downtown: DDA Ordinance above.]

8:21 p.m. Kunselman asks that it be tabled. That puts it off to a date uncertain. It could be brought back as an option.

8:21 p.m. Kunselman describes how he’s planning to go talk to the other taxing jurisdictions about the council’s efforts. So he moves to table.

8:24 p.m. Teall says “I don’t get it,” saying that it’s been postponed several times. If the alternative proposal from the committee were to pass (the next agenda items) she wants to know what would happen. Kunselman explains the difference between the versions. This current version says that any changes to the restriction would need the approval of the other taxing jurisdictions. So Kunselman wants to discuss the second version with the other governmental entities.

8:24 p.m. Teall wants to know what would cause Kunselman to bring back the first version off the table. “Hopefully nothing,” he says.

8:25 p.m. Kunselman says that he hopes there will be no complaints and no whining.

8:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to table the DDA ordinance change.

8:25 p.m. C-1 Ordinance: Exemptions to park permit requirements. The council is giving initial consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs could be conducted in city parks without incurring a fee for park use. The recommendation for the ordinance change came from the city’s park advisory commission at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting. [For more background, see Downtown (but not only): Park Fee Waiver above.]

8:27 p.m. Taylor is introducing the resolution. He recalls the Pizza in the Park issue in Liberty Plaza downtown. This extends the scope to all parks, not just downtown. Taylor notes that the proposal has been vetted by the park advisory commission.

8:28 p.m. Teall thanks Taylor for meeting with her and the representatives of Camp Take Notice and “taking the ball and running with it.” She thanks the CTN people. She encourages everyone to vote for it.

8:28 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to give initial approval to the ordinance change that would allow for distribution of humanitarian aid in city parks without incurring a fee.

8:28 p.m. C-2 Alternate DDA ordinance revision. This is the second of two versions of the DDA ordinance revision. It’s the result of a joint DDA board and city council committee. It does not include any governance changes. And it would not propose any restriction on DDA TIF revenues until FY 2017. [For more background, see Downtown: DDA Ordinance above.]

8:31 p.m. Kunselman describes the alternative as much “cleaner” and it addresses just the TIF capture. Key stat: The TIF cap would have a basis $224 million taxable value in tax year 2016 with an increase of 3.5%.

8:32 p.m. Kunselman describes the amount of the DDA’s TIF capture as capped at around $6 million for the 2016 tax year. He invites CFO Tom Crawford to the podium.

8:34 p.m. By 2033 there would be “millions and millions” of dollars going back to the taxing authorities, says Kunselman. Crawford says he’d project that within a few years after the cap, more than $1 million would be distributed to the other governmental units.

8:35 p.m. Crawford is now describing the bonding capacity that the cap would allow: $59 million for the next 10 years. If they chose not to bond, the capacity for projects would be smaller.

8:37 p.m. Kunselman says he’ll have a couple of amendments. The point is not to hamstring the ability of the DDA to undertake capital improvements, Kunselman says. Part of the point is to improve the ability of the DDA to budget.

8:40 p.m. Kailasapathy notes that there’s two variables in the TIF plan: escalator and the basis. Crawford has chosen 3.5% which is from the TIF plan to avoid changing the TIF plan. Crawford concedes that the basis for the taxable valuable in the committee’s proposal is not from the TIF plan. Kailasapathy concludes that this is a change to the TIF plan. Crawford says there’s room for differing views on this.

8:41 p.m. Lumm asks about the clause in the existing ordinance that says that the restrictions in the ordinance can’t be removed except by approval of the other governmental units.

8:42 p.m. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales says it’s not possible for the city to abdicate its fiduciary responsibility to another entity.

8:48 p.m. Kunselman forwards an amendment by email to his colleagues about affordable housing.

8:48 p.m. Kunselman notes that the council had revised the DDA’s budget earlier in the year to transfer $300,000 of TIF to the DDA’s housing fund. He moves that the DDA be required to budget $200,000 for the DDA housing fund, starting in 2014, adjusted at the same rate of increase as the TIF income – to be spent on projects that meet the income guidelines of the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Kailasapathy wants the amount to be $300,000. Kunselman agrees. Briere notes that generally there’s an implied expectation that the city would match whatever the DDA does. She wants that on the record. Taylor asks if the proposal is enforceable. Fales says the council has the ability to approve the budget.

8:49 p.m. Briere wants to know if 2014 is tax year, calendar year, or fiscal year. Kunselman says it should be 2016 anyway.

8:54 p.m. Hieftje says he doesn’t think the DDA objects to funding affordable housing. But the DDA’s suspension of transfers to its housing fund was a function of having the obligations of building the underground parking structure, he says.

8:57 p.m. Executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay is fielding questions from the council. Warpehoski says he likes the idea of making sure the DDA’s housing fund is actually an affordable housing fund. But he’s not sure that Kunselman’s approach is right. Kunselman suggests that the requirement for projects to meet the Ann Arbor housing commission’s standards could be tied only to the $300,000 in the ordinance. Warpehoski asks if the HHSAB can simply exercise oversight. Kunselman doesn’t think HHSAB has enough teeth as an advisory body.

9:00 p.m. Kunselman now is amending his own amendment to restrict just the funds mandated by the ordinance to be in support of housing projects that meet the Ann Arbor housing commission’s income standards. Hieftje thinks there needs to be more flexibility. Kunselman amends to cite 50% AMI (area median income) as the standard.

9:03 p.m. Higgins thanks Kunselman for his work. [2016 year refers to the tax year.]

9:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved Kunselman’s amendment.

9:09 p.m. Kunselman is putting forth another amendment involving the capital improvement plan (CIP). This is an amendment from the first version of the ordinance that had received initial approval. Responding to Warpehoski’s question, city administrator Steve Powers says that the amendment would not pose a problem. Briere reviews how the CIP is put together.

9:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved Kunselman’s amendment on the CIP.

9:10 p.m. Lumm is proposing an amendment to add term limits. This is language from the first version.

9:14 p.m. Petersen notes that the bylaws approved by the council that night for the design review board also include term limits. She counters the argument that you lose someone’s expertise if term limits are imposed by saying that you don’t lose their expertise because that can be tapped on an informal basis.

9:15 p.m. Kailasapathy likes the portion of the amendment that restricts elected officials from serving on the DDA board.

9:21 p.m. Briere says that she’s not impressed with the value of term limits for elected officials. She says she might be willing to consider a limit of three consecutive terms instead of two. She argues for that by saying that the planning cycle for DDA projects is 10 years. She doesn’t like the part that says that elected officials of other jurisdictions can’t serve on the DDA board. She opposes term limits on a philosophical basis.

Kunselman replies by saying, “Oh my, look what I’ve started!” He had wanted to leave the governance issues aside because they can be addressed at any time. As far as the mayor’s appointment to the board, Kunselman says that the council could simply choose to appoint the city administrator instead of the mayor, when the council makes its annual committee appointments.

9:22 p.m. Kunselman doesn’t have a problem with elected officials from other jurisdictions serving on the DDA board but wants them all represented – the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, the Ann Arbor District Library, and Washtenaw County. He doesn’t have a problem with term limits.

9:26 p.m. Teall asks how the joint committee had felt about term limits. Lumm says she missed the last joint committee meeting but she’d said at an earlier meeting that she’d wanted the term limits included. Kunselman says his focus had been on the financial picture. He stresses that there be consensus with the body that is being regulated so that they don’t feel “beaten down.” He didn’t want the discussion to be bogged down about feelings. The discussion had been going on for quite some time. “I’m tired of it, and the community is tired of it,” Kunselman says.

9:28 p.m. Teall won’t support the governance amendments including term limits. She wants it to pass with a large majority. Hieftje says he won’t be mayor after 2014. He wants to wait and see if the state legislature takes action requiring the representation of the other governmental units on the DDA board. Term limits have been a disaster with the Michigan legislature, Hieftje says. There is adequate turnover as it is, he says. He won’t support term limits.

9:31 p.m. Kailasapathy offers an amendment that would require representation of all the jurisdictions on the DDA board. Petersen echoes Hieftje’s sentiments, saying that the state legislature may act. Hieftje says the state legislature might act in a way that would allow the addition of representatives from other jurisdictions more swiftly. Discussion of different amendments to amendments.

Hieftje calls for a recess to sort it all out.

9:34 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

9:48 p.m. And we’re back.

9:52 p.m. Lumm is amending her amendment. It would be effective for the first appointment to the board after the date of the ordinance’s enactment. It’s constrained to term limits.

Taylor says term limit are pernicious. It removes the discretion of the appointing body to appoint someone who is actively engaged and serving well. “We’re sapping our boards … of useful engaged knowledgeable” board members, he says. Petersen comes back to the point that the council has just approved bylaws for bodies that include term limits. Taylor says, “I have no drive for perfection.”

9:55 p.m. Kailasapathy says there’s a difference between the Michigan legislature and an appointed body. She says that for elected officials, she doesn’t see the need for term limits. But for appointed boards, the more you get people involved, the more vibrant it becomes and the more perspectives it brings in. Look at the DDA board, she says: Do you want to keep this or do you want more diversity, she asks.

Hieftje says that he can’t recall that a person of color has applied to the DDA. He points to the fact that there are four DDA board members who are in their first terms. He says he’s gone away from nominating developers and has selected representatives from small businesses to serve on the board. He says there is diversity of viewpoint on the DDA board.

9:57 p.m. Lumm says, “You can Google it” to find that term limits are a nonprofit board best practice. It’s a healthy thing. She argues there should be consistency on all the boards and commissions. She argues that opportunities should be opened up for others to serve.

10:00 p.m. Lumm says it’s not difficult to recruit people to serve on the DDA board. Warpehoski says on the broader issue of whether term limits are good or bad, he can find examples of each. Given the small size of the DDA staff, he’s concerned about the preservation of the DDA’s institutional memory. He’d voted to put Russ Collins on the DDA board for a third term, so by the argument of consistency he couldn’t support this amendment. But he rejects the idea of consistency as the main consideration.

10:03 p.m. Kunselman argues that turnover is good when money is at stake. He thinks that two four-year terms is more than most councilmembers serve. As far as his vote for Russ Collins for a third term, he says he likes Russ and used to work for him at the Michigan Theater. But he wouldn’t vote for him again. It’s a core group of people who seem to hang around, he says. He points out that the city charter imposes term limits on certain kinds of boards and commissions. If it’s that big of an issue, a future council can bring it back, Kunselman says.

10:05 p.m. Hieftje proposes a compromise of a limit to three terms, not two.

10:05 p.m. Lumm says “That’s not the kind of revitalization I was looking for.” She says she’ll continue to work on the issue for all boards and commissions, but for tonight she’ll go along with three terms as the limit.

10:07 p.m. Briere challenges Petersen’s assertion that the bylaws of the design review board and the planning commission contain term limits. Higgins says she’d have supported the two-term limit, but will support three. She laments the disparagement of members of a sitting board, some of whom are sitting in the audience. Talking about a changeover and alluding to a “core group” of people is hurtful, Higgins says. That discourages people from stepping forward to serve.

10:08 p.m. Petersen thanks Briere for the correction on the bylaws, and apologizes to Taylor. Hieftje wants to move it along to a vote.

10:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the three-term limit. Teall and Taylor dissent.

10:09 p.m. Warpehoski asks for clarification of the TIF cap. It grows by 3.5%, is the explanation.

10:13 p.m. Taylor says that even though the stated intention is not to harm the DDA, the buying power of the DDA would be reduced by half over the next 10 years. That’s an incredible harm to the downtown, Taylor says. Only half of the excess would come to the city of Ann Arbor, he says. Lumm replies that the amount of TIF the DDA would receive would grow “handsomely” over the next few years.

10:13 p.m. Lumm says that she appreciates the work that has been done on this. She laments the fact that the discussion had become a litmus test of whether someone supports the DDA.

10:13 p.m. Lumm says Higgins was wise to create the joint DDA council committee.

10:16 p.m. To be clear, the council is now discussing the main motion. Hieftje says he is glad that the previous version was not pursued. Hieftje says that if the city is going to survive under Michigan’s funding system, it needs growth. Ann Arbor is fortunate to have UM as a job magnate. The park system attracts people, he says. AAPS also has high quality schools. The vibrant downtown is also an attractant. The DDA is a prime factor for success, says Hieftje.

10:19 p.m. Kailasapathy asks Crawford about the Justice Center bond repayment schedule. She’s referring to the $8 million mentioned in the DDA’s 2008 resolution that goes to the bond repayment. Crawford gives an explanation in terms of the “present value of money.” She points out that the DDA ends in 2033, which goes five years past the end of the DDA’s TIF plan.

10:20 p.m. Kunselman thanks the DDA board members for going through this with him. He makes further conciliatory remarks.

10:21 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the DDA ordinance revision.

10:21 p.m. DC-1 Digital billboard on E. Stadium Blvd. At the council’s Oct. 21 meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) announced the intent to bring forward the resolution, which requests that the University of Michigan decommission the $2.8 million digital billboard that it’s constructed on E. Stadium Blvd. The city’s fallback position is a request that the university operate the billboard (marquee) only around the time of major events at the football stadium or the Crisler Center. The resolution cites the city’s own recently enacted sign ordinance, which constrains the deployment of digital technology for outdoor signs.

According to the resolution, the marquee inflicts the same harms on the community that the city’s newly amended ordinance sought to prevent. [Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – who co-sponsored the resolution with Taylor, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – voted against that ordinance.] Those harms are described in the resolution as “distract[ing] motorists and substantially degrad[ing] the community viewshed…”

10:26 p.m. Hieftje asks that the council not spend a whole lot of time on this. [UM head of community relations Jim Kosteva is in the audience.] Taylor reads aloud some remarks. Teall thanks Taylor for putting it all together. She’d heard comments that the city shouldn’t be bothered because the sign is across from the golf course. She points out that it does face the drivers.

Warpehoski describes the negotiation theory of wish-want-walk. He thinks the absolute minimum the UM should adhere to is FHA (Federal Highway Administration) rules – no animation. He wonders if someone can ask if the brightness of the sign can be adjusted. Kosteva says that the sign complies with the brightness standards. Except for videos shown on game day, he says, the animation does comply with federal standards. Warpehoski says he doesn’t think it’s acceptable to say “We follow the law most of the time.”

10:32 p.m. Higgins says in the interest of sustainability, it doesn’t make sense to have the sign lit at midnight. Kunselman wonders if anyone asked a UM regent about the issue when the marquee was in the planning stages. Kunselman says that he doesn’t want to have the university and the city “lobbing” resolutions back and forth. He doesn’t want to get a resolution from the regents saying, Why don’t you pave the road in front of the stadium?

10:33 p.m. Teall blames the university for not reaching out to the city. Kunselman asks Kosteva why the city wasn’t informed. Kosteva responds by saying his intent was to be present, to be a listener and to take the council’s concerns back to the university.

10:36 p.m. Lumm thanks Kosteva for being there. She’s reading aloud a statement.

10:38 p.m. Anglin says it’s the same drivers who go past it, so he questions what effect it has.

10:41 p.m. Taylor counters Kunselman’s contention that the resolution is heavy-handed, saying that it was open and temperate communication. Petersen wonders if the UM would consider showing public service announcements from the city on the marquee.

10:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the resolution requesting the University of Michigan decommission its $2.8 million billboard.

10:41 p.m. DC-2 Accepting PAC downtown parks subcommittee report on downtown parks. This resolution would accept the report of a subcommittee of the city’s park advisory commission, which studied the question of the need and best location for additional downtown parks. The subcommittee delivered its recommendations at the Oct. 15, 2013 meeting of PAC and PAC voted to recommend them to the city council for adoption. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

The eight recommendations are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process. [For more background, see Downtown: Parks above.]

10:42 p.m. Taylor is introducing the resolution.

10:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted over dissent from Mike Anglin (Ward 5) to accept the report on downtown parks.

10:43 p.m. DC-3 Ethics resolution The resolution does not include “ethics” in the title, but addresses the kind of issues that could be described under the general rubric of “ethics.” The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute. A final “resolved” clause direct 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 final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard that’s recommended by the council rules committee and it’s strictly followed – would end any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government.

10:43 p.m. Petersen, who is the sponsor of the resolution, asks for postponement.

10:44 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone direction for education on professional standards and tasking the rules committee with drafting standards of conduct.

10:44 p.m. DC-4 Pedestrian safety task force. The resolution establishing the task force acknowledges that many residents are concerned that current city policies create an unsafe environment for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. The pedestrian safety and access task force would consist of nine residents. Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application]

The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting. The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. [For more background, see Non-Motorized Issues: Pedestrian Safety above.]

10:53 p.m. Briere is introducing the resolution. She responds to Griswold’s suggestion during public commentary that the AAPS transportation safety committee be adapted to this purpose. But Briere notes that the TSC is not a city committee. Briere gives the rationale for the creation of the committee.

Warpehoski explains that there’s been a lot of interest in participation but the size of the task force was intended to provide focus and to allow the group to operate efficiently. Powers says that the task force won’t staff itself and would depend on any budget the council might approve. A budget is not a part of tonight’s resolution. Briere says she’s received positive communication from the University of Michigan about participation, and thinks that some of the cost could be offset by the UM.

10:57 p.m. Kunselman wonders if the timeline isn’t too aggressive. He questions if it’s realistic. Kunselman ticks through some of the items in the cost analysis, and wonders if it really would be $100,000. Kunselman asks where the funding would come from.

Public services area administrator Craig Hupy confirms it would be on the order of $100,000. [.pdf of Nov. 7 memo on pedestrian safety] It would have to come from the general fund. Kunselman questions what the goal of the task force would actually be. Warpehoski says if people want to put it off and take more time, he’s willing to postpone. Kunselman comes back to the point of an aggressive timeline. Staff resources are limited, he says, and there are other issues that might need to be focused on.

11:06 p.m. Kunselman isn’t sure the resolution is really ready. He doesn’t think the work is going to be done by September 2014. It took 8 months just to get a DDA ordinance passed, he notes. Briere argues for the establishment of a task force. Hieftje wonders if Warpehoski and Briere would be amenable to postponement. Briere says she will support that, but wants her colleagues to focus on recruitment of volunteers for the task force. Petersen will support postponement, but wonders if this task force shouldn’t be a standing committee, instead.

11:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone the creation of the pedestrian safety task force.

11:07 p.m. DC-5 Y Lot sales agreement. The resolution would direct city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the purchase of the city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. Dahlmann has offered $5.25 million for the property, known as the Y lot. It had been listed at $4.2 million. The city has a $3.5 million balloon payment on a loan it took out to purchase the property, which it has now owned for 10 years. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

If negotiations with Dahlmann are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). The bids from Dahlmann and CA Ventures were judged to be the two best out of the five bids on the property the city received by the Oct. 18 deadline. [.pdf of summary page by Jim Chaconas] The resolution directs the city administrator to present to the council a sales agreement – with Dahlmann or CA Ventures – for consideration at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. [For more background, see Downtown: Y Lot Sale above.]

11:08 p.m. From the audience, Donald Salberg asks if he could comment. No, says Hieftje.

11:11 p.m. Taylor says he has been concerned all along about the use of the property. He says that the city and the community should understand more clearly what the property would be used for. He says that he’s forwarded an amendment to his colleagues. The resolution would direct how the sales agreement would be structured – with an obligation that a structure be built, and that the building be energy efficient and that the AAATA be involved in the conversation.

11:16 p.m. Taylor is now reading aloud the amendment. There’s a minimum 400% FAR including mixed use on the bottom floor, office space on the mid-floors and residential on the top floors. The uses are essentially those that are described in Dahlmann’s letter. The deadline for building something is January 2018. There’s a prohibition against sale to another third party except that the city has a right of first refusal.

11:17 p.m. Taylor continues with reading aloud the amendments on requirement for energy efficiency and the required conversation with the AAATA.

11:19 p.m. Petersen checks the arithmetic on 400% FAR. She confirms that Taylor is rounding 350% FAR to 400%. Briere contends that D1 requires 400% at a minimum anyway.

11:21 p.m. Teall says she’s concerned about the future use. She thinks that a hotel would be suitable for that parcel. She feels that visitors to the downtown are an economic generator. She appreciates the amendments.

