Doug Smith, standing, talks with other members of the Washtenaw Watchdogs before the start of the July 10, 2013 county board meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Several of those who spoke are affiliated with the Washtenaw Watchdogs. The group has raised concerns about the bonding and is prepared to launch a petition drive that would force the proposal to be put on the ballot for voters to approve.

The bond initiative, publicly proposed in May, was intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations – for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). The original maximum amount for the bonds had been estimated at up to $345 million. But updated actuarial data resulted in a lower estimate of about $295 million.

However, on July 3, board chair Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and county administrator Verna McDaniel issued a joint statement announcing a decision not to put bond-related action items on the July 10 agenda. They cited the need to address unanswered questions, including uncertainty about the state approval process. No date has been set to reschedule action, if any, on the proposal.

In addition to the bond proposal hearing, the board held three other public hearings during its July 10 meeting: on two brownfield plans in Ann Arbor – for 544 Detroit St. and Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall) – and for annexing land from Scio Township into the village of Dexter to accommodate the expansion of Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. All items were subsequently approved by commissioners.

The board also gave final approval to a range of infrastructure projects totaling about $5 million for county government facilities – including redeveloping the Platt Road site in Ann Arbor where the old juvenile center was located. An amendment brought forward by Andy LaBarre (D-District 7) called for creating a 9-member advisory committee to guide the dispensation of the Platt Road site, which is located in his district. Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised concerns about the authority of such a committee. He was assured that the board retains control over whether to act on the committee’s recommendations. Details of how the advisory committee will be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, will require approval from the board at a later date.

In other action, the board gave initial approval to a modest increase in staff for the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office – bumping up a staff position from part-time to full-time – primarily to handle an increase in processing passports and concealed pistol license applications. Commissioners also made several appointments to various boards and commissions, nominated by Rabhi as board chair. He announced he wasn’t yet ready to make nominations to the county’s historic district commission.

Also pushed back was a final vote on a notice of intent to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system. Initial approval for this action came on a 5-4 vote at the board’s June 5, 2013 meeting. But on July 10, Alicia Ping (R-District 3) – who had originally brought forward the proposal – asked for postponement until the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting, citing communications she’d had with trial court chief judge Donald Shelton. The vote to postpone was 6-2, with dissent from Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

In addition to feedback about the bonding proposal, commissioners heard from leaders of two nonprofits – Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative and Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House – about the need to support human services funding. Uncertainty about the upcoming budget has caused concern among nonprofits that have been historically funded by the county.

Also during public commentary, two members of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Ann Arbor thanked commissioners and staff for quickly restoring domestic partner benefits to nine county employees, following recent court rulings that enabled the county to reinstate such benefits.

Facial hair got a minor mention at the July 10 meeting, when Rabhi told Dan Smith: “Your beard is epic – congratulations on it.” Smith used the opening to mention that he’s growing the beard for his role as Lazar Wolf in the upcoming production of “Fiddler on the Roof.” The show runs from July 19-21 at the Whitmore Lake High School Theater. He received a round of applause from the board. Peterson joked that he was glad for the explanation – Peterson had been prepared to reach out to Smith with the name of his barber.

Bond Proposal & Budget

Though a controversial bond proposal had been pulled from the agenda the previous week, on July 10 commissioners held the scheduled public hearing for that proposal . The original bonding proposal of potentially up to $345 million was intended to cover unfunded pension and retiree healthcare obligations – for the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System (WCERS) and Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA). The board had set the public hearing at its meeting on June 5, 2013, and had also intended to take initial votes on July 10 on several items related to the bonding.

However, on Wednesday, July 3, board chair Yousef Rabhi and county administrator Verna McDaniel issued a joint statement announcing a decision not to put the bond-related items on the July 10 agenda. They cited the need to address questions and concerns that had been raised by commissioners and the public, as well as uncertainty related to the state approval process that’s required for this type of bonding. [See Chronicle coverage: "County to Push Back Vote on Bond Proposal."]

Some commissioners have also asked whether alternatives to a bonding approach might also be viable, but the administration has not provided other options, other than a list of major cuts to programs and services. The original plan put forward by the administration was to bond for up to $345 million, although officials believed the amount would be lower than that, pending an updated actuarial report.

The printed agenda for the July 10 meeting still included the bond-related items, though the items had been removed from the agenda before the meeting. The printed agenda listed the proposed bonding amount at $295.115 million. That’s the figure that Rabhi reported in a phone interview with The Chronicle on July 3.

Responding to a follow-up query from The Chronicle on July 16, McDaniel said the $295 million figure was based on updated preliminary estimates for unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL) totaling $272.999 million for both WCERS and VEBA. Interest and fees on that amount for bonding is being recalculated, she reported, but it will likely be a week or two before the new calculations are completed.

After the July 10 board meeting, the county administration released an updated “experience study” from Buck Consultants, the actuarial firm used by the county. An experience study is the basis for the final actuarial report, which has not yet been completed. [.pdf of 2013 experience study report] A preliminary report on this study was presented at a special joint session of the WCERS and VEBA boards on June 25. The 7-member WCERS board includes county commissioners Dan Smith and Conan Smith, county administrator Verna McDaniel and county finance director Kelly Belknap. Conan Smith also sits on the 5-member VEBA board, which is chaired by county accounting manager Pete Collinson.

Buck Consultants had recommended adopting a 10-year amortization schedule for the county’s unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL), in order to cover those liabilities as quickly as possible. The county administration had originally expected to pay an estimated $30 million contribution toward the WCERS and VEBA obligations in 2014, if bonding did not occur. That amount was based on the 10-year amortization schedule.

At the June 25 special meeting, however, the WCERS and VEBA boards voted to adopt a longer, graduated amortization schedule for the UAAL of 27 years (WCERS) and 26 years (VEBA), with the amortization schedule decreasing annually by a two-year period. This change will lower the UAAL contributions county will need to make to cover its obligations each year.

In an email to The Chronicle on July 16, McDaniel indicated that revised estimates for the 2014-17 budget will be reported at the county board’s July 24 ways & means committee meeting. She estimated the amount for 2014 is now expected to be about $26 million, instead of $30 million.

The final actuarial report by Buck Consultants is expected to be delivered to the WCERS and VEBA boards later this week. Those boards have set a joint meeting for Tuesday, July 30 to review the material. The meeting starts at 10:30 a.m. in the boardroom of the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor.

Bond Proposal & Budget: Public Commentary & Public Hearing

The first public hearing on the bond proposal had been held on June 5. That public hearing drew four people who all expressed caution about the possible action, as some attendees suggested a millage or additional budget cuts to cover the retiree obligations – instead of bonding.

On July 10, more than a half dozen people spoke at the public hearing as well as during two opportunities for public commentary. Many of the speakers were affiliated with a group called the Washtenaw Watchdogs, which has raised concerns about the bonding and is prepared to launch a petition drive that would force the proposal to be put on the ballot for voters to approve. In addition to the speakers, several other members of the Washtenaw Watchdogs – many of them wearing the group’s T-shirt – attended the meeting.

The back of a T-shirt for the Washtenaw Watchdogs.

Doug Smith, one of the group’s organizers, spoke at both opportunities for public commentary, as well as at the bond proposal’s public hearing. He told commissioners that he’d watched presentations at the board’s last working session on June 6, and noted that the projections all assume that the bonds could be sold at a 4% interest rate, while the market returns would be about 6 or 6.5%. The proposal ignores the millions of dollars it would cost to initiate an intermediate trust and to sell the bonds, he said, as well as the cost of managing the trust. The bonds would be taxable, and could be recalled early, Smith said – which is good for the county, but makes the bonds less attractive to investors. Current rates for taxable municipal bonds are rising, and will likely to continue to increase, he noted.

Smith suggested looking at the county’s current pension trusts to gauge possible investment returns, and the cost of managing those investments. The WCERS trust has earned an average 8.2% since it was formed in 1981, he noted, but most of the higher returns were in the 1980s and 1990s, when inflation and interest rates were much higher than now. The country was also going through a tech revolution at the time, he said, and it’s unlikely the markets will see another period like that. Since 2000, the net gains for the WCERS trust have been 2%. The VEBA trust has an average 3.5% net gain since it was formed in 1997, and since 2000 the net gain is 2.4%. The trusts are paying more than $1 million in expenses to financial managers that are underperforming, he said.

Smith also pointed to the actuarial risk – what if retirees live longer than expected? If the county ends up needing to pay more to retirees while it also repays the bonds, that’s a money crunch. “But all of you will be long-gone from the board by then,” he said. It’s also possible that the bonds will be sold at up to 5.5% interest, and that the return on investments from those funds will be lower, he noted – that’s not an unrealistic scenario.

He then described two scenarios for possible outcomes of the bond’s investment trust. If the county borrows $300 million and invests it in the stock market, in one scenario the investment return might be 10% ($30 million) in the first year. But if the required contribution that year to the retirement trust is $29 million, and the investment expenses are $1 million, you end the year with the same $300 million. Smith described a second scenario in which the county loses 10% ($30 million) in the first year, but still has to make the $29 million contribution to the retirement trust and the $1 million in expenses. So the county ends the year with only $240 million. All future years would reflect that initial loss, he said.

In 2008, the WCERS fund lost 33% on its equity investments, Smith noted. Though there might not be a worse year in the future, he said, it’s likely there will be another financial meltdown of some sort in the next 25 years. Bond counsel John Axe and the Eastern Michigan University professor who made a presentation at a board working session earlier this year made rosy projections, he said. But those projections don’t consider that funds must be paid out every year to the WCERS and VEBA trusts, Smith said. The payouts make the timing of losses important, and the county might never recover from early losses.

Smith also pointed out that most experts feel the market is currently overvalued. And because there’s an inverse relationship between the bond market and stock market, the county might be putting taxpayer money into the stock market at just the wrong time, he said. What will happen if the intermediate trust runs out of money before the bonds are paid off? The county would have to pay off the bonds as well as contribute to the retirement trusts. “That’s going to be a much worse cash flow problem than you’re now facing.” He asked commissioners not to approve the bonding proposal, or at the very least to let the voters decide.

If the board votes to move ahead with the bonding, Smith said, he and others are prepared to gather the required signatures to put the proposal on the ballot as a voter referendum. They need only 15,000 signatures, he noted, and they already have about 25 volunteers to circulate petitions. The Washtenaw Watchdogs will have a booth at the Ann Arbor art fairs on Liberty Street near Division, and they’ll be going to other events and canvassing neighborhoods as well. He also encouraged potential volunteers to visit the group’s website.

Ray Williams asked how many commissioners would mortgage their house to play the stock market. That’s what the county is planning with this bond proposal, he said. “If you are not prepared to do the same with your own money, why is it a good idea for the taxpayers of Washtenaw County to do the same thing?” He didn’t want Washtenaw County to be like other counties that had made risky investments and that were now bankrupt. It’s hard to believe the county can’t find ways to eliminate its deficit without bonding, he said. The decision will affect citizens for the next 25 years, Williams said, and it should be put on the ballot so that taxpayers can decide. If the board votes to bond, Williams said he’d do everything he could to help collect the 15,000 signatures needed to force a ballot referendum.

Thomas Partridge also spoke at both opportunities for public commentary, as well as during the public hearing. He expressed concern over the proposed bonding, and urged the board not to do it. The county’s ability to bond should instead be used to build affordable housing and to provide other services for this area’s most vulnerable residents. He criticized the fact that most of the county’s revenues come from property taxes, which he characterized as a 19th century concept that gives property owners more influence in the political process. He accused Democratic commissioners of supporting a totalitarian state administration that aims to limit the role of government, even though there are homeless people outside the door of the county administration building, he said.

Judy Bloss began by saying she didn’t pretend to understand the complexities for the bonding proposal. She could understand the desire to have her children take care of her, but she had questions about the county’s bond counsel, John Axe, having his daughter profiting from that deal. [Axe & Ecklund provides a 15% discount on its fees if the county also hires Municipal Financial Consultants Inc. (MFCI) as the financial consultant on the bonding deal. Although it wasn't disclosed at public meetings about the proposal, MFCI president Meredith Shanle is Axe’s daughter.]

During her second turn at public commentary, Bloss told commissioners that she’s experiencing some unfunded liabilities in her own life, related to medical expenses. However, she’s not planning to borrow money from her home equity line of credit to pay those bills and to invest in the stock market, hoping to realize a profit. It’s not the job of county government to borrow money and invest it to make a profit, she said. Bloss noted that about 70% of the county budget funds mandated expenses, but the rest is discretionary. She suggested as a starting point to cut taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, which she accused of killing babies. She didn’t want blood on her hands.

A man from Webster Township told commissioners that they were elected to spend the money that the county collects from him and other taxpayers. But now, the board is looking to borrow money on behalf of the taxpayers. In the past, the county has borrowed for things like the jail and civic improvements, he said. It’s a noble reason to pay for retiree pension and health care, but the county would be borrowing against the fiscal well-being of its residents. It’s disrespectful if commissioners don’t put it on the ballot for voters to decide, he said. The July 4th celebration was initially based on the issue of rebelling against taxation without representation, he noted. And even though the bond proposal isn’t direct taxation, he concluded, it’s still a burden on the community.

Les Heddle referred to the information about the bonding proposal that’s posted on the county’s website. Many pertinent questions are still unanswered, he said, including the fact that the county is using data that’s 18 months old. It’s hard to believe that there isn’t a way to get more current data, he said. He believed current data would show a much lower level of unfunded liabilities. He also didn’t understand how the board had been ready to vote on this proposal when the staff hadn’t provided all of the necessary information regarding the state requirements. Who’s doing the due diligence? he wondered. It’s an egregious error and lack of judgment by the staff. He said he was trying not to get angry, because he had a lot of friends on the board. He indicated that if this had happened in the private sector, it would not be acceptable. “There should be some accounting for that, all the way up and down the line,” he said.

Heddle said that in his business, if he doesn’t live up to his clients’ expectations, they can take their money elsewhere. [Heddle is a financial advisor with Edward Jones in Ypsilanti.] He again questioned why the county administration wasn’t able to provide a proposal based on more up-to-date information. The board needs to get an answer from the administration about why they’re using data that’s so old. It might give some insight into why the county is in its current situation, Heddle said. He also criticized the county’s bond proposal website for not being updated regularly.

From left: County financial analyst Tina Gavalier and finance director Kelly Belknap.

During the public hearing, Heddle addressed several issues related to the list of answers to Frequently Asked Questions on the county’s bonding website. For example, one of the FAQs asked what will happen to the proceeds if the intermediate trust outperforms the bond payments, he noted, but it doesn’t ask what happens if the trust underperforms. Heddle said it’s difficult to find useful, up-to-date information, or anything that indicates what will happen if the bonding doesn’t work as planned.

Stephen Ranzini suggested an alternative to the current bonding proposal, which he called misguided. He indicated that although interest rates are low, the stock market is overvalued and that will result in future substandard performance. The short-term benefit from the “financial engineering” that the bond deal promises will turn into future losses. He told commissioners that in 1988 when he was 23 years old, Bank One lent him $3.2 million to buy a tiny bank that’s today is known as University Bank. The loan for this leveraged buyout was made because “I’d figured out something the sellers didn’t know – that the bank’s pension fund was overfunded.” After buying the bank, he terminated and defeased the bank’s pension plan by buying an annuity from a triple-A-rated life insurance firm. The extra funds from that deal – about $800,000 – were used to fund an employee stock ownership plan, he said, which purchased common stock in the bank holding company and paid down the loan to Bank One.

In a similar way, Ranzini said, the county could defease its retirement plan by buying an annuity from a top-rated insurance firm. It would require taking on debt, he noted, but this approach would lock in today’s low interest rates and eliminate future investment risk. Because insurance companies are “hungry” for these types of long-term annuities, he added, it would likely cost less than the bond proposal. The downside is that the county would lose control over its pension fund dollars, but it’s no great loss if the county doesn’t intend to use those funds for local economic development, Ranzini argued: “In fact, it prevents possible future mischief.” He recommended this same approach to all local units of government.

Wes Prater, a former county commissioner from York Township, noted that the county’s No. 1 guiding principle – as posted on the county administrator’s website – is to ensure long-term fiscal stability. He believes in that principle, and there’s a lot of work to be done. Since 2007, the county’s long-term liabilities have increased over $15 million each year, he said. Some of those liabilities don’t show up on the balance sheet, he noted. At the end of 2012, the county had net assets of $230 million, Prater said, compared to $446 million in long-term liabilities, including between $250 million to $300 million for pension and retiree health care. The board needs to look at what has happened in the past, Prater said, and at how the county has arrived at its current situation. He said he was willing to step forward and work on a committee to research how to address these issues.

Prater also wondered when the updated actuarial report and the independent financial analysis of the bond proposal would be completed. How do citizens get the information they need to make informed decisions? he asked. Prater also wanted to know how the intermediate trust fund would work. There are several issues that need to be cleared up, he concluded.

Bond Proposal & Budget: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson said he appreciated the delay in voting on the bond proposal. He noted that advocates for human services programs are interested in the impact on their funding if the county doesn’t bond. [Two leaders of nonprofits that the county funds – Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative and Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House – spoke during public commentary, urging continued support of human services.] He assured these groups that he will advocate for them. Peterson asked for the board chair or administrator to explain what will happen next regarding the bond proposal. He vowed that the county would honor its obligations to retirees, regardless of whether the board decides to bond.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi responded, first by describing the public outreach that had been done related to the bond proposal, including public hearings, coffee hours, a press conference and public forum. None of that had been required, he said, but the board believes in engaging citizens in these decisions. The delay is due in part because of a recognition that more questions need to be answered, he said. Several commissioners had raised concerns that need to be addressed, he added, and the state still is figuring out the process for this kind of bonding.

Two months ago, Rabhi said, when the bonding proposal was first publicly floated, it wasn’t known how long the state approval process would take. So it’s not necessarily the case that the staff was remiss in getting information, he said, it’s just a new process. “I don’t want anybody to blame anybody.”

The fact that residents showed up that night to address the board is a testament to the fact that this has been an open process, Rabhi said. The public has been engaged and has asked questions.

Moving forward, he said, the county must have a balanced budget for 2014 by the end of this year, independent of any decision to bond. The board has held discussions at its meetings and retreats about the budget, he noted, but now it’s time to really focus on priorities and engage the community on that. The board will be moving into an intensive process now, delving into the budget and providing guidance to the administration, he said. Rabhi said he feels optimistic about the process, and that the county is emerging from the recession and looking at better times ahead.

Later in the meeting, Dan Smith asked for clarification about the process by which the board will explore other alternatives to the bonding proposal. He said he wasn’t asking about specific alternatives at this point, but wanted to know how various alternatives would be discussed and vetted by the board.

From left: County commissioner Yousef Rabhi (D-District 8) and Andy Brush, the county’s IT manager.

Rabhi replied that any alternatives would be brought forward as part of the budgeting process. Felicia Brabec will be leading the budget process for the board, he said, including a discussion at the board’s July 11 working session. Dan Smith noted that until now, the board has generally discussed the budget and the bonding proposal separately, although he observed that obviously the topics are intertwined. Now, he said, it seems those discussions will be brought more closely together than previously.

Peterson asked whether the discussion would revolve around a four-year budget. When Brabec noted that the board had authorized the administration to move forward in developing a four-year budget plan, Peterson pointed out that he had voted against that action. [The board had taken that vote at its May 1, 2013 meeting, over dissent from Peterson and Rolland Sizemore Jr.] Peterson said he would vote against a four-year budget if it’s presented. Multi-year budgets sometimes result in problems getting pushed back, he said, or in borrowing a lot of money to deal with the county’s obligations.

Andy LaBarre, who chairs the board’s working sessions, noted that the following night there would be a discussion of budget priorities, and he implored everyone to attend. Peterson reported that he had a previous commitment and would not be present.