11:25 p.m. Hieftje invites broker Jim Chaconas to the podium. He compliments Chaconas on his good work. Hieftje wants to pay off the debt. He doesn’t want to roll the dice and refinance. He asks Chaconas if the additional requests might cause Dahlmann or CA Ventures to balk. Chaconas says some of the requests make sense. But he doesn’t want to put too many restrictions on it. Dahlmann is offering a lot of money for the property, he says. Hieftje ventures that there’s an opportunity for negotiation.

11:26 p.m. Lumm says that the resolution is not written like a negotiation. She wants to “pound through” the amendments with Chaconas.

11:28 p.m. On the 400% FAR minimum, Chaconas contends that it’s a part of D1 zoning.

11:31 p.m. Kailasapathy asks Chaconas about the energy efficiency clauses. Briere stresses that Dahlmann would need to seek premiums to build more densely than 400%. Chaconas says that the amendments are items that have mostly been discussed with councilmembers.

11:33 p.m. Warpehoski says that he’s breaking council rules to disseminate Taylor’s amendments to the press. Kunselman thanks Chaconas. Kunselman says use can’t be controlled. What the council wants is a really nice building. He doesn’t think the amendments overload the property with use requirements.

11:36 p.m. Petersen points out that there are other city-owned properties that could be developed – responding to the possibility that the council doesn’t get the use it wants for this parcel.

11:37 p.m. The vote on the amendments is unanimous. [.pdf of Taylor's amendments.]

11:37 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the resolution, as amended, directing the city administrator to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the former Y lot in downtown Ann Arbor.

11:37 p.m. DC-6 “Eat the Street” temporary food sales. The council is being asked to grant approval, under Chapter 55 (Zoning), Section 5:10.15(h) of the city code, for temporary sales of food at the vacant property at 1215 South University. The request is being made of the council by the South University Area Association (SUAA), which is planning a special event from Nov. 8, 2013 through Jan. 8, 2014. SUAA wants its “Eat the Street” event to include outdoor food cart sales at the location.

11:38 p.m. Lumm is thanking the South University Area Association and everyone’s hard work.

11:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the temporary sales of food for “Eat the Street.”

11:38 p.m. DC-7 Amicus brief on abortion clinic protest buffer zones. This resolution was added to the council’s agenda at around 4 p.m. today. It would list Ann Arbor as a “supporting municipality” in an amicus brief to be filed with the United States Supreme Court in a case to be heard by the court in McCullen v. Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The plaintiff in that case is challenging a law creating a 35-foot buffer zone around Massachusetts abortion clinics, where people cannot demonstrate.

The city of Ann Arbor would be weighing in to support the idea that laws can be enacted establishing buffers around abortion clinics where people cannot demonstrate. Tangentially related to buffer zones for protest, in 1990 Ann Arbor voters agreed to amend the city charter to establish the city as a “zone of reproductive freedom.” From Chapter 20 of the Ann Arbor city charter: “No person within the City of Ann Arbor shall violate any law, rule, or regulation of this state which restricts or prohibits the right of any woman to an abortion, or which restricts or prohibits the right of a person to perform an abortion, as such right existed on January 20, 1981.” The resolution is co-sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

11:39 p.m. Taylor invites city attorney Stephen Postema to explain the background.

11:43 p.m. Postema argues for his position based on the need for local authorities to exercise appropriate authority to balance time, place and manner considerations with First Amendment rights. He assures Taylor that it would not be a burden of city attorney resources, saying he merely needs to inform the filers of the amicus brief of the council’s vote.

11:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve placing the city of Ann Arbor as a supporting municipality signing on to the amicus brief.

11:43 p.m. DB-1 Non-motorized transportation plan. The council is being asked to adopt an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, which is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update] [For more background, see Non-Motorized Issues: Non-Motorized Plan Update above.]

11:44 p.m. Briere asks Hupy to the podium. He defers to transportation program manager Eli Cooper and city planning manager Wendy Rampson.

11:51 p.m. Lumm says that with so many items on the agenda, she hasn’t had time to read through the plan. She wonders if there’s support for postponement. Hieftje allows that Lumm is right about it being an important document. There’s been a tremendous amount of work on the plan, Hieftje says. It’s already been through an extensive process. Surrounding municipalities have reviewed it, and it has been adopted by the planning commission. Hieftje is not inclined to postpone.

Kunselman asks if the plan has implications for grant eligibility. Yes, says Cooper. He gives an example of a non-motorized bridge across US-23 that was funded because it was indicated in the city’s non-motorized plan. Anglin says the council has heard a request from Lumm for more time. Lumm now moves for postponement.

11:54 p.m. Hieftje indicates that he’s already expressed his opinion. Briere allows it’s possible to be overloaded during campaign season. But she’s followed the plan in its development and now she’s ready to vote on it. There were no surprises in the update, she says. She feels that there are times when the council postpones beyond what’s reasonable. The item was on the agenda on Thursday. Kunselman says that postponing won’t hurt anything. It won’t cause any problems, he says. Teall says she’s ready to vote.

11:55 p.m. Lumm alludes to the solid waste plan, which the council had decided it needed to amend.

11:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the update to the non-motorized plan. Voting for postponement were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Lumm, Kunselman, Higgins and Anglin.

11:57 p.m. DB-2 Site plan: Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church. The council is being asked to approve a site plan for the expansion of the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. The city planning commission recommended approval of the project at its Oct. 1, 2013 meeting. The site plan proposal calls for tearing down five existing buildings and constructing a 12,850-square-foot, two-story addition to the rear of the church. The addition would be used for educational activities at the church, which is located on a 4.3-acre site in Ward 1, southwest of Broadway’s intersection with Plymouth Road.

11:58 p.m. A representative of the project is giving a description of the project at Briere’s request.

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church on Broadway.

11:58 p.m. DS-1 through DS-6 MDEQ for SAW. The next six resolutions are grant requests, related to state legislation passed in 2012 that forms the statutory framework of the Stormwater, Asset Management and Wastewater (SAW) program – a grant program. The legislation funds grants and loans for what the staff memo accompanying the resolutions describes as “funding for grants and loans for asset management plan development, stormwater management plan development, sewage collection and treatment design plan development, and state-funded loans to construct projects identified in the asset management plans.”

Although communities that are awarded grants can receive a maximum of $2 million in total grant funds through the SAW program, the city of Ann Arbor is applying for the following six grants, on the idea that it will maximize its chances if the state uses a lottery type system. [For more background, see Capital Projects: State Funding of Water Asset Projects above.]

11:59 p.m. Hieftje is putting the six resolutions before the council all in one go.

11:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to approve all of the MDEQ grant requests through the SAW program.

12:00 a.m. DS-7 Barton Dam repair ($123,684). The council is being asked to approve a contract with Catskill Remedial Contracting Services Inc. to install a “drainage blanket” for the earthen berm adjoining Barton Dam ($123,685). A drainage blanket is a pervious but stable layer of material installed directly at the base of a structure to facilitate drainage. The installation is meant to repair a “boil” that has surfaced in the drainage ditch at the base on the right embankment at the dam. The boil has been identified as a potential cause of failure for the embankment by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – which is responsible for regulating the dam, because the dam generates electric power. [For more background, see Capital Projects: Barton Dam Repair above.]

12:00 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the contract with Catskill to install the drainage blanket.

12:00 a.m. DS-8 I-94 Business Loop and South Maple Road resurfacing project ($301,600). This project resurfaces the section of Huron Street from Main Street westward as Huron becomes Jackson Avenue on to I-94. The project will include a re-striping to reduce the number of lanes from four to three and add bicycle lanes. On the agenda is approval of an agreement with MDOT, which is required because the city must contribute 12.5% of the funding to the resurfacing. That accounts for $198,700. The additional funding is needed to pay for the resurfacing of the portion of South Maple Road, as a part of the project. South Maple is a city-owned street. MDOT has agreed to include the South Maple resurfacing as part of the project, but it will be funded by the city of Ann Arbor $102,900. [For more background, see Capital Projects: I-94 Business Loop ($301,600) above.]

12:00 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to approve the MDOT contract.

12:00 a.m. DS-9 Sidewalk special assessment resolution – Stone School Road. This is the first of a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Stone School Road for construction of sidewalks, curb and gutter as a part of a road reconstruction project. The resolution simply directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed. [For more background, see Capital Projects: Stone School Road Sidewalk above.]

12:02 a.m. Kunselman reports that there was a good public meeting on the topic. An issue that had arisen was the desire for more streetlights. He says it’s significant that there’s an 80% federal grant supporting the assessed costs.

12:02 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the design and cost estimates for the Stone School Road sidewalk project.

12:02 a.m. DS-10 Sidewalk special assessment resolution – Scio Church. This is the first in a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Scio Church, west of Seventh Street for construction of a sidewalk there to eliminate a gap. The resolution directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed. The Scio Church resolution appropriates $35,000 for the design work. [For more background, see Capital Projects: Scio Church Sidewalk above.]

12:03 a.m. Teall says it’s another very exciting project. She thanks neighborhood resident Peter Houk for his work.

12:04 a.m. Higgins has a question for Craig Hupy. Scio Church Road is coming up for reconstruction, she ventures. Hupy says it’s on the radar but was pretty far off.

12:04 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct preparation of sidewalk design for Scio Church.

12:05 a.m. DS-11 Tech engineering services ($250,000). The council will be asked to approve two different contracts that resulted from a bid that the city put out in June 2013 – for technical engineering services to support the water treatment services unit with capital, operation, and maintenance project support for the water system, dams, and hydroelectric generating stations. One of the contracts is with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. ($250,000). The other contract is with Tetra Tech of Michigan ($250,000). First up is Stantec.

12:05 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Stantec.

12:05 a.m. DS-12 Tech engineering services ($250,000). This is the second of two contracts related to the same RFP put out by the city. This one goes to Tetra Tech of Michigan.

12:05 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Tetra Tech.

12:05 a.m. DS-13 Purchase ozone generator dielectrics ($68,209). The council is being asked to approve a purchase order with Ozonia for ozone generator dielectrics. The city uses ozone in its disinfection process for its drinking water.

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of ozone generator dielectrics.

12:06 a.m. DS-14 Domestic violence grant ($300,000). The resolution accepts a three-year $300,000 supplemental grant for the 15th District Court from the U.S. Department of Justice to enhance countywide efforts to prevent domestic violence, effective Sept. 12, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2016. [For more background on this and the next five resolutions, see Social Capital: 15th District Court above.]

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the domestic violence prevention grant.

12:06 a.m. DS-15 Drug court grant ($144,000). The resolution accepts a Michigan Supreme Court drug court grant for the 15th District Court. The 15th District Court’s sobriety court is “hyper-intensive probation,” which follows sentencing.

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the drug court grant.

12:06 a.m. DS-16 Dawn Farm contract ($88,000). The resolution authorizes a contract with Dawn Farm for out-patient drug abuse counseling as part of the 15th District Court’s sobriety court ($88,000).

12:07 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the contract with Dawn Farm.

12:07 a.m. DS-17 Veterans court grant ($92,279). The resolution accepts the Michigan Supreme Court veterans treatment court program grant.

12:07 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the veterans court grant.

12:07 a.m. DS-18 SafeHouse Center contract ($114,000). This resolution authorizes a contract with SafeHouse to provide domestic violence preventions services ($114,000), using funds accepted under DS-14. Under terms of the contract, SafeHouse Center will provide confidential support, information and referrals for victims of domestic violence cases in the 15th Judicial District Court, 14A Judicial Court and 14B Judicial District Court; monitor court and probation activity as it relates to victim safety; work collaboratively to enhance victim safety; and offer advice and training to judges, magistrates, probation and compliance officers and community partners.

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the contract with SafeHouse.

12:08 a.m. DS-20 Accept public utilities easement. The property is located at 490 Huron Parkway owned by Johnson Building Group LLC.

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the easement.

12:08 a.m. DS-21 Accept public utilities easement. The property is located at 1500 Pauline Ave., owned by Pauline Apartments Limited Dividend Housing Association Limited Partnership.

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the public utilities easement.

12:09 a.m. DS-22 Vacate a public utilities easement. The property is located at 3100 Washtenaw Ave. (Arbor Hills Crossing).

12:09 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to vacate the easement.

12:12 a.m. Council communications. Warpehoski says that with the Y lot resolution, there was a step towards having more money in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. He’d had conversations with some Washtenaw County commissioners about a county site on Platt Road. One of the possible uses for that county-owned property is affordable housing. He says that the city might want to be a partner with the county on the issue of affordable housing.

12:13 a.m. Briere is talking about affordable housing.

12:14 a.m. Hieftje says that in his experience the only way you get anything done on the issue of affordable housing is when you have partners.

12:14 a.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:21 a.m. Seth Best from Camp Take Notice thanks the council for their action on the park permitting ordinance. He shares his experience as a homeless person in Ann Arbor. While the warming shelter will be opening on Nov. 18, there’s not sufficient capacity, he says. Ed Vielmetti is now addressing the council. He’d followed the meeting for a while on CTN tonight, and had come down to address the council. He asks the council to be more clear about the outcome of votes. He notes that it’s difficult to watch the meetings at local establishments like bars and laundromats without closed captioning. He gives a plug for the civic technology meetup group that he’s started.

12:25 a.m. Caleb Poirer thanks Higgins for her service. He thanks Kunselman for his efforts on affordable housing. He thanks Briere for bringing up the possibility of the city matching the DDA’s contribution to affordable housing. He regretted some of the comments of public speakers at the start of the meeting that had characterized the leadership of Ann Arbor negatively. But he was going to join those who spoke in support of their advocacy.

12:28 a.m. Farewell to Higgins. Teall leads off by saying, “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.” She calls Higgins a great friend and a mentor. Teall tells Higgins her institutional memory has been very valuable. Hieftje has left his seat. Higgins is invited to take the seat as mayor pro tem. Taylor is now praising Higgins for her hard work.

12:29 a.m. Taylor says Higgins is good at taking care of slow, important things.

12:29 a.m. The beauty of Higgins’ being permeates the room and makes him joyful, Kunselman says. He praises her for her firmness and her longevity.

12:34 a.m. Lumm says Higgins has so many magnificent qualities. Higgins is going to blaze new trails, Lumm says. She calls Higgins a “class act.” She thanks her for her many years of service. Petersen thanks Higgins for welcoming Petersen to the council. She says she’ll miss her phone conversations with Higgins. Briere says she figures Higgins must get tired of all the praise. She recalls the time that the council used the county board room when city hall was being renovated, and Higgins had suggested that councilmembers sit next to different people.

12:38 a.m. Briere thanks Higgins for her body language. Kailasapathy says that she’d received some stares so she jokes she must not have been behaving. Anglin tells Higgins that Ann Arbor is a better town for her service. Warpehoski says he appreciates Higgins’ experience. On a lighter note, Warpehoski says he now feels less pressure to change his name to something that begins with “M” – alluding to Margie Teall, Mike Anglin, and Marcia Higgins.

12:39 a.m. Hieftje is now delivering his remarks. He thanks Higgins for her service. He reminds everyone that she’s not leaving town and that you can still have a beer with her.

12:41 a.m. Higgins is reviewing all the councilmembers she’s served with. It’s been “an amazing journey,” she says. Each and every person who’d previously sat there had helped her, so it was gratifying to hear people say that she’d helped them. She calls the current administrator the best of those she’d served with. “Thank you all,” she concludes. She gets a round of applause.

12:44 a.m. Teall brings up a bag with a city of Ann Arbor jacket and presents it to Higgins. City administrator Steve Powers has lost his balance and has fallen out of his chair. [See clarifying comment below that "... Powers actually rolled the wheel of his chair off the elevated platform where the mayor and administrator sit."]

12:44 a.m. Powers is unscathed.

12:44 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 online agenda management system. Image links to the Nov. 7 meeting agenda.

The city’s downtown factors prominently on the agenda in at least three ways. The city council will be asked to consider passing a resolution to direct the city administrator to negotiate a sales agreement for the city-owned property on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues, known as the old Y lot. The council will also be considering a revision to the city ordinance regulating the tax increment finance (TIF) capture of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That’s been under consideration by the council since February, but now a committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has put forward a competing recommendation, which will also be on the Nov. 7 agenda.

Also related to downtown, the council will be formally accepting a report completed by the city’s park advisory commission with recommendations on downtown parks.

Non-motorized issues also factor prominently as a theme of the Nov. 7 agenda. In addition to an update of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, the council will consider establishing a pedestrian safety task force. The council’s agenda also includes the first of a series of resolutions for two separate sidewalk projects – one on Stone School Road and another on Scio Church Road. The council’s resolutions for those projects, directing the design work and detailed cost estimates, are the first actions necessary for some of the funding of the sidewalks to be special assessed to the adjacent property owners.

An additional project related to non-motorized issues, but not obviously so, is a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to resurface a portion of Huron Street from Main Street westward as Huron becomes Jackson Avenue on to I-94, as well as a section of South Maple. The intent is to re-stripe the roadway, reducing the lanes from four to three and adding bicycle lanes.

The sidewalk and street projects are among several capital improvement-related items on the agenda, including one that would help stabilize the earthen berm adjacent to Barton Dam. The council will also be considering a half dozen resolutions that will authorize applying for state grants that could fund capital asset projects for the city.

In addition to the items related to the city’s physical infrastructure, the council has several items that could be described as relating to the city’s social infrastructure. Those items relate to grants from the state and federal government to the 15th District Court for several of its specialty courts that focus on drug offenses, domestic violence, and veterans issues. The council will also be asked to approve a modified continuation of its coordinated funding approach to human services.

The agenda includes some council initiatives announced at the council’s previous meeting on Oct. 21. One of those is a resolution requesting that the University of Michigan decommission a recently constructed digital billboard near the football stadium.

Another one is a resolution directing the education of city officials on professional conduct. Related tangentially to those ethical considerations are the approvals of new bylaws for two of the city’s boards and commissions – the planning commission and the design review board.

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

Downtown

The agenda includes several items related to the downtown area.

Downtown: DDA Ordinance

On the Nov. 7 agenda are now two possible revisions to the city’s ordinance regarding how the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s TIF capture is regulated (Chapter 7). The first version has been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013.

The second version is the result of recommendations by 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 are Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Representing the DDA are Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel and Joan Lowenstein.

A range of possible parliamentary mechanisms are available to the council for handling the two competing versions of the ordinance amendment. One approach would be to put off deciding between the two versions at the Nov. 7 meeting – by postponing the first version and giving the second version an initial approval. That could move the debate to the council’s Nov. 18 meeting – after the new composition of the city council is seated.

Another parliamentary approach on Nov. 7 could be to amend the first version through substitution of the second. Or the council could vote down the first version and consider the second version. The council could also vote to give the first version final approval and not consider the second version when it’s reached on the agenda. The first version appears first on the agenda – but that order could be re-arranged at the start of the meeting.

The first version, which will be in front of the council for final approval, would clarify the existing language of the ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF capture in a way that would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction in the ordinance. The restriction on TIF revenue that’s already expressed in the ordinance is defined by reference to the amount of growth in taxable value in the DDA district that’s anticipated in the DDA’s TIF plan – a foundational document of the DDA. When those restrictions are applied to the DDA’s TIF revenue, then the amount of TIF received by the DDA would be roughly $4 million in FY 2015. By way of comparison, in the current fiscal year (FY 2014), under its preferred interpretation, the DDA looks to capture approximately $4.5 million of the taxes levied by other jurisdictions.

Under the first version revision, that roughly $0.5 million difference would 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%). So out of a $500,000 return to other taxing jurisdictions, the city of Ann Arbor would receive $300,000. However, that $300,000 would be distributed proportionally to the funds generating Ann Arbor’s levy. Part of Ann Arbor’s levy is a transportation tax that is passed through to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. So of the $300,000 that would be returned to the city, about $40,000 of it would be passed through to the AAATA.

However, the total amount that would be returned on the first version revision is projected to rise each year from that roughly $0.5 million, to somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million in FY 2017 based on projects in the downtown under construction and in the approval process.

The second version, proposed by the committee, would set a cap on DDA TIF revenue that would not apply at all until FY 2017 and would result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year, with an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions. The city’s portion of that would be roughly $180,000, distributed proportionally across all its funds that get income from a captured levy, including the general fund.