LaBarre also responded to a remark made by Doug Smith during public commentary. LaBarre noted that the EMU economics professor mentioned by Smith was Jens Stephan, who LaBarre said gave up about 4.5 hours of time to talk with commissioners at the June 6 working session. Stephan wasn’t advocating for any particular approach, LaBarre stressed, and was simply showing commissioners a tool they could use in making their decisions. “I want to make sure that’s on record, that he did us a public service,” LaBarre said.

Rabhi also provided a phone number that residents can call to give input on the bonding proposal via voicemail: (734) 222-6666. He also requested that the staff update the website with answers to the questions that had been raised during public commentary and the public hearing.

Peterson wanted to know that if the county changes its plan for the bonding proposal, would the board hold another public hearing? Rabhi replied that none of the public hearings were required by law. But if commissioners feel the need for more public participation, they can certainly schedule more public hearings, he said. Peterson felt it would be respectful to citizens to hold another public hearing, if the proposal changes in any way.

It’s unclear what actions might be taken next regarding the bonding proposal. The administration has previously stated that the bonding proposal was crucial to developing a four-year budget from 2014-2017. The administration has set a goal of identifying $6.99 million in structural reductions for the overall 2014 general fund budget, based on the assumption that the bonding would take place. Without the bonding, the county had expected to pay an estimated $30 million contribution toward these obligations in 2014, with additional amounts varying in subsequent years. That amount will likely be lower – estimated by McDaniel at around $26 million – based on updated actuarial information and recent decisions by the WCERS and VEBA boards.

Commissioners had previously voted to hold an extra meeting this month, on July 24. That meeting will be held as planned, but instead of bonding, the main topic will be a discussion of budget priorities.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Brownfield Plans

Two brownfield plans – for projects located in Ann Arbor – were on the agenda for both initial and final votes of approval, following public hearings on each plan. The projects are at Packard Square (the former Georgetown Mall) and 544 Detroit St. The Ann Arbor city council had signed off on the plans at its June 17, 2013 meeting.

Since the city of Ann Arbor joined the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (WCBRA) in 2002, brownfield projects located in the city must receive approval by the county board. The state’s brownfield program offers incentives for redevelopment of property that’s contaminated, blighted or “functionally obsolete.”

Both plans had been recommended for approval by the county’s brownfield development authority at its June 6, 2013 meeting.

Brownfield Plans: 544 Detroit St.

The 544 Detroit St. project is seeking brownfield status so that it will be eligible for brownfield tax increment financing. The site plan calls for a three-story “flatiron-style” building, located at the triangle tip of Detroit and North Division, just southwest of the Broadway bridge – the site of a long-abandoned gas station in the Old Fourth Ward Historic District. The new building would include offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors.

According to a staff memo, up to $698,773 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund over an estimated 25-year period. The county’s annual millage revenues on that site are estimated to increase from about $277 now to $6,150 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of 544 Detroit St. brownfield plan]

At a July 9 working session of the Ann Arbor planning commission, city planning manager Wendy Rampson had reported that the site was more contaminated than the developers originally thought. Although it was clear that the site was contaminated, she said, “I don’t know that they knew how much it would cost to remediate it.”

At the county board’s July 10 public hearing on this project, two people spoke. Thomas Partridge criticized the board for not providing sufficient information about items on the agenda. He called on the owners of these sites to explain how the sites became contaminated, and asked that the current developers explain why the site can’t be developed without governmental assistance. That assistance could better be spent on other programs for the public benefit, like Head Start and affordable housing, he said.

Bret Stuntz spoke briefly on behalf of the developer – 544 Detroit Street LLC – saying he was there to answer any questions. Stuntz is a project manager at AKT Peerless Environmental & Energy Services.

Brownfield Plans: Packard Square

For Packard Square – the former Georgetown Mall site at 2502-2568 Packard St. – approval related to an amendment to the project’s original brownfield redevelopment plan, which the county board approved after much debate on May 18, 2011. At that same meeting, the board also approved a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $50 million development. That grant was later awarded to the project. The project entails building more than 200 apartments and 20,000 square feet of commercial space.

Equipment at the Packard Square site. Buildings at the former Georgetown Mall have been demolished.

The amendment to Packard Square’s brownfield plan would add two eligible activities that qualify for brownfield tax increment financing: underground parking and urban stormwater management infrastructure. Those activities are now eligible for TIF, following changes by the state legislature to the Brownfield Redevelopment Act 381 in December 2012. According to a staff memo, TIF-eligible activities total $3,582,222. Over the 14-year period of the plan, up to $5,840,557 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund. This amount is unchanged from when the plan was initially adopted.

County millage revenues from the property are estimated to increase from about $8,701 annually to $64,138 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of Packard Square brownfield plan amendment]

The developer of this project is The Harbor Companies of Bloomfield Hills, via Harbor Georgetown LLC.

Ann Arbor city planning manager Wendy Rampson had updated planning commissioners about the status of Packard Square at the commission’s July 9 working session. The good news was that the buildings have been demolished and the contaminated soil has been removed, she reported. But heavy rains had compromised a retaining wall on the northwest side of the site, adjacent to the neighboring property, and the wall had to be shored up. Rampson also reported that EQ – the company that was doing the remediation work under contract with the developer – had “demobilized” from the site because they hadn’t been paid. She indicated that the financing situation was tenuous. “We’ll see – it’s still early,” she told planning commissioners. “But it’s possible that this may be where the project ends.” [Representatives of the development told The Chronicle at the county board's July 10 meeting that the project was moving ahead.]

Two people spoke at the county board’s July 10 public hearing for Packard Square. Thomas Partridge said he was concerned about the practice of local governments applying for federal or state funds simply because those funds are available. In this case, public funds are being used to remove toxic substances and contaminated soil from these sites, so the need for those funds should be substantiated at a public meeting, he said. Partridge was concerned about the possibility of contaminated soil being spread around the neighborhood. Developers should be able to finance these projects without public assistance, he concluded.

John Byl introduced himself – he works for the law firm Warner Norcross & Judd, which is working on the Packard Square project. He thanked Nathan Voght and other county staff for their work, and thanked the board for considering the brownfield plan amendment. The maximum amount is unchanged, he noted, but a couple of categories are being added to the list of things that can qualify for TIF. Byl thanked the Ann Arbor city council and county brownfield authority board for approving the plan. He noted that Bruce Measom, representing the developer, was on hand to also answer any questions that commissioners might have.

During a break at the July 10 meeting, Byl and Measom told The Chronicle that the project was moving ahead.

Brownfield Plans: Board Discussion

The public hearings reported above were held at the board meeting, which takes place after the meeting of the ways & means committee, on which all board members serve. But the brownfield items were first considered at the ways & means committee for an initial vote, prior to the public hearings.

As the board reached the brownfield agenda items at its ways & means committee meeting, Thomas Partridge spoke up from the audience, saying he wanted to comment. Felicia Brabec, who chairs the ways & means meetings, told him that it wasn’t an appropriate time to address the board, but that there would be a public hearing on these items at the regular board meeting that night.

Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6).

Their exchange prompted commissioner Ronnie Peterson to raise some procedural concerns about the approval process. He felt the public hearing should be held prior to the initial vote at the board’s ways & means committee meeting. So he thought that Partridge’s interruption had been appropriate.

When Brabec told Peterson that the public hearing would happen at the board meeting, he protested, saying “I’ve been around this track a few years” and he found it out of the norm. “This is backwards,” he said, and disrespectful to the public. He apologized to Partridge. The board was being asked to take action without knowing how the public feels, he said. [For agenda items that require public hearings, those hearings are generally held at the regular board meeting, just prior to a final vote on the item. There is typically not a public hearing before the board takes its initial vote at the ways & means meeting.]

Peterson objected to taking the final vote on the same night as the initial vote, even though it was the summer schedule. [Typically, an initial vote is taken at the ways & means committee, followed by a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. For most of the year, the ways & means committee and regular board meetings are held every two weeks, in back-to-back sessions on the same night. During the summer, those meetings are usually held only once a month.]

Andy LaBarre clarified with the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, that there would be an additional public commentary time at the start of the board meeting, as well as the public hearing – two additional opportunities for input. Hedger said that under law, since the public hearing comes before the final vote, there is adequate opportunity for public input. In a perfect world, he added, it would be better to hold the public hearing on a different day, and then take an initial vote at ways & means on one date, and a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. But an accelerated approach has been taken in the past, he noted, especially during the summer months when agenda items often receive an initial and final vote on the same night.

Peterson responded, saying “Expediency sometimes gets you in a lot of trouble.” He wanted to take the time to be cautious. He said he’d be voting no on this item because he didn’t feel there had been adequate public input, adding that it’s no reflection on the projects. He called his record “99 and a half percent voting pro-business.”

Conan Smith said he wanted to clarify the history of this process. A brownfield plan goes through the county’s brownfield authority, and any plan for property in Ann Arbor also goes to the city of Ann Arbor. There are public commentary opportunities at both the county brownfield authority board and at the city council. Then there’s public commentary at the county board’s ways &  means committee meeting before the initial vote, followed by another general public commentary time at the start of the board meeting, and a public hearing on the brownfield plan itself. [Partridge had spoken at the ways & means general public commentary prior to this discussion, but did not talk about the brownfield plan at that point.]

Smith argued that the public hearing can’t be scheduled before the regular board meeting, because the item hasn’t been properly brought before the board until then. [After consulting with Hedger later in the meeting, Smith retracted this statement. When an item is on the ways & means committee agenda, it is considered to be before the board. The ways & means committee is a "committee of the whole," meaning that all board members serve on it.]

There’s been abundant opportunity for public participation, Smith said. He also pointed out that action on the Packard Square plan is an amendment to change the scope of the project, but it doesn’t change the brownfield investment. He characterized it as a “ministerial” change. There has already been a robust public process for that Packard Square plan, Smith said.

Yousef Rabhi noted that he serves on the county’s brownfield development authority board. He praised the 544 Detroit St. project, saying it would be a great addition to the neighborhood and will clean up a contaminated site.

The Packard Square project is in his district, Rabhi said, and he asked Nathan Voght – an economic development specialist with the county – to give an update. Voght described how the board had authorized applying for a $1 million state grant two years ago, which had been received last year. The part of the project covered by the grant started in late May of 2013, and included demolishing the buildings and cleaning up contaminated soil. That’s been done, he said, and there will be a slight period of “demobilization” as the developer puts in place all of the financing and development plans.

Peterson clarified that he had no problems with the plans or the staff, calling the projects “outstanding.” He felt the board needed to follow proper procedures, and suggested that the summer schedule should be reconsidered.

Regarding 544 Detroit St., Dan Smith said he has nothing against the project. But he noted that the board continues to approve various TIF programs – for brownfields, downtown development authorities (DDAs) or local development finance authorities (LDFAs) – without a plan for the outcomes of those investments. “We pretty much rubber stamp these programs. We don’t really have any criteria to evaluate them against,” Dan Smith said, adding that anyone who votes against any particular project would be perceived as being against that specific project or community. He said he wanted to raise that concern again.

Outcome: To protest the process, Ronnie Peterson cast the sole vote against both brownfield plans on the initial vote at the ways & means committee meeting, but joined all other commissioners in supporting the plans in the final vote at the board meeting.

Strategic Plan for County Facilities

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to a range of infrastructure projects totaling about $5 million for county government facilities – including redeveloping the Platt Road site where the old juvenile center was located. Commissioners had given initial approval to the overall proposal – called the “strategic space plan” – at their June 5, 2013 meeting.

In addition to the Platt Road site, other projects in the plan include:

• At 200 N. Main in Ann Arbor, consolidate the land records from the building’s lower level to the 1st floor, and remodel the lower level to accommodate administrative offices.
• At 220 N. Main in Ann Arbor, repurpose space in the garden level, including redesigning conference room space.
• At 110 N. Fourth in Ann Arbor (known as the Annex), relocate the Office of Community and Economic Development, Office of Infrastructure Management, and the Public Defender’s office to other leased and county-owned space.
• At the county’s service center near Washtenaw and Hogback, redesign the Learning Resource Center (LRC) as a full conference center, providing county-owned space for large and small meetings. Also, make parking improvements, including adding 110 new spaces, rebuilding the lot between the LRC and the courthouse, and resurfacing the entry drive off of Hogback.
• At a location to be determined, develop a specialty vehicle storage facility for the sheriff’s office and other departments.

According to Greg Dill, the county’s infrastructure management director, no general fund dollars will be used for the projects, which are estimated to cost about $5 million. Funding will come from several sources: (1) $1 million from the 1/8th mill fund balance; (2) $650,000 from the facilities operations & maintenance fund balance; (3) $650,000 from the Office of Community & Economic Development reserves; (4) $500,000 from the tech plan fund balance; and (5) $2.2 million from the county’s capital reserves. Dill had briefed commissioners on the plan at a March 20, 2013 working session.

In addition to the projects listed above, other changes will be made to accommodate the county’s Community Support and Treatment Services (CSTS) unit, which provides contract services to the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO). The WCHO will pay for that facilities work, including moving the entire Adult MI program staff to the Annex at 110 N. Fourth; repurposing vacated space at 2140 Ellsworth for Youth and Family Services; and relocating all “service delivery” units to the 1st floor of the Towner II building at 555 Towner Street in Ypsilanti.

Strategic Plan for County Facilities: Board Discussion

Andy LaBarre proposed a two-part amendment. One part directed staff to use the county’s existing vendor pool for work on these projects, whenever feasible.

The amendment also called for the creation of a 9-member community advisory committee to guide the dispensation of the Platt Road site, which is located in LaBarre’s district. The space plan proposes demolishing the former juvenile center and exploring redevelopment of the site at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road for affordable housing, alternative energy solutions, and county offices. Details of how the advisory committee will be appointed, as well as the committee’s formal mission, will need to be worked out and will require approval from the board at a later date.

LaBarre said that his amendment was intended to address some of the issues that had been raised when commissioners discussed this item on June 5.

Regarding the advisory committee, Ronnie Peterson said the proposal was a “total surprise” to him, and it seemed to be giving control over a $1 million property to an entity other than the county board. There are procedures for dealing with the dispensation of county property, he said, and he wondered what authority the committee would have.

Corporation counsel Curtis Hedger clarified that the committee is advisory only. It has to report back to the board, he added, and the board can either accept the committee’s recommendations or not. “Ultimately, it’s still up to the board as to what they want to do, collectively, with the Platt Road site,” Hedger said. The intent of the committee is to have citizen input.

Peterson indicated that the board has dealt with other controversial proposals, like the jail expansion, without this kind of committee. He said he wasn’t against the advisory committee or citizen input, but he was concerned about setting a precedent. Peterson wondered if they could postpone action until there were more details about how the process would work. Hedger replied that a more detailed resolution would be required at a future meeting to appoint the members and approve the committee’s charge.

At the request of LaBarre, Hedger drafted a revised version of that portion of the amendment to address Peterson’s concerns:

Be it further resolved that the board of commissioners create a nine-member Platt Road community advisory committee to review and develop a recommendation for the disposition of the county’s Platt Road site. The composition and charge of the advisory committee will be determined by the board of commissioners at a later date, provided however that the board of commissioners shall have the authority to ultimately determine the disposition of the Platt Road site.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi clarified that he would be nominating people to the committee, who would then be confirmed by the full board. Alicia Ping felt the process should follow the board’s normal process for other boards and commissions, with people submitting applications for the positions. Rabhi indicated that as an ad hoc committee – not a standing committee – the process would be different, but that applications can be solicited if commissioners wanted to handle it that way. Ping encouraged that approach.

Regarding the vendor pool portion of the amendment, Ping asked for more background about why this direction was necessary. Dill replied that any of the county’s capital projects use the vendor pool to help augment outside professional services that are hired. The pool allows the county to be more efficient and cost effective, he said, in terms of keeping up with a project’s timeline. Every company that’s part of the vendor pool has already gone through the county’s procurement process, he noted, and has been vetted by the purchasing department.

Ping wondered if the county had a sufficient number of companies in the vendor pool to match all of the needs for upcoming capital projects. No, Dill replied. But using the vendor pool would allow projects to use some companies that have already gone through the RFP (request for proposals) process, rather than issuing RFPs for every aspect of a project.

Ping clarified that for larger projects, the work goes out for a competitive bid. Dill said that when a project goes over a certain dollar amount, the county moves away from using the vendor pool and uses a competitive bidding process. The strategic space plan encompasses several smaller projects, he added.

Conan Smith noted that the amendment is worded in such a way that could lead to a very large piece of work being handled by a firm in the vendor pool, rather than going out for a competitive bid. He proposed amending LaBarre’s amendment to designate using the vendor pool for projects under $100,000. His suggestion was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave final approval to the strategic space plan, as amended.

County Courts Budget

A proposal to postpone the final vote on a notice of intent to eliminate a lump-sum budgeting approach for Washtenaw County’s court system was on the July 10 agenda.

The board had voted last month 5-4 to give initial approval to the notice – at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The proposal had been brought forward by commissioner Alicia Ping. The move caught some commissioners by surprise, though for several weeks during budget deliberations Ping had expressed concerns over the county’s approach to funding the court system. Voting in favor of initial approval on June 5 were Ping, Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Andy LaBarre and Kent Martinez-Kratz. Voting against the proposal were Yousef Rabhi, Ronnie Peterson, Rolland Sizemore Jr. and Felicia Brabec.

Ping had noted that her goal wasn’t necessarily to cut funding for the courts, but rather to be more transparent about where the money goes. Giving  notice to terminate the agreement would have provided the board the option to end the agreement.

No court officials had attended the June 5 meeting, because the proposal had not been on the published agenda. However, Donald Shelton, chief judge of the trial court, subsequently spoke with several commissioners, including Ping, about their intent. The courts have historically been in favor of a lump-sum approach – rather than the line-item budget provided by most other units of county government.

The courts operate under a memorandum of understanding with the board of commissioners. The board unanimously approved that MOU on Jan. 19, 2011, replacing one that had been in place since 1990. [.pdf of memorandum of understanding] The agreement states that the county will provide “lump sum” funding to the courts, allocated to: (1) the trial court – an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, court clerk services, juvenile court, Friend of the Court, and probate court; (2) 14A District Court; and (3) a portion of the county’s child care fund. The county does not have line-item budgeting authority, but the courts agreed to submit a bi-annual line-item budget, and to provide quarterly financial projections.

From the general fund, the lump-sum payment to the courts in 2013 totals $19,155,029 – with $13,353,110 for the trial court and $5,801,919 for district court. In addition, state funding for certain trial court operations – the Friend of the Court and child care fund – totals $4,977,047. [.pdf of 2013 budget pages with trial court-related amounts highlighted]

County Courts Budget: Board Discussion

Ping reported that she and Dan Smith had met with Shelton, who had provided a detailed document regarding the court’s budget from 2008. [.pdf of trial court budget document] She said Shelton had indicated a willingness to meet with commissioners and the administration about this issue. Shelton had wanted to make clear to the public that the courts submit a line item budget to the county board, she said. However, Ping noted, “they can submit to us whatever they want, and then they can do with it whatever they want, according to current law.”

She said she wanted to give commissioners time to digest the additional information, and to hear the county administrator’s budget proposal for the general fund, which is expected in October. If the board decides to move forward with terminating the memorandum of understanding, it would still give the courts enough time to prepare for the next budget year (2015).

Outcome: On a 6-2 vote, commissioners postponed the item until the board’s Oct. 16, 2013 meeting. Dissenting were Dan Smith (R-District 2) and Conan Smith (D-District 9). Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was absent.

Dextech Property Annexation

Commissioners were asked to give final approval to the annexation of land from Scio Township into the village of Dexter. They had taken an initial vote at their June 5, 2013 meeting.

According to the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, the annexation of township property into a village is one of the few instances that requires county board approval. Generally, annexation is handled by the individual municipalities where the annexation occurs.