Another major difference between the first version and the committee-recommended version of the Chapter 7 ordinance change is that the first version includes revisions to governance of the DDA, which the committee-recommended version omits. Those governance revisions include (1) a two-term limit for service on the DDA board; (2) a prohibition against elected officials, other than the mayor, serving on the DDA board; and (3) service of the mayor on the board (a possibility explicitly provided in the DDA state enabling legislation) subject to annual approval by the city council. If the council did not approve the mayor’s service on the DDA board in a given year, then that spot would go to the city administrator.

Downtown: Y Lot Sale

A resolution added to the agenda on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013 would direct city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the purchase of the city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. Dahlmann has offered $5.25 million for the property, known as the Y lot. It had been listed at $4.2 million. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

If those negotiations are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings).

The memo accompanying the Nov. 7 resolution states:

The offers from Dennis Dahlmann and CA Ventures are the strongest (cash, no contingencies, sales agreement, close in 2013) of the five proposals. Differences between the two offers are slight, but may be significant to city council. Dahlmann is proposing a purchase price of $5,250,000. CA Ventures is proposing $5,150,000. Dahlmann is proposing to build to less than the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning. CA Ventures’ offer assumes the ability to build to the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning.

The Nov. 7 resolution directs the city administrator to provide a purchase agreement for the property for the council’s consideration at its Nov. 18 meeting. That purchase agreement is supposed to include protections against the property not being developed.

While the council’s Nov. 7 meeting follows the Nov. 5 city council elections, the Nov. 18 meeting is the first meeting of the newly constituted council. The Nov. 7 resolution is sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. [.pdf of summary page by Jim Chaconas]

The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale, as the city faces a $3.5 million balloon payment this year from the purchase loan it holds on that property. The city has owned the land for a decade.

Downtown: Parks

A subcommittee of the park advisory commission (PAC) has been meeting since early 2013 to explore the possibilities for a new downtown park. The subcommittee delivered its recommendations at the Oct. 15, 2013 meeting of PAC. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

Ingrid Ault chaired the committee, which also included Julie Grand, Alan Jackson and Karen Levin. The committee’s work is also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project.

The subcommittee’s work was guided by this mission statement:

To determine whether and what additional parks are wanted and/or needed in downtown Ann Arbor, focusing on city-owned parcels in the DDA district while maintaining awareness of additional nearby properties, for example: Liberty Plaza, 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington. The “deliverable” will be a set of recommendations for the City Council.

The eight recommendations are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process. The AADL board and staff discussed this recommendation at their Oct. 21, 2013 meeting.

Downtown – and Citywide: Park Fee Waiver

The council will be giving initial consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs 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, which is a downtown park.

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 a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when the city staff considered applying fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church. The proposal recommended by PAC on Sept. 17, and on the council’s Nov. 7 agenda, would amend Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language]

It would be 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.

Non-Motorized Issues

Several items on the council’s Nov. 7 agenda relate to non-motorized issues.

Non-Motorized Issues: Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Update

The council is being asked to adopt an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, which is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.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 a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

Non-Motorized Issues: Pedestrian Safety

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) announced at the council’s Oct. 21 meeting that they’d be bringing forward a proposal to establish a pedestrian safety task force. At the Oct. 21 meeting, Warpehoski stated that the effort was not meant as an alternative to the efforts that other councilmembers are making to bring forward a repeal of the city’s pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the 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 to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk. The resolution establishing the task force acknowledges that many residents are concerned that current city policies create an unsafe environment for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

The pedestrian safety and access task force would 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.” Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application] The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting.

The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

Some of the recent community conversation has included the fact that traffic crashes involving a pedestrian have shown an increase in the last two years, the period during which Ann Arbor adopted its local ordinance that requires more of motorists than the UTC. The charts below are by The Chronicle using data from Michigan Traffic Crash Facts.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: Ann Arbor

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG region.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG Region by County

Pedestrian Crashes by Year: Washtenaw County Outside Ann Arbor

Capital Projects

The Nov. 7 city council agenda includes a number of resolutions involving capital projects and expenses, some of which relate to non-motorized issues.

Capital Projects: I-94 Business Loop ($301,600)

This project would resurface the section of Huron Street from Main Street westward as Huron becomes Jackson Avenue on to I-94. The project will include a re-striping to reduce the number of lanes from four to three and add bicycle lanes. An agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is required because the city must contribute 12.5% of the funding for the resurfacing. That accounts for $198,700. Additional funding is needed to pay for the resurfacing of the portion of South Maple Road, as part of the project. South Maple is a city-owned street. MDOT has agreed to include the South Maple resurfacing as part of the project, but it will be funded by the city of Ann Arbor for $102,900.

Capital Projects: Stone School Road Sidewalk

On the council’s agenda is the first of a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Stone School Road for constructing sidewalks, curbs and gutters as part of a road reconstruction project. The resolution simply directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed.

Capital Projects: Scio Church Sidewalk

Also on the council’s agenda is the first in a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Scio Church, west of Seventh Street, for constructing a sidewalk there to eliminate a gap. The resolution directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed. The Scio Church resolution appropriates $35,000 for the design work. [For Chronicle coverage of a neighborhood meeting on the Scio Church sidewalk, see "Sidewalks: Build, Repair, Shovel"]

Capital Projects: Barton Dam Repair

The council will be asked to approve a contract with Catskill Remedial Contracting Services Inc. to install a “drainage blanket” for the earthen berm adjoining Barton Dam ($123,685). A drainage blanket is a pervious but stable layer of material installed directly at the base of a structure to facilitate drainage. The installation is meant to repair a “boil” that has surfaced in the drainage ditch at the base of the right embankment at the dam. The boil has been identified as a potential cause of failure for the embankment by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – which is responsible for regulating the dam, because the dam generates electric power.

The contract is recommended to be awarded to Catskill, even though Pranam GlobalTech provided the lowest bid. The staff memo cites “substandard performance” by Pranam GlobalTech on two other city projects, which led to the disqualification of their bid. The cost of the project will be split between the water fund (as the dam creates a pond from which the city draws the majority of its drinking water) and the general fund (for the hydroelectric operations).

The council had been alerted to the need for this project earlier this year, at a Feb. 11, 2013 work session on the FY 2014 budget. From The Chronicle’s report of that session:

In addition to the concrete and steel part of the dam, a roughly 3/8-mile long earthen embankment is part of the structure that forms Barton Pond, [public services area administrator Craig] Hupy explained. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) has required the city to do some investigative work, and the city thinks there’ll be some follow-up work required when that investigative work is completed. [FERC is involved as a regulator because the Barton Dam generates electricity.]

Responding to a question from [Ward 3 councilmember Christopher] Taylor about the anticipated cost of the additional work, Hupy indicated that it would be “six figures.” The city is putting about $400,000 total in various parts of the budget for it. But until the study work is completed later this spring, the amount can’t be more precise, Hupy indicated. Because Barton is a federally controlled dam, whatever the work the city does will be what the regulator demands that the city does or doesn’t do. “Stay tuned,” Hupy told Taylor.

Capital Projects: Technical Engineering Services

The council will be asked to approve two different contracts that resulted from a bid it put out in June 2013 – for technical engineering services to support the water treatment services unit with capital, operation, and maintenance project support for the water system, dams, and hydroelectric generating stations. One of the contracts is with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. ($250,000). The other contract is with Tetra Tech of Michigan ($250,000).

Capital Projects: Ozone

The council will be asked to approve a purchase order with Ozonia for ozone generator dielectrics ($68,209). The city uses ozone in the disinfection process for its drinking water. The city is currently out of spare dielectric units, which are the components that convert oxygen gas to ozone gas. So this resolution would allow the city to have replacement parts on hand if the units fail.

Capital Projects: State Funding of Water Asset Projects

Six resolutions appear on the council’s agenda related to state legislation passed in 2012 that forms the statutory framework of the Stormwater, Asset Management and Wastewater (SAW) program – a grant program. The legislation funds grants and loans for what the staff memo accompanying the resolutions describes as “funding for grants and loans for asset management plan development, stormwater management plan development, sewage collection and treatment design plan development, and state-funded loans to construct projects identified in the asset management plans.” [.pdf of FAQ by the State of Michigan on the SAW program] [PA 511 of 2012] [PA 560 of 2012] [PA 561 of 2012] [PA 562 of 2012]

Although communities that are awarded grants can receive a maximum of $2 million in total grant funds through the SAW program, the city of Ann Arbor is applying for the following six grants, on the idea that it will maximize its chances if the state uses a lottery type system. The first $1 million has a 10% local match requirement, and the second $1 million of grant money has a 25% local match requirement.

The city is applying for funding for some projects that have already been started, because money awarded through the SAW program can be spent retroactively as early as Jan. 2, 2013. The council will be considering six resolutions corresponding to grant requests from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for the following projects.

• Asset Management Plan for the Sanitary System ($1.1 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($25,000) for a total of $125,000.
• Asset Management Plan for the Stormwater System ($1.1 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($25,000) for a total of $125,000.
• Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Evaluation Project (retroactive) ($1.2 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($50,000) for a total of $150,000.
• Stormwater Model Calibration Project (retroactive) ($750,000): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($75,000) or 25% of second million ($187,500) for a maximum of $187,500.
• Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Asset Management Program ($350,00): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($35,000) or 25% of second million ($87,500) for a maximum of $87,500.
• Asset Management Plan for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Sanitary Sewer System ($1.5 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($125,000) for a total of $225,000.

Social Infrastructure

In addition to physical infrastructure items, the council’s Nov. 7 agenda also includes several pieces of business that could be described as related to social infrastructure.

Social Infrastructure: 15th District Court

The council will be asked to consider authorizing five grant-related items involving the specialty court functions of the 15th District Court. [For background on the 15th District Court and some of its functions, see Chronicle coverage: "Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court"]

• Accept three-year $300,000 supplemental grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to enhance countywide efforts to prevent domestic violence, effective Sept. 12, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2016. Of the grant total, $181,000 will reimburse the city for the salaries for a full-time domestic violence probation officer, a half-time system coordinator, and a part-time data entry clerk. Another $5,000 will reimburse the city for training expenses required by the U.S. Dept. of Justice. The remaining $114,000 will reimburse the city for a contract with SafeHouse Center to provide domestic violence prevention services.
• Authorize contract with SafeHouse to provide domestic violence prevention services ($114,000). Under terms of the contract, SafeHouse Center will provide confidential support, information and referrals for victims of domestic violence cases in the 15th District Court, 14A District Court and 14B District Court; monitor court and probation activity as it relates to victim safety; work collaboratively to enhance victim safety; and offer advice and training to judges, magistrates, probation and compliance officers and community partners.
• Accept Michigan Supreme Court drug court grant ($144,000). The 15th District Court’s sobriety court is “hyper-intensive probation,” which follows sentencing. The court assigns a full-time probation officer to the sobriety court for a program that lasts 18-24 months and includes monitoring of participants’ attendance at treatment programs, their progress in treatment, how they’re spending their time at work and doing community service. Reporting requirements are extensive. Participants must take frequent portable breath tests (PBTs) and urine tests. The majority of sobriety court participants are second-offender DWI cases, but offenses need not be driving-related. Also eligible to participate in sobriety court are, for example, retail fraud (shoplifting) offenders and misdemeanor drug possession offenders. Some of that grant money will fund a contract with Dawn Farm.
• Authorize contract with Dawn Farm ($88,000). The contract is for out-patient drug abuse counseling as part of the 15th District Court’s sobriety court.
• Accept Michigan Supreme Court veterans treatment court program grant ($92,279).

Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding

The council will be asked to authorize the basic approach that it has taken to human services funding in the past, but with some modifications. The funds would continue to be managed through Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development, using the coordinated funding approach.

The county is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010; this is the second time that the program has been extended.

The coordinated funding process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The approach targets six priority areas, and identifies lead agencies for each area: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

Last year, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended. One of those changes is that funding would not necessarily be allocated to the six priority areas based on the proportion of funding allocated in the past. Instead, allocations among the six priority areas would be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized. An additional change would broaden the pre-screening process so that smaller nonprofits could be accommodated.

Recommendations for specific funding allocations will be made in spring 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process. One of the goals of coordinated funding is to attract more partners, such as private foundations.

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners gave initial approval to the continued use of the coordinated funding approach at its Oct. 16, 2013 meeting.

Ethics

The council’s agenda includes a couple of items that relate to ethics.

Ethics: Professional Standards of Conduct

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) is bringing forward a resolution that does not include “ethics” in the title, but addresses the kind of issues that could be described under the general rubric of “ethics.” The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute.

A final “resolved” clauses direct 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 final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard that’s recommended by the council rules committee and it’s strictly followed – would end any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government.

Ethics: Consent Agenda – Planning Commission Bylaws

The Nov. 7 consent agenda includes approval of new bylaws for two entities – the city’s design review board and the city planning commission.

Not the subject of a revision, but still the source of some recent community interest, is the following clause from the planning commission bylaws, which imposes a limitation on the ability of a councilmember to address the city planning commission:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.

That part of the bylaws surfaced recently, when councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy on separate occasions sought to address the planning commission – Warpehoski on July 16, 2013 and Kailasapathy on Aug. 13, 2013.

Based on an analysis in the Michigan Municipal League’s “Handbook for Municipal Officials,” it may be problematic for a city councilmember to address a body like the planning commission. That’s not based on having a property interest in a matter, but rather because the council is the appointing body for the commission. The handbook presents the following scenario as an ethical exercise – using the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). From the MML Handbook:

Situation #2 Before you were elected to the city council you served on your city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), so you know the ZBA procedures very well. A few months after your election to council, your neighbor and campaign manager files a petition with the ZBA seeking a variance. Since you know how the ZBA works, he asks you to accompany him to the ZBA and to speak on his behalf. Should you do it?

The analysis offered by the handbook is the following:

No. The Michigan Court of Appeals has labeled this situation as “patently improper” and an abuse of public trust for the reason that the person making the argument to the ZBA is also one of the people charged with appointing the ZBA. This creates duress on the ZBA, raising doubt about the impartiality of the ZBA’s decision. Any decision made by the ZBA under these circumstances is void. See Barkey v. Nick, 11 Mich App 361 (1968).

The implication of the Ann Arbor city planning commission bylaw is that it’s permissible for a city councilmember to address the commission exactly when the councilmember is not the petitioner or does not have an interest in the matter. That situation appears to be explicitly deemed unethical by the MML Handbook, if the handbook’s analysis is extended from the ZBA to the planning commission.

Ethics: Consent Agenda – Rental Housing Inspection

A consent agenda item increases the amount of a contract the city has with the accounting firm Plante Moran for a thorough review of the city’s permitting processes. That review comes in the context of the discovery that some rental housing permits had not been properly verified, according to city sources. Steps taken by the city staff to correct the problems included a review of all questionable permits. That included site visits to eight residential properties, six of them occupied, to ensure no one was living in unsafe conditions.

Re-inspection continues of residential and business properties to verify issued permits, to ensure the accuracy of the city’s records. Property owners are not being charged additional costs for re-inspection. The city anticipated that over 80 properties would be re-inspected as of Oct. 30. The permits for those 80 properties compare to a total number of 10,000 building and rental permits issued annually.

Miscellaneous

A number of other items appear on the agenda. Here are a few highlights.

Misc: Consent Agenda

Three other consent agenda items include a $60,000 contract with Utilities Instrumentation Service for electrical and instrumentation support services. According to a staff memo, the scope of UIS work will include “transformer testing, infrared testing of switchgear, testing of medium voltage breakers at City substations and generators, programming and calibration of instrumentation, Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) support and troubleshooting, Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) programming, and tuning and testing of dam and hydroelectric generator controls.”

A fourth item on the consent agenda sets a public hearing for establishing an industrial development district (for potential tax abatements) at 1901 E. Ellsworth. That hearing will be held on Dec. 2, 2013.

Misc: Church Site Plan

The council will be asked to approve a site plan for the expansion of the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. The city planning commission recommended approval of the project at its Oct. 1, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view of site for the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway.

The site plan proposal calls for tearing down five existing buildings and constructing a 12,850-square-foot, two-story addition to the rear of the church. The addition would be used for educational activities at the church, which is located on a 4.3-acre site in Ward 1, southwest of Broadway’s intersection with Plymouth Road.

According to a staff memo, only minor changes are proposed for the existing 142-space parking lot. Additional sidewalks will be added, including a roughly 20-foot extension of the public sidewalk along Broadway Street, which currently stops short of the south property line.

Because the church is located in an area zoned for single-family residential use (R1C zoning), a special exception use approval was needed from the planning commission. The city’s planning staff noted that the church has been located there for about 50 years. The church has a capacity of 126 seats, which will remain unchanged. At their Oct. 1 meeting, planning commissioners unanimously voted to grant approval for a special exception use.

The project is estimated to cost about $3 million. No approval is required from the city council for the special exception use, but the council must consider the site plan for approval.

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!

If those negotiations are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings).

The memo accompanying the Nov. 7 resolution states:

The offers from Dennis Dahlmann and CA Ventures are the strongest (cash, no contingencies, sales agreement, close in 2013) of the five proposals. Differences between the two offers are slight, but may be significant to city council. Dahlmann is proposing a purchase price of $5,250,000. CA Ventures is proposing $5,150,000. Dahlmann is proposing to build to less than the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning. CA Ventures’ offer assumes the ability to build to the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning.

The Nov. 7 resolution directs the city administrator to provide a purchase agreement for the property for the council’s consideration at the council’s Nov. 18 meeting. That purchase agreement is supposed to include protections against the property not being developed.

While the council’s Nov. 7 meeting follows the Nov. 5 city council elections, the Nov. 18 meeting is the first meeting of the newly constituted council. The Nov. 7 resolution is sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. [.pdf of summary page by Jim Chaconas]

The city hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale, as the city faces a $3.5 million balloon payment this year from the purchase loan it holds on that property. The city has owned the land for a decade.

Now a surface parking lot, the site was zoned D1 as part of the original A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) zoning process. The site was also one of five parcels that was the focus of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project, and was part of a more recent evaluation by the city’s park advisory commission as a potential downtown park.

Dahlmann owns the Campus Inn and the Bell Tower hotels in downtown Ann Arbor.

Added on Nov. 1, 2013 at 5 p.m. after initial publication: In a letter to the city dated Oct. 30, 2013, Dahlmann indicates that it “plans to develop a mixed-use project on the Y Lot, with destination retail/restaurant space on the first floor, large plate office space on the remaining lower floors, and residential apartments on the upper floors.” The letter continues, “density on the Y Lot will be significantly less than the maximum allowed by D-1 zoning. There will not be a massive big-box building covering the site.”

Dahlmann’s Oct. 30 letter also describes an open-space element:

… a substantial landscape open-space designed by a nationally known landscape architect SmithGroup JJR of Ann Arbor and maintained by the developer. SmithGroup JJR designed the fountain and gardens in front of the campus in, which had been a featureless concrete slab when Dahlmann Properties purchased the hotel that had previously been in receivership. SmithGroup JJR also designed the Central Park Dahlmann Properties proposed for the Library Lot in November 2009. Elements of that plan will be incorporated in this project, including among other things, a grand fountain.

The letter emphasizes that the residential component will not target the student demographic, stating there will be no four, five or six bedroom apartments. The timeframe for development indicated by Dahlmann in the Oct. 30 letter is under a year, with an indication that Dahlmann will “submit its site plan to the planning commission within 6 to 12 months of closing the purchase and will adopt and be bound by the recommendations of the city’s design review board.”