A letter to the county from Dexter village manager Donna Dettling stated that the annexation request – for a 16.66-acre property – was made by the property owner, Dexter Fastener Technologies, known as Dextech. The land is adjacent to the Dexter Business & Research Park, where Dextech hopes to expand. The company is Dexter’s largest employer.

On May 13, 2013, the Dexter village council unanimously passed a resolution in support of the annexation. The resolution indicates that although the Scio Township board did not take formal action about the request, there was generally support for the action. [.pdf of communications from Dexter regarding the annexation]

Dextech Property Annexation: Public Hearing

Four people spoke at a public hearing on the annexation. Thomas Partridge said the proposal reflected 19th century politics, and he urged all the townships, villages and cities in Washtenaw County to combine resources into one metropolitan authority under one government, with shared tax revenue and shared purpose. He indicated that such an approach would provide resources for health care, transportation, education, food and other needs.

Dexter village president Shawn Keough thanked commissioners for putting it on their agenda in a timely fashion. He called Dexter Fastener Technologies a wonderful business in the community. As the largest business in the Dexter area, the firm provides a lot of taxpayer dollars to the village, Scio Township and the county, he said. He asked for the board’s support.

Wes Prater said he’s a member of the state boundary commission. The village of Dexter has been working steadily for about two years trying to become a city, he said. There was some difficulty in getting everything done, he added, but the communities worked together, and the outcome will be good overall. He joked that he and Keough “have had our differences, but it’s all worked out.”

A representative of Dextech told commissioners that the firm needs to expand to meet the needs of its customers, which are primarily in the automotive industry. He said the firm doesn’t take this move lightly, and company officials appreciate the cooperation of Scio Township and Dexter to come up with a plan that’s beneficial to all concerned.

Dextech Property Annexation: Board Discussion

Ronnie Peterson expressed support for economic development, and joked that the firm should visit the county’s east side. “You will find it’s a little quicker and easier to develop on the eastern side of the county,” he said, adding that he’d love to show the firm some sites. [Peterson represents District 6, which includes the city of Ypsilanti and portions of Ypsilanti Township.]

Dan Smith wondered how the boundary change would affect Dexter’s attempt to become a city. Dexter president Shawn Keough responded, saying that it has a very small impact procedurally at this time. After the village receives cityhood status for its current boundaries, an additional boundary modification would be required to bring in that parcel.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the annexation.

Staff for County Clerk’s Office

On the agenda for initial approval was a modest increase in staff for the Washtenaw County clerk/register of deeds office, primarily to handle an increase in processing passports and concealed pistol license applications.

The change involves creating a full-time administrative coordinator position from a job that’s currently part-time (an 0.64 full-time equivalent position). The total cost for that full-time position is estimated at $56,902 – or an additional $15,631 in general fund support. It’s expected that a decrease in the need for temporary workers will help offset the payroll increase, as will a projected surplus in license and permit revenue. According to a staff memo, that revenue is expected to exceed projections by at least $33,824.

From left: Ed Golembiewski, the county’s director of elections, and county clerk/register of deeds Larry Kestenbaum.

Until mid-2008, the office had 5 full-time employees (FTEs) in the elections and administration division, which handles passport applications and concealed pistol licenses (CPL). The economic downturn and subsequent restructuring dropped staffing levels to 3.64 FTE positions.

CPL applications increased 140% between 2009 to 2012, to an average 2,091 applications per year compared to 870 in 2009. This year is expected to set a record for CPL applications. For the first quarter of 2013 there were 1,168 applications, compared to 540 in the first quarter of 2012. [.pdf of application data from 2004-2013] [.pdf of approved licenses from 2008-2013]

If the total number of applications in 2013 reaches projections of at least 3,225, then that will generate revenue of $83,824 to the general fund – above the original 2013 budget amount of $50,000.

In addition, on July 10 commissioners were asked to give initial approval to shift support for one full-time position in the clerk/register of deeds office back into the general fund, at a cost of $56,117. That position – a records management specialist – is currently funded by revenues from the office’s “automation fund.” Until 2008, that position was paid for out of the general fund.

The automation fund gets revenue from a $5 surcharge on every deed that’s processed, and is a statewide authorized fee that pays for technology related to the work of the clerk/register of deeds office. It pays for digitizing the county’s land records from 1824 through 1958, which are currently available only on paper. The goal is to relocate the paper records and clear out space in the lower level of 200 N. Main Street, as part of the county’s “space plan.” Digitization will also allow the public to quickly search and retrieve county records electronically, which will generate usage revenues for the general fund. Revenues for online usage increased from about $220,000 in 2010 to about $323,000 in 2012.

According to a staff memo, the number of documents recorded by the county clerk/register of deeds office has increased from fewer than 53,000 documents in 2008 to more than 85,000 documents expected in 2013. Revenues from the office to the general fund have grown from $2.248 million in 2011 to $3.198 million in 2012. Those revenues are expected to continue growing as the local real estate market recovers.

Staff for County Clerk’s Office: Board Discussion

Dan Smith pointed out that this is the third time in 2013 that the board has been asked to approve an increase in staffing. In isolation, each increase makes sense, he said. But as the headcount changes over time, it’s troubling.

County clerk Larry Kestenbaum responded, saying: “This doesn’t change headcount at all.”

Felicia Brabec asked Kestenbaum to elaborate and explain why it doesn’t change the headcount. Kestenbaum said the change entails moving a position from part-time to full-time. That’s based on the need to cover the tremendous increase in applications for concealed weapon licenses. The other change is to shift the funding source for an existing position into the general fund. As the land economy has improved, the number of associated transactions handled by his office has increased, Kestenbaum said. It’s important to keep up with those transactions to avoid delay, he added.

Kestenbaum also noted that his office is giving up its space in the lower level of the administration building at 200 N. Main, as part of the strategic space plan for county facilities. The documents stored there are being digitized, and he wasn’t expecting the move to happen on such an accelerated schedule. Money for this digitization process comes from the automation fund, he noted. By shifting the funding for one employee out of the automation fund and into the general fund, it frees up more funds from the automation fund to pay for digitizing documents. He noted that the paper documents will still be stored, but not at that location. He also reminded commissioners that the increased general fund revenue that’s generated by his office will more than cover the cost of the employee.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously gave initial approval to the requested changes for the clerk/register of deeds office. A final vote is expected at the board’s meeting in August.

Appointments

Appointments to five Washtenaw County boards and commissions were on the July 10 agenda.

Board chair Yousef Rabhi made the following nominations:

• Police services steering committee: Scott Cooper, representing non-contract areas for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014.
• Washtenaw County/City of Ann Arbor community corrections advisory board: Tori Noe for a term ending Dec. 31, 2013.
• Food policy council: Seema Jolly, filling a slot representing a nutritionist, for a term ending Dec. 31, 2013.
• Workforce development board: Renee Adorjan for the community-based organization slot for a term ending Dec. 31, 2014; and Fred Pittman for the veterans slot for a term ending Dec. 31, 2015.
• River Raisin watershed council (alternate): Evan Pratt.

Rabhi said he planned to hold off on making nominations to the county historic district commission.

Outcome: All nominations were confirmed unanimously without discussion.

Communications & Commentary

During the evening there were multiple opportunities for communications from the administration and commissioners, as well as public commentary. In addition to issues reported earlier in this article, here are some other highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Human Services Funding

During public commentary, two people spoke about the importance of funding human services organizations. Margy Long, director of Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative, thanked commissioners for their support of human services in this community. She described the importance of investing in early childhood programs. Success by 6 has one goal, she said – to ensure that every child in Washtenaw County reaches kindergarten in good health and ready to succeed in school.

Margy Long, director of the Washtenaw Success by 6 Great Start Collaborative, talks with county commissioner Andy LaBarre (D-District 7).

As many as two out of four kids don’t meet that goal at this point, she said, and there are over 40 organizations collaborating to find ways to improve that number. Research has shown that the first five years of a child’s life are critical to their success in learning throughout their life, she said. Long pointed to the return on investment that comes from support during those early years of childhood, including an increased likelihood in graduating from high school and earning a higher income later in life, and less likelihood of criminal activity.

Nicole Adelman, executive director of Interfaith Hospitality Network-Alpha House, described the nonprofit as an emergency shelter for children and families experiencing homelessness. Her organization works with families to find employment, increase income, and find affordable housing. She also serves on the board of the HIV-AIDS Resource Center (HARC) and the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. Adelman said she knew she was preaching to the choir for many commissioners, and she thanked them for their support.

IHN-Alpha House receives about $90,000 each year from the county’s office of community & economic development through the coordinated funding approach. Losing that funding would devastate the agency, she said. It doesn’t get much worse than not having a place to live or knowing where your next meal is coming from, she said. The demand already exceeds the available resources, Adelman added. Budget cuts are incredibly hard, she said, but she’s asking the board to dig deeper and find somewhere else to cut. She noted that she’s a 30-year resident of Washtenaw County, and she votes. The county funds services for people who have nowhere else to go. She said she’d bet that the board’s constituents are willing to vote for those who support human services funding. “I know I will,” she concluded.

The county handles its support for human services through a coordinated funding approach managed by the county’s office of community & economic development. The approach involves a partnership of the county, the city of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw Urban County, the United Way of Washtenaw County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. Felicia Brabec, during her report as ways & means committee chair, noted that the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) has selected the coordinated funding program to profile as a best practices case study on social sustainability. [.pdf of ICMA letter]

Communications & Commentary: Benefits for Same-Sex Partners

Cynthia Emerick, a Manchester resident and member of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Ann Arbor, thanked commissioners “for moving so quickly to correct a wrong.” Nine employee families of Washtenaw County government lost health care coverage when the state banned domestic partner benefits for public employees, she noted. [As background, new 10-year labor contracts that the county negotiated earlier this year – to avoid the impact of Michigan's "right to work" law – resulted in the elimination of the county’s healthcare benefits for domestic partners. When the county’s previous labor contracts were opened for renegotiation, that triggered the need to comply with a state law passed in late 2011: PA 297, which restricted public entities from offering domestic partner benefits. For the county, those benefits had been offered to “other eligible adults” who met certain criteria, like sharing the same residence. Nine county employees had been using those benefits, which had been eliminated as of April 1.]

But in late June – soon after a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a ruling came down from U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Michigan that blocked the state from enforcing its ban on domestic partner benefits. Emerick noted that board chair Yousef Rabhi and the county administration acted quickly, and in less than one business day, those nine county employees had their health care coverage reinstated. She thanked the county staff and commissioners for their action, saying it affected a lot of people.

Deborah Dean-Ware, pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd, also thanked the board. She said her church has a long history of supporting the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender community, and they are working hard to see marriage equality become reality in Michigan. The county’s work on the domestic partner benefits “is a very powerful statement for justice,” she said.

Communications & Commentary: Head Start

Felicia Brabec reported that the Washtenaw Intermediate School District has received a notice of award from the federal government, designating the WISD as the organization that will take over management of the Washtenaw Head Start program. The county has been administering the program for more than four decades, but last year decided to relinquish that duty. Brabec said that plans are being made for handling the transition.

Present: Felicia Brabec, Andy LaBarre, Kent Martinez-Kratz, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Yousef Rabhi, Conan Smith, Dan Smith.

Absent: Rolland Sizemore Jr.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

Since the city of Ann Arbor joined the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (WCBRA) in 2002, brownfield projects located in the city must receive approval by the county board. The state’s brownfield program offers incentives for redevelopment of property that’s contaminated, blighted or “functionally obsolete.”

The 544 Detroit St. project is seeking brownfield status so that it will be eligible for brownfield tax increment financing. The site plan calls for a three-story “flatiron-style” building, located at the triangle tip of Detroit and North Division, just southwest of the Broadway bridge – the site of a long-abandoned gas station in the Old Fourth ward Historic District. The new building would include offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors.

According to a staff memo, up to $698,773 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund over an estimated 25-year period. The county’s annual millage revenues on that site is estimated to increase from about $277 now to $6,150 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of 544 Detroit St. brownfield plan]

For Packard Square, located at 2502-2568 Packard St., approval related to an amendment to the project’s original brownfield redevelopment plan, which the county board approved after much debate on May 18, 2011. At that same meeting, the board approved a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $50 million development. That grant was later awarded to the project. The project entails building more than 200 apartments and 20,000 square feet of commercial space at 2502-2568 Packard Street.

The amendment to Packard Square’s brownfield plan would add two eligible activities that qualify for brownfield tax increment financing: underground parking and urban stormwater management infrastructure. Those activities are now eligible for TIF, following changes by the state legislature to the Brownfield Redevelopment Act 381 in December 2012. According to a staff memo, the total TIF-eligible activities will now be $3,582,222. Over the 14-year period of the plan, up to $5,840,557 of local and state taxes will be captured for eligible activities, administrative costs, and the Washtenaw County brownfield redevelopment authority local site remediation revolving fund. This amount is unchanged from when the plan was initially adopted.

County millage revenues from the property will increase from about $8,701 annually to $64,138 after the period for brownfield tax increment financing is completed. [.pdf of Packard Square brownfield plan amendment]

Both plans had been recommended for approval by the county’s brownfield development authority at its June 6, 2013 meeting.

Public hearings were held for both projects at the county board’s meeting on July 10. In addition to representatives of the developers, the only other speaker was Thomas Partridge.

Commissioner Ronnie Peterson (D-District 6) raised some procedural concerns about the approval process. He felt the public hearing should be held prior to the initial vote at the board’s ways & means committee meeting. Peterson also objected to taking the final vote on the same night as the initial vote. [Typically, an initial vote is taken at the ways & means committee – on which all board members serve – followed by a final vote at the regular board meeting two weeks later. For most of the year, the ways & means committee and regular board meetings are held every two weeks, in back-to-back sessions on the same night. During the summer, those meetings are held only once a month.]

To protest the process, Peterson cast the sole vote against both brownfield plans on the initial vote at the ways & means committee meeting, but joined all other commissioners in supporting the plans in the final vote at the board meeting.

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

From left: 15th District Court judge Christopher Easthope – a former Ann Arbor city councilmember – and 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft at the council’s June 17 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The main court-related item was part of an annual adjustment to the current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2013), which ends on June 30. The adjustment is made on a routine basis in order to bring the budget in line with actual expenditures. The general fund budget adjustment that was eventually approved by the council increased it by $567,000.

And of that amount, a significant part was attributable to the 15th District Court – including $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000. None of the salary increases went to judges, whose compensation is set through state statute.

The council was essentially being asked to approve the accounting adjustment for money that had already been spent this year.

The city’s budget for the next fiscal year – approved by the council last month, on May 20, 2013 – already incorporated the court workers’ salary increases going forward, and councilmembers had been apprised of the raises before their budget deliberations in May. The council’s deliberations on May 20 had not focused on those raises, but rather on the possibility of reducing the court’s budget in order to fund additional police officers for the city.

At the June 17 meeting, all three judges of the court plus the court administrator were on hand – as some councilmembers drew out a disagreement regarding how the wage increases should have been approached. At least some councilmembers felt the court should have asked the council before awarding wage increases to its workers.

Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, indicated at the meeting that if the council had not approved the budget adjustment for the court, it would likely have generated a note in next year’s audit.

Other court-related items on the council’s agenda included a new $240,000 annual flat-fee contract with Nassif and Reiser – the firm that provides indigent representation for the court. The council also approved a $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, the building next to city hall that houses the 15th District Court.

The council approved two items related to the court’s special Sobriety Court, one of which was a $65,000 grant program contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm to provide in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants. It was approved over the dissent of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who objected to the accompanying provision that waived a requirement that Dawn Farm adhere to the city’s living wage ordinance.

The wind generator item was originally on the consent agenda, but was pulled out for separate consideration. The council had previously voted unanimously at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting to accept a roughly $950,000 U.S. Department of Energy grant for installation of the wind generator. The council was asked on June 17 to spend about $50,000 of the grant proceeds on an initial environmental assessment, required before the project can move forward. Three councilmembers balked at the request, but the resolution was ultimately approved.

In business related to revisions of local laws, the council gave final approval to an ordinance change that limits use of fireworks to between the hours of 8 a.m. and midnight. And the council gave final approval to the city’s outdoor sign ordinance that limits the incorporation of digital technology into outdoor signs – in a way that prohibits such use for billboards. However, the council again delayed taking an initial vote on an ordinance that would regulate how local law enforcement officials can use public surveillance cameras. The council did give initial approval to adopt the new fire code into the city’s ordinances.

In land use and development business, the council approved a revised development agreement for The Varsity. The agreement now incorporates a total of seven monthly parking permits that will be purchased at a premium cost under the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The council also gave approval to site plans for two projects: the State Street Center and 544 Detroit St. The 544 Detroit St. project included a brownfield plan, which was also approved. Another brownfield plan was on the council’s agenda – related to the Packard Square development on the site of the former Georgetown Mall. That plan had previously been approved, but an additional council vote was needed to change the set of activities that are eligible for reimbursement.

In connection with government-controlled land, the council approved $382,000 in additional operating support for the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. The council also passed a resolution committing up to $750,000 in general fund money to convert city-owned property at 721 N. Main to a greenway park. However, if the grants that the city expects to be awarded are actually received, none of that $750,000 would need to be spent on the project.

The council again heard public commentary about a homelessness outreach ministry in one of the city’s established parks – Liberty Plaza in downtown Ann Arbor, at Division and Liberty streets.

The council also approved revisions to collective bargaining agreements with the six unions in the police department, which gave members a 2% wage increase.

In a symbolic effort, the council voted to oppose expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County – a proposal that’s part of SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan with an estimated cost of $4 billion. SEMCOG subsequently adopted the plan.

The council put off voting on proposed changes to its internal rules, which could result in adding public commentary time at the council’s work sessions, but reducing the time allowed per turn from three minutes to two minutes. The council is expected to vote on the full set of rule changes at its July 1 meeting.

The proposed changes to the rules would move nominations and confirmation of appointments to a slot near the start of the meeting, instead of its current position near the end. For the June 17 meeting, the council’s confirmations came after midnight – and included reappointment of Bonnie Bona to the planning commission, and LuAnne Bullington to the taxicab board.

15th District Court

A number of items on the June 17 agenda related to the 15th District Court – either directly or indirectly.

15th District Court: City FY 2013 Budget Adjustment

The council was asked to make changes to the FY 2013 budget – which ends on June 30 – totaling $567,000 for the general fund. Much of that stemmed from additional expenses incurred by the 15th District Court. [.pdf of proposed amendments]

The 15th District Court’s portion of that adjustment stemmed from $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000.

General information about the court’s wage increases – authorized by chief judge Libby Hines in October 2012 and the focus of council inquiry at the council’s June 17 meeting – was known to the council before its May 20, 2013 meeting, when councilmembers voted to approve next year’s FY 2014 budget. [.pdf of May 13, 2013 memo on 15th District Court expenses] That FY 2014 budget incorporated the wage increases going forward.

As it related to the court, the council’s May 20, 2013 deliberations on the FY 2014 budget were in the context of reducing the court’s budget in order to fund three police officer positions – a proposal put forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft was present at that meeting and took questions about the salary increases at that time. However, Lumm’s FY 2014 budget amendment failed on a 5-6 vote.

15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) before the June 17 meeting started.

Subsequently, Zeisloft provided a memo to the council in advance of its June 17 meeting, giving a more detailed explanation of the salary increases. The judges, magistrate and Zeisloft were excluded from the increases. The majority of other staff received a 0-3% increase. Administrative staff received an average 4.85% increase based on the conclusion that they were under-compensated compared to their peers in other courts.

The case management staff received an average of 4.22% raises based on increased supervisory responsibilities. Judicial staff averaged a 4.76% increase based on increased specialty court responsibilities. The highest increases, averaging 18.15%, were given to probation officers who were found to be significantly under-compensated compared to their peers, and who had increased multi-jurisdictional, specialty court responsibilities. [.pdf of responses from 15th District Court to councilmember inquiries]

The block of items related to the 15th District Court were moved up on the agenda at the start of the meeting, in deference to the fact that three judges and the court administrator were in attendance.

15th District Court: City FY 2013 Budget Adjustment – Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the discussion by proposing an amendment that eliminated the $112,000 budget adjustment for the 15th District Court salary increases – which had been approved by chief Judge Libby Hines in late 2012. Briere contended that the regular processes weren’t followed for the wage increases, venturing that the chief judge had overstepped her bounds. Briere was not satisfied with the mechanism by which the wage increases were approved, saying they were “not properly done.”

The overall tone of the ensuing interaction between the three judges and the council was consistent with the language Zeisloft had provided in his memo. Responding to a question about the ability of the city council to control the court’s spending decisions, the memo states:

Although City Council has authority to establish a total annual budget for the Court, and with all respect due to Council, the Court declines to accept that City Council has authority to direct, control, approve or disapprove specific expenditures, including but not limited to compensation of judicial employees. However, legalities aside, the Court has always sought a respectful and cordial relationship with Council and City Administration, and the Court’s budget history demonstrates that the Court has been a prudent and careful custodian of public funds, at times even to the disadvantage of the Court’s own interests.

At the meeting, Zeisloft generally deferred questions to the judges of the court, who were all in attendance: Judges Chris Easthope, Libby Hines and Joe Burke are all standing at the podium. However, Zeisloft also responded to particular items.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) followed up on the salary increases – which were implemented in October 2012 – asking for a breakdown of the $112,000. Relying on figures from the city’s finance department, Zeisloft gave the breakdown as follows: compensation ($115,000), overtime ($10,000), temporary pay ($19,000) and vacancies (-$32,000) for a total of $112,000. The annual cost going forward was calculated at $193,000. Zeisloft had prefaced his remarks by saying that the information hadn’t been distributed to councilmembers because he didn’t have the information earlier. Lumm asked for the information to be provided in writing.

Hines told the council she respects the separation of powers, but she asserted the authority of the chief judge to increase salaries. The court has never asked the city for permission to do that in her 22 years on the bench. She pointed out the money that the court has managed to return to the city in past years when it has come in under budget. Zeisloft’s memo put the figures as follows: for FY 2002 through FY 2012, the council had budgeted a total of $41,865,240 from the general fund for court operations. Over that period, the court spent only $40,435,613, for a net return to the city budget of $1,429,627.

Hines put the salary increases in the context of retaining employees. She described past pay cuts and freezes. She also described a gross disparity in pay between the probation officers in the 15th District Court compared to other courts. And she added that while the court had worked with the city’s HR department, the court had not asked permission to implement the raises. The court is not overpaying its employees by any means, she said, concluding that she felt the pay raises were only reasonable.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) disagreed with the narrative of the “honorable judges,” citing the decrease in cases handled by the court. The workload has come down, Kailasapathy contended. She was relying on the data that the court had provided to the council earlier in the year:

By way of background, Ann Arbor’s caseload downward trends are in line with the overall trend for other comparable courts [.pdf of caseload trends for 15th District Court]:

               Misdem       Civil Inf    Gen Civil
D15 Ann Arbor  3,109 ‐31%   13,894 ‐49%  1,742 ‐16%

-

Easthope said the 15th District Court was trying to be in the lead in reducing its costs. He allowed that the caseload had gone down, but the number of employees had also gone down, he contended.

The city’s comprehensive financial reports show 41 FTEs (full-time equivalents) for the court in 2007 compared to 36 in 2012:

15th District Court historical FTE count. (Data from city records, chart by The Chronicle)

Hines said that the kind of cases that had gone down – civil infractions – were not the kind that reduce judge and staff time. Hines returned to her earlier point about the basis for the salary increases – the challenge of retaining employees.

Briere said she’s not unsympathetic to the situation. But she felt the salary increases should have been considered as part of the standard budgeting process. The money should have been built into the FY 2013 budget, Briere contended. She agreed with the need to compensate the court staff – but a standard increase in salary should have been included in previous year’s budget.

Burke offered his perspective of the newest judge of the court, telling the council that when he became a judge, Hines and Easthope had sat him down and talked to him about the employees and the need for retention. He said that in making the salary increases, they had followed the normal procedures that anyone would in determining the amounts of the increases – gathering comparative data and the like. The one thing that they had not done was ask the city council. Responding to Briere’s point about budgeting, Burke said the court had calculated that the salary increases would come in within the court’s FY 2013 budget – but they had been wrong. It was a point to which Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) returned later in the deliberations, telling Burke that he appreciated the fact the court had acknowledged that its math was off.

Kailasapathy then cited a Michigan Supreme Court administrative order. It appears to say that if the court uses a line item budget, there are restrictions on what the court can do.

From Administrative Order No. 1998-5, which applies to district courts, among others.

II. COURT BUDGETING If the local funding unit requests that a proposed court budget be submitted in line-item detail, the chief judge must comply with the request. If a court budget has been appropriated in line-item detail, without prior approval of the funding unit, a court may not transfer between line-item accounts to: (a) create new personnel positions or to supplement existing wage scales or benefits, except to implement across the board increases that were granted to employees of the funding unit after the adoption of the court’s budget at the same rate, or (b) reclassify an employee to a higher level of an existing category. A chief judge may not enter into a multiple-year commitment concerning any personnel economic issue unless: (1) the funding unit agrees, or (2) the agreement does not exceed the percentage increase or the duration of a multiple-year contract that the funding unit has negotiated for its employees. Courts must notify the funding unit or a local court management council of transfers between lines within 10 business days of the transfer. The requirements shall not be construed to restrict implementation of collective bargaining agreements.

Zeisloft responded to Kailasapathy by saying that the court submits a budget in a line item form only as a courtesy. It’s a function of the city’s financial software. Tom Crawford, the city’s CFO, followed up with the additional explanation that the city requires all the component units to submit line item budgets, but the city council authorizes the budgets by fund. Kailasapathy returned to her question about the administrative order.

Easthope, a former city councilmember, stated that the council has the authority to set a lump sum budget for the court. But the council doesn’t have the ability to change line items, he said. Easthope reiterated the description of the court as a separate branch of government. There was some unclarity expressed about where the comparative salary data had come from and who had gathered it. About the comparative salary data and its source, Easthope stated that the Supreme Court administrative office had provided all the comparative data. Hines had not simply said, “You get a raise and you get a raise …”

Considerable back-and-forth ensued between Kailasapathy and Zeisloft on the way the HR department of the city had been involved in the compensation adjustment amount. No formal report had been requested from HR, Zeisloft confirmed.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked for clarification of the administrative order on line item budgeting. and what happens if the council doesn’t approve the adjustment. That is, what happens if Briere’s amendment passes? Crawford indicated that the city would probably receive a formal note from the city’s auditor next year. The money has already been spent, Warpehoski ventured. Crawford indicated agreement that it would be difficult to stop the expenditures before the fiscal year ends on June 30.

Lumm then confirmed with Crawford that court employee checks are processed through the city. In describing the fact that the court had exceeded its budget this year (FY 2013), Lumm said that the court’s budget seems to be “optional.” But picking up on Warpehoski’s point – that the council essentially needs to approve the budget adjustment or accept a negative note on the audit of its financial statements next year – Lumm ventured that there doesn’t seem to be an option not to make the adjustment. Easthope contended that the court was actually under the budget by $99,000. Lumm wanted to follow up later on that, indicating that Easthope’s remarks weren’t consistent with the information the council had received.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman asked what Burke thought the consequence should be: Should the council just cover the amount of the salary increases? In the short term, Burke replied, yes. He said the court doesn’t spend money like drunken sailors. Burke indicated that there is a clear understanding on the court’s part that the council would not want to hear next year at this time that the court had the same issue.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventured that the council had engaged in a full conversation, but it’s a simple question. The court had diligently determined that their line workers’ wages were below market, Taylor concluded. And the council has already approved the increases going forward, he noted, when it approved the FY 2014 budget. So Taylor indicated he’d vote against Briere’s amendment. Mayor John Hieftje confirmed with Crawford that the budget resolution basically recognizes reality.

Briere indicated that her intent was not to force the court into a deficit. The court’s staff should not be penalized for the actions of their supervisors. So she’d withdraw her amendment. But she said the court should have done a better job of communicating, and she stated she would remember the situation without fondness. Kailasapathy, who seconded the amendment, hesitated for several seconds before agreeing with Briere to withdraw it.

With that amendment withdrawn, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) moved on to the indigent representation and the security services issue. Zeisloft characterized those as an unusual circumstance, that should not arise again in the future. Easthope noted that the special docket courts are operated at no cost to the city.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) returned to the issue of the salary increases, picking up on the historical pattern that Hines had cited of the court coming in under budget and returning money to the city. Why were salary increases not undertaken during the period when the court was returning money to the city? If the court had the ability to give raises without asking permission from the city, why didn’t the court give the raises at that time – when the court had the money?

As far as the idea that the court was trying to mirror the city organization’s approach of not giving raises during the period of the economic downturn, Higgins pointed out that the city had not given its employees the kind of raises the court had implemented over the last year. So she didn’t see the mirroring play out.

Burke ventured that unfortunately the court did not get the opportunity to come before the council to say that it was returning money to the city. It was only when more money was needed that court officials came to the council. Higgins complained that she felt blindsided, because the court did not come to the council and communicate that to the council about a major increase.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Briere ventured that it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Burke responded by saying he felt Briere’s remark was “[holding his fingers apart to indicate an increment] this much of a cheap shot.” Briere told Burke it was OK that he felt that way, because she felt the other way – that in years past when the court knew it had outstanding debts to the county for security services, for example, but had returned money to the city, to her that was a problem. Briere also alluded to the issue with the court’s math, which Kunselman had also noted. Briere indicated that she had great respect for the court and the work that it did. But it was a “big chunk” to come to the council with at the last meeting in June.

Burke said that if his mathematical competence was being questioned, then he could live with that. But if Briere was saying that the court didn’t come to the council even though it knew that it should have, then “I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong about that. We are separate branches of government and what you’re talking about is an integrity issue.”

City administrator Steve Powers shared his perspective as a former county administrator working three different courts. Prior to his taking the city administrator position in September 2011, he felt there hadn’t been enough consultation and communication between the city and the 15th District Court. So he’d met with the chief judge and the court administrator. He accepted responsibility for not bringing the communication back from the court and not updating the council. Going forward, the consultation with the court would be important so that these issues don’t arise in the future, Powers said. He stressed the importance of the two branches of government doing things in consultation, not confrontation.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the FY 2013 budget adjustments, over the lone dissent of Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

15th District Court: Indigent Representation

Two agenda items related to the law firm that provides indigent representation for defendants in the 15th District Court.

Nader Nassif with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C., which does business as Model Cities Legal Services. Nassif also serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. In the foreground is 15th District Court judge Chris Easthope.

The 15th District Court is required to provide representation to those who cannot afford an attorney, if a conviction would result in jail time.

The council was asked to approve a $240,000 flat-fee contract for representation of indigent defendants – with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C. (f/k/a Funkhouser and Nassif, P.L.L.C.), d/b/a Model Cities Legal Services (“MCLS”). The contract covers FY 2014, which begins July 1.

The reason the contract was structured as a flat fee is that MCLS had customarily delayed billing for services until a defendant’s case was completely closed or additional court action was deemed unlikely.

Even after a guilty verdict, defendants remain under court supervision and can be subject to other court orders.

Delayed billing resulted in another agenda item requesting that the council cover $203,000 of fees to “catch up” the billing.

15th District Court: Indigent Representation – Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that the contracting party is a client of his law firm. He asked the council to vote to excuse him from voting.

They did so, and Taylor took a seat in the audience.

Lumm asked Zeisloft if the court had considered issuing an RFP (request for proposals) for the service. Zeisloft described the negotiation between the court and the law firm. He indicated that the court had not considered issuing an RFP, but it would be possible. Model Cities, however, provides the service at a very competitive cost, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) sat in the audience as the contracts for indigent representation were discussed.

Easthope explained that Model Cities doesn’t just stand in court – they provide far more than that. There’s a value that’s hard to represent, and it doesn’t have to do with just the lowest price. Model Cities has a personal connection to all the social services agencies, Easthope explained.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the two resolutions related to Model Cities for legal services.

15th District Court: Security Billing

In addition to an FY 2013 budget adjustment that included back-billing for security services, the council was asked to approve next year’s $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, which houses the 15th District Court. The estimated annual cost is based on $25.25 per hour per court security officer. The estimated maximum annual cost of $160,000 is $27,000 less than last year. The money comes from the 15th District Court’s budget.

During deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) got clarification on the way the cost of the contract was estimated. Zeisloft explained that it’s based on a wage rate of $25.25 per hour. The reduction from the $187,000 for the previous year was due to a reduction in the projected number of hours that would be worked, he said, not a reduction in the wage rate.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the weapons screening contract.

15th District Court: Specialized Courts

Two other items related to the 15th District Court appeared initially on the council’s consent agenda, a group of items considered routine and voted on as a group. The council was asked to approve $30,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) to provide mental health treatment to 15th District Court defendants. And the council was asked to approve $65,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with Dawn Farm for in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants.

At Sabra Briere’s (Ward 1) request, the Dawn Farm item was pulled out for separate consideration, because the item included a request for a waiver of the city’s living wage ordinance. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Dawn Farm employs 70 people, including 15 employees who are paid less than $12.52 per hour with health care coverage, and 18 people who are compensated at rates less than $13.96 per hour without health care coverage. Those are the rates specified in the city’s living wage ordinance.

Last fall the council engaged in a vigorous discussion of a living wage ordinance waiver for Community Action Network (CAN), which ultimately resulted in the granting of a waiver for that nonprofit at the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Briere led off the discussion saying she wasn’t satisfied with the answers she’s received to questions she had asked about the living wage ordinance exemption that had been requested by Dawn Farm. She wanted to know if the item could be postponed so that adequate answers could be given.

Judge Joe Burke, who runs the Sobriety Court, explained to Briere that the court’s application for a grant was due on Friday, June 21 – so postponement would be difficult. Burke indicated that he was the one who’d asked for the living wage ordinance exemption – and that was based on communication from Jim Balmer, executive director of Dawn Farm, who’d reported that Dawn Farm can’t comply with the living wage.

Burke said he couldn’t speak for Dawn Farm but could speak about Dawn Farm. Briere interrupted Burke, apologizing for doing so, but stressed that her concern was not with Dawn Farm but rather with the living wage compliance: “I just don’t want you to spend too much time telling us what we all agree are the virtues of Dawn Farm as an entity and the work they do for the Sobriety Court.” Burke stressed that Balmer agreed with the city’s living wage ordinance, but was not in a financial position to comply, and Balmer had wanted to be honest about that. Burke then went on to explain the importance of the work that Dawn Farm does in support of the Sobriety Court.

Briere indicated that she didn’t see a process in the application for the living wage exemption that would eventually lead to compliance. Just as working toward sobriety has steps, Briere said, working toward financial solvency also has steps. Her problem was with the exemption, not the contract.

By way of background, the point Briere was raising related to conditions on the exemption that the council can grant under the ordinance. The Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance reads in relevant part [emphasis added]:

… provided further that the otherwise covered non-profit employer shall provide a written plan to fully comply with this Chapter within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed three years, and the City Council then agrees that granting a partial or complete exemption is necessary to ameliorate the harm and permit the non-profit organization sufficient time to reach full compliance with this Chapter.

Briere wanted that process to be included in the application for the exemption.

Outcome: The Dawn Farm contract, with the three-year exemption from the city’s living wage ordinance, was granted by the council over dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1). She did not insist on a roll call vote.

Wind Energy

The council had previously voted unanimously at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting to approve the acceptance of a roughly $950,000 U.S. Department of Energy grant for installation of a wind generator project. On June 17, the council was asked to spend about $50,000 of the proceeds of that grant on the initial environmental assessment, required before the project can proceed. The specific item on which the council was asked to vote was a contract with CDM Smith to perform an environmental analysis (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which includes public engagement.

The wind generator item was on the consent agenda, but was pulled out for separate consideration.

Wind Energy: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off discussion by saying that she’d learned that day that the proposal is to place a wind turbine at Pioneer High School. She felt it was unfortunate that an initial decision had been made to place the generator on the high school property, without more community outreach – but she allowed that part of CDM Smith’s scope of work would include public engagement.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) followed up on Lumm’s remarks by reporting that she’d received a letter from a University of Michigan physics professor – Gregory Tarlè – on the topic of the wind generator. She read aloud some concerns outlined by him in his message:

I am currently teaching a class “Energy for our Future” at the University of Michigan. One of the first things we learn when studying wind power is that the power you can get from a wind turbine goes as the cube of the wind velocity. Effective wind turbines must be sited in places where the wind velocity is high and steady or where there are frequent high velocity gusts. Attached is a map of US Wind Resources from the Department of Energy. As you can see, wind resources are marginal at best in Ann Arbor but are excellent offshore in the Great Lakes. Winds increase with altitude (because of wind shear) and that is why large towers are needed. It is not educational to site wind turbines at sites selected for non scientific reasons.

Kailasapathy summarized Tarlè’s remarks by saying that the only thing this turbine would teach students is that if you place a windmill where there’s no wind, then it won’t move. She didn’t think that’s worth $1 million. She regretted voting for the project earlier, but it’s not too late, she said. She allowed that it was federal dollars, but that’s still taxpayer money and it’s the council’s duty to be a good steward, she said.

City utilities engineer Brian Steglitz, who’s managing the wind generator project, and public services area administrator Craig Hupy were on hand to answer questions. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Steglitz to explain why it’s a good project. He characterized it as a demonstration program for wind energy in an urban environment. The city went through a competitive process with the Department of Energy to obtain the grant, he said. The partnership the city is working on with Wind Products – the company that will install the wind generator – would include a guarantee that the turbine will produce a minimum amount of energy. Wind Products had also looked at wind maps, Steglitz said, and looked at the cut-in speeds for the turbines to evaluate how much of the time the windmills would actually be spinning. Based on that analysis, Wind Products was willing to guarantee a minimum amount of power. The project is also part of the city’s goal to generate alternative energy, Steglitz said.

Briere indicated she’d heard from others that there’s no way the wind generator could produce enough electricity to pay for itself. Steglitz noted that the data provided by Wind Products indicated that the 60kW turbine would not generate a tremendous amount of power, but it would offset some of the power needs of the high school. Wind Products would subsidize any possible shortfall in power generation. The power that the school would purchase from the developer will cost less than conventional power, Steglitz said, which is part of the school district’s incentive to participate in the program – to realize a few thousand dollars worth of electricity savings per year. The city’s role is more like a broker between Wind Products and the school district.

Later in the meeting, Kailasapathy asked if the estimates for energy production were independently verified by a third party. Hupy explained that they had not been verified, but that the estimates would be tied to a financial commitment from Wind Products – that it would subsidize any shortfall in power production.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for more information about the Ann Arbor Public Schools participation in the project. Once the generator is installed, who takes over from there? If AAPS cuts its budget, will it possibly cut support for the turbine? Steglitz indicated that the AAPS will lease the space for the turbine and purchase the power. That’s the extent of AAPS participation. Wind Products would maintain and operate the generator, he explained. Later in the council’s deliberations, information in the staff memo accompanying the resolution was drawn out – that the city would eventually own the generator:

It is anticipated that the wind turbine(s) will be located on AAPS property, that the wind turbine(s) will be owned or purchased by the City, that the developer will construct the wind turbine(s), and that the AAPS will purchase the power from the wind turbine(s) under a power purchase agreement. While the City, AAPS and Wind Products have been meeting and continue to work to come to terms on the several agreements so that they can be ready to be brought forward for review and approval once the NEPA EA and public engagement process are completed and accepted by the DOE.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Petersen ventured that AAPS will have a financial upside, which Steglitz confirmed.