• Smart Hotels Opus Development: $5.2 million. Contingencies include: off-site parking in Library Lane and 4th and William public parking structures; and 700% floor area ratio (FAR) [(1) apartment – at least 130 market-rate units; (2) hotel – at least 120 guest rooms; (3) retail]. The offer expires if the city doesn’t indicate the terms are acceptable within 10 business days after receipt of the Oct. 18 letter (Nov. 1). [.pdf of Smart Hotels Opus Development offer 10.18.13]
• Hughes Acquisition: $5.2 million. The approach would be to agree to purchase, pending approval of a site plan in accordance with the D1 zoning, with 180 days to obtain the city council and planning commission approvals. What’s planned is a mixed use development that might include on the upper floors: (1) market rate apartments (with a maximum of three bedrooms per unit); (2) a hotel, with conference or other ancillary facilities; and/or (3) office space. The plan would not include any residential units that contain more than three bedrooms. [.pdf of Hughes Acquisition offer 10.18.13]
• Morningside Equities: $4.2 million. Morningside would have a 60-day investigation period and another 180-day period to obtain approvals from the planning commission and city council for a site plan. The offer describes a mixed-use development concept that “maximizes the property’s value.” The concept doesn’t include student housing, according to the offer. The offer expires on Oct. 25. [.pdf of Morningside Equities offer 10.18.13]
• Dennis Dahlmann: $5.25 million. There would be no inspection or due diligence period. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]
• Clark Street Holdings: $5.15 million. There would be a 30-day due diligence period. [.pdf of Clark Street Holdings offer 10.18.13]

The property was listed at $4.2 million with purchase offers due by Friday, Oct. 18.

The city council is exploring whether to sell that property, which is also across from the downtown Ann Arbor District Library. Earlier this year, the city selected Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale, as the city faces a $3.5 million balloon payment this year from the purchase loan it holds on that property. The city has owned the land for a decade.

Now a surface parking lot, the site was zoned D1 as part of the original A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) zoning process. The site was also one of five parcels that was the focus of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project, and was part of a more recent evaluation by the city’s park advisory commission as a potential downtown park.

Two months ago, at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor city planning commission made recommendations on the development of the former Y lot. Among others, those recommendations included: a building that generates foot traffic, provides a human scale at the ground floor and creates visual appeal; a “mixed use” development; and a building with vehicular access and parking that are accessed via the city’s new Library Lane underground parking structure.

The Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority board voted at its Oct. 17, 2013 meeting to form a subcommittee to have conversations with the eventual successful bidder on the property to establish good relations and participate in potential negotiations on the property. That was an alternative to the AAATA making a bid on the property. The AAATA has historically had an interest in acquiring the land, and still envisions the block as a center of transit activity.

The Hughes offer indicates that: “In addition, Purchaser will work closely with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to determine the feasibility of expanding their bus facility onto the Property, in order to minimize bus staging on Fourth Avenue and William Street. Preliminary discussions with the AATA have already been held.” The cover letter for the Smart Hotels Opus proposal, written on their behalf by local developer Peter Allen, also indicates a willingness to work cooperatively with AAATA.

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 AAATA voted to establish a committee to meet with whatever developer makes a successful purchase offer on the lot. Also announced is that the old BTC building, located on the opposite side of the block, will be demolished in early November, somewhat ahead of the original timing. (Photos by the writer.)

The funding agreement between the AAATA and the city of Ypsilanti formalizes the existing arrangement under which Ypsilanti passes its dedicated transit millage through to the AAATA. The board approved it unanimously. The Ypsilanti city council will consider the agreement on Nov. 5.

In another piece of business that came at the end of the meeting, after a closed session that lasted about an hour and a half, the board voted to establish a subcommittee to meet with whichever developer might make the winning bid on the city-owned property at Fifth and William – known as the old Y lot. That’s an alternative to the AAATA attempting to bid on the property itself, which was listed at $4.2 million. Bids were due by Oct. 18. The city paid $3.5 million for the property 10 years ago and still owes that much on a balloon payment due at the end of this year.

An item that simply authorized the purchase of additional vehicles for the AAATA’s vanpool program had some complex history behind it – involving the federal government shutdown. The shutdown prevented the AAATA from completing its pursuit of a waiver from the Federal Transit Administration for the Buy America requirement. And the Buy America requirements were pointing the AAATA toward purchasing more expensive vehicles (Chevrolet Traverses) that did not fit the needs of passengers as well as the non-qualifying vans (Dodge Caravans). So the board opted to use local millage revenue, and to backfill the operational expenses that the millage money was covering – by using federal preventive maintenance dollars.

In a final routine item, the board authorized the AAATA’s chief executive officer to execute contracts with MDOT that are less than $1 million.

A common thread among public commentary and other board communications was the 5-year service improvement plan the AAATA has developed, and the schedule of public meetings to introduce that plan.

Editor’s note: For the AAATA’s Oct. 17 meeting, The Chronicle hired a CART (Communications Across Real Time) professional to provide a real-time “text” stream of the meeting that was accessible online through The Chronicle. The resulting transcript from that live text stream is available here: [link]. The Chronicle is experimenting with ways to make public meetings more accessible to a broader segment of the community, and to provide archival transcripts of those meetings.

Financial Terms: AAATA, Ypsi City

The board was asked to ratify its side of a transportation funding agreement with the city of Ypsilanti, which was admitted as a member of the AAATA four months ago, on June 20, 2013.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, mayor Paul Schreiber indicated that the Ypsilanti city council is scheduled to consider the agreement on Nov. 5.

That financial agreement comes as the Ann Arbor city council is set to consider at its Oct. 21 meeting the approval of another change to the AAATA’s articles of incorporation – to add Ypsilanti Township as a member of the AAATA. At the Oct. 17 board meeting, it was indicated that the AAATA would be considering a similar financial agreement with the township. That agreement would differ from the one considered by the board on Oct. 17 with the city of Ypsilanti in at least one respect – the source of funds. While the city of Ypsilanti has a dedicated transit millage, the township obtains services through a purchase-of-services agreement (POSA).

The agreement between AAATA and the city of Ypsilanti recognizes the AAATA as the public transportation provider for the city of Ypsilanti. The agreement is to transfer the full amount generated by Ypsilanti’s 0.9879 mill transit tax to the AAATA. The tax was authorized by voters in 2010 and is estimated to generate $273,797 in 2013. However, the agreement calls for the AAATA to pay the city of Ypsilanti 1% of the amount generated by the millage to cover costs that include tax assessment, billing, collection, and various city clerk responsibilities.

The agreement also establishes reporting requirements on the AAATA to the Ypsilanti city council – including submission of the AAATA’s budget for comment, provision of the AAATA’s audited financial statements, and a quarterly activity report with information on ridership, budget variations, and other service metrics. The AAATA is also supposed to keep the Ypsilanti city council apprised of any long-term decisions. The two parties agree under terms of the document to recognize that their obligation as public bodies is to “exist harmoniously for the public good.” [.pdf of resolution and AAATA-Ypsilanti agreement]

Financial Terms: AAATA, Ypsi City – Board Deliberations

Toward the start of the meeting during communications time, Gillian Ream Gainsley – who represents the city of Ypsilanti on the AAATA board – reported that she’d attended the Ypsilanti city council meeting on Tuesday, just to speak in favor of the council’s support for the city joining the authority. She indicated that she felt there was a lot of support for the two cities to be working together on transportation service.

Standing is board member Jack Bernard. Seated is Gillian Ream Gainsley, a board member who represents Ypsilanti.

When he reported out on the items from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson noted that Jack Bernard [a board member who's an attorney in the University of Michigan's office of the general counsel] had raised the question of what happens if there’s a breach of the agreement on either side. If the money doesn’t arrive from Ypsilanti, does AAATA have the right to terminate service, or if the AAATA terminated service, would both parties be in breach? While Bernard had flagged that issue, it seemed like a very unlikely occurrence, so the committee was comfortable with the agreement as written.

When the board came to the item on its agenda, Kerson described the agreement as formalizing the relationship that already exists. It puts in writing that the funds generated from Ypsilanti’s transportation millage will flow through to the AAATA on an indefinite basis. Those funds will automatically flow to the AAATA, and that stabilizes the AAATA’s finances, enables long-term planning and is a good way to continue the good faith relationship, he said.

Ream Gainsley added the understanding had always been that the city of Ypsilanti’s dedicated transit millage would flow directly to the AAATA, so the agreement was in everyone’s interest.

Board chair Charles Griffith ventured that if the Ann Arbor city council were to approve membership of Ypsilanti Township in the AAATA at its Oct. 21 meeting, then a similar agreement would be executed with the township. CEO Michael Ford confirmed Griffith’s understanding.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the financial agreement between the AAATA and the city of Ypsilanti.

Subcommittee on Y Lot

The board considered a resolution related to the city-owned parcel on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor, known as the old Y lot. The resolution established a committee to meet with whatever party might make a successful purchase proposal for the city-owned parcel.

The resolution to form a subcommittee – whose members aren’t yet identified – is an alternative to bidding to purchase the property.

The AAATA has historically been interested in the property, which is immediately south of the AAATA’s downtown Blake Transit Center. The city’s purchase of the land in 2003 followed an attempt by the AAATA to acquire and develop the parcel. The AAATA continues to envision the block as a center of transit activity.

The property was listed at $4.2 million with purchase offers due by Friday, Oct. 18. The AAATA board resolution indicates in a “whereas” clause that any offers are expected to be brought to the Ann Arbor city council’s Oct. 21 meeting. The resolution is based on the idea that the AAATA wants to establish good relations with any potential developer of the site.

The subcommittee of the board is supposed to meet with developers and take part in future negotiations.

The city council is exploring whether to sell that property, which is also across from the downtown Ann Arbor District Library. Earlier this year, the city selected Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale, as the city faces a $3.5 million balloon payment this year from the purchase loan it holds on that property. The city has owned the land for a decade.

Now a surface parking lot, the site was zoned D1 as part of the original A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) zoning process. The site was also one of five parcels that was the focus of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project, and was part of a more recent evaluation by the city’s park advisory commission as a potential downtown park.

Two months ago, at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor city planning commission made recommendations on the development of the former Y lot. Among others, those recommendations included: a building that generates foot traffic, provides a human scale at the ground floor and creates visual appeal; a “mixed use” development; and a building with vehicular access and parking that are accessed via the city’s new Library Lane underground parking structure.

Subcommittee on Y Lot: Board Deliberations

The AAATA board resolution was not originally on the agenda, although a closed session did appear on the agenda. That closed session came at the end of the meeting and lasted about an hour and a half. Land acquisition is one of the reasons that a public body can enter into a closed session under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Old Y lot from the northeast corner of Fourth Avenue and William Street. Part of the site, now a surface parking lot, is being used as a staging area for construction of the AAATA’s new Blake Transit Center.

When the board emerged from the closed session, Roger Kerson read aloud the resolution and gave some commentary on it. Kerson chairs the AAATA’s performance monitoring and external relations committee.

Kerson described the formation of a subcommittee to engage the eventual developer of the site as an alternative to the AAATA purchasing the property.
Even though making a successful bid for the property would give the AAATA complete control, Kerson said, it’s not practical for the AAATA to make a bid at this time – as it would deplete the AAATA’s financial reserves.

So instead, Kerson said, the AAATA should be proactive and engage with whomever the city selects as the successful bidder. The AAATA could make its needs known to the developer with respect to providing transit. The idea would be possibly to help the developers meet their needs and simply be a good neighbor. Kerson said it would be best to engage early, instead of waiting to review something that a developer might come up with, without the AAATA’s input. The subcommittee would actively engage that process, Kerson concluded.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve a resolution to form a subcommittee of AAATA board members to meet with the future developers of the old Y lot.

Subcommittee on Y Lot: BTC Construction

Also at its Oct. 17 meeting, the AAATA board was updated regarding progress on construction of a new transit facility immediately adjacent to the old Y lot.

New Blake Transit Center awning under construction on Oct. 18, 2013.

Completion of the new Blake Transit Center building, located on the Fifth Avenue side of the lot, is now expected toward the end of January 2014, which is about six weeks later than originally planned. The old building, which stands on the Fourth Avenue side, was originally not planned for demolition until the new building was complete. However, because the construction schedule has slipped and AAATA staff are concerned about a hard winter arriving and stalling the demolition schedule, the AAATA is planning to demolish the old building sooner than that.

The strategy will be to use trailers as a temporary substitute for the building. Terry Black, AAATA manager of maintenance who’s supervising the construction, explained that the target date for transitioning from the old building to trailers is Oct. 28. During the week of Oct. 28, the move will be made out of the old building, and then on the weekend of Nov. 2-3 the building will be torn down.

Vanpool Vehicles

The final form of the item on the agenda authorizing vanpool vehicle purchases evolved through a couple of different iterations – due in part to the federal government shutdown.

A vanpool is essentially a group of people who are provided a vehicle, and charged a price for the use of that vehicle so they can drive to work together. According to CEO Michael Ford’s written update to the board, the AAATA’s vanpool program currently has 44 active vanpools.

The resolution in its final form authorized the purchase of up to 40 vehicles for the AAATA’s vanpool program to replace aging vehicles, as well as to meet additional demand for the program. The vans will be either Dodge Caravans (mini-vans) at $21,356 from Snethkamp of Lansing, or Ford Econoline vans (full-size vans) from Gorno of Woodhaven, at $20,940.

According to the resolution, the Ford Econoline meets the conditions of the Federal Transit Administration’s Buy America program – which require 65% American components and final assembly in the United States. The Dodge Caravan meets the 65% American-made component requirement, but is assembled in Canada – with union labor. So the funding of the Caravan, which does not meet all the FTA’s Buy America criteria, will be drawn from local millage money, while the Ford vehicles will use federal funds.

According to AAATA manager of service development Chris White, operations that the local millage money would have covered will instead be paid for with federal dollars.

Vanpool Vehicles: Background on Resolution

Minutes from the AAATA’s planning and development committee meeting earlier in the month indicate the original proposal was to purchase 25 vans, with the option of 10 additional vans. And according to the minutes of the Oct. 8, 2013 committee meeting, at that time the AAATA estimated that during the current fiscal year, a total of 35 vans – either to replace aging vehicles or to provide a vehicle for new vanpools – would be needed.

The AAATA’s preferred approach would have been to use a Buy America waiver to purchase Dodge Caravans, which the Federal Transit Administration had granted back in May 2012 when the AAATA began its vanpool program. However, a year ago, in November 2012, the FTA rescinded the Buy America waiver for Dodge Caravans. But in rescinding the waiver, the FTA also provided a way for a transit authority to petition the FTA for waivers on a case-by-case basis.

AAATA board member Eli Cooper.

According to an Oct. 16 memo from CEO Michael Ford to the board, the AAATA had begun working with the FTA in May 2013 to obtain a waiver for Dodge Caravans.

However, because of the federal government shutdown, FTA representatives overseeing the Michigan area were not able to consider the AAATA’s request for waiver on FTA’s Buy America program for the Dodge vehicles. So the request originally placed on the agenda was just to buy 10 Buy America compliant vehicles right now, in order to meet immediate needs. The vehicles specified in the initial version of the resolution were for the Chevrolet Traverse – which is a “crossover” vehicle something like an SUV or a van – to be sourced from LaFontaine Chevrolet of Dexter at a cost of $28,175 each. While the Traverse met the Buy America standard, only 10 were to be purchased, because AAATA staff didn’t feel the vehicle would meet the needs of vanpool riders.

After that resolution was prepared, according to Ford’s memo to the board, additional requests for vanpools were received, which bumped the estimated total number of vehicles needed for the next fiscal year to 40.

That led the AAATA to pursue the strategy of using local millage money for the Dodge vans, but federal funds for the Fords. Vehicles purchased with local millage money are not subject to Buy America requirements. The local revenue would otherwise be used for operations. The federal grant funds that would have been used to purchase the vehicles were transferred from the vanpool vehicle line item to the preventive maintenance line item. Preventive maintenance is considered operating revenue.

The argument for that strategy expressed in Ford’s memo was that purchasing more expensive vehicles ($28,175 each for the Chevrolet Traverse compared to $21,356 each for the Dodge Caravan) would have been a lose-lose proposition, because the vehicles did not meet the purpose of the program as well as the less-expensive vehicles.

Vanpool Vehicles: Board Deliberations

Eli Cooper led off deliberations by appealing to the “base definition” of the program: “It is a vanpool program. It is not the SUV crossover program!” He ventured that anybody who is familiar with the difference between the amount of useable room inside a minivan [Dodge Caravan] compared to a small SUV [Chevrolet Traverse] would recognize the higher level of comfort and convenience for vanpool riders.

Roger Kerson, AAATA board member and Dodge Caravan owner.

Cooper also stressed the cost difference between the two vehicles: $28,175 each for the Chevrolet Traverse compared to $21,356 each for the Dodge Caravan. About the Traverse, Cooper said: “They are not vans.” The Traverse could accommodate seven passengers, but “if you are anything older than ten years old, then try to
get into the back row, the third row seating in a Traverse!” Cooper said he didn’t think that’s the right way for the AAATA to treat its customers.

Cooper reviewed the issue with the Buy America waiver, allowed that a waiver might have been forthcoming. The older vehicles, inherited from the MichiVan program, are wearing out and need to be replaced. He said there was not time for the crisis in government to be resolved before bringing the resolution forward. Cooper said he was glad that staff was creative enough to find a way to be flexible about the funding so that the vehicles could be purchased.

Earlier in the meeting during his report from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, Roger Kerson commented on the Buy America policy as it relates to the Dodge Caravan.

He described it as the preferred vehicle, which is assembled in Canada, and thus does not meet the Buy America requirements. He told his colleagues that he knew a lot about this from his work for the UAW – that the Caravan is a vehicle made by union members in Canada. [Kerson was head of public relations for the UAW for three and a half years, through 2009.] Kerson pointed out that the UAW’s website promotes the Caravan as a union-made vehicle, and the Caravan has many American parts.

Kerson told his board colleagues that personally he owns a Caravan. He said that purchasing a Caravan supports jobs in Michigan – because the engine, powertrain and many of the key components are made in the U.S. before being trucked over to Windsor for final assembly.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the vanpool vehicle purchases.

MDOT Contract Authorization

The board considered a resolution giving CEO Michael Ford authorization to execute all contracts with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation that are less than $1 million for the next fiscal year, through Sept. 30, 2014.

It’s a routine annual authorization. Other than a brief description from Roger Kerson, there weren’t any substantive deliberations on the topic. Ford is expected to report to the board on all the contracts he executes under this authorization.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to authorize the CEO to execute contracts with MDOT that are less than $1 million.

Communications, Committees, CEO, Commentary

At its Oct. 17 meeting, the board entertained various communications, including its usual reports from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, the planning and development committee, as well as from CEO Michael Ford. The board also heard commentary from the public.

The main highlight with threads across different points in the board’s meeting was the 5-year plan for service improvements that the AAATA is proposing. The service improvements would be implemented if additional funding is provided, likely in the form of a millage to be levied by the AAATA itself. The amount of the additional tax levy would be about 0.7 mills. No decision has yet been made by the board to place a millage before the voters, but that could take place as soon as May 2014.

The current efforts of the AAATA to increase service frequency, times and geography are the outcome of a demised effort to create a countywide authority in 2012. The Ann Arbor city council subsequently gave direction to the AAATA to focus its efforts on the communities that are located more geographically near Ann Arbor. With the addition of the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township (pending Ann Arbor city council action on Oct. 21), about 50% of the county’s population live in a member jurisdiction.

Comm/Comm: 5-Year Service Plan – CEO Remarks

Board member Eli Cooper and CEO Michael Ford both noted that the staff had participated in a city council work session earlier in the week, on Oct. 14, 2013. The “urban core” implementation program focuses on local improvements for Ann Arbor. As part of the program, the city of Ann Arbor would receive a 33% increase in service. Additional meetings are scheduled. Ford reported that staff continues to meet with community leaders and elected officials to gain their support and interest in the process.

Comm/Comm: 5-Year Service Plan – First Meeting

Board member Jack Bernard reported that he’d attended the first of the 5-year service plan public meetings, which took place just before the Oct. 17 board meeting. There are a lot more of them scheduled, he said.  Chris White and Michael Benham had done a fantastic job talking with the first group of people, Bernard reported. The presentation went smoothly, and the questions from the public were fielded very well. It was really wonderful to see the interaction between the staff and the public, Bernard said.

Comm/Comm: 5-Year Service Plan – Impact on Taxicab Drivers

During public commentary at the first 5-year service plan meeting, which took place on Oct. 17 from 4-6 p.m. – before the 6:30 p.m. AAATA board meeting – Bill Higgins addressed the staff about concerns he had as a cab driver. He reprised his remarks at the board meeting during public commentary. [This is not the same Bill Higgins who recently attended a community meeting on sidewalk construction on Scio Church Road.]

Higgins said he’d been a cab driver for about 25 years and has ridden the AAATA buses probably for 40 years. He told the board that the bus service is squeezing the cab drivers. As an example, he described the AAATA’s AirRide service between downtown Ann Arbor and Detroit Metropolitan Airport as $7. [The fares listed on the AirRide website show fares in that range only for senior rides, at $7.50. Standard fare for a walk-on, for example, is $15 for a one-way trip.]  If the rate were $12, then he felt he’d have a chance to compete.

The art fair shuttle offered by the AAATA has the same negative impact, he said. On football Saturdays, the AAATA’s shuttle service also has a negative impact on the ability of taxicab drivers to earn a living, he said. Another AAATA program that’s eating into the taxicab business is the University of Michigan MRide program, which allows UM students to get rides on AAATA buses without paying a fare to board. Instead of paying for a cab to go shopping, they just take the bus.

Increasing the hours of service, he said, would  keep putting the squeeze on taxicab drivers, he said, who are just barely making enough money to live in Ann Arbor.

Present: Charles Griffith, Eric Mahler (arrived later in the meeting), Susan Baskett, Eli Cooper, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale, Gillian Ream Gainsley.

Absent: Sue Gott.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Nov. 21, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [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 Area Transportation Authority. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already on board The Chronicle bus, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Highlighted in yellow is the location of the former YMCA lot, which the city of Ann Arbor is considering selling. A $3.5 million balloon payment on the property is due at the end of 2013.

A similar proposal to start the process for selling the lot was considered at the council’s Aug. 20, 2012 meeting, but received the support of only three representatives on the 11-member council: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Some councilmembers were generally in favor of selling the lot, but called the effort premature, given a planning effort that was then underway. This time around the resolution was co-sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and the vote was nearly unanimous. The lone vote of dissent came from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

What’s changed since August 2012 also relates to a project the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has been working on for almost two years, the Connecting William Street project, a planning effort that includes the former Y lot. The Connecting William Street project was undertaken by the DDA based on a directive from the city council, on a unanimous vote, given at its April 4, 2011 meeting. And at a Jan. 7, 2013 working session, the DDA gave a presentation to the council on its recommendations for future use of five city-owned parcels in the downtown area – the former Y lot, the Kline’s lot, the Palio lot, the Fourth and William parking structure, and the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage.

The city had used a loan to purchase the property from the YMCA for $3.5 million in 2003. The council voted in 2008 to extend a five-year loan with the Bank of Ann Arbor for another five years, through the end of 2013. The interest rate is 3.89%. The interest-only payments work out to roughly $140,000 a year. By the end of 2013, the total interest paid will be around $1.4 million.

A building on the site was condemned, and the cost of demolishing it and abating asbestos was around $1.5 million. The Ann Arbor DDA covered the demolition costs and has covered half of the interest payments. So the total amount of Ann Arbor governmental investment in the property is at least $6.4 million.

Revenue from the surface parking lot on the site – which charges a $1.40 hourly rate – amounts to $105-$140 per space per month for roughly 140 spaces. Over the last year, the lot has generated a rough average of around $20,000 per month. But usage has decreased since the opening of the new 711-space Library Lane underground garage, located across the street.

That parking revenue from the former Y site is collected by the Ann Arbor DDA, which operates the city’s public parking system under contract with the city. Under terms of that contract, the city receives 17.5% of the gross parking system revenues. Also under terms of the contract, the DDA has the option to object to eliminating a facility from the parking system, within 30 days of notification by the city.

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]

A section of a partially complete mural at Allmendinger Park, funded through Ann Arbor’s existing Percent for Art program. (Photos by the writer.)

The public art millage would be levied at a rate of 0.1 mill, which would raise around $450,000 from Ann Arbor taxpayers annually. Passage of the public art millage would, according to the corresponding charter amendment, suspend the city’s public art funding mechanism embedded in the Percent for Art ordinance – but only for the duration of the four-year millage.

A selling point of the millage, compared to the current Percent for Art program, is that millage money could be used more flexibly than money set aside under the Percent for Art program. The Percent for Art ordinance requires that 1% of all city capital projects be set aside for art. But this funding mechanism carries with it a legal requirement that art paid for through the program be in some sense “monumental” art that is permanent. Performance art or temporary installations would not qualify under the current program.

Even though a millage offers more flexibility, leaders in the arts community are concerned about a possible perception that it would be completely flexible – which led the council to change the ballot language and charter amendment from “public art” to “art in public places.”

A proposal from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to begin the process of revising the Percent for Art ordinance in advance of the millage vote got little traction from the council. Lumm indicated that she wanted to offer voters a clear choice – that unless the millage were approved, public funding for art would disappear. But her resolution was voted down, with additional support only from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

The majority of councilmembers felt that such a move was “premature.” Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he was open to a scenario in which the millage passed, the tax was levied for four years (which would generate roughly $1.8 million in money that could be spent flexibly), but then was not offered to voters for renewal after four years, which would mean an automatic reversion to the current Percent for Art program.

In other business, the council declined to take action on two pieces of land at opposite ends of the downtown – 414 N. Main St. (site of the old St. Nicholas Church), and 350 S. Fifth Ave. (the former YMCA lot). The council rejected a proposal to begin the rezoning process for the St. Nicholas Church property – in advance of a public auction of the land starting Sept. 6. The council also declined to support a directive to the city administrator to prepare for disposition of the old Y lot, citing an ongoing planning process for the area of downtown Ann Arbor that includes the city-owned parcel. That process – Connecting William Street – is being led by the Ann Arbor DDA under direction from the city council.

The council transacted a mixed bag of other business, including approval of a collaborative effort with Washtenaw County to handle towing. The council also approved the final grant contract necessary for completing an environmental study in connection with a runway extension at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

The council rejected a proposal from Comcast for a new franchise agreement, opting instead to allow the current arrangement to stay in place at least through the end of its term in 2017.

The meeting ended around midnight with jostling among councilmembers on the issue of mayoral appointments. Prompting the discussion was the reappointment of Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to the board of the Ann Arbor DDA. Kunselman and Lumm voted against the reappointment, objecting to Smith’s dual service on the city council and the DDA board. Smith was originally appointed to the board before her election to the council in 2008 and is not seeking re-election this term. Other councilmembers defended Smith’s selection.

Less controversial was the appointment of Michael Benson to the taxicab board. That body had been unable to meet because it had only two voting members out of five, and could not achieve a quorum. If all three members show up now, that body can hold its meeting.

Public Art Millage

The Aug. 20 council agenda included a resolution to place a public art millage on the Nov. 6 ballot for Ann Arbor voters. A second related resolution dealt with the existing Percent for Art program.

Public Art Millage: Background

The possibility of placing a ballot question in front of voters this November had first been revealed at the council’s Aug. 9, 2012 meeting, when Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) added the item to the agenda at the start of that meeting. The millage that voters will be asked to approve will be levied at a rate of 0.1 mills, which will generate around $450,000 annually. For the owner of a house worth $200,000 the tax will cost around $10 a year.

Approval by voters on Nov. 6 would mean that the funding mechanism already provided by Ann Arbor’s Percent for Art ordinance would be suspended for a period of four years – the duration of the millage. That program, in place since 2007, requires that 1% of all city capital projects be set aside for public art, up to a limit of $250,000 per capital project.

The source of funding – city capital projects – has legal implications, requiring that the funded artwork be “monumental” or permanent-type works. The public art funds from a millage would not necessarily be restricted to such permanent art, as the current Percent for Art funds are. The additional flexibility afforded by a millage-based public art program might include the ability to fund performance art, for example.

The arts community and others voiced several concerns about placing the item on the Nov. 6 ballot. Those concerns include a lack of clarity for voters about how yes or no votes would impact public funding for art, the short timeframe during which a millage campaign could be mounted, and the fact that Ann Arbor voters will already be asked to vote for two other millages on the Nov. 6 ballot. Those two millages are: (1) a renewal of a 1.1 mill tax to pay for park capital improvements and maintenance; and (2) a library millage to support construction of a new downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library – expected to cost 0.56 mills in its first of 30 years, but averaging 0.47 mills.

As altered slightly by the council on Aug. 20, the ballot question reads:

Shall the Charter be amended to limit sources of funding for art in public places and to authorize a new tax of up to one-tenth (0.10) of a mill for 2013 through 2016 to fund art in public places, which 0.10 mill will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $459,273?

The corresponding charter language would be [emphasis added]:

Funds for Public Art
SECTION 8.24. In addition to any other amount which the City is authorized to raise by general tax upon the real and personal property by this Charter or any other provision of law, the City shall, in 2013 through 2016, annually levy a tax of up to one-tenth (0.10) of a mill on all taxable real and personal property situated within the City for the purpose of providing funds for art in public places, including but not limited to the permanent and temporary acquisition, maintenance and repair of works of art for display in or on public structures or sites and/or as part of or adjacent to public streets and sidewalks, and performance art on city streets, sidewalks or sites. Except for funds previously raised, set aside, allocated or otherwise designated to be used for public art, including such funds in the July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 fiscal year budget, and except for funds that are received by grant, gift, bequest or other donation to the City for public art, for the duration of this millage, the City shall not raise, set aside or designate funds for public art in any other manner. This millage also shall not preclude the grant, gift, bequest or other donation to the City of works of art.

A separate resolution concerning the existing Percent for Art program was also on the council’s agenda. It was meant, according to its sponsor Jane Lumm (Ward 2), to provide clarity to voters about what their vote on a public art millage would mean for the future funding of public art. Lumm’s resolution directed city staff to prepare an ordinance revision to the Percent for Art program, with the idea of repealing the current funding program before the millage vote. The idea is that voters would understand clearly that unless the public art millage is approved, no public funding for art would remain.

Public Art Millage: Public Commentary

Eight people spoke on the topic during public commentary.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Democrat from the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County – an advocate for public transportation and access to health care, including free health care for middle class and low-income people to be provided by the University of Michigan hospital. It’s important to take a universal and integrated approach to funding public art and affordable housing and truly affordable transportation. On the subject of public art, he said, in a city known for its prominent educational institutions – like the University of Michigan, Eastern Michigan University and Concordia University – we need to have public art education instead of extraordinary amounts spent on public art.

Russ Collins introduced himself as the executive director of the Michigan Theater. He followed Dennis Brewer (owner of Brewer’s Towing) during the public commentary, who was there to object to the council’s resolution on public towing. Collins got a laugh when he said, “When I was in college, that was the guy who towed my car!” Settling in to the topic of public art, Collins began by thanking councilmembers for serving on the council, calling it a thankless job. He told them they had at least one deeply appreciative citizen. He grew up in Ann Arbor and had long admired what the city council has done to keep the city vital. He thanked Christopher Taylor for bringing the subject into a public discussion. Collins said he’s always happy when residents talk about the arts. He wanted to make clear to everybody that it’s not a broad-based public arts funding program – but rather, it’s a narrow program for art in public places. He suggested that people refer to it as an “art in public places millage.”

A lot of people will think that the millage could benefit the Michigan Theater, or the University Musical Society, or other cultural institutions like the Hands On Museum, Collins said. Such organizations would not get funding through such a millage, he contended, saying that they could in fact be damaged by that assumption – because when governmental funding comes, sometimes the private sector reduces its funding. So it’s important, Collins said, to be clear that the millage would be for “art in public places.”

Collins reported that his colleague Ken Fischer, president of the University Musical Society, is actually quite opposed to the millage for that reason. Collins told the council that he felt the Percent for Art is a good way to fund this type of program – art in public places funded with public money. A lot of communities support that approach and make it work, Collins said, and it could be made to work in Ann Arbor too. If the council chooses to put this on the ballot as a millage, Collins said, it’s very important to the Michigan Theater and every institution that doesn’t provide art in public places, that the millage is very narrow.

Meg Crawley told the council that she’d never spoken to them before but she was there to advocate for public funding for public art – because she thinks it’s important. She’s lived in Ann Arbor for 40 years. She’s the neighborhood representative for a mural project at Allmendinger Park, she said, which would be completed in the next few weeks. The mural is being constructed by Ann Arbor artist Mary Thiefels, and she’s including artifacts from the community in her mural. Crawley has volunteered to help by collecting the items and logging them into a spreadsheet. Over 50 families had participated, she said. The process has brought home to her how much the community treasures art and its connection to parks.

Allmendinger Park is showcased each fall when the University of Michigan football fans park in the neighborhood. The art project will draw people to it, and show them the true heart of Ann Arbor. The project has had an energizing effect on the neighborhood, she said. It’ll be free for anyone who wants to see it, she noted. The mural would facilitate pride in our community. She asked the council to find any way they can to keep public funding for art in the future.

Margaret Parker told the council she’d served on the Ann Arbor public art commission for many years. She helped bring about the Percent for Art program. She reviewed the program since its existence over the last five years. She told the council that three works had been completed, with 12 more on the way. [The Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall and a metal tree sculpture in West Park are completed, but it's unclear what third work Parker was referring to that's been funded by the program. Artists are working on two other projects that were approved earlier this year, but aren't yet complete: A glass hanging sculpture in the Justice Center lobby, and the Allmendinger Park mural.]

Parker noted that the Percent for Art program works with one part-time administrator and a revolving band of nine volunteers who serve on the commission. Before the program, there was no permanent art being made in the city, she said.

If the council wants to change the funding mechanism, Parker said, it’s important to be sure to use what we’ve learned over the last five years: how to work with city departments; how to connect with the long-term city planning system; how to use the city information and communication technology; how to work with the art administrator; how to keep the city council informed; and how to keep public informed. She allowed that the public art commission might not be successful at all those things, but one thing is sure, she contended: Before the Percent for Art program, no one knew how public art was done. It’s true that the Percent for Art funding mechanism is complex, and can be restrictive. But learning how to work with the city was by far the hardest part of the start-up, she said.

She invited people to stand in front of the mosaic wall on Washington Street, or the Plymouth Road water tower or the new city hall, and then to shut their eyes, and to imagine the scene without any art. She asked them to then open their eyes and to contemplate whether those scenes were better with or without art.

Marsha Chamberlin addressed the council as chair of Ann Arbor’s public art commission (AAPAC). She said that one thing the group does not want is for funding for art to disappear. The resolution as proposed gives more flexibility in the implementation of the public art program, she said, and gives some real opportunity for “rapid innovation,” which she felt would be a positive thing for Ann Arbor citizens.

Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, sat in the audience before the Aug. 20 city council meeting started. Chamberlin also serves as president of the nonprofit Ann Arbor Art Center.

The funding for public art – art performed or temporarily installed in public places – will expand what AAPAC can do as a commission, Chamberlin said. When the Dreiseitl sculpture was dedicated, she said, the international quality of the city was talked about – the thousands and thousands of visitors who come to Ann Arbor. Public art is part of what makes the city a great place and lends a quality of life that she wanted to make sure is sustained in the city. At the end of September, she said, the mural in Allmendinger Park – which Meg Crawley had described – will be celebrated. It will be another great example of a completed piece, she said. She invited the council to join that celebration and to celebrate another victory for the city of Ann Arbor.

Debra Polich introduced herself as a resident, a 30-year arts administration veteran, and director of the Arts Alliance. The alliance advocates for the creative sector of Washtenaw County, she said. The alliance facilitates the Cultural Leaders Forum, which monthly brings together leaders from Ann Arbor’s largest cultural institutions. Over the last 10 days, more than 50 of them have expressed their opinion about the millage. Almost all of them are supportive of the concept, but greatly concerned about the timing. Based on surveys, Ann Arbor places a high value on arts and culture. Public funding approved in a millage would reflect the high value that residents put on arts and cultural offerings – in a way that public funding for parks and libraries and transportation reflect the high value that residents place on those services.

Polich told the council that experienced advisors had suggested to the arts alliance that in order to do any arts millage properly, it would take 12-18 months of due diligence. It might be expedited to a minimum of six months, she said. [It's roughly a three-month span from the time that Christopher Taylor first unveiled the proposal publicly (Aug. 9) until the Nov. 6 vote.] That time can be used to engage the community, and build consensus. Work should include polling the community, and if favorable, setting the millage at the right level, she said.

The advisors to the Arts Alliance had also recommended talking to community leaders, in order to expose support and opposition. The Arts Alliance absolutely supports the public funding of art, Polich said, and appreciates Taylor’s millage proposal. But as appreciative as the Arts Alliance is of the suggestion, she added, the short timeframe is of concern. She called Jane Lumm’s resolution that would lead to the elimination of Percent for Art funding prior to a millage equally premature. The alliance recommends not approving either proposal now. Instead, she said, she would ask that the Arts Alliance, the public art commission and others work together to improve the functioning of the Percent for Art program.

John Kotarski introduced himself as a member of the public art commission. He supported placing the millage on the ballot on Nov. 6. He said he’d served on the commission just since January 2012, but that he could already say that the restrictions imposed by the current funding arrangement have been a major roadblock to funding the types of projects that are near and dear to Ann Arbor. Delaying the millage vote would confuse voters, he cautioned. A millage-funded program would make the program stronger and more accountable.

Kotarski said that those who fear that the millage won’t pass are underestimating the leadership ability of councilmembers. If every councilmember wants the millage to pass, he contended, then it will pass.

Kotarski then stressed the symbolic value of art. He related a story of how Dolly Madison had elected to save a portrait of George Washington instead of her personal belongings back in 1814, when the British army was approaching Washington D.C. The British had planned to burn the portrait in London. He told councilmembers that Dolly Madison would be proud of them, “even though she was a Republican.”

John Carver told the council he was there to support the Percent for Art ordinance. He’s involved with several groups of private entrepreneurial types, who are trying to do some things that could make Ann Arbor more vital and interesting. The Percent for Art had gotten the ball rolling, he contended. There’s a group that is trying to bring more live music to Ann Arbor, patterned after a program in Austin, Texas. Another group is trying to enhance the architectural lighting in the theater district – and they’ve had meetings with representatives of McKinley Inc. and the Michigan Theater. Carver also told the council that he’s involved in a group called the Wolfpack on the RiverUp! project. That project involves upgrading amenities along the Huron River – and Carver reported that the Superior Portage is completed. Gallup Pond and Island Park will also be a part of the project. He stressed that the effort involved only private funds.

He told the council that he owns the building downtown at 500 E. Liberty, which he said is in the theater district. He had commissioned an artist to do a sculpture on the building. It would be called the Spirit of Ann Arbor and would be created by the artist Charles McGee, a World War II veteran.

Public Art Millage: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority with Russ Collins, led off the city council deliberations with an amendment that took a suggestion made by Collins during public commentary: to change “public art” to “art in public places” throughout the ballot question and charter amendment. She wanted to make sure that people did not mistakenly think that passage of the millage meant that they no longer needed to make their membership payments to The Ark or the Michigan Theater or other similar organizations.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) greeted meeting attendees, assuring them that she was certain the council would definitely take the action of approving the minutes of the previous meeting.

Smith’s wardmate Sabra Briere floated the idea that the change be considered “friendly” and could be adopted without a vote. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was himself amenable to the idea, but worried that the language of the existing proposal had already been reviewed by the state attorney general on a preliminary basis. City attorney Stephen Postema ventured that he did not think the attorney general would have a problem with the change. So the “friendly” amendment was adopted.

Taylor noted that the purpose of offering the resolution at the council’s previous meeting was to initiate public conversation. That mission has been accomplished, he declared. The public art commission has met [in a special session on Aug. 15, due to the unexpected nature of Taylor's proposal] and other arts groups have met and discussed the issue. Taylor said he’d received a tremendous amount of feedback.

It’s clear that Ann Arbor really values art in public places, he contended, and they see it as something that warrants government support. In his view, a millage is the best way for that government support to be realized, so he’s eager to have that question put to voters. Those in the arts community have questioned whether it’s an opportune time for the millage, and he shares that concern. There are a number of particularities about why this is not the best time for a millage. He is not yet convinced, so he’s eager to hear what his colleagues think. He then ticked through the specific concerns: whether it’s the proper cycle; the lack of polling; the inchoate nature of funding; high costs of promotional materials; potential for misunderstanding as to scope.

Many of those things are true, Taylor admitted, but he was not sure they pushed him over the edge. He felt that the benefits and detriments are a “gut check” for people. He stated that “we all want it to succeed,” and stated that he is confident it will succeed in any election – so he’s not certain it wouldn’t be best to ask the most people about it. [This was an allusion to the fact that it falls in a presidential election cycle.] He felt that Ann Arbor at its core is a community that will support art in public places.