Hupy explained that the item the council was being asked to approve provided funding to look at the environmental impact of the turbine. In arguing against the approval, Lumm cited the same letter from Tarlè that Kailasapathy had mentioned.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked how the public would be notified about the public engagement process. Steglitz explained that the intent would be to broaden the scope beyond the standard requirement that residents within 500 feet be notified. He described how the process would include the city’s public engagement “toolbox.” The intent, Steglitz said, was to conduct public engagement and environmental review over the next six months, and to have the review and assessment finished by the end of the 2013 calendar year.

Higgins ventured that it’ll be a lively debate about whether a wind turbine should be placed at Pioneer High School. Responding to a question from Higgins about the city’s financial commitment, Steglitz described it as around $18,000 worth of staff time. Higgins said she was willing to let the debate unfold and not get in the way of it. She confirmed with Hupy that before any further city commitment is made, the council would have to approve it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked for a refresher on the height of the pole where the wind-turbine would be mounted. Steglitz explained that it’d be about 120 feet tall with a 60-foot diameter blade. Kunselman concluded it’s not really a “turbine” but rather just a “generator.” [Kunselman's day job at UM is as energy liaison with Planet Blue.] He felt that the generator will actually be generating a decent amount of electricity given its educational, demonstration purpose. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) also expressed his support for the project based on its educational impact.

Lumm allowed that she had voted to accept the federal grant back in January. But she’d learned a lot since that vote was taken, she said. She wouldn’t support taking the next step based on the idea that it would be sited in a location that doesn’t have much wind.

As a partial counter to Lumm’s complaint that there had not been community outreach on the siting of the generator, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that public outreach wouldn’t happen unless the city hired CDM Smith to do the public outreach, which the council was being asked to approve. That process would help determine whether this is an appropriate site, she ventured. Steglitz confirmed that’s correct. Briere wondered what the alternative locations are. Steglitz indicated that there aren’t really any alternative sites. Hupy confirmed that the city has looked extensively, even as far north as East Lansing – where it might be sited with a maize-and-blue pole, he quipped. City administrator Steve Powers subsequently assured the council that Hupy was not joking about the idea of trying to find a location in East Lansing.

Petersen wanted to know if anyone from AAPS was at the council meeting to talk about the educational component – no one was. Kailasapathy questioned the idea that there could be an educational benefit, if the generator were to be located in East Lansing. Hupy explained how utility regulations require that the power be consumed on the site where it’s generated. Transmission over lines to be used in other locations isn’t allowed except with permission of the electric utility.

Kailasapathy raised a question about noise created by the generator. Steglitz explained that the noise issue would be part of the environmental assessment.

From left: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

In the course of the council’s discussion, the email from Tarlè had been sent to all councilmembers, and Kunselman took the opportunity to comment on it in more detail. He stressed that Tarlè seemed to be talking about wind-farm sized turbines – not the size of the generator that the city is considering. What the city is considering, he said, is a 60 kW wind generator that will be running about 30% of the time. And part of that time, students would have the opportunity to look at a data center that shows all the data. That’s the educational component of the project, he said. And the money is Dept. of Energy grant money, not city money, Kunselman added. He concluded that the city should move forward with the project.

Mayor John Hieftje weighed in for the resolution, saying it’s worth exploring the next stage of the project. Hieftje said he wants to follow the lead of the DoE. Lumm responded to Hieftje’s argument based on the DoE, by questioning whether the DoE is aware of the power generation estimates. Hieftje ventured that DoE is aware of the educational nature of the project.

Outcome: The contract with CDM Smith to conduct an environmental assessment for the wind generator project was approved over dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Video Privacy Ordinance

The council was asked to give initial approval to an ordinance regulating the use of public surveillance cameras in the city.

The council had previously postponed the item at its May 20, 2013 meeting. Before that, the council had postponed the item at its April 15 meeting – due to the length of that meeting – and again on May 6. [.pdf of ordinance as presented to the council on April 15, 2013]

The new ordinance would apply only to a limited range of cameras – those used by the city of Ann Arbor “to monitor human activity without the physical presence of an operator, including cameras on remotely operated aerial vehicles.”

The ordinance would not apply to a range of city of Ann Arbor cameras, for example: cameras used to improve traffic design, security cameras operating in jails, prisons, water treatment facilities, public housing facilities, or the Ann Arbor Airport and other governmental facilities.

The new ordinance would allow for public surveillance cameras to be installed for 15 days or less at the discretion of the city administrator if the purpose is to address a specific criminal problem.

The council’s consideration of the topic dates back a few years. Former Ward 1 councilmember Sandi Smith had announced at a council meeting on Aug. 4, 2011 that she’d be bringing a video surveillance ordinance for consideration at the council’s Sept. 6, 2011 meeting. And a year before that she’d indicated the city’s human rights commission would be working on the issue.

Video Privacy Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) introduced the ordinance. He noted that while Chief John Seto was out of town and not available to answer questions about the potential impact of the ordinance on law enforcement activity. Still, Warpehoski asked his colleagues to move the change forward to a second reading. He characterized the ordinance as striking a balance between the right to privacy and the interests of law enforcement. In light of the full agenda that night, Warpehoski suggested a more in-depth discussion when it came back for second and final reading.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for a clarification of some of the changes that had been made to the proposed ordinance. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Warpehoski for his work, but said that this ordinance was not her favorite idea.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she was hoping it would be postponed, citing Seto’s absence. She also noted that new revisions had been given to the council only last night. She didn’t think the council should pass ordinances at the first reading just to get them to the second reading. So she said she wouldn’t be supporting it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) appreciated Warpehoski’s work to bring the ordinance forward. But he felt it’s a solution in search of a problem. He knew he wouldn’t support it when it came to the second reading – because he felt it tied the city administrator’s hands. Privacy is already protected, he contended. And surveillance cameras do work, he said, giving the West Willow neighborhood as an example. He asked: Where’s the budget for this? Asking the city administrator to run around getting permissions from residents didn’t seem sensible, Kunselman said.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated support for postponement and made a motion to postpone. Warpehoski seconded that motion. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated support for the postponement, but said he’d have probably been inclined to support it at first reading.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the video privacy ordinance until July 1, when police chief John Seto will be available.

Fire Code

The council was asked to give initial approval to an amendment to Chapter 111 (Fire Prevention) of the city code so that it refers to the 2009 International Fire Code instead of the 2003 version.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated that he’d support the ordinance at first reading, but he had some concerns about the inspection of certain areas. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked fire chief Chuck Hubbard about the frequency and cost of fire inspections. Hubbard contrasted inspections with re-inspections. If there are violations found, then an inspector will return to confirm that the violation has been corrected – and that’s a re-inspection. Hubbard allowed that inspections have been stepped up. It’s being done for the benefit to the property owners, he said.

Ann Arbor fire inspections: 2006-2012. (Data is from city financial records. Chart by The Chronicle.)

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the performance of the fire inspection program is being reviewed. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the building department is already using the 2009 code, but the fire department is using the 2003 code. What are the differences? Kunselman got confirmation that the council’s approval is more or less a formality. It’s like “housekeeping.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked how many staff are allocated to fire inspections. Hubbard told Anglin it’s been increased from three people to seven. Anglin felt the overall safety of the community was being improved through that effort.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he’s delighted that the city is conducting more fire inspections.

Outcome: The council voted to give initial approval to the adoption of the 2009 fire code.

Billboard Ordinance

The council was asked to give final approval to an ordinance change that would restrict the way that digital technology could be incorporated into outdoor signs. It would also prevent any digital technology retrofitting of existing billboards, and prohibit billboards generally – although the 28 existing billboards citywide would be allowed to continue as non-conforming structures. The change had been given initial approval by the council and had been up for final action twice before – most recently, on May 6, 2013. Action on May 6 was to postpone a final decision – until the council’s June 17 meeting. [.pdf file of map showing billboard locations in the city]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the agenda item, describing it as enforcing the status quo. He described some changes that had been made to the proposed ordinance revisions, compared to those already given initial approval by the council. One is an exception for churches and schools. The definition of “changeable” copy had also been revised. Taylor said it’s important that billboards not expand beyond their current status.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) reported that he’s heard close to zero support for expanding billboards to use digital technology – other than from those in the outdoor sign industry. He’d heard no support for digital signs to the point where he felt there was a clear consensus for that point of view.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) argued that if Ann Arbor wants to be a tech town, then preserving the status quo is too conservative. She cited the possible negative impact on economic development. The ordinance changes promote blight by not allowing existing billboards to be removed and replaced with new ones, she contended. So she’d oppose the ordinance change. She pointed out that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) relies on digital technology to convey messages along the highways. She called for a more comprehensive look at the ordinance. It’s way too conservative for a town that wants to move forward with technology, she said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that the Ann Arbor Public Schools district is unlikely to go ahead with a proposal to contract with Adams Outdoor Advertising on school property. She said that two of the digital signs proposed by Adams Outdoor Advertising were in Ward 1 – which she represents. The idea of having digital signs there didn’t make her happy, but she conceded she was perhaps an old fogey.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked the city staff for all their research and their work on the ordinance. She thought the proposed changes were reasonable, so she’d be supporting the ordinance change.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked the staff for their work. He said it’s clear that the community doesn’t want any more visual intrusion. He characterized the ordinance change as not an anti-business proposal, but rather a pro-community move.

Outcome: The council voted to give final approval to the billboard ordinance, over dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Fireworks Ordinance

The council was asked to consider a revision to the city ordinance on fireworks. The impact on the upcoming July 4 holiday would be that fireworks use would be limited in Ann Arbor to the time between 8 a.m. and midnight. A necessary revision to state law, in order to make the city’s action legal, had already been passed by the Michigan House and Senate when the council met. It awaited only signature by the governor’s office, which it subsequently received two days later on June 19.

The revision to the city’s fireworks ordinance was given initial approval at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. The impact of the ordinance change is to restrict the use of fireworks on July 3-5 to the period between 8 a.m. and midnight on those days. The ordinance change applies to other national holidays as well. On New Year’s Day, however, the time extends to 1 a.m.

The local ordinance change is made possible by the change to state law, which previously did not allow local governments to regulate fireworks for a continuous 72-hour period – for the day preceding a national holiday, the national holiday, and the day following the national holiday. The statutory change makes it possible for a local government to regulate the time of fireworks use around the time of national holidays.

Fireworks Ordinance: Public Hearing

Two people spoke at the public hearing on the fireworks ordinance change. Thomas Partridge said that July 4 should be a celebration of civil rights and human rights. He objected to celebrating the holiday with fireworks. Michael Benson asked the council to consider allowing people to apply for a permit to use fireworks on other days. He wondered what other costs could be imposed by the ordinance language “plus costs” that are mentioned in connection to a $500 fine.

Outcome: After a brief introduction by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council voted to give final approval to the fireworks ordinance.

CIL Parking for The Varsity

The council was asked to approve a change to the development agreement between the city and The Varsity – a 13-story, 177,180-square-foot apartment building containing 181 dwelling units (415 bedrooms). The council’s requested action was essentially a confirmation of an Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority decision to award the right to purchase a total of seven monthly permits, at a 20% premium cost.

The Varsity is located at 425 E. Washington St. in downtown Ann Arbor. Based on zoning requirements, 76 off-street parking spaces are required. Only 69 were provided on site. The others were provided through the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The seven spaces were approved by the Ann Arbor DDA at its June 5, 2013 meeting. It falls to the DDA to make a decision on the CIL spaces, because the DDA administers the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Outcome: After a recitation of the situation’s background by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council voted to approve the revision to the development agreement.

Site Plans, Brownfield Plans

At its June 17 meeting, the city council was asked to give approvals in connection with three developments.

Site Plan: State Street Center

One request was a site plan approval for the State Street Center, near the intersection of South State and Ellsworth. The project calls for demolishing a vacant 840-square-foot house on this site. In its place, the developer plans a one-story, 1,700-square-foot drive-thru Jimmy John’s restaurant facing South State Street. A one-story, 6,790-square-foot retail building will be built behind the restaurant. The rezoning of the parcel for this site plan was given final approval at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the State Street Center site plan.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St.

The council was also asked to approve the site plan for 544 Detroit St. – a three-story building with offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors. It’s a “planned project” to allow an additional 3.5 feet of building height for a “decorative parapet” on the building’s north end and a stair enclosure to access a roof deck.

A rendering that shows the proposed design for 544 Detroit St., at the corner of Detroit and North Division.

For the 544 Detroit St. project, the council was also asked to approve a brownfield plan. According to a staff memo, the brownfield component – which allows tax increment financing (TIF) to reimburse the developer for eligible costs – includes a total of $698,773 in eligible activities. Some of those eligible activities include soil remediation ($174,620), infrastructure improvements ($70,350), and vapor mitigation ($32,000).

The planning commission gave the 544 Detroit St. project a recommendation of approval at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St. – Public Hearing

Jeff Crockett spoke in favor of the 544 Detroit St. project. He called it a responsive development. The site plan demonstrates serious consideration of citizen input, he said – and he knew of no one who opposed this project. He called for zoning laws that are not driven just by statistics, but rather are value-driven. Thomas Partridge also spoke on the 544 Detroit St. project, criticizing the fact that there was no attached requirement that the site provide affordable housing or access to public transportation.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St. – Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) mentioned briefly that this was one of the better brownfield projects the committee had seen. She serves on the city’s brownfield committee.

Outcome: The council voted to approve both the site plan and the brownfield plan for 544 Detroit.

Brownfield Plan: Packard Square

Finally, the council was asked to approve an amendment to a previously-approved brownfield plan for Packard Square, at the former site of the Georgetown Mall. The amendment adds to the list of eligible activities – including underground parking and urban stormwater management. The total cost of eligible activities is not changed. Demolition at the site began a few weeks ago.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked about payment of back taxes – the project is located in Ward 4. Nathan Voght of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development, which manages the county’s brownfield redevelopment program, fielded Higgins’ questions. The indication was that the back taxes would be paid.

Higgins noted that the demolition is in progress, so Voght gave an update. May 28 was the start of demolition. The Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) indicated that additional asbestos mitigation was needed. Soil excavation to remove contamination is ongoing and a vapor barrier will probably need to be installed, Voght said. He thought by mid-July the demolition will be done. The developer indicated that construction would begin as soon as possible after that.

Higgins said that residents are pleased to see the project going forward. Mayor John Hieftje thanked Higgins for her efforts.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Packard Square brownfield amendment.

$382K for Housing Commission

The council was asked to provide $382,000 of operational support to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

The resolution was held over from the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. That’s when the council took several steps to move the Ann Arbor Housing Commission forward along a path to converting the properties it manages to project-based vouchers. A similar operations funding resolution had appeared on that meeting’s agenda, but was withdrawn.

The additional funding, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, is needed to mitigate against the impact of federal sequestration. The memo puts that impact at about $300,000 less for public housing and $50,000-$75,000 less for capital funding.

Of the total amount, $159,000 is appropriated from the city of Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund, and $223,000 would be appropriated from the general fund. The city’s housing and human services advisory board had voted to recommend the $159,000 be appropriated from the affordable housing trust fund.

$382K for Housing Commission: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the resolution, noting that it will empty the affordable housing trust fund – but that fund will receive $100,000 on July 1, because of the budget allocation the council passed as part of the FY 2014 budget. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked city CFO Tom Crawford if there were sufficient funds in the general fund reserve to cover the allocation. Crawford projected a fund balance of $13.9 million at the end of the fiscal year. That’s about 17% of operating expenses. But he did have some concerns, Crawford said. At the end of FY 2015, based on the council’s recent action, the fund balance would be around 13%. In general, he has some concerns about how the fund balance is being used.

City administrator Steve Powers noted that the current council policy is to maintain 8-12% of operating expenses in the fund balance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Jennifer Hall, executive director of the AAHC, for her work.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the AAHC allocation.

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main

The council was asked to make a commitment of up to $750,000 from the city’s general fund – to undertake planned improvements to the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. The commitment is a requirement for a grant application that the city is making to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund for $300,000.

If the city’s plan unfolds as it expects, then none of the $750,000 in general fund money would be needed.

The improvements to 721 N. Main have resulted from work done by a North Main Huron River corridor task force that has been working at the direction of the city council since the summer of 2012 to make recommendations for the corridor.

Of the $1.2 million estimated cost for the planned trail and stormwater improvements to the site, the city plans to use $150,000 from the city’s stormwater fund. To cover part of the remaining $1.05 million, the city hopes to use $600,000 from a grant it has applied for from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) – through SEMCOG’s transportation alternatives program (TAP).

The council approved the application for the SEMCOG grant at its April 15, 2013 meeting. To cover the remaining $450,000, the city hopes to use $150,000 from a Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Connecting Communities grant and $300,000 from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) grant. The council approved the application for those last two grants at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

The council’s resolution considered on June 17 came in response to an MNRTF grant requirement that the council commit the city to funding the other grants itself – from general fund money – if those grants fail to materialize. The $750,000 figure comes from adding the $600,000 SEMCOG grant to the $150,000 Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation grant.

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main: Public Commentary

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Bob Galardi addressed the council on the MDNR grant application in connection with the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. He’s a member of the city’s park advisory commission, but spoke on behalf of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. He’s president of the conservancy’s board. Galardi asked the council for their support of the resolution that commits the city to as much as $750,000 of general fund money for the project. The conservancy, he said, is confident that the grant funding for which the city has applied will materialize. [That would mean that the city wouldn't need to spend that money.]

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main: Council Deliberations

When she introduced the item, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) stressed that the commitment the council was being asked to make is not an expenditure.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Briere for her service on the North Main Huron River task force. Lumm indicated support for the resolution. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if any park millage dollars would be spent on this project. Briere noted that the property is not yet a park. When will it be a park? asked Kunselman. That’s a decision for the park advisory commission (PAC), not for her, Briere responded.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as an ex officio member of PAC, noted that park staff are sensitive to the funding requirements of maintaining existing parks. Mayor John Hieftje described the general context of two city-owned properties – 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main – and how those properties fit into the context of greenway planning. Hieftje talked about the need to focus on the provision for long-term maintenance.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said it’s important that this resolution commits money. Anglin said a chain of parks through the city – like the greenway – would have a positive economic impact.

Outcome: The council voted to commit the funds for the 721 N. Main site.

Pizza in the Park

Several speakers addressed the council in connection with a petition they delivered to the city – a copy of which was attached to the council’s electronic agenda. The petition asked the council to take action to ensure that no fees are required to be paid by organizations that are providing humanitarian aid in the city’s parks.

The general petition stemmed from concerns about protecting a specific event – Pizza in the Park, a homelessness ministry of the Vineyard Church that includes distribution of food and other aid at Liberty Plaza, located at Liberty and Division streets in downtown Ann Arbor. A few months ago, the parking of a vehicle in a private driveway and the subsequent application of a park shelter rental fee by the city led to protests raised during public commentary at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. Assurance was given at that meeting that the Pizza in the Park event could continue. That was affirmed when speakers again addressed the issue at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Speakers on those occasions – many who are affiliated with Camp Take Notice, a self-governed homeless community – asked for a written assurance of the city’s commitment. During council communications time on June 17, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as one of two city council ex officio representatives to the city’s park advisory commission (PAC), announced that PAC would be considering a related resolution at its meeting the next day. And on June 18, 2013 PAC considered and passed a resolution recommending the waiver of rental fees associated with Liberty Plaza – a waiver that would apply to any group. That recommendation will need the approval of the city council.

First to address the council on the topic during June 17 public commentary was Peggy Lynch, who took the podium to applause. She described an unmet and tragic humanitarian need in Ann Arbor. She thanked the council for the eliminating the fee that was being applied to Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza. But she was hopeful that the gentleman’s agreement could be replaced with something in writing. David Williams echoed the request for a written commitment.

Thomas Partridge assured the council that if he were elected mayor or councilmember, he would be giving voice to the concerns of the residents of Camp Take Notice. He called for the advancement of Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights agenda. He recalled King’s “I have a Dream” speech.

Jose Galofre addressed the council through a sign language interpreter, calling for the passage of an ordinance – put down in writing for the future to ensure that fees would not be applied to Pizza in the Park. Michael Ramirez told the council he has medical issues that require him to go to the University of Michigan health system, and he spoke in support of Pizza in the Park ministry. Christine Kern told the council she lives on the street with her boyfriend. They’d be sleeping outside that night. She recited a definition of basic human rights, and asked the council to enact an ordinance that protects the right to distribute humanitarian aid on public land.

At the end of the meeting during public commentary time, Seth Best and Peggy Lynch again addressed the council on the idea of the fee waiver for Liberty Plaza. They wanted something in writing – and they wanted it to be possible for humanitarian aid to be distributed in any park.

Caleb Poirer quipped that it felt wonderful staying up late with the council. [By that point, it was about 12:30 a.m.] It reminded him of staying up late as a kid, but with adults – just without “the blankets and the socks with the bottoms.” He allowed that there was a concern that someone could drive a semi-trailer truck through the loophole of the phrase “humanitarian aid.” But he asked the council to wrestle with the language that would make an ordinance work to allow humanitarian aid to be distributed. There are a lot of people who want to do kind things, he said, and urged the council not to let fees get in the way.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Millage Rate Correction

The council was asked to correct a .0031 error in the specification of the rate of the FY 2014 tax levy for the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage. The FY 2014 fiscal year begins on July 1.

The millage rate that was listed in the FY 2014 budget resolution – approved by the council at its May 20, 2013 meeting – was 1.0969 mills. The park maintenance and capital improvements millage should have been listed as 1.10 mills. The corresponding correction from the total millage rate was from 16.4470 to 16.4501 mills. Measured in dollars, the correction is estimated to bring in an additional $14,460 in revenue.

Outcome: After a brief introduction from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), the council approved the correction to the millage rate.

Police Unions Wage Bump

The council was asked to approve contracts with city police unions that award 2% and 1% wage increases.

Re-openers for the final year of their contracts resulted in new contracts with six police department unions: Teamster Civilian Supervisors, Teamsters Local 214; Police Professional Assistants, Teamsters Local 214; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association – Police Service Specialists; Command Officers Association of Michigan; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association; and Deputy Chiefs, Teamsters Local 214.

Membership in these unions breaks down as follows: Deputy Chiefs (2); Teamster Civilian Supervisors (35); Teamster Police Professionals (5); AAPOA (90); COAM (22); and Police Service Specialists (5).

Common to all the contracts is a 2% wage increase starting July 1, 2013 and a 1% increase starting Jan. 1, 2014.

Also common to the contracts is the acceptance of the change in pension board composition, which was approved by voters on Nov. 8, 2011 with a 68% majority. The change retained the body as a nine-member group but distributed the membership differently, as follows: (1) the city controller; (2) five citizens; (3) one from the general city employees; and (4) one each from police and fire employees. Eliminated from the mix was the city administrator.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) thanked the staff for their work. It’s the first time since she’s been on council that all the contracts have been resolved before expiration, she said. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked the staff and recited the nature of the agreements.

For the AAPOA an administrative correction was made to the phone allowance – $600, instead of $550.

The council voted to approve all the police department union contracts.

Resolution on SEMCOG Highway Plan

The council considered a resolution opposing the proposed expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners had passed a similar resolution at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The interstate highway expansion is a part of SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan with an estimated cost of $4 billion.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) stated that there are a lot of good elements in the SEMCOG plan. But there are not forecasts for additional traffic and population, so it didn’t make sense to expand the highways instead of maintaining them.

Warpehoski then quoted Picasso in explaining where the text for the resolution had come from: “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” He’d copied much of the resolution from resolutions that have been passed by other municipalities.

Outcome: The council voted to pass the resolution opposing SEMCOG’s 2040 plan. SEMCOG’s general assembly subsequently voted to adopt the plan.

Annual Contracts: SPARK, Lobbyist

As part of its consent agenda, the council was asked to approve two annual contracts for services at its June 17 meeting. One was a $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. (GCSI) for lobbying services with the state legislature. The council also approved a $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for business support services.

Items on the consent agenda are considered routine, and include contracts for less than $100,000. They’re voted on as a group.

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

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

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

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

Outcome: As part of the consent agenda, councilmembers approved contracts with GCSI and Ann Arbor SPARK.

Council Rule Changes

The June 17 agenda included an item related to changes in the council rules. Possible changes include adding a period of public commentary to the council’s work sessions, but reducing public speaking time per turn from three minutes to two minutes. [.pdf of draft rules changes]

The procedure for reserving one of the 10 reserved speaking slots at the start of the meeting is also proposed to be revised. Only people who did not address the council at its immediately previous meeting would be eligible to reserve a slot. And of the 10 slots, eight would be designated for people who want to address the council on agenda action items. Two slots would be provided for those who want to address the council on any topic.

Councilmember speaking time is also proposed to be reduced. Councilmembers are allowed two speaking turns per agenda item. Under the current rules, time limits for those speaking turns are five minutes for the first turn and three minutes for the second turn. Under the proposal, those times would be reduced to three minutes and two minutes, respectively.

The proposed addition of an opportunity for public commentary at council work sessions would ensure that councilmembers could freely deliberate toward public policy decisions at those sessions and still conform to Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

The proposed rules changes would move mayoral communications from the end of the meeting to a spot closer to the start of the meeting. That would give nominations to boards and commissions – which are a part of those communications – somewhat greater prominence.

[For previous Chronicle coverage, see: "Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes."]

Council Rules Changes – Frequent Speakers

A consequence of reducing the speaking time limit from three minutes to two minutes is that the total speaking time a single speaker could take at a meeting would be reduced by one-third. It’s not unusual for a meeting to include a half dozen or more formal public hearings, in addition to the public commentary slots on the agenda. The June 17 meeting, for example, featured seven public hearings. With a three-minute time limit, it’s not uncommon that one person could have a total of about a half hour available to address the council.

Thomas Partridge typically reserves one of the 10 slots at the start of the meeting and speaks at most of the public hearings at any given meeting of the council – generally connecting his remarks to the topic of the hearing with general themes of affordable housing, transportation and education, as well as calls for social justice. Occasionally mayor John Hieftje, who presides over the council’s meetings, will deem Partridge’s remarks to be insufficiently related to the topic of the public hearing and admonish Partridge to stay on topic. The June 17 meeting featured one occasion when Hieftje offered that admonishment to Partridge.

And at the conclusion of the meeting’s seventh public hearing – on the brownfield plan for Packard Square – after  Partridge had held forth several times at previous hearings, Ann Arbor resident Todd McWilliams addressed the council, but not on the topic of the brownfield plan for Packard Square. He told the council he’d attended several of the council’s meetings over the last six months and wanted to address Partridge. McWilliams told Partridge that Partridge was doing an injustice to the public hearings, and was abusing the council’s time. At that point, McWilliams earned an admonishment from Hieftje to speak to the topic of the hearing.

Partridge responded to McWilliams from the audience by accusing McWilliams of abusing Partridge’s civil rights. McWilliams said: “There’s got to be another way of doing this; because this isn’t the right way to do it.” Partridge’s rejoinder was: “See you in court.”

Council Rules Change: Public Comment

During public commentary time at the conclusion of the meeting, two people addressed the council on the topic of the rules changes.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and resident Michael Benson. Benson serves on the city’s taxicab board.

Michael Benson thanked the council for staying late. He commended the rules committee, saying that the proposed rules represent a step forward. He suggested that reducing the speaking time from three minutes to two minutes might not be so bad, given that when people hand over written remarks to the clerk, those documents can eventually be added to the agenda. He told the council they should consider constraining their own question time during the meeting – as that was where the council spent the majority of its time. He also suggested that reserved time at the start of the meeting be confined to true action items.

Jeff Hayner thought it’s great that someone talked about the rules. He agreed with Benson’s point about the ability to submit written remarks. He suggested, however, that some of the time saved through a reduction in speaking time be re-allocated to council discussion of items that sometimes didn’t receive much discussion – like the appointments to boards and commissions.

Council Rules Changes: Deliberations

Council conversation was scant. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the council’s rules committee, said she’d like to see the item postponed. By way of background, the council’s current meta-rule on changing the rules requires that the council be notified of changes at the meeting prior to a vote on the changes – which had not happened yet. The proposed rules revisions include a change to that meta-rule.

Outcome: With no further discussion, the council voted to postpone the rules changes until July 1.

Appointments

The June 17 agenda included several items regarding appointments to city boards and commissions.

The council was asked to confirm the extension of Sabra Briere’s (Ward 1) appointment as the councilmember representative to the planning commission. She’s served in that capacity since November 2012. The council was asked to extend the term through Nov. 7, 2013. At that point the membership on the new, post-election city council will be settled. Briere is unopposed in the Democratic primary. An independent candidate, Jaclyn Vresics, has taken out petitions for that seat but has not yet filed them with the city clerk’s office. The deadline for independent candidates to submit petitions is Aug. 7.

Later, toward the end of the meeting, the council was asked to confirm Bonnie Bona’s reappointment to the planning commission.

Although Tony Derezinski had appeared on the list distributed to the council at its June 3 meeting as a nomination to the city planning commission – and was reported (mistakenly) by The Chronicle as having been nominated – Derezinski’s name was not actually read aloud that evening. The Chronicle learned that there was pushback on the council about Derezinski’s nomination for reappointment. He was filling out the remainder of Evan Pratt’s term – through June 30, 2013. Pratt was elected as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner in November 2012 and resigned from the planning commission at that time.

At the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, councilmembers had voted – over dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – to appoint Derezinski to that partial planning commission term. Up to that point, he’d served as the city council’s representative to the planning commission. However, he did not prevail in the August 2012 Democratic primary in his Ward 2 race against Sally Petersen.

On June 17, Jeremy Peters was nominated to replace Derezinski on the planning commission. Peters works in creative licensing and business affairs with Ghostly Songs. A council vote to confirm his appointment will occur on July 1.

Other appointments the council was asked to confirm on June 17 included members of the downtown area citizens advisory council: John Chamberlin, Ray Detter, Joan French, Jim Kern, Sue Kern, Kathleen Nolan, Herbert Kaufer and Hugh Sonk. They had been re-nominated at the council’s June 3 meeting, having first appeared on the council’s May 13 meeting agenda for reappointment. The names had not been presented to the council for confirmation on May 20. The terms of all the members had expired.

Also at its June 17 meeting, the council was asked to confirm LuAnne Bullington’s nomination to the taxicab board, having been nominated on June 3. Bullington had submitted an application to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority earlier this year, which resulted in a divided vote by the council on the nomination that was put forward by mayor John Hieftje – Eric Mahler. Mahler was confirmed on a 7-4 vote as the AATA board appointment at the council’s May 13, 2013 meeting. He recently ended his service as a planning commissioner.

Other reappointments confirmed on June 17 were: Barbara Clark to the cable communications commission; Paul Fontaine and Chester Hill to the design review board; and Tom Stulberg to the historic district commission.

In the last few months, the council has taken an increased interest in mayoral appointments. That’s reflected in a change recommended by the council’s rules committee – to move the mayor’s communications time closer to the start of the meeting, instead of near the end. The mayor’s communications include nominations to boards and commissions and the council’s confirmation votes.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to confirm all the appointments.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Public Safety

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) alerted her colleagues that a resolution regarding a public safety task force that she wants to form will be on the council’s July 1 agenda.

Comm/Comm: Stop Signs

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) called for a focus on safety as people move around the city during the summer. He called for the installation of stop signs to slow traffic on streets over which the city has control.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Housing

Thomas Partridge expressed disappointment with the council and the mayor for leaving the city without sufficient affordable housing. He said they lack the courage to stand up and bring the facts to the voters for support of tax increases to fund what’s needed.

Comm/Comm: AAHC Complaint

Diane Chapman introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. She reported that she’s been physically attacked on the property and complained about the lack of response by AAHC staff.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, July 1, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

First, the council approved the site plan for the State Street Center, near the intersection of South State and Ellsworth. The project calls for demolishing a vacant 840-square-foot house on this site. In its place, the developer plans a one-story, 1,700-square-foot drive-thru Jimmy John’s restaurant facing South State Street. The rezoning of the parcel for this site plan was given final approval at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

The council also gave approval for the 544 Detroit St. site plan. It’s planned to be a three-story building at 544 Detroit St. with offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors. It’s a “planned project” to allow an additional 3.5 feet of building height for a “decorative parapet” on the building’s north end and a stair enclosure to access a roof deck. [.jpg image of proposed design]

For the 544 Detroit St. project, the council also approved a brownfield plan. According to a staff memo, the brownfield component – which allows tax increment financing (TIF) to reimburse the developer for eligible costs – includes a total of $698,773 in eligible activities. Some of those eligible activities include soil remediation ($174,620), infrastructure improvements ($70,350), and vapor mitigation ($32,000).

The planning commission gave the 544 Detroit St. project a recommendation of approval at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting.

And finally, the council approved an amendment to a previously-approved brownfield plan for Packard Square, at the former site of the Georgetown Mall. The amendment adds to the list of eligible activities – including underground parking and urban storm water management. The total cost of eligible activities is not changed. Demolition at the site began a few weeks ago.

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]

Since the city of Ann Arbor joined the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (WCBRA) in 2002, brownfield projects located in the city must receive approval by the county board. The state’s brownfield program offers incentives for redevelopment of property that’s contaminated, blighted or “functionally obsolete.”

The 544 Detroit St. project is seeking brownfield status so that it will be eligible for brownfield tax increment financing. The site plan calls for a three-story “flatiron-style” building, located at the triangle tip of Detroit and North Division, just southwest of the Broadway bridge – the site of a long-abandoned gas station in the Old Fourth ward Historic District. The new building would include offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors. The project’s site plan received a recommendation for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission on Dec. 18, 2012. Both the site plan and brownfield plan are expected to be on the council’s June 17 agenda, according to city planning manager Wendy Rampson.

For Packard Square, the July 10 hearing relates to a proposed amendment to the project’s original brownfield redevelopment plan, which the county board approved after much debate on May 18, 2011. At that same meeting, the board approved a $1 million grant application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the proposed $50 million development – that grant was later awarded to the project. Demolition is underway, with plans to build more than 200 apartments and 20,000 square feet of commercial space at 2502-2568 Packard Street.

The amendment to Packard Square’s brownfield plan would add eligible activities that qualify for brownfield tax increment financing, including underground parking and urban stormwater management infrastructure. Those activities are now eligible for TIF, following changes by the state legislature to the Brownfield Redevelopment Act 381 in December 2012.

In addition to the public hearings on July 10, the county board will likely take action on both brownfield items at that meeting.

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

The changes, given approval by the council at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting, alter the facade of the building by reducing the number of balconies by one-third, replacing some brick with Hardi-board siding, changing windows, and changing the color of the siding. The council’s approval came after postponing the matter a month ago, on Dec. 3, 2012.

Part of the council’s reluctance to give its approval was based on aesthetic dissatisfaction with the changes as reflected in the revised renderings. The renderings showing the changes were not given the same amount of attention to detail as the original drawings – with respect to shading to show depth, for example – which left some councilmembers to conclude that the development looked “flat” and dormitory-like. Councilmembers at the Dec. 3 meeting also gave the new color scheme an unfavorable review.

Responding to the specific request of the council to provide drawings on which they could make “apples-to-apples” comparisons, the developer of the project submitted 3D sketches. [.jpg with original color-scheme for Packard Square] [.jpg with revised color-scheme for Packard Square]

The changes to the building that the council was asked to approve were motivated by a change to the upper level residential portion of the Packard Road facade. It was moved 10 feet to the east to make it line up with the front stairwells. That also increased the footprint of the building by 4,720 square feet.

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]

At their Dec. 3, 2012 meeting, councilmembers spoke of apples-to-apples comparisons between the golf courses and other recreational activities. They also wanted apples-to-apples comparisons for changes to the Packard Square facade drawings. Planting of fruit trees also came up in the course of the meeting. Close watchers of the council might be able to identify the councilmember by the bite marks on this apple. (Photos by the writer.)

The resolution had been postponed from the council’s Nov. 19, 2012 meeting, when councilmembers also decided to table two competing proposals to change the city’s Percent for Art ordinance. One of the proposals would have repealed the ordinance, while the other would have narrowed the scope of qualifying projects. Currently the city’s Percent for Art program requires that all capital improvement project budgets include a 1% set-aside for public art.

While the moratorium on new spending is in effect – until April 1, 2013 – a council committee will study the issue. Charged with making a recommendation to the council by Feb. 15, 2013, the committee consists of Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). The group’s first meeting is set for Tuesday, Dec. 11 at 4 p.m. in the south first floor conference room at city hall.

The council also finished off two works in progress started at its previous meeting, when councilmembers gave initial approval to amendments to two local laws – the noise ordinance and the towing ordinance. At the council’s Dec. 3 meeting, councilmembers gave final approval to both sets of amendments. The noise ordinance was strengthened to include prohibitions of construction on legal holidays and to make supervisors responsible for infractions, in addition to those who are operating equipment. The towing ordinance clarifies the definition of inoperative vehicles so that the city can take action to prevent the storage of such vehicles on city streets.

The council also took action on an administrative decision to move the assets and liabilities of the city’s golf courses enterprise fund to the city general fund – to comply with a state treasurer’s requirement that the city have a deficit elimination plan for the golf fund. The city’s 2008 deficit elimination plan had a clearly positive effect, but did not erase the golf fund’s deficit completely. The majority of councilmembers saw a benefit to moving the accounting for golf operations into the general fund, so that the golf courses wouldn’t be singled out for different scrutiny than other recreational activities.

The council approved three separate petitions to the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, to apply for loans connected with a bit over $1 million in stormwater projects. One of those projects was a tree planting effort that would see as many as 1,000 trees planted in the fall of 2013 and spring of 2014. It generated some council conversation about tree species and how the city is planning for climate change in its selection of suitable trees.

Councilmembers also engaged in a fair amount of discussion of the color palette proposed for changes in the facade of the already-approved Packard Square project – which is to replace the derelict Georgetown Mall. Margie Teall’s view reflected that of many other councilmembers: “I just don’t like it.” They voted to postpone action on the facade changes until Jan. 7, 2013.

The council approved the purchase of additional waste carts, and designated Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, as the city’s street administrator for purposes of signing contracts with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The designation of Hupy in that role – instead of Homayoon Pirooz, the former head of project management with the city – highlighted the fact that Pirooz has retired to take a job with the city of Evanston, Ill.

It was the second meeting of the new edition of the council, following the Nov. 6 elections. So the council was presented with assignments to various internal committees – as well as the council’s appointments to other bodies. The departure of Tony Derezinski, Sandi Smith and Carsten Hohnke from the council meant that some changes to committee assignments had to be made. Some of changes were straight-up replacements, while others reflected some shuffling. [Google Spreadsheet with 2012 and 2013 committee appointments]

The council heard its usual range of commentary from the public – highlighted by two students from Skyline High School who spoke in support of public transportation.

Public transportation will also be the focus of a special council meeting called for Monday, Dec. 10 to discuss a possible position on state legislation regarding a regional transit authority. A proposed resolution that councilmembers will consider asks Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder to veto legislation that would establish the four-county RTA, which would include Washtenaw County.

Ann Arbor Public Art Funding

The council considered a resolution that suspends the expenditure of funds set aside for public art until April 1, 2013. The city’s public art ordinance requires that 1% of all city-funded capital project budgets be set aside for public art.

Left to right: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

The resolution referred to a committee the council had appointed, but at that point the committee had not been appointed. Later in the meeting, mayor John Hieftje put forward the names of five councilmembers for the committee: Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) The committee is charged with making a recommendation to the council by Feb. 15, 2013.