However, he stated that he was “still up in the air” and was eager to hear the thoughts of his colleagues.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he had “jumped on this” as soon as Taylor had initiated it. [He asked to have his name added as a sponsor.] He ventured that everyone knows he’s been very vocal in criticizing the existing funding mechanism. The community has been debating the funding ordinance, and no other community in Michigan has adopted the same kind of ordinance. That indicated to him that no other city is willing to stick its neck out and take money out of utilities and special millages to pay for art in public places. “A millage is the only way to go,” Kunselman said. He appreciated the comments from people in the arts community who were hesitant to see the millage placed on this November’s ballot.

But he felt that in a presidential election, it would get out the greatest number of voters – many of whom are just going to love art, regardless of whether they’re paying for it. And that could tip the balance in getting the millage passed. Kunselman claimed that the library board is moving forward with a millage without waiting to do a big review of community sentiment. Kunselman implied that the library’s millage would pass because everybody likes books and that Ann Arbor is a well-read community. [In fact, the Ann Arbor District Library has undertaken a systematic effort to measure community sentiment. That effort has included a scientific survey of voters, the results of which were released four months ago. The AADL subsequently conducted public forums on their plan to construct a new building, before the board voted to put the bond proposal on the ballot. An informal campaign committee started its work several months ago.]

Kunselman looked at art as being something that needs to get out in front of the most voters, in order to give it a chance of passing.

From left: Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) chats with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Ann Arbor art commission chair Marsha Chamberlin after the vote to put a public art millage on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Kunselman liked the idea that it will “unchain the restrictions” so that not just monumental art but also cultural arts can be supported. He said he came from a cultural arts family – pointing out that he’d at one time worked as a projectionist at Michigan Theater.

Responding to the short timeframe for mounting a millage campaign, Smith noted that she’d twice been involved in bringing forward a proposal to roll back the Percent for Art program to a half percent. That was not because she’s not a fan of art, she said. On both occasions, in a very short period of time, the arts community and the broader community had come out and convinced her that’s reducing the percentage to a half percent is not the way to go. So she was not concerned about the arts community not having that kind of energy when it comes to voting in November. She felt that “we’re a passionate and creative bunch and recognize a good thing.” She said she’s looking forward to living in a city that has parks and a new library when a lot of cities are still struggling. In contrast, Ann Arbor is not just moving forward, but rather “surging” forward. Now is as good a time as any to do it, and she would do her part to make sure people know that they should vote yes on the millage.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) distinguished between the politics and substance of the issue. The substance has been discussed frequently, and frequently it’s been upheld, he said. The community has supported the Percent for Art ordinance, even with its imperfections, he contended. The millage proposal is better, he said, because it eliminates some of those restrictions associated with the Percent for Art program. It’s a pleasure to agree with Kunselman on something, Derezinski said. On the issue of the timing, he said “we don’t live in an ideal world.” He felt it was important to go ahead and put in on the ballot. He thinks the community support is there, and he would vote to put it on the ballot right away.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he’s always supported the Percent for Art program. He’s had problems with how it was funded, he allowed. But he thanked the members of the public art commission for their service. He said that this change to a millage-based proposal would allow performance art on city streets and sidewalks. He felt that a millage would be a fair way to approach it – given that it was for a relatively short period and could be evaluated at the end of four years.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated that based on what she was hearing at that point, it didn’t sound like the council was inclined to postpone. She reviewed the various concerns that had been aired at a cultural leaders forum held by the Arts Alliance earlier that day – a gathering that she, Derezinski, Taylor and Hieftje had attended. She noted that there were basic questions – about the amount of the millage, for example. She lamented the fact that Taylor’s proposal does not offer residents a clear choice about whether to use public money to pay for art. She felt there should be a clear choice. She indicated she would support placing the question on the ballot, based on her commitment to offer voters a clear choice – with her subsequent proposal to prepare to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism prior to the millage.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) allowed that she’d been more of a critic of the Percent for Art program than a supporter. But unlike Kunselman, she did not oppose it on the grounds that it involves capital improvement dollars. She thinks that the program has started out with a lot of money and with no guidance about how to spend that money. Based on her own observations at AAPAC meetings, it continues to be a struggle to spend the money. She said the amount Ann Arbor sets aside is inordinately large – based on conversations she’s had with art administrators in other cities.

Briere said her issue is the definition of capital improvements. She viewed the ballot proposal with favor. She felt that the inherent restrictions in the existing Percent for Art program have been more onerous than effective. The fact that the amount to be generated by the millage is more than the money already being set aside bothers her. If the commission is given more dollars to spend, it’ll be difficult to balance all the demand – but at least the commission will have the ability to spend some of it on things other than monumental art.

She’s not concerned about the short timeframe of the next two months, saying that the conversation has been going on for the last five years. Respondents to her informal poll over the weekend were as likely to say they support the current Percent for Art program as they were to say they oppose all dollars going to a millage. If councilmembers are going to do this, she said, they have sell it. They have to be confident as they communicate to the public that the council is not trying to hedge its bets too much. That is, if the public goes ahead with the millage, it means that the council needs to re-examine the Percent for Art program and change the way it reads on the books.

Public Art Millage: Council Deliberations – Amendment

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked for some confirmation about the impact of the millage passage: If the millage passes, then the funding specified in the city’s Percent for Art ordinance would be suspended. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias pointed Hohnke to the language of the charter amendment, which prohibits using city funds from any other means than the millage for the duration of the four-year period.

Left to right: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) chats with Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) during a recess in the meeting. In the foreground is Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Hohnke offered a different perspective. He contended it was his experience that the majority of people in Ward 5 and throughout the city think that “Percent for Art is great!” He claimed that it’s been solidly supported by a vast majority of constituents, when revisions have come before the council. He thinks that additional funding for arts that addresses constraints of the Percent for Art program is a great thing. He appreciated the effort to find a way to support other types of art. His view is that the folks in the city would support both. He is a little concerned that people want to see the funding mechanism replaced. He then proposed an amendment to the ballot proposal that would eliminate the part that suspends the Percent for Art funding for the duration of the millage.

Hohnke thinks both funding mechanisms should be available, and he’s concerned about constraining future councils. If the public wants to pass this millage, then the council could also modify the Percent for Art ordinance at the council table. He felt there are two separate questions: Percent for Art funding, and millage funding for a set of art that is less constrained by the current program. It’s not just different funding mechanisms, Hohnke said. The Percent for Art program involves the way the city impacts the built environment. When we choose, as a community, to make capital expenditures, we’re saying that we want art to be a part of how we’re impacting our built environment, he said. He felt that’s important and that it has been effective in many communities around the country.

Briere called Hohnke’s idea “an interesting approach.” Her perception is that it’s been difficult to spend the money that’s already been allocated. She ventured that if both propositions went forward, the public art commission would suddenly have $860,000 to spend, which is quite a lot – especially because it’s not been easy to deal with half that amount. So Briere asked Hohnke if that’s what he intended.

Hohnke confirmed that was his intent, and allowed that she’d made a good point. He called the challenge one of process. And he contended that process challenges are not beyond our means to address, because we have energetic, smart people working on it.

Derezinski feared that Hohnke’s proposal “might very well kill it.” Given the short timeframe, you have to be careful about how to sell it, and be careful not to ask for too much, he said. He couldn’t go along with Hohnke’s idea.

Smith respected Hohnke’s feeling behind the amendment. But she’d rather vote down the proposal and come back with more tightly crafted language and wait for next ballot than to pursue Hohnke’s amendment. She felt that it risked losing it all.

Anglin was not in favor of the amendment, and indicated he was inclined to see how well the millage proposal worked out.

Kunselman said he couldn’t support Hohnke’s amendment, but picked up on a reference Hohnke had made to Percent for Art-type programs outside the state of Michigan. He felt that in Michigan, the Percent for Art approach doesn’t have a legal basis. Kunselman pointed out that the council had voted down directing the city attorney to produce an opinion. Kunselman felt a lawsuit could strike down the city’s ordinance.

Hohnke allowed that he could not give a specific example of another city in Michigan that had a Percent for Art program. But he argued that other Michigan cities also don’t fund human services in the same way that Ann Arbor does. Hohnke doesn’t see any problem with Ann Arbor “taking leadership.” Despite Kunselman’s concerns about a lawsuit, Hohnke pointed out that no lawsuit had yet been filed. He claimed that the city council had an assurance from the city attorney that the city’s Percent for Art program is a perfectly appropriate way to fund public art.

Mayor John Hieftje said he wouldn’t support Hohnke’s amendment, but appreciated how zealous Hohnke was.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) also said she wouldn’t support it. She felt it would be hard to sell. She echoed Briere’s concerns about the sheer amount of money that would be involved. She described being lost in Philadelphia recently, which has a Percent for Art program. She described a long stretch of blight, but then in the downtown you see some nice pieces of art, she said. She referred to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [the implication being that basic needs like food, water and shelter should be satisfied before higher needs, like self-actualization.] She responded to the several claims around the table that the Percent for Art program is solidly supported, but noted that residents have not had a chance to vote on it.

Outcome on Hohnke’s amendment: Hohnke was the only voice of support. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) appeared only inadvertently to vote for it.

Public Art Millage: Council Deliberations – Finale

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d support putting the proposal on the ballot. He was happy it’ll have widespread support. He felt that it’s rightly a four-year millage. Next time around, the council would be able to reduce the amount of the millage or add more to the amount that is put before voters. Hieftje made a standard economic development argument for public art, saying that having public art in your city creates excitement and that excitement can cause people to want to be in the place and make people think that this is a great place to be.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated he’d support the proposal, despite the failure of his amendment.

With respect to “performance art,” Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked if the Ann Arbor Summer Festival could be supported by the millage. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias indicated that “performance art” is a well-known term of art in the arts community. She said it’s pretty flexible, but excludes something like a theater performance. A performance at a venue like a theater isn’t performance art. She was not able to say whether something like a performance in an outdoor setting like the Summer Festival would be performance art or not.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to place a public art millage on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Public Art Millage: Beginning Ordinance Repeal?

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) pitched her proposal later in the meeting. It would direct the city’s legal staff to prepare of a repeal to the existing funding mechanism of the Percent for Art program. She related to her council colleagues how she’d told the meeting of cultural leaders earlier in the day, that she would withdraw the proposal, if the millage proposal were postponed [as president of the Arts Alliance, Deb Polich, had asked the council to do]. Lumm said the ordinance has been controversial from the beginning, and she felt the time to reexamine it is now – by asking voters the fundamental question of whether they support public funding of art, rather than simply which method.

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

The approach of asking voters to support a millage, with the existing program as a default, says to voters: We’re going to use public funds for art regardless, but we’d sure like your input about what method. She felt that it’s important to ask the basic question of whether citizens support public funding of art. By repealing the existing Percent for Art ordinance before the November election, voters would get that clear choice. She said she trusts the voters, regardless of the outcome. She did not want to set up a “have your cake and eat it, too” situation where voters are given a Hobson’s Choice.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said the first time she read through Lumm’s resolution, she got out her virtual red pen because she wanted to cross out various “whereas” clauses, saying that they were “unnecessarily inflammatory” about a program that is just finding its legs and “demeaning” to volunteers on the public art commission who’ve spent a significant amount of time of this program. She called the “whereas” clauses “judgmental” with respect to the commission’s progress.

Smith felt the choice offered to voters will be clear in that there will be no funds other than this millage available for funding public art. [If the millage passes, it will be the only source of funding; but if the millage fails, the Percent for Art program will continue as before.] Smith felt it’s a yes or no question that is delivered to the voters. She said she’s received such overwhelming support for arts in Ann Arbor that she feels, “People know exactly what they want, and they want art.”

Rather than trying to revise the “whereas” clauses, she said she’d simply opt to reject it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the resolution, noting it just directs staff to prepare a resolution to change an ordinance – something for the council to digest at a later meeting. He doesn’t want to terminate the entire ordinance, but rather some of the funding mechanisms for it. The charter millage language only suspends the funding mechanism, but doesn’t resolve it. He ventured that the council would be dancing around the issue for a time – until we get greater community consensus about funding of public art. He also wants to see language prepared in case the millage does fail. The resolution would get the council to start thinking.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) respected the idea of the proposed resolution and the intent that councilmembers Lumm and Kunselman brought to it. If the Percent for Art funding mechanism is repealed, then if the millage were to fail, there would be no public funding for art. Even though the council had reviewed the possibility of reducing the funding for the existing Percent for Art program on several occasions before, she noted that no one had ever proposed to eliminate it altogether. Briere said that if the council weren’t putting a millage on the ballot, she would not even flirt with the idea of Lumm’s resolution. She’s happy to wait, she said, and see where we are after the millage vote. The idea of being prepared for the millage to be defeated and the need to address the Percent for Art program is one she thinks is worth remembering. But she didn’t think she could support this resolution.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) agreed with Smith, saying that some of the language demeans some of the people who’ve worked hard on the public art commission. He said that as a member of the public art commission, he’s seen how the members have worked. It’s not necessary to try to demean the efforts of those who’ve been trying to work through the operational details of a new program, he said. He felt that it should be “toned down.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) viewed Lumm’s resolution as supportive of the millage. He didn’t read it as negative, but rather as going through the pitfalls of the current program, which the public art commission itself has brought to the council. The resolution simply says that the city is going to put aside what they’ve used before.

Responding to the characterization by Smith and Derezinski of the “whereas” clauses as demeaning to the members of the art commission, Lumm simply read the clauses aloud:

Whereas, In November of 2007, City Council approved an amendment to the City Charter creating the “percent for art” program that funds public art through the allocation of funds from capital improvement projects;

Whereas, Allocating funds to the “percent for art” program results in reduced funding for much-needed capital infrastructure improvements and many Ann Arbor residents believe the allocation of capital project funds to public art represents an inappropriate and unrelated use of dollars raised through tax millages and water and sewer system funds that they believe should be fully dedicated to their primary streets, parks, water/sewer, and solid waste purposes;

Whereas, Voters were never provided the opportunity to have their voices heard on either the “percent for art” program specifically or more importantly, on the fundamental question of whether public art should be supported by public/taxpayer funding, regardless of its form;

Whereas, It is expected that City Council will place on the November ballot a proposal to amend the city charter to authorize a new, four-year millage of 0.10 mill to fund public art which if approved by voters, suspends the “percent for art” program funding only for the duration of the millage (the “percent for art” program funding would be re-instated if the millage were not renewed). If not passed by the voters, the “percent for art” program and funding continue in their present form;

Whereas, To truly enfranchise residents, voters should be offered a clear, yes/no choice on public funding for public art rather than an either/or choice of the mechanism used to fund public art;

Whereas, City Council action to repeal the funding provisions of the current “percent for art” program prior to the November ballot question would offer voters a clear, simple “yes/no” choice – an affirmative vote results in public funding for public art, a negative vote does not;

Whereas, A July 1, 2013 effective date for repeal of the “percent for art” program maintains the funding commitments for public art previously made to the program;

By way of additional background, it’s likely that Smith and Derezinski were not reacting specifically to the “whereas” clauses, which are difficult to see as demeaning to the public art commission. Instead, they were likely reacting to the memo attached to the resolution, which refers to “The slow launch of the program, accumulated, unused surpluses at a challenging fiscal time for the city, and projects not universally accepted” – statements that might be seen as laying blame on the public art commission.

Lumm rounded out her remarks by ticking through the various interpretations that yes and no votes for the millage might have. She reported that other councilmembers at the meeting earlier in the day with cultural arts leaders had acknowledged that voter sentiment would be difficult to read.

Left to right: Sandi Smith (Ward 1) tells Sabra Briere (Ward 1) how many minutes Jane Lumm had been speaking – five. Councilmembers are supposed to be limited to two speaking turns on any given question, the first of which has a limit of five minutes and the second three minutes.

Lumm’s turn ended when Smith raised a point of order – that Lumm had exceeded the time limit on her speaking turn.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) came back to the issue of the “whereas” clauses, saying he felt the clauses make bold assertions that he claimed are only weakly supported. As an example, he gave ” … many Ann Arbor residents believe the allocation of capital project funds to public art represents an inappropriate and unrelated use of dollars.” He dismissed that assertion by saying, “Many Ann Arbor residents believe yada yada yada. Many Ann Arbor residents believe a whole bunch of things and you can insert whatever you want.” He contended that the evidence is to the contrary. In the repeated conversations the council has had, he continued, the council had heard overwhelming support for the public art program. So he felt the statement was not an accurate reflection of the facts.

Hohnke then took up the statement in the “whereas” clauses that “Voters were never provided the opportunity to have their voices heard …” Hohnke ventured that what that statement meant was that voters had not had a chance to vote directly on the issue, and he admitted that was true. But he claimed that it’s inappropriate to say that their voices haven’t been heard. It had been thoroughly debated when the ordinance was enacted, he contended, and people’s voices were heard. The Arts Alliance was very rigorous in seeking out the opinions of councilmembers and making them widely known, he said, so that people had a clear understanding of where their councilmembers stood on the Percent for Art program.

Ultimately, though, Hohnke felt that the resolution was unnecessary. He noted that councilmembers can simply ask staff to prepare a resolution. He claimed that the controversy that Lumm and Kunselman talk about surrounding the program is one that they and a small number of folks are manufacturing. There are significant and honest questions about the funding mechanism, he said, not the existence of support for public art.

Public art is something that we don’t want to leave unsupported, Hohnke said.

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d have a hard time supporting the resolution. He described the “preamble” as resembling more a political document than a resolution.

If the millage fails, then it’d be appropriate to review the Percent for Art program, Hieftje said. He felt there’d be plenty of time to do that in November, with three new councilmembers coming on board. It just seems premature to take a look at it now. It might be the case that four years from now the city council says, “Great, the millage gave us a real boost, let’s see what we can do back with Percent for Art.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) introduced some confusion by appearing to indicate that Lumm’s resolution would continue the Percent for Art funding, even if the millage failed. Briere indicated that her expectation would be that Lumm’s resolution was meant to revoke the Percent for Art funding mechanism before hearing from voters.

Kunselman suggested striking all but the final “whereas” clause so that the council would not have to “dicker” about it. Lumm was fine with that.

The deletion of the “whereas” clauses did not change anyone’s mind.

Outcome: The resolution to prepare for the repeal of the Percent for Art funding mechanism failed, with support only from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

St. Nicholas Auction, Rezoning

In front of the council was a resolution to start a process to change the current PUD (planned unit development) zoning on the former St. Nicholas Church property on North Main Street. The land is being put up for public auction on Sept. 6, 2012. The resolution indicated that the proposed new zoning would match the surrounding land, which is D2 (downtown interface).

The property is being offered at auction by the Washtenaw County treasurer at a cost of $365,051, which covers back taxes and demolition costs. Demolition is expected to begin in the coming weeks. [See also Chronicle coverage: "Rezoning Process for North Main Site on Agenda."]

Downtown Ann Arbor zoning designations. Color key: blue, D1 (downtown); green, D2 (downtown interface), red, PUD (planned unit development). Kunselman’s Aug. 20 resolution would direct city staff to begin a process for rezoning The Gallery PUD to D2 (downtown interface), to be consistent with surrounding properties.

The property has an easement on it held by its neighbor to the south, McKinley Inc., for 57 parking spaces, which poses a challenge for future development.

Authorized by the city council in 2006, the PUD zoning was intended to allow construction of The Gallery, an 11-story building (158 feet tall) that would include 224 parking spaces and 123 units of residential housing. Of those units, 18 would have met the definition of affordable housing derived by a formula based on area median incomes. In contrast, the D2 zoning has a height limit of 60 feet.

If the property does not sell at the Sept. 6 auction (which concludes on Sept. 11), the property will be offered again for auction in October. If it does not sell after the second auction, it will revert to the city.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald explained at the Aug. 20 council meeting that in any case it would not be possible to complete the rezoning process before the first or the second auctions – due to the noticing requirement for all the relevant public hearings.

St. Nicholas Auction, Rezoning: Council Deliberations

The sponsor of the resolution, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), reviewed the basic history of the four parcels in question. Because the property is currently in public hands, he felt there was very low risk that the downzoning from PUD to D2 could be analyzed as a “taking.” In his conversations with Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary, who’s technically the current owner, she had indicated to him that she didn’t have a problem with the rezoning.