The city council considered the resolution on suspending the program at its Dec. 3 meeting, after postponing the action at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.

Also at the November meeting, the council had tabled two proposals that would have changed the public art program – one from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) that would have terminated it, and one from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) that would have narrowed the scope of qualifying projects.

The result of Briere’s proposal would be to reduce the amount of public art funding by about 90%. For each of the last two fiscal years, the Percent for Art program has generated roughly $300,000. If Briere’s proposed ordinance revisions had been in place, only about $25,000 would have been generated. [.jpg of chart showing public art allocations]

The legislative activity was prompted by a failed public art millage that had been placed on the Nov. 6 ballot by the city council. The 0.1 mill tax – which was expected to generate around $450,000 annually – was rejected by 28,166 voters (55.86%), with support from 22,254 voters (44.14%). Although the arts community had campaigned to support the millage, many arts leaders had advised the council not to put it on the ballot at this time. Taylor had first put forward the ballot proposal in August, eight weeks before the election. [See Chronicle coverage: "Despite Worries, Art Commission Backs Millage"]

What the council was asked to consider on Dec. 3 was a resolution that prevents funding of any new art projects, but doesn’t affect any funds that have already been committed by a contract for a specific project. The suspension of funding does not apply to artwork for: (1) the Kingsley Street rain garden; (2) the East Stadium Boulevard bridges reconstruction project; or (3) the Argo Cascades project. After the funding for those projects is subtracted from funds already accumulated through the Percent for Art program, roughly $1 million is left – which will, by the terms of the council’s resolution, not be spent on public art through April 1, 2013.

The future of that $1 million will depend on future action by the council, as recommended by the appointed committee. If the council takes no further action, the $1 million would simply return to be available under the existing ordinance. If the council chose to do so, it could eventually revise the ordinance to end the Percent for Art program, but allow the already-accumulated funds to remain earmarked for art – for example, to provide for maintenance. Or the council could revise the ordinance so that the already-accumulated money would be returned to its fund of origin.

For a report on the most recent meeting of the public art commission, see: “Public Art Commission Eyes Uncertain Future.”

Public Art: Council Deliberations

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) led off deliberations by offering an amendment to the resolution. The additional resolved clause proposed by Petersen directed the Ann Arbor public art commission to engage in a robust public process for the projects that are already underway.

RESOLVED That with respect to the above three mentioned projects, AAPAC will engage in significant and robust public engagement described as follows: Directly contact appropriate local organizations, including but not limited to Homeowners Associations and Neighborhood Associations, that may be especially interested in or affected by these projects and hold two or more public forums at which interested organizations and individuals shall be provided information any may offer suggestions and opinions on the proposed art project. After each public forum, provide a report to City Council summarizing the information provided and the comments received from the public;

The amendment was accepted as friendly, so the council did not vote on it.

Left to right: Ward 2 councilmembers Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reviewed the council’s action at the previous meeting – which had resulted in the tabling of two different proposals. She called the tabling “unfortunate” because she didn’t think additional information was needed before acting. She described the public art program as having inherent challenges stemming from questionable legal foundations. One of challenges is the amount of flexibility in the use of the funding – which must be used to purchase permanent art that’s linked to the “theme” of the funding source.

Lumm felt the city should focus its efforts on encouraging private donations for public art. If the council wants to have a conversation about the public funding of art, then there should be a clean slate, she said. She noted that “a couple of us” [Lumm and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1)] had been ready to act at the previous council meeting – to repeal the ordinance. Lumm did not think that the resolution to suspend temporarily the funding of new art was being responsive to the community.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) responded to Lumm by saying she appreciated her viewpoint. Higgins said she felt the resolution is being responsive. The council is often told it’s not clear about what it’s trying to do, but it’s now directing a committee to “go off and explore all these opportunities,” Higgins said. She felt that it’s important to suspend the funding of new art while that exploration is going on, and at the same time watch the process for projects already underway – which Petersen’s amendment did, Higgins said.

As far as needing a clean slate, Higgins felt that one possibility was for the committee to come back with a recommendation to the council to completely get rid of the Percent for Art program and start fresh. The committee will look at all the options, she said, adding that she felt it’s time to take a hard look at it. She hoped the committee would not simply say that it was going to “tweak” things. Maybe it’s time to wipe the slate clean and enact a new ordinance, Higgins said. She was willing to give a committee time to do that, so she’d be supporting the resolution.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) picked up on the fact that a “whereas” clause in the resolution stated that the city council “has appointed a committee” – but to that point no committee had been appointed. Mayor John Hieftje indicated that the appointment would happen a bit later in the meeting.

Warpehoski then alluded to some advice from Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” to convey his view that the instructions from the council to the public art commission had not been clear: “If the instructions and words of the command are not clear and distinct, if the orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame.” By way of background, the quote from Sun Tzu continues: “But, if orders are clear and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers.” Sun Tzu illustrated what he meant by asking the commanders of the king’s concubines to have them perform a precision drill. When the concubines laughed at him, he explained the drill a second time. When they laughed at him a second time, he ordered the two commanders of the concubines beheaded, and replaced. When they were asked to perform the drill a third time, they did so perfectly.

Warpehoski felt that some of the tension about the public art program could be traced to a question of clarity of instructions from the council about how the public art commission was expected to go about its work. He said he’d support the resolution because there was a reasonable case to be made that the council had, until that point, not give the public art commission clear enough direction.

Warpehoski hoped that the committee would do three things to help make a public art program more defensible: (1) stronger community involvement; (2) stronger community participation in the creation of the art; and (3) community funding. He’s heard that the public art program in Toledo leverages its funds three or four times over to get private donations. He supported the resolution in the spirit of providing greater clarity. He hoped that the public art commission would focus on doing an amazing job on the projects that are still moving foreword.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was hesitant to support the resolution. She was concerned that whatever conversation is currently taking place at the public art commission would be stalled. She worried about a possible chilling effect on ideas that are coming forward right now. Teall was also concerned about Petersen’s amendment – because she thought it reflected micromanaging by the council. For example, she felt that there have, in fact, been opportunities for public input. She pointed to public input that had been collected on the East Stadium bridges art project. She again called the resolution micromanaging exactly what the public art commission is supposed to do. Teall also worried about the amount of staff time it would take for Aaron Seagraves, who is the city’s part-time public art administrator.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5)

Teall pointed out that there’s never been a prohibition against private funding, but perhaps more of that could be encouraged. She hoped that if the committee comes back with a recommendation simply to tweak the existing program, that would also be acceptable to the council. If the committee came back with a more general change, after looking at how public art programs are funded in other municipalities, she’d also be interested in looking at that. But she would not support the resolution because she felt it would have a chilling effect.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) indicated he’d support the resolution so that further study can take place. Reflecting on the past history of the council’s repeated consideration of changes to the program, he said that the council has been of two minds. He had thought that the ballot proposal for a millage was a good idea, because it set a fixed amount, and put arts funding on a basis other than using utility funds, which many people had concerns about. However, people had voted that proposal down. But Anglin felt that the outcome might have reflected some confusion on the part of voters. He hoped that the committee could provide clarity. He contended that, “All of us have said already publicly that we do support public funding of art.” That’s the basis of a consensus, he concluded.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) described herself as “not the biggest critic of the Percent for Art program” but she had felt dissatisfied for some time with the process. She was concerned that a significant amount of money went into the fund before the public art commission knew how to handle the money. She said the commission has been playing “catch up” for five years, because of the mechanism the council had created. That mechanism had generated a large fund, but it had taken a year for the commission to develop bylaws. She’d attended meetings and listened to them speak about how they plan to do what they’re doing.

Briere said the commission had been “a little bit muddled” in its communication to the council. There’s a tendency to blur the distinction between public art and the funding of public art, she said. That led to confusion about which pieces of art are publicly funded, and which were donated. A public art commission existed before the creation of a public art program, Briere said. It’s the council’s responsibility to take a look at what it’s asked this group of people to do and how the council would like them to do it. It’s important to consider whether the mechanism the council had given the commission is the best possible mechanism to meet the council’s goals – so the council needs to be clear about what its goals are, she concluded.

Teall, responding to Anglin’s remarks, noted that the question of forming the committee was not before the council right then. What the council is deciding is the suspension of funding.

Hieftje asked public area administrator Craig Hupy what projects, other than the three mentioned explicitly in the resolution, are being planned. Hupy cited a possible art installation at the Forest Avenue plaza, artwork at the planned roundabout at State and Ellsworth, access covers for sewer manholes and two mural projects. Hieftje wondered where the mural projects would be located. Public art commissioner John Kotarski approached the podium to indicate that no location had been decided. He noted that there’s a mural program, and he expected that two murals would be coming online soon. [The program's first mural, located on a building at Allmendinger Park, was finished this fall.]

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Higgins reported that she’d heard from Marsha Chamberlin, the chair of the public art commission, that the timeline for suspending the funds would not affect the projects that were currently being considered – something that Hupy confirmed. The funding timelines for the projects he’d mentioned began after the temporary suspension ended, he said. [The underlying assumption by Higgins and Hupy appears to be that the council would eventually allow funds already accumulated for public art to be used for that purpose, after the temporary suspension ends.]

Hieftje said he didn’t want to have a chilling effect on creativity. He pointed out that Lumm’s proposal to repeal the program entirely had left in place the funding that had already accumulated. He urged the commission to keep the current projects alive. He expressed his hope that as the council committee looks at the issue, it can find a way to identify more private funding. He said he was inclined to support the resolution.

Lumm followed up on Hieftje’s comments by acknowledging that her resolution would have terminated the program but left current funding in place – because she didn’t want to change the rules in the middle of the game. That was counter to what she’d heard from some members of the community, who said that the money that had been allocated to public art should be returned to its funds of origin. Lumm pointed out that in the absence of any council action, the suspension on the spending of funds ends April 1, 2013. She appreciated what Warpehoski and others had said about leveraging more private support. She said that for her it’s an issue of priorities – and at this point, she felt that there are other, greater public priorities.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) questioned Teall’s description of Petersen’s amendment as “micromanaging” – saying that if the city is diverting millions of dollars to public art, we should not worry about staff time. We should make sure that public art is public in the true sense of getting democratic input. She felt that there’s a disconnect between the art that’s being acquired and the art that people would like to see public dollars being spent on.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated support for the resolution. The root issue for him, he said, was the legality of transferring millage and utility money to the public art fund. That funding mechanism had led to the restrictions on the kind of art that can be purchased – permanent and related in theme to its fund of origin. [Artwork funded by stormwater projects would have a water-related theme, for example.] He said he felt sad for the public art commission for the hand it had been dealt.

Kunselman then floated the idea of not taking the question to the city attorney, but rather asking the state attorney general for an opinion on the legal status of the city’s public art ordinance.

By way of additional background, on April 2, 2012, Kunselman had brought forward a resolution that would have directed the city attorney to write a public opinion analyzing the legal issues surrounding the city’s public art program. That resolution received support only from two other councilmembers – Briere and Anglin. What Kunselman was proposing to do – in asking the state attorney general to weigh in – could be accomplished via a request from an elected member of the state legislature. Upon request from a state representative or senator, the attorney general can issue an opinion answering a specific question – but is not required to do so.

Kunselman ventured that if the state attorney general could give a clear answer, then maybe other municipalities in Michigan would follow Ann Arbor’s lead. If Ann Arbor wants to be a leader in the public art world, a clear answer on the legality of the program is needed, he said.

Kunselman described the art commission as trying to create a program with their hands tied behind their backs – he’d read the minutes of the commission, he said, as they go round and round talking about how to go about setting up the program.

The city council committee appointed to study the city’s public art program gathered immediately following the meeting to review schedules. They determined their first meeting would be at 4 p.m. on Dec. 11 in the south first floor conference room at city hall.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the resolution. He felt that the challenges that the public art commission faced were something not within the capability of an unstaffed citizen organization. He felt the city council had created that management problem. But he pointed out that a lot has improved, and that the commission now has some staff support. The commission also has its procedures up and running. They do focus on obtaining public input and they get it, he said. For that reason, he was somewhat hesitant to support the process amendment added by Petersen. But he appreciated the goal of the amendment. He felt generally, the public art commission had been given “a raw deal” and that they already understand the point about public input. He said he was looking forward to the larger conversation and was interested to see what develops.

Hieftje pointed out that each public art project has had a citizen volunteer committee. Hieftje also said he wanted to remind the media that except for $50,000 [which had been associated with the general fund in the creation of the building fund for the municipal center] none of the money used for public art could have been used to fund police and fire protection.

Outcome: The council voted to suspend the expenditure of funds accumulated in the public art fund, with dissent from Margie Teall (Ward 4), who requested a roll call vote.

Vehicle Street Storage

The council was asked to give final approval of changes to the city’s ordinance on the storage of vehicles on city streets.

The city’s strategy – of placing notices on cars that give owners 48 hours to move their vehicles – was being thwarted by people who simply push their vehicles a few feet. The change in the ordinance addresses directly the issue of whether a vehicle is operable, in part by adding the following language: “If a vehicle appears to be inoperative based on outward appearance or otherwise appears to not have been driven after a 48 hour notice has been affixed to the vehicle pursuant to section 10:136, the city administrator or his/her delegate may demand that the registered owner demonstrate that the vehicle is operative. Failure or refusal to demonstrate that the vehicle is operative shall be considered conclusive proof that the vehicle is inoperative.”

Another amendment changed the title of the ordinance section from “Abandoned Vehicles” to “Storage of Vehicles.” The council had given initial approval of the ordinance changes at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.

During council deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) described the ordinance change as giving the community standards enforcement officers a “sharper tool.” He described one case where a vehicle had been towed and it cost a lot of money for someone who had gone on vacation, and other cases where a car was inoperable, and then just pushed a few feet to comply with the requirement that it be moved. The minor adjustments to the ordinance addressed those situations, he said.

But Kunselman cautioned that Ann Arbor was not going out as a city to enforce this aggressively. It’s up to neighborhoods to let the community standards unit know if there are concerns, Kunselman said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give final approval of the towing ordinance changes.

Noise Ordinance

The council was asked to give final approval of changes to the city’s noise ordinance. The amendments to the ordinance, sponsored by Ward 3 councilmember Christopher Taylor, were related to the now-completed construction of The Landmark at 601 S. Forest, an apartment building located in Ward 3. Construction noise was one of several aspects of the construction activity that came under sharp criticism at the council’s Oct. 1, 2012 meeting from nearby resident Eleanor Linn, who also addressed the council at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting, when the changes were given initial approval.

The revision adds language to the text of the ordinance to make clear that the ordinance can be enforced against those in a supervisory capacity – people who are causing the work to be done that is generating the noise, not just the workers who are operating the equipment causing the noise:

The persons to whom this subsection applies shall include, but not be limited to, construction managers, foremen, property owners, developers, contractors, and subcontractors who direct, order, require, authorize, or commission another person to perform these activities in a manner that violates this section. If the person is an entity, this subsection shall also apply to the officers, directors, partners, limited liability company members, or other individuals constituting such entity.

The revision also explicitly adds legal holidays to the time during which excessive noise levels caused by construction activity are prohibited: “Construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, drilling or excavation work at any time on Sunday or a legal holiday and between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday-Saturday …” Legal holidays are defined in the ordinance as “New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Veterans’ Day, Christmas Day.”

Noise Ordinance: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge stated that excessive noise should come under the heading of environmental pollution. The excessive amount of noise allowed under the current ordinance as well as the amended city ordinance will still leave Ann Arbor as a city under the control of private companies and contractors, he said.

Eleanor Linn made only brief remarks, reminding the council that she lives on Forest Court and had previously addressed them, explaining her personal reasons for knowing about the “holes” in the ordinance. She was pleased that it was approved at first reading, and hoped that it passed that evening.

Noise Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) described the change to the noise ordinance as a modest quality-of-life change. The experience from the construction project at 601 S. Forest had indicated a “hole” in the city’s noise ordinance that allowed construction to happen on legal holidays, something Taylor described as adding insult to injury. The change to the ordinance also extends the local legal requirements to make clear that responsibility falls not just on the person operating equipment, but also the higher-ups in the organization.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Taylor for his creative problem-solving. Given the amount of downtown construction, she’s heard about the difficulty of getting construction sites quiet on weekday evenings and mornings, as well as on the weekends and holidays. When she’d looked at the ordinance, she didn’t see any way to make the developers build differently. But Taylor had looked at the ordinance language and thought of a way, Briere said. Taylor deflected Briere’s praise toward residents Eleanor Linn and Marc Gerstein, who Taylor described as having done the work.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the changes to the noise ordinance.

Deficits: Golf, Airport

The council was asked to consider deficit elimination plans for two of the city’s separate enterprise funds: for the golf courses and the municipal airport.

Ann Arbor golf courses: Rounds played

For the golf fund, a deficit elimination plan approved by the Ann Arbor city council in 2008 has not erased the unrestricted deficit. The condition of the separate golf enterprise fund had caught the attention of the state treasurer’s office in 2008, which had led the council to adopt the deficit reduction plan. That plan included a restructuring of the fee schedule to increase the number of rounds played, and the issuance of a liquor license to boost the sales of food and drink at the Leslie Park golf course. [.pdf of golf fund deficit elimination plan]

The plan had a clear positive impact on the number of rounds played at the city’s two courses – Leslie Park and Huron Hills – bringing the total rounds played from a low in 2007 of 35,856 up to 54,500 in 2010. That outpaced the number of rounds projected in the 2008 deficit elimination plan. A slight dip in 2011 to 49,203 rounds has been followed by stronger numbers again in 2012, with 55,135 rounds through Nov. 12. But that compares with 58,571 rounds played back in 2003. Leslie is now closed for the season, but Huron Hills will stay open in the winter as weather permits.

Ann Arbor golf courses expenses and revenues

On the metrics used by the state treasurer’s office to evaluate a municipality’s funds, however, the golf enterprise fund is still in a negative position. Those metrics are: loss with depreciation, working capital, and unrestricted net deficit. [.pdf of golf enterprise fund data from pages extracted from the comprehensive annual financial report from 2007-2011] The city’s figures for the golf fund’s performance on a purely revenue and expense basis show that it’s improved from the 2008 fiscal year – when it needed a $507,000 subsidy from the general fund – compared to 2012, when that amount was reduced to $271,000.

The current unrestricted deficit in the golf fund of $164,436 is the difference between the general fund subsidy over the last five years and the losses totaling $2,252,104.

By moving the golf fund back into the general fund, the city expects to save on an accounting basis about $20,000 a year for the general fund, with that amount increasing to $120,000 when the golf fund’s debt is paid off, starting in fiscal year 2016. The accounting savings is not due to the lack of a municipal service charge (MSC) to golf once it’s moved to the general fund – because the general fund does not recognize that kind of charge as revenue. [The MSC is how the city distributes the burden of “administrative and overhead” costs to those parts of the city’s operations that cause the existence of those costs. The MSC to golf in FY 2013 is $101,000.] The accounting savings comes from the fact that depreciation is not an expense in the general fund, while debt principal repayment is an expense within the general fund. In FY 2013, depreciation is $140,000 and debt principal repayment is $115,000.

The council’s Dec. 3 resolution on the golf enterprise fund included a similar proposed action on the airport enterprise fund – which also shows a deficit, due to the classification of internal loans as unrestricted instead of restricted. The city’s plan for eliminating the deficit for the airport enterprise fund is simply to continue to make payments toward the outstanding balance, which is currently $943,659. On this deficit reduction plan, the airport fund will remain a separate enterprise fund.

Golf Fund: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reviewed much of the history of the golf fund and characterized the move to the general fund as a way to make apples-to-apples comparisons between golf and other recreational activities.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if moving the golf fund back into the general fund had been part of the original deficit reduction plan. City administrator Steve Powers responded by describing the resolution the council was considering as complying with a current state treasurer’s requirement. So moving the golf fund to the general fund was not tied to a previous deficit reduction plan, he said.