When The Gallery had come through the pipeline, Kunselman recalled that he’d served on the city planning commission at the time. He reviewed the details of that project, including the easement of 57 parking spaces that is now permanently attached to the land.

The D2 zoning, which was put in place after The Gallery was approved, Kunselman said, is a fair statement of how the character of the Kerrytown neighborhood should move forward. Kunselman felt that the city is going to end up owning the land unwillingly.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald arrives at the meeting.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald to the podium to talk about the timetable for rezoning compared to the planned auction on Sept. 6 and the possible second auction in October. McDonald told the council that the city wouldn’t be able to rezone the property before the first or the second auction, given the amount of public notice that is required: “There is simply not time to do it,” McDonald explained. Briere wanted to know what the effect of the resolution would be on the ability of the county treasurer to sell the land. McDonald said that any answer he gave would be speculation.

McDonald noted that the county treasurer has a view and staff has a view. One of the constraints on the property is the 57 parking spaces that have to be provided to the neighbor. And any project has to incorporate those 57 spaces. So if you don’t have a project of some density, there’d probably be no way to recoup the costs of building it, he ventured. The 57 spaces were built into The Gallery project, he pointed out. He felt there was some belief that if somebody bid at first auction, that might allow the prospect of building The Gallery. But anecdotally, he reported hearing from developers that the numbers just don’t work. There’s also an affordable housing component to the PUD zoning, so 15% of the units would have to be affordable, he pointed out. It’s hard to predict, and everyone has a different view on this, McDonald concluded.

Briere was concerned that some prospective buyer might feel the city had changed the rules by discussing rezoning. So she wanted to hear from McDonald what his interpretation was of the effect of the resolution. McDonald reported that in his conversations with the county treasurer, she’d been very helpful. For the first auction, she felt that keeping the zoning in place would enhance the value of the property. If the council decides to pass the resolution at whatever time, what’s really important is simply that the city gives notice to any buyer that the rezoning process is in place, so that it could be put into someone’s evaluation of the property.

The treasurer is willing to take whatever action and attach it to the due diligence documents for the auction. For example, the easement is already included. If the rezoning process were to begin, then a prospective buyer would have notice of that, if that’s what the council decided to do. It could affect someone’s view of the land’s value, he allowed, but the important thing is to clearly communicate council’s intention and desire.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) characterized the 57 parking spaces as running with the land without regard to the zoning. He wondered if a rezoning, given the 57-parking space easement, would render it functionally un-developable. McDonald didn’t know that he’d say that. It’s a complex easement, he noted. The holder of the easement currently has no cost, and if construction of The Gallery takes place, then that’s when the payment for the parking begins. He said there’s no way to tell what’s going to happen at these auctions. If it doesn’t go at the first auction, there might be more speculative bids at the second auction.

Kunselman observed that the 57 parking spaces would need to be provided, even if city ends up with the land. McDonald confirmed that, but said that the city could choose not to accept the land, in which case, it would go back to the county.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) felt that the timing was off. She wanted to see how the process unfolds at the auction. It’s in the city’s best interest to see someone purchase the land, she said. She did not want to add to the already existing challenge of disposing city-owned land. She felt that “getting out of the way” is the best approach.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) agreed with Smith, and described the resolution as premature.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wondered if the process of rezoning would perhaps give the city additional flexibility. It wasn’t totally clear what Derezinski meant, and McDonald noted that the proposed D2 rezoning was more restrictive. At the end of the day, he said, it depends on whether you want to see something like The Gallery built there or not.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) felt the resolution was a little bit premature at this point.

Outcome: The council voted down Kunselman’s resolution to initiate the rezoning of the North Main Street property.

Old Y Lot (350 S. Fifth Ave.)

The council considered a resolution that directed the city administrator to prepare options for the disposition of the city-owned land at the corner of Fifth and William – 350 S. Fifth Ave., known as the former YMCA lot. The resolution was explicitly worded so that the city administrator was to proceed independently of a planning effort by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority called Connecting William Street. [See also Chronicle coverage: "Planning Group Briefed on William Street Project."]

The resolution would have directed city administrator Steve Powers to evaluate the parcel at 350 S. Fifth for possible public or corporate use. If no such use were found, the resolution directed Powers to report back to the council with a timeline for the disposition of the property – based on state and city laws and policies. That parcel is also known as the Fifth and William parking lot, because it’s currently used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system, or the old Y lot, because it’s the location of the former YMCA building.

Left to right: City CFO Tom Crawford chats with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) during a recess of the Aug. 20 meeting.

The resolution’s sponsor, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), has frequently raised the issue of ongoing interest payments associated with a loan used by the city to purchase the property from the YMCA for $3.5 million in 2003. The council voted in 2008 to extend the five-year loan with the Bank of Ann Arbor for another five years, through the end of 2013. The interest rate is 3.89%. The interest-only payments work out to roughly $140,000 a year.

By 2013, the total interest paid will be around $1.4 million. When it was condemned, the cost of demolishing the old YMCA building and abating asbestos was around $1.5 million. The DDA covered the demolition costs and has covered half the interest payments. So the total amount of Ann Arbor governmental investment in the property is at least $6.4 million.

The Connecting William Street project was undertaken by the DDA based on a directive from the city council, on a unanimous vote, given at its April 4, 2011 meeting. Kunselman voted for that planning effort to take place – but was also vocal at the time, as well as before, about his view that the old Y lot should simply be put up for sale one way or another.

Old Y Lot: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who sponsored the resolution, said it was intended to get the council to start thinking about what to do with the land. It addresses the $3.5 million balloon payment that’s due in December 2013. The interest-only payments will have accumulated to $1.36 million, he noted, which means that the city has $4.86 million in a piece of land that’s not worth it, he said.

Kunselman said he knows that the Connecting William Street process includes the old Y lot, but pointed out that the planning effort is supposed to result in a presentation of a recommendation to the city council in late October. His resolution doesn’t have a timeframe per se, he noted, but just directs the city administrator to provide a timeline for disposition. He pointed out that the city hasn’t sold any land recently, and ventured that not many people on the city council had any idea of what the process for that is: Do we put a notice on the city website, saying “For Sale”? How would we get the best value, he wondered. Given that December 2013 is going to come up pretty quick, he felt that it’s important to start thinking about that now.

Kunselman stated that the city had not had a lot of success with issuing RFPs (requests for proposals) in the past. And this particular property is costing the city a lot of money over time, Kunselman pointed out, while the other surface parking lots within the scope of the Connecting William Street study are not costing the city money.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) called the resolution premature and unnecessary. More than a year remains before the balloon payment is due, she pointed out, and there’s no reason, she felt, that the city would not be able to do another 5-year loan arrangement. She allowed that the city has not done the RFP process well in the past. That’s part of the Connecting William Street mission – to prepare the lots in a way that has full public buy-in and that is economically feasible for sale. It’s a matter of hitting that special target of what the citizens need and will demand out of the sale of public land, and what is actually sustainable and economically feasible to be built.

Smith felt Kunselman’s resolution is unnecessary and sends a clear message that there’s no faith in the Connecting William Street process. She pointed out that half of the interest payments are being borne by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. She also pointed out that the city receives 17% gross revenues from the surface parking spaces now located on the old Y lot [as well as the rest of the public parking system].

By way of background, the Fifth & William parking lot generated $199,839 in revenues in fiscal year 2011. And 17% of that works out to $34,000, which is 25% of the total interest payment on the loan, or half of the city’s share of that payment.

Smith allowed that lumped together, the total cost seems traumatic – and she said she’s not sure she’d have supported the purchase of the land in 2003. But she fully supports the process underway.

Mayor John Hieftje described the group of citizens who are working hard on the Connecting William Street project, who will come back to the council with a report. Yet he appreciated Kunselman’s direction for action. Responding to Kunselman’s contention that the old Y lot is not worth as much as the city has invested in it, Hieftje ventured that if you look at recent comparables – like the property at South University and Forrest – the old Y lot has a lot of value. He acknowledged that the city might well just say here’s the zoning on the property, and just sell it. The city might turn to that approach, he said. His issue right now is the timing of the resolution. He was content to wait, but might support the resolution after the Connecting William Street report came back.

Spotting an opportunity to win Hieftje’s support for the resolution, Kunselman asked him if he was suggesting a postponement until the council’s second meeting in October. Then the council could have both items on the agenda at the same time. Hieftje declined the gambit, by saying he felt it would take time to digest the DDA’s report, and he did not see a reason to postpone it for future consideration. He did respect the concept of just putting a property on the market.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) highlighted the fact that the resolution focuses on the administrator’s recommendation. She felt the intent is quite reasonable. She described it as “kickstarting” the process of thinking about the site. The property has been off the tax rolls for a decade, she noted. Lumm did not feel the resolution presupposes any outcome of the Connecting William Street process, and it’s not about excluding the DDA. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) also expressed his support of the resolution.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated he felt the resolution was premature, so he couldn’t support it.

Smith stressed that the goal of selling the property should not be simply to avoid paying interest on the loan. There’s a larger public policy issue at stake, she said. There’s a “juicier conversation” to be had than one about directing the city administrator – and she’d appreciate people raising the level of the conversation around the table.

Lumm read aloud the resolved clause, saying she thought it was reasonable.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) felt that the council should allow the Connecting William Street process to play out without “shadowing” it. She appreciated Kunselman’s constant concern about the interest payments and the looming balloon payment. But she wanted to be able to dissect the DDA’s proposal without comparing it to the city administrator’s efforts.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that the city council had asked the DDA to take a good long look at the property. And in his view it would be “proper, prudent and polite” to wait for the DDA to conclude its work.

Outcome: The resolution on the old Y lot failed, with support only from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Public Towing

A goal for the city’s financial services unit, which is listed out in the fiscal year 2013 budget book, is collaboration with Washtenaw County to centralize the administration of public towing. Parking on someone’s private property or having as excessive number of parking tickets are examples of this kind of situation.

Left to right: City administrator Steve Powers, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Dennis Brewer, who owns two local towing companies.

Currently, the city contracts with three different companies, in three districts of the city: Brewer’s Towing Inc., Sakstrup’s Towing, and Triangle Towing. But those contracts expire at the end of 2012.

In front of the council was a resolution authorizing the city to contract with Washtenaw County, which will administer the towing under a single contract. The city will share responsibility for various aspects of the towing administration. On the city’s side, the existing manual, paper-based system will be replaced with one that uses CLEMIS (Courts and Law Enforcement Management Information System) and e-impound.

The new approach is also supposed to reduce costs to those who have their cars towed – because outside storage fees of $20/day would no longer be assessed immediately when a vehicle arrives at the storage lot. Instead, the new city/county fee structure would not permit a storage fee to be applied until a vehicle has been stored for at least eight hours. [.pdf of fee schedule]

The city will point to this collaboration with the county as part of the state’s economic vitality incentive program (EVIP), which encourages municipalities to demonstrate efforts at collaboration with each other.

Public Towing: Public Comment

Dennis Brewer told the council that he and his wife own both Brewer’s Towing and Sakstrup’s Towing. He started Brewer’s back in 1963, he said. He’s opposed to the “suggestive language” in the resolution. He questioned how the first 8 hours of storage could be free? He ventured that this would be a real problem for customer relations. What if it turns out to be 8 hours 5 minutes – then people will object to paying, just because they were 5 minutes too late. He predicted it would be a real headache.

When would the clock start ticking, Brewer wondered: When the tow company gets the call? When the tow company arrives on the scene? When the car reaches the storage facility? Brewer also told the council that his company’s computer system is based on calendar days for storage. The storage changes at 12:01 every day. Their current practice is that vehicles must be in storage at least 8 hours before a second day of storage can be charged. He reminded the council that it’s necessary to carry insurance to cover the cars in storage, and that the storage lots need personnel on duty 24/7 to release the vehicles.

Public Towing: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stressed that the primary issue is that it makes things more efficient as the two governmental units cooperate. He encouraged everyone’s support.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked the city CFO Tom Crawford to approach the podium. She called it a good collaborative effort, but noted that it differs from the previous approach in some details. She asked about “custom criteria” that could be applied – involving grace periods and the like. She noted that the council had heard from Brewer about the economic difficulty involved.

Crawford explained that the two objectives were to reduce costs and improve service. The city and county are reducing their administrative fee from $60 to $45 – and the county will be sharing a portion of that $45 with the city. The city and the county also looked to the towing companies to help with those objectives. Some towing companies had a practice of starting the clock for the storage fee as soon as the car hit the lot. And at midnight, no matter what time the car hit the lot, the timer would click to a new day.

Crawford allowed that some of the towing companies never had that custom. [Dennis Brewer, during his public commentary, explained that for his companies, the timer would not click to a new day unless the car had been on the lot for at least eight hours.] What the city wants to do for people who are quickly in and out, is to reduce the cost for those people. That might mean that the costs for those people who don’t pick up their cars within the first eight hours could increase. As it’s currently written, there’d be no fee for the first eight hours, Crawford explained.

Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton was on hand at the Aug. 20 city council meeting to answer questions about the public towing contract.

Lumm expressed concern that the towing companies have been doing this for a number of years – operating under a certain number of assumptions. She saw the attempts to make things more user-friendly as a good thing. She noted that some other councilmembers had questions about towing distance. She asked if the council would be able to weigh in. Crawford explained that the request for proposals (RFP) from the county would be going out soon, and he could take input from them that night. One of the criteria that they’ve received input on is one that measures the distance of a storage facility from the center of the city, defined as the intersection of Main and Huron streets, with additional consideration given to a facility’s location on a mass transportation line.

Kunselman followed up on the question of how to ensure that a storage yard is on a mass transit line – he didn’t suppose the council would see the RFP before it went out. Crawford indicated that Washtenaw County would be issuing the RFP, but councilmembers could certainly see it if they wanted. Kunselman wanted to make sure that the city’s needs are being met with respect to the location of vehicle storage yards.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton was on hand to explain that some criteria could be added to the evaluation process that relates to being located on a mass transit line. He didn’t see that as an obstacle that can’t be overcome.

Lumm expressed appreciation for the hard work of staff, and said she felt that people who have their cars towed should pay the full cost of the service, but she appreciated efforts to lower the costs. Crawford stressed that the city and the county were working really well on this project.

Outcome: The council unanimously authorized contracting with Washtenaw County for public towing.

Ann Arbor Municipal Airport Study

Ann Arbor’s municipal airport was back on the city council’s Aug. 20 agenda, possibly the last time for a long while to come. That was expected, based on action taken earlier this year in April. The first of two agenda items on Aug. 20 related to the fifth of five different grant contracts for the completion of an environmental assessment (EA) for a possible 800-foot extension of the runway. The $42,500 in the grant consists of $40,375 in federal funds, $1,062 in state funds and a local match of $1,063.

A second airport-related item on the council’s agenda involved the use of those funds in the grant item to study the need to relocate federally owned navigational aids (ODAL lighting system) for the EA.

The city council had initially authorized funding for the first of the grant contracts related to the environmental assessment project at its Feb. 2, 2009 meeting. The assessment began on May 4, 2009. The process appeared to culminate in a public hearing in April 2010. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Airport Study Gets Public Hearing."] In the interim, city councilmembers have removed the runway extension from the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) each year they’ve been asked to give the CIP its annual approval.

However, when the Federal Aviation Administration responded to the EA draft report, that prompted communication between the city of Ann Arbor and the FAA in late 2011. And that back-and-forth has resulted in FAA requests for more work, which is meant to wrap up the environmental assessment.

The most recent previous council action occurred on April 16, 2012, when the council considered several resolutions in connection with the airport, including the fourth EA grant contract.

Ann Arbor Municipal Airport Study: Public Comment

Andrew McGill addressed the council on behalf of a grass roots citizens group – on the topic of the environmental assessment (EA) study for the airport runway extension. If approved, he said, it would bring the total price of the EA to $400,000 – $100,000 more than what the council had been told 3.5 years ago, when it approved the original EA grant. The EA has become a “money pit,” for taxpayers – federal, state and local, he said. Part of the measure would pay the FAA to review the final EA, and his group did not have a problem with that.

What McGill was concerned about was a provision in the grant regarding the navigational aids – or the approach lighting. He contended that this is not just a series in a long series of grants. Part the navigational aids study, he contended, would give the FAA a blank check from the city of Ann Arbor. A condition of that grant contract, he explained, is that Ann Arbor taxpayers must pay to move or replace the runway approach lighting, long into the future. Right now, he said, there’s no federal money for that, and he feared it could cost Ann Arbor taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. That’s different from all the previous airport grants, he told the council.

Ann Arbor Municipal Airport Study: Council Deliberations

In light of McGill’s public commentary, councilmembers had a number of questions for Matt Kulhanek, the Ann Arbor municipal airport manager. They were essentially trying to get an assurance from Kulhanek that their vote for the two items would not expose the city to financial risk.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) gets a briefing from Andrew McGill before the Aug. 20 council meeting.

Their questions drew out several salient points from Kulhanek. He stressed that the city was under no obligation to move the navigational lights. City attorney Stephen Postema added his view that there’s no additional obligation to the city other than what is specified in the grant agreement related to the study.

But Kulhanek did say, in response to a question from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), that with each grant agreement the city approved, came with it an obligation to operate the airport for another 20 years.

Kulhanek explained the relationship between the two items on the agenda. One was a grant agreement. The second was the expenditure of the grant funds received under the first item.

Mayor John Hieftje was keen to get some kind of assurance that this would be the end of the EA grant process.

Responding to a question from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Kulhanek indicated that the federal dollars derived from fees applied by the FAA to airline ticket prices. The local money derived from fuel fees and hanger rentals. He concluded that there were no general taxpayer dollars involved.

Responding to a question from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Kulhanek estimated that there are a total of 75-100 jobs at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

Responding to a question from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Kulhanek estimate there are about 170 aircraft at the airport.

Outcome: On the resolution for the grant contract, the council approved it, with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The resolution to expend the grant funds was also approved, with Briere dropping from the dissenters.

Comcast Franchise Proposal

Comcast asked that the city council approve its application for a franchise within the city. An existing franchise agreement with the cable company runs through 2017.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) explained the implications of the vote on the Comcast franchise application.

It was important that the council act at its Aug. 20 meeting, because Comcast had sent an application dated July 17, which the city and Comcast agreed should count as “submitted” on July 23. And based on a recent ruling in the U.S. District Court on a matter involving the city of Detroit, the city needed to make a decision within 30 days of July 23.

A staff cover memo recommended rejecting the applications. Reasons include the fact that the existing franchise will remain in place through 2017. In addition, Comcast was taking the position that under a new agreement, it no longer had the obligation to allow the city to use parts of the firm’s institutional network that are essential to ensure public health and safety and other public services.

A third reason given for rejecting the application is that the new franchise agreement would grant use of the city right-of-way, and it’s not clear that continued public access to all public, educational, and governmental (PEG) channels would be ensured. And finally, according to the staff memo, Comcast’s application is not consistent with a formal renewal process – because it did not reasonably purport to meet local needs; and the application is not consistent with an informal process that would require the public to have an opportunity to comment.

Comcast Franchise Proposal: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by urging support of the resolution to deny the application. He wanted to make clear that by voting for the resolution, the council would be voting to deny Comcast’s application. He noted that the resolution had the support of the city’s cable commission. He said the resolution would give the city greater bargaining power.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) stressed that voting to deny the application would preserve the city’s CTN (Community Television Network) channels – for the duration of the existing contract, which is 2017. She said those channels are very important in the city’s communication system.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) ventured that there’s a complicated governmental relationship. It’s under the current state act, assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained, that Comcast has submitted its application. She stressed that the city’s contract continues for another five years, according to its term, so the application by Comcast is premature, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to deny Comcast’s franchise application.

Bluffs Nature Area Rezoning

The council was asked to give final approval for the rezoning of two parcels acquired by the city of Ann Arbor to add to the Bluffs Nature Area at 1099 N. Main St., north of Sunset Road. The council had given its initial approval on July 16.

The steep slope of the Bluffs Nature Area as it rises from North Main Street is easy to discern in the two-foot counter topographic map.

The city planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its June 5, 2012 meeting.

A 1.12-acre parcel to the north of the Bluffs – connecting the existing parkland to Huron View Boulevard – is currently zoned O (office), and had been donated to the city by a nursing home near that site.

A 0.57-acre addition to the south connects the existing parkland to Sunset Road and is currently zoned R4C (multiple-family dwelling). It had been purchased by the city from the Elks lodge, using funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage. Both parcels were given approval to be rezoned as PL (public land).

The addition of the parcels will make entrance to the nature area easier. The current entrance off North Main Street is a challenge to pedestrians and cyclists, the road bears heavy traffic, and no sidewalks exist on the west side of the street where the nature area is located.

Bluffs Nature Area Rezoning: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge described himself as a progressive Democrat. He criticized a lack of public access to facilities, buildings and land sites as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He called for using vacant land for affordable housing. He told the council that the rezoning should go back to the planning commission for further review.

Bluffs Nature Area Rezoning: Council Deliberations

During deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said it’s worth noting that Bluffs Nature area is peculiar in its terrain – it would be difficult to build on, which is partly why it’s a park and not a building site. It’s used heavily by people who navigate by foot or bicycle, and that’s part of its charm, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to finalize the rezoning of the parcels being added to the Bluffs Nature Area.

Eden Court Rezoning

Nearly a year ago, at its Sept. 6, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council voted to appropriate $82,500 from its open space and parkland preservation millage to acquire the property at 5 W. Eden Court. The Eden Court property is immediately adjacent to the city’s Bryant Community Center.

At its Aug. 20 meeting, the council was asked to take another step toward conversion of the land to city property – by giving initial approval to zone the property as PL (public land). Because a rezoning is a change to the city’s ordinances, the change will require a second council vote after a public hearing at a future meeting.

The 2011 taxes on the property were estimated at $1,400, which will be eliminated from the city’s tax base. The parcel is expected to be used to expand the community center’s programming services. It could also be used in other ways in support of the city’s parks and recreation system.

During her staff report given to the city planning commission on June 5, 2012, city planner Alexis DiLeo said the property contains a single-family home that will be used by the community center to expand its operations. Eventually, the center would like to renovate the interior and build an addition to connect the two buildings, she said. The center is managed under contract with the nonprofit Community Action Network.

The planning commission had voted unanimously to recommend the rezoning at its June 5 meeting.

Outcome: Without discussion, the city council voted to give initial approval to the Eden Court rezoning.

Appointments: City Boards, Commissions

Nominations and appointments to city boards and commissions come at the end of every council meeting.

Appointments: DDA

Nominated at the previous council meeting for a renewal of their appointments to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority were Roger Hewitt, Keith Orr and Sandi Smith. Smith also serves on the city council, representing Ward 1.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) pulled out Smith’s nomination for a separate vote so that he could vote against it. He felt it’s inappropriate to appoint a city councilmember to the DDA, referring to the situation as having a “double-agent” on the council. He objected to the idea that someone with dual service on the DDA and the council could vote on a contract between the DDA and the city – because they’d get to vote twice. He called the two offices incompatible and said it was unethical for someone to serve in both positions.

By way of background, the question of whether it’s possible to hold simultaneously the office of councilmember and DDA board member is addressed in Michigan’s Act 566 of 1978. At first glance, the state statute appears to rule it out. The kind of incompatibility of office that is not allowed is expressed in the definition of “incompatible office”:

(b) “Incompatible offices” means public offices held by a public official which, when the official is performing the duties of any of the public offices held by the official, results in any of the following with respect to those offices held:
(i) The subordination of 1 public office to another.
(ii) The supervision of 1 public office by another.
(iii) A breach of duty of public office.

A city councilmember “supervises” the office of a DDA board member in the sense that city councilmembers must confirm the appointments of DDA board members. However, there’s an explicit exception in the statute for a DDA [emphasis added]:

(3) Section 2 does not prohibit a public officer or public employee of a city, village, township, school district, community college district, or county from being appointed to and serving as a member of the board of a downtown development authority under 1975 PA 197, MCL 125.1651 to 125.1681;

As for Kunselman’s point about contracts, the state statute on conflict of interest plays out somewhat counterintuitively – explicitly providing an exemption for contracts that are between governmental entities.

This issue arose at a May 5, 2010 DDA board meeting, when Smith and mayor John Hieftje, who also serves on the DDA board, were set to vote on a revision to a contract between the DDA and the city. In analyzing their ability to vote, the DDA’s legal counsel, Jerry Lax, viewed it in terms of Act 317 of 1968 “Contracts of Public Servants with Public Entities.”

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

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

However, Lax pointed out that there was a specific exemption for contracts between two public entities [emphasis added]:

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

Later at the same May 5, 2010 DDA board meeting, the issue considered by the board was analyzed not as a contract, but as a grant, and Lax asked Hieftje and Smith to recuse themselves from the vote.

At the Aug. 20, 2012 city council meeting, when the council voted on Smith’s reappointment to the DDA, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) joined Kunselman in objecting. However, Lumm went to considerable lengths to stress that her vote was not about Smith individually. She noted she’d had the pleasure of serving on the DDA partnerships committee with Smith and she respected and admired Smith’s work. Her objection was about the philosophy of appointing a councilmember to the DDA board.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that when Smith ran for city council in 2008 for the first time, she was already serving on the DDA board. Smith has chosen not to run for re-election to the city council this year. Her appointment to the DDA board, Briere concluded, is independent of Smith’s position on council.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) ventured that perhaps the council could have a larger discussion at a different time. He described Smith as having been very fair about things, so he supported Smith’s appointment.

Hieftje indicated that he understood the argument that some were making, but felt it’s important to have someone on the DDA board who understands the big picture. He pointed out that Smith has just five more voting sessions as a city councilmember.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that there are sitting city councilmembers on other boards and commissions, like the LDFA, which is a similar authority to the DDA. [The local development finance authority, however, has explicitly in its bylaws an appointment for an Ann Arbor city councilmember, so the two boards are not comparable in the way that Taylor was suggesting.]

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) pointed out that he also serves on the city planning commission as a voting member. [The slot filled by Derezinski is specifically designated for a city councilmember, so when Derezinski leaves office in November, having tallied fewer votes than Sally Petersen in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary, he will no longer be able to serve in that capacity on the planning commission. Derezinski's spot on the public art commission, however, is not a council-designated position, so he'd be able to continue to serve as a public art commissioner.]

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) felt that it’s good in general to have members of the city council as members of a larger board. It was not clear to him why the DDA board is different.

Kunselman pointed out that none of the other positions that people had mentioned would typically engage in contract negations with the city council. The mayor is authorized to sit on the DDA board under the enabling legislation for downtown development authorities, he allowed. But even there, it would be possible for the city administrator to fill that slot instead of the mayor.

Smith, for her part, took the comments from Kunselman with apparent good humor, telling him that if he’d like to change who sits on the DDA board, he should run for mayor.

Outcome: The council voted to reappoint Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to the DDA board, over the dissent of Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Other appointments were approved unanimously, without comment.

Appointments: Taxicab Board

Without discussion, an additional member was added to the Ann Arbor taxicab board – Michael Benson. The addition will allow the body to achieve a quorum of three out of five voting members for its meetings. It has not been able to do that since July 2012, when Tim Hull resigned after taking a job on the west coast.

Benson was added to the board in a one-step confirmation process. Ordinarily, nominations to a board or a commission are first announced at a city council meeting, then confirmed by a council vote at a subsequent meeting.

The taxicab board will now consist of Benson, city councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Tom Oldakowski, Tom Crawford (a non-voting ex officio member, as the city’s CFO) and Bill Clock (a non-voting ex officio member, as representative of the Ann Arbor police department).

The taxicab board is responsible for administering the city’s taxicab board ordinance. [.pdf of taxicab ordinance] Application forms to be appointed to city boards and commissions can be downloaded and returned to the mayor’s office for consideration.

Outcome: Michael Benson was unanimously appointed to the taxicab board.

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 council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Pedestrian, Non-Motorized Issue

During the public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Kathy Griswold told the council she was there to address the most important activity for elected officials: the safety of citizens, especially children. She contended that the city was confusing an engineering problem with social policy. There are effective public policies like “share the road” or “complete streets,” but what we need is traffic engineering, she said. She called for the issue to be reviewed by independent engineers with the state. She asked the city attorney to consider the risk that’s being created when the city tells pedestrians that “they rule.” She warned against putting up posters telling children they have the right-of-way as pedestrians. She called that crazy, and called for an independent traffic engineer to evaluate the situation.

After thanking the council for his appointment to the taxicab board, Michael Benson related what he’d seen while attending a recent academic conference in Munich – bike lanes separated from the right-of-way. It was amazing to see the number of bicycles there, he said. Relating his experience in Ann Arbor – trying to cross Huron Street near the University of Michigan campus – he’d witnessed three near accidents, both as pedestrians and as a driver. He suggested looking into driver education.

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

Absent: Margie Teall.

Next council meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Former St. Nicholas Church at 414 N. Main in downtown Ann Arbor. It will be offered at public auction on Sept. 6.

And two of those items involve city ownership of land parcels – at opposite edges of downtown Ann Arbor. One of the properties is already owned by the city of  Ann Arbor – the parcel at 350 S. Fifth. Situated on the southern edge of downtown, it’s also known as the Fifth and William parking lot (because it’s currently used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system) or the Old Y Lot (because it’s the location of the former YMCA building).

The resolution would direct the city administrator to evaluate the parcel for possible public or corporate use; and if none is found, to report back to the city council with a timeline for the disposition of the property – based on state and city laws and policies. The resolution, sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), is somewhat unlikely to gain much traction with the council. That’s because it explicitly indicates that the city administrator’s efforts are to be independent of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street planning effort, which includes the 350 S. Fifth parcel.

The Connecting William Street project was undertaken by the DDA based on a directive from the city council, on a unanimous vote, given at its April 4, 2011 meeting. Kunselman voted for that planning effort to take place – but was also vocal at the time, as well as before, about his view that the Old Y lot should simply be put up for sale one way or another.

A second piece of property on the council’s Aug. 20 agenda is located on the northern edge of downtown at 414 N. Main St., near Beakes Street – the site of the old St. Nicholas Church. In 2006, owners of the site received approval for a planned unit development (PUD) zoning designation from the city council. The PUD would allow construction of The Gallery, an 11-story building (158 feet tall) that would include 224 parking spaces and 123 units of residential housing, 18 of which would meet the definition of affordable housing derived by a formula based on area median incomes.

That 414 N. Main property does not belong to the city. But the result of a foreclosure process has put it in the hands of another public entity – the Washtenaw County treasurer’s office. It’s being offered at public auction (on auction.com) starting Sept. 6 through Sept. 11, at a price of $365,051. County treasurer Catherine McClary told The Chronicle in a phone interview that the price includes the demolition costs – and that she’s selected a demolition firm to start the work. Asbestos abatement is already underway, and the demolition itself is expected to begin before the auction, though it will likely not be complete by then, as it will take 15 days.

What would the council’s resolution on the 414 N. Main property actually do? It would start the process to change the PUD zoning to that of the surrounding property, which is D2 (downtown interface) – allowing a maximum building height of 60 feet. The resolution, also sponsored by Kunselman, gives as part of its rationale the fact that the original developer is no longer pursuing the project.

If the property doesn’t sell at the Sept. 6 auction, it will be offered at a second auction. If it doesn’t sell at the second auction, the property would revert to the city. The city could exercise a right of first refusal and acquire the property for the minimum $365,051 bid – but that would require the city to make the purchase for a “public purpose.”

After the jump, we provide a bit more detail on the 414 N. Main property.

The Gallery

On Aug. 10, 2006, the city council approved a planned unit development PUD for construction of The Gallery at 414 N. Main. Had it been built, it would have included construction of two buildings – one 11-story building and another four-story building. [.pdf of PUD supplemental regulations]

The Gallery site plan drawing.

It would have included 123 units of residential housing, with 18 of those meeting the definition of affordable housing derived by a formula, based on area median incomes.

The project also would have included 224 parking spaces, 57 of which would have been provided to the neighbor to the south, McKinley Inc.

McKinley and the developer of The Gallery struck an agreement that provides an easement on the four parcels that make up the property. And that easement guarantees access to 57 parking spaces by McKinley to the site. The easement is attached to the land, not its owner. So even though the owner has changed hands – because it’s owned now by the Washtenaw County treasurer as a result of the foreclosure process – the easement persists, along with its guaranteed 57 parking spaces. That’s an additional challenge for a developer, because those 57 spaces must be constructed – likely in some kind of deck structure – but won’t be available for the tenants of the building.

Four parcels of The Gallery project. Main Street runs north/south on the left side of this photo. The parallel street on the right is Fourth Avenue.

The property’s four parcels include three that front on Main Street, and a fourth one that fronts on Fourth Avenue. Fourth Avenue and Main Street are north-south streets running parallel to each other.

So part of the project site spans the entire block between Main Street and Fourth Avenue. Across Fourth Avenue from the project site, on the avenue’s eastern side, is Kerrytown Market and Shops.

The site plan for The Gallery approved by the city council is still valid – because it has been extended by administrative approval, most recently on Sept. 9, 2011. The property’s current owner, the Washtenaw County treasurer, would not conceivably try to build The Gallery with the currently authorized site plan and its PUD zoning, because the treasurer holds the property for the sole purpose of putting it up for public auction.

Zoning designations. Color key: blue, D1 (downtown); green, D2 (downtown interface), red, PUD (planned unit development). Kunselman’s Aug. 20 resolution would direct city staff to begin a process for rezoning The Gallery PUD to D2 (downtown interface), to be consistent with surrounding properties.

But if nothing changed, the new owner would be entitled to build a project similar to The Gallery. If the zoning were changed to D2 (downtown interface) –  which is the eventual intent of Stephen Kunselman’s resolution – then The Gallery would not be possible. That’s because D2 zoning carries with it a limitation on building height of 60 feet. One of the arguments likely to be heard at the Aug. 20 Ann Arbor city council meeting is that nothing should be changed before the auction, because the PUD zoning and site plan might make the property more valuable.

By way of background, the “market value” of the property is around $2 million, and its “taxable value” is half that. The total tax burden in Ann Arbor, counting all the taxing jurisdictions, is about 45 mills. So a tax rate of about 45 mills on $1 million in taxable value would work out to roughly $45,000 annually.

An inspection of the city’s online property records shows that taxes haven’t been paid since 2007. And that five-year period of non-payment is consistent with McClary’s description of the property owing $255,000 in back taxes.

Forfeit, Foreclosure, Demolition, Auction

In a phone interview, Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary reviewed for The Chronicle how the foreclosure process works. Key is the fact that in Washtenaw County, the treasurer is the foreclosing governmental unit (FGU). In some counties, the state of Michigan is the FGU for the county.

The property was turned over as delinquent on March 1, 2010. A year later, on March 1, 2011, the property was forfeited. The property was foreclosed in February 2012 on a court order from 22nd circuit court judge Donald Shelton. The owner had the opportunity to redeem the property through March 31, 2012, but did not. [.pdf of excerpted Public Act 123 of 1999]

The result of the foreclosure order is that the new owner of the property is the Washtenaw County treasurer. But the sole point of that ownership is to put the property up for public auction. The auctions must be held each year between the third Tuesday in July and the first Tuesday in November.

A property is first put up for auction at a “minimum bid” auction. The minimum bid is defined as the total amount of back taxes owed, plus the cost to bring the property to auction. For McClary, the cost of bringing the 414 N. Main St. property to auction will include the demolition costs. Of the $365,051, approximately $110,000 of that is the cost beyond the taxes – as the taxes on the property were about $255,000, she said.

Screenshot of auction.com Washtenaw County listings for Sept. 6.

Ordinarily, this North Main Street property would have been put up for auction in July, along with other “minimum bid” auctions in Washtenaw County. But McClary said she pushed the city to exercise its right of first refusal – to purchase the property at the “minimum bid” price. And because the city’s decision-making process takes some time, she’d agreed to delay the “minimum bid” auction until Sept. 6.

Other properties in Washtenaw County available for the Sept. 6 auction on auction.com include ones offered at $1,000. Unlike the North Main Street property, these are being offered for a second time, having not sold at the earlier “minimum bid” auction. McClary explained that she’s using $1,000 as the starting price this year.

So if the North Main property doesn’t sell in the Sept. 6 auction, it’ll be offered in October at a starting price of $1,000. But she noted she’d be attaching a $110,000 performance bond to that sale, to ensure that she recovers her demolition costs.

Part of what McClary also expects to get out of a sale price is the cost of a phase one environmental clearance. She pointed out that she’d taken care to ensure – as part of the contract with the company that performed the environmental clearance study – that the new owner of the property could rely on that clearance. Ordinarily, an environmental clearance can only be used by the person who paid for it. Being able to rely on an existing environmental clearance study is a value to the potential buyer.

McClary also sees the demolition of the existing building as adding value for a potential bidder at the auction. But based on her remarks on the phone, the main impetus for her to proceed with the property’s demolition is to eliminate the nuisance and blight that the building has become. She described her regular communication with Ann Arbor police chief John Seto, and the work of a social worker on her staff, who works with Washtenaw County’s PORT (Project Outreach Team) as they interact with the people who try to live on the long-vacant property.

McClary summarized the rationale for proceeding with the demolition: “So whether the city takes the property or whether developer buys the property, we know that the blight and crime is gone off of that site.”

If no one buys the property at either the Sept. 6 auction or (if necessary) the October auction, the property would most likely revert to the city of Ann Arbor.

But another possibility McClary raised was that the property could be put into a land bank. She observed that the Washtenaw County board of commissioners had voted to establish one, but had not taken the step of funding it or getting approval from the state. The Chronicle’s last coverage of this issue was from the Dec. 1, 2010 Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting:

Conan Smith was nominated to serve on the board of the county land bank authority. The land bank – a mechanism used to help the county deal with foreclosed and blighted properties – has a somewhat convoluted history. The board first authorized it in 2009, but decided to dissolve the land bank earlier this year after they failed to reach consensus on issues of governance and funding.

After further debate spanning several months, the board revived the land bank in September, when they also passed a resolution calling for two commissioners to serve on the land bank’s board. That change requires state approval, which has not yet been authorized. When state approval is given, [board chair Rolland] Sizemore plans to nominate Wes Prater to serve on the land bank authority board, filling the second set allotted to commissioners.

Ann Arbor City Council’s Issues

Kunselman’s resolution would simply direct planning staff to initiate the rezoning process. The council would need to take two future votes – at a first reading and a second reading preceded by a public hearing – in order to rezone the property. The  conversation around Stephen Kunselman’s resolution on the Aug. 20 agenda is likely to center around at least two issues: (1) the timing of a rezoning process; and (2) the appropriateness of a rezoning process, independent of timing.

If the property is to be rezoned, then it would be easier to do that while it’s in the county treasurer’s hands – because the city could count on treasurer Catherine McClary’s full cooperation. She told The Chronicle she’d be happy to request the rezoning of the parcel as the owner of the property, and that the city would “just need to tell me what to write in my letter!” But the timing McClary was talking about was between the auctions – if the property didn’t sell at the first auction. McClary didn’t venture an opinion about starting a process before the auction that would lead to rezoning.

One possible argument against approving Kunselman’s resolution now would be that it’s important to wait until the outcome of the Sept. 6 auction before taking any action. The best chance of the property being sold to a private developer – so the argument would go – is to leave the PUD zoning in place. The 57 parking spaces that must be provided on the parcel for McKinley is one challenge that could conceivably justify allowing a larger development than what D2 zoning would allow. That argument depends on the premise that such a development is desirable and beneficial – or at least that it’s a better alternative to letting the property languish.

Precisely because a developer could purchase the property and build a project similar to The Gallery is a possible argument for rezoning the parcel to D2 – so that such a project could not be built. If that argument is made at the city council table on Aug. 20, then it will likely appeal to the history of the A2D2 downtown rezoning process, which was given final approval by the city council in late 2009. The A2D2 zoning process, so the argument would go, reflects a broad community consensus about what the basic requirement of the downtown interface should look like – and that for the 414 N. Main St. property, that area should conform with D2 zoning and its height limit of 60 feet.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of processes like public auctions – because our coverage isn’t sold to the highest bidder. 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!