Left to right: Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and city administrator Steve Powers.

If the golf courses were not moved back into the general fund, Anglin wanted to know if golf would be part of the parks system. He feared that it might appear to save some money by moving the golf fund, but that it might stress the parks system. He felt that the park advisory commission should have reviewed the proposal. He felt it was strange to ask PAC to simply “accept this park” back into their budget.

Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, told Anglin that the golf courses are definitely already parks. Powers added that the council’s resolution is an administrative recommendation that could be undone as part of the FY 2014 budget. The resolution, Powers continued, is a technical submission to the state treasurer that identifies how Ann Arbor will correct deficits in two funds. But it doesn’t restrict the council in any way, he said. Powers added that the council could refer the broader question to PAC

Anglin still indicated dissatisfaction with the resolution. He referred to wanting to “pay the bill off to the state” and resolve the issue, because he didn’t want to come back to the same issue. He asked Bahl if he saw the parks budget as being burdened by taking on the golf courses. Bahl indicated that he did not see it that way.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that Anglin’s concern is real – that if the move were adding labor or costs to the parks system, it might affect the ability of the park advisory commission to manage the system.

Briere’s biggest concern was that clear direction be given that revenues from golf don’t disappear in the rest of the budget, but remain to be reinvested in the golf courses. She put the question of potential financial stresses on the parks system in the context of the possible development of parks at 721 N. Main or on top of the Library Lane parking structure, or undertaking renovations at Liberty Square.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated his support for the resolution, characterizing it as administrative, and not affecting operations. It doesn’t take from the golf courses and give it to the canoe liveries. He observed that for a few months out of the year the golf courses provide a venue for other actives – like sledding and cross-country skiing.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1)

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) praised the parks and recreation staff for the tremendous job they’d done on the golf courses, having implemented all sorts of things the council had asked them to do.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) questioned whether the golf courses were actually taking losses, venturing that only after the municipal service charge and the IT fees were applied did the courses show losses. Bahl explained that while the losses were less when the MSC and IT charges were removed, the golf courses still showed a recurring deficit. Bahl agreed with her point that the savings that are realized with the move into the general fund is an accounting savings, not a cash savings.

Lumm added her praise to that of Higgins for the work that the golf course staff did.

Anglin observed that the city monitors the cost per visit for its recreational facilities. He continued by saying that he’d heard golf described as elitist, but he wanted the golf courses to receive the attention they need from the park advisory commission. He said he wouldn’t support the resolution, because he felt there were some hidden things in there, and he raised the specter of the need to sell a golf course to temporarily satisfy a financial need. Mayor John Hieftje responded to Anglin’s comments by noting that it’s not possible to sell a park without a popular vote.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated he’d support the resolution for the same reason Anglin appeared to oppose it – if golf operations are in an enterprise fund, that brings extra scrutiny. By moving golf operations into the general fund, the golf finances get evaluated in the same way as other recreational facilities. The resolution protects golf courses more than they’d be protected with their finances handled in an enterprise fund, he said.

Outcome: The council voted to move the golf fund back into the general fund and to continue making payments on the loan for the airport enterprise fund. Dissenting was Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Packard Square Site Plan

The council was asked to approve changes to the Packard Square project, which aims to redevelop the former Georgetown Mall site by constructing a four-story, 230-unit residential building with ground floor retail.. The proposed changes would alter the facade of the building by reducing the number of balconies by one-third, replacing some brick with Hardi-board siding, changing windows, and changing the color of the siding.

The changes to the building that the council was asked to approve were motivated by a change to the upper level residential portion of the Packard Road facade. It was moved 10 feet to the east to make it line up with the front stairwells. That also increased the footprint of the building by 4,720 square feet.

Packard Square: Council Deliberations

Margie Teall (Ward 4) led off council deliberations by saying that when she compared the revised drawings to what was originally approved, “I just don’t like it.” She characterized it as now looking like a dorm. She’d liked the previous articulation of windows. She indicated it was her understanding that some of the balconies had been removed due to privacy concerns. But she said she’d prefer to postpone consideration of the approval so that neighbors can weigh in on revisions.

Previously approved Packard Square elevation

Revised Packard Square elevation drawing

Bruce Measom, who spoke on behalf of the developer, explained that the original drawings look nicer because they’re actual renderings with shading and trees that gave it a three-dimensional effect. The idea was to get the new drawings in front of the council quickly, so there wasn’t time to make them prettier. He described the material to be used as a standard Hardi-board product – a fiber-cement board that has a stone-like look to it. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) ventured that it was a similar product to what had been used for the construction of City Place, a residential development on South Fifth Avenue.

Teall said that on previous occasions, developers have brought samples of products. She indicated she was hesitant to move forward not knowing if it would be a durable product. Responding to the explanation that the revised drawings didn’t include the kind of shading that the previously approved drawings had, she said she wanted to see apples-to-apples drawings with the same kind of shading. Teall said she didn’t see the attraction of the different colors.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) alluded to the city’s design guidelines that deal in part with issues of how to break up a single facade through the use of color. [By way of background, the design guidelines apply to areas zoned D1 and D2 in the downtown. The site of the Packard Square development is not in the downtown.] Higgins felt that the drawings indicated an adherence to those design principles, but she did not have a problem postponing it. She wanted to know if the revised drawings had been sent out to the neighborhood to look at the changes. City planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that the revisions don’t require a public hearing and don’t need to come before the planning commission. Nevertheless, Higgins wanted to make sure some feedback was obtained from the neighbors.

Bruce Measom of The Harbor Companies answered questions on behalf of the Packard Square developer.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) echoed the comments from Higgins about breaking up the facade so that it does not give the impression of “one giant building.” In the new drawings, the “depth” changed – which Briere attributed possibly to the disappearance of some of the windows and the removal of some of the balconies. The lack of balconies gave it a much “flatter appearance,” Briere said. And the lack of windows made her “mourn” the lack of those windows for the future residents. She asked about the red and blue stripes on certain facades on the ground floor. Measom indicated they were awnings corresponding to retail use on the ground floor.

Kunselman indicated some puzzlement that the building materials were being changed, but for some reason the color was being locked in. “As far as I know, we don’t mandate color,” Kunselman said, noting you can always paint it a different color. All the colors could be changed in the future, he ventured. [The colors in question have names like Evening Blue, Alpine Frost, and Monterey Taupe.] Rampson indicated agreement with Kunselman that the city was not interested in enforcing color. Measom noted that the material specified was a fiber-cement panel, and that’s what Hardi-board is.

Kunselman ventured that the footprint of the building had also changed. The previously approved drawing gives the impression that there’s more depth. Measom ventured that what Kunselman was perceiving was that the original version was “touched up more” to convey the depth of the building. He reiterated the same point he’d made previously that the revised drawings were done quickly to get them in front of the city council. He noted that the project’s building plans and civil engineering plans had been submitted for approval. The grading plans are almost ready for submittal.

The developer had spent over $40,000 for building permits in the last two weeks, Measom said. So the developer wanted to get the new drawings in front of the council as soon as possible. The revised drawings correspond to “the same in-and-out,” he assured Kunselman. He allowed, however, that at the very front – the “finger of the U that’s closed to Packard” – was moved a few feet. Kunselman indicated that to him, it looked like an attempt at “value engineering.” Kunselman said he was not too keen on the colors – even though it would not matter too much to him, because he is colorblind. Kunselman indicated he’d support the postponement.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said the colors were, for him, neither here nor there. The previous drawings had more visual activity to them, he said.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked about the impact of a postponement on the project timeline. Measom indicated a preference that the council approve the revisions that night, but also indicated that he could live with a postponement. He said that some three-dimensional drawings are currently being prepared – and he’d seen some preliminary versions of those. The drawings could be brought to the council when the council took up the issue again, he said.

Teall returned to the fact that she’s dissatisfied with the colors. She also complained about the shapes of the windows, characterizing them as looking like windows for dormitories.

Teall asked if it might be possible to postpone for longer than just two weeks. Rampson indicated that she could not approve the developer’s administrative amendment, which would allow permits to be issued, until the council gives its approval. The permits have been submitted for review, Rampson explained, and one of the steps to that review is to make sure that construction plans match the elevation drawings. That couldn’t be done right now, because they don’t match, she said.

Mayor John Hieftje.

Teall pointed out that the derelict Georgetown Mall building is still standing. Kunselman ventured that the developer could still pull demolition permits. Rampson indicated that financing is an issue, based on what she’s heard from the developer. Teall said that due to a possible family issue, she didn’t anticipate being able to attend the council’s Dec. 17 meeting. The council then considered postponement of the issue until Jan. 7, 2013.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know what the impact of the longer postponement would be on the project. Measom quipped that between now and then is the “fiscal cliff,” so it’s anybody’s guess. But if that’s what had to be done, that’s what they’d do, he said.

Hieftje told Measom that the perception was that the building has been “dumbed down.” He encouraged Measom to take that sentiment back to the design team. Higgins recommended that the demolition permits be pulled and demolition be started. Measom indicated that if that were possible, it would be done. Higgins pointed out that she’d heard this for a long time and she was not inclined to keep extending the timeline when there was no return for the city.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone consideration of the changes to Packard Square until Jan. 7, 2013.

Water Office Petitions

The council was asked to consider three petitions of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner for three stormwater control projects totaling $1.07 million.

A proposed project on South Fourth Avenue – between East Huron Street and East Liberty Street – will reconstruct the street using a traditional road surface, but will manage stormwater with infiltration basins under the road. The stormwater part of the $870,000 project will cost $320,000.

A similar project on South Forest Avenue – from South University to north of Hill Street – will have a total price of $688,500, with the stormwater component costing $454,400.

A third project for which the city has petitioned the county water resources commissioner is a citywide tree planting project costing $300,000. Between 650 and 1,000 trees would be planted in the fall of 2013 and spring of 2014.

All of the projects are eligible for low-interest state revolving fund (SRF) loans, and have been classified as “green projects,” which could lead to 50% loan forgiveness.

Water Office Petitions: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that responses from the city staff to written council questions had allowed the council to learn that it’s possible to create a system whereby the stormwater would be led under the traditional road surface, where it could infiltrate into the subsoil, without using any permeable pavement. She appreciated that the staff were looking at stormwater issues for each individual project.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked the staff for their answers to questions about the pavement.

On the tree-planting project, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the project does tie in to the city’s urban forest plan. He also highlighted the fact that as a “green” project, there’s potential for 50% loan forgiveness.

Screenshot from the city of Ann Arbor’s online tree inventory, showing a preponderance of oak trees in the northern part of Allmendinger Park.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked the city’s water quality manager Jennifer Lawson to come to the podium to answer questions. She noted that the $300,000 project budget, if 50% of the loan is forgiven, would result in a cost of about $150 per tree – which includes the cost of planting and a one-year warranty. Judged by industry standards, she called that a really good deal.

Anglin said that with respect to the new urban forestry initiatives, he’d heard some complaint that the types of trees being planted were more of a flowering variety as opposed to those that would provide large canopies. He wanted residents to be able to select the tree they want – reasoning that it could result in better care provided to the trees by the nearby residents. Lawson responded to Anglin by saying that the city has an approved list of street trees that can be planted. The majority of trees planted in the right-of-way have constraints like overhead utility lines or lawn extensions that in some areas are only 4-5 feet wide. That limits the kind of species that can be planted.

For the citywide program, Lawson explained, gaps and holes are considered. Staff also look at industry standards on likely diseases that will hit next or the next big insect that the city needs to worry about. In fact, she said, it’s maple trees that are vulnerable now. So the city does look at species management so that the trees that are planted will live for 50-60 years.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) raised the issue of warming trends. Lawson confirmed that the city incorporated climate adaptation as a consideration in selecting species to plant. Subsequent back-and-forth between Higgins and Lawson – as well as Craig Hupy, public services area administrator – highlighted the fact that the council was approving the petition to the water resources commissioner, not allocating any money. The Washtenaw County water resources commissioner would be applying for the loan on the city’s behalf – but the city is not obligated to take the loan if it’s approved, Hupy explained.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) called the project very exciting. He noted that some of the trees planted last year had died. He wanted to know if they were under warranty. Lawson indicated that the trees are under a one-year warranty contract, so the contractor is responsible for one year of watering and tree maintenance. After one year, the city will go out and evaluate the tree. At that point, if it’s not “in a living format,” the contractor will replace the tree, she said.

Left to right: city of Ann Arbor water quality manager Jennifer Lawson and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Briere is not explaining how the pass interference rule applies to city council meetings.

Kunselman wondered how the city planned for climate change: At what point do you make a decision to plant different trees? Lawson indicated that this was something being weighed currently by the staff: Should changes be made now or in five years? She noted that as part of the stormwater management system, trees are a different kind of investment from a pipe. Trees grow in benefit as they grow in size, she said. Responding to questions from Kunselman, Lawson said that communication with property owners about trees being planted in the right-of-way takes multiple forms: letters; door hangers; and the event of a tree being planted. She said that the city also circles back with the automated email notification system for which people can sign up, to remind people to water street trees. The city also uses social media for that, she said.

Outcome: The council voted separately and unanimously on all three projects – to approve the petitioning of the water resources commissioner.

Trash Carts

The council was asked to approve the purchase of about 1,250 additional curbside waste collection carts this year, and about 2,500 carts a year for the next three years. The carts, which are being supplied by Toter for $65,500 this year, will add to the existing 55,000 carts in circulation. The carts were first implemented seven years ago, and the city expects to start seeing more frequent need to replace them.

Over the next three years, the city expects that each year it will need to purchase 1,500 recycling carts, 400 compost carts and 600 trash carts.

The contract through which the city wants to purchase the carts is through the Metro Waste Authority, at a cost for the base carts that is slightly higher than in an alternate agreement that’s available through the National Intergovernmental Purchasing Alliance. When the cost of an RFID tag, labels, assembly and shipping are added in, the difference in the cost per cart in the two agreements is smaller: $55.01 (96 gallon), $49.86 (64 gallon) and $39.97 (32 gallon) in the Metro Waste Authority contract compared with $56.63 (96 gallon), $48.47 (64 gallon) and $39.77 (32 gallon) in the National Intergovernmental Purchasing Alliance.

The cost of adding an RFID tag is $0.75 per cart. The city would like to use the RFID tags to monitor set-out rates for recycling carts, in order to target education efforts and to manage the collection routes.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously, without discussion, to approve the Toter cart purchases.

Appointments

The council was presented with assignments to various internal committees – as well as the council’s appointments to other bodies.

Appointments: Council and Other Committees

It was the second meeting of the new edition of the council, following the Nov. 6 elections. The departure of Tony Derezinski, Sandi Smith and Carsten Hohnke from the council meant that some changes to committee assignments had to be made.

The budget committee saw no changes from last year. Members are Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Marcia Higgins, Jane Lumm, and Christopher Taylor.

Added to the audit committee to replace Sandi Smith and Carsten Hohnke, as well as Sabra Briere, were Chuck Warpehoski, Sumi Kailasapathy, and Sally Petersen. Other members of the audit committee are Stephen Kunselman and Margie Teall.

Sally Petersen was added to the council administration committee to replace Tony Derezinski. Other members of that committee are Marcia Higgins, Margie Teall, Christopher Taylor, and John Hieftje.

Added to the labor committee to replace Sandi Smith was Stephen Kunselman. Other members of that committee are John Hieftje, Jane Lumm, Marcia Higgins and Margie Teall.

John Hieftje was added to the council rules committee to replace Sandi Smith. Other members of that committee are Sabra Briere, Marcia Higgins, Stephen Kunselman, and Christopher Taylor.

Tony Derezinski had served as the council appointee to the city planning commission, a responsibility that will now be taken over by Sabra Briere.

Jane Lumm became the council’s appointee to the insurance board of review, replacing Derezinski. Lumm will also fill the position of liquor license hearing officer. Taking Derezinski’s spot on the liquor license review board will be Sumi Kailasapathy.

Chuck Warpehoski replaces Carsten Hohnke on the environmental commission, while Christopher Taylor replaces Hohnke on the greenbelt advisory commission. [Google Spreadsheet with 2012 and 2013 committee appointments]

The council appointments to the environmental commission, greenbelt advisory commission and planning commission were made through separate resolutions.

Appointments: HHSAB – Living Wage

Sandi Smith’s city council slot on the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) will be filled by Sabra Briere. That body has been tasked by the council – through a resolution passed at the council’s Nov. 19, 2012 meeting – to provide a recommendation on the city’s living wage ordinance. The council considered, but postponed until February 2013, a change to the living wage that would exempt nonprofits that hold contracts with the city to provide human services.

During communications time, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – who brought forward the living wage ordinance revision, and serves as a second city council liaison to HHSAB – gave her colleagues an update on the status of that proposal. Since the council’s postponement, she’d met with Mary Jo Callan, head of the city/county office of community and economic development, and other staff. The plan at this point is to gather additional information, Lumm said, by surveying human services nonprofits and holding focus groups with them. A University of Michigan residential college class it taking on the question as a class project, Lumm reported. Callan’s office will be providing guidance and direction on the project. So Lumm anticipated an additional postponement would be required until March or April.

The HHSAB also got an additional citizen member at the council’s Dec. 3 meeting, when the council voted to appoint Tim Colenback to the board. Colenback is assistant dean of student services at the UM school of social work. His appointment was made in a one-step process – instead of the standard nomination at one meeting and confirmation at a subsequent meeting.

Appointments: ZBA

Sally Petersen replaces Sabra Briere as the council appointee on the zoning board of appeals. Nickolas Buonodona was nominated at the Dec. 3 meeting as a citizen appointment to complete the remainder of Carol Kuhnke’s term. Kuhnke resigned after winning election on Nov. 6 as judge of the 22nd circuit court. Marcia Higgins praised Kuhnke’s record of service on the ZBA, which Kuhnke had chaired.

Appointments: Environmental Commission

The council was asked to consider Patti Smith’s nomination to serve as a citizen on Ann Arbor’s environmental commission for a three-year term.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the current Ann Arbor city council appointee to the commission, nominated Smith during the council’s Nov. 19, 2012 meeting. Smith’s educational background is as an attorney, and she now works in the field of special education.

The commission provides advice to the city council on “environmental policy, environmental issues and environmental implications of all City programs and proposals on the air, water, land and public health.”

Unlike the majority of nominations to city commissions and boards, which are made by the mayor and confirmed by the city council, the environmental commission nominations are made by the council.

At the Dec. 3 meeting, Briere noted that Smith is not an environmentalist but a general citizen representative. Briere described that as a good thing.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Patti Smith’s appointment to the environmental commission.

Appointments: Calendar, Rules

Also its Dec. 3 meeting, the council adopted its rules and meeting calendar for the coming year. The meeting schedule adhered to the same pattern: first and third Mondays of the month, except for holidays, when the meeting is held on Tuesdays. And when an election is held on a Tuesday after first Monday of the month, that meeting is moved to Thursday. There were no changes to the council rules from the previous year.

Outcome: The council voted separately and unanimously on all the appointments and other council housekeeping items.

New Street Administrator

The council considered a resolution designating Craig Hupy, public services area administrator, as the city’s street administrator for purposes of signing contracts with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The designation of Hupy in that role – instead of Homayoon Pirooz, former head of project management with the city – highlighted the fact that Pirooz has retired to take a job with the city of Evanston, Ill. as city engineer. Pirooz started working for the city of Ann Arbor in 2000.

Based on the agenda of the Nov. 12, 2012 Evanston city council agenda, Pirooz will be living initially in a one-bedroom apartment on the second floor of the city’s service center.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to Craig Hupy as the Ann Arbor street administrator.

Retiree Benefits

The council considered final approval of a set of fairly technical revisions to the pension ordinance and the retiree health care ordinance, which had been part of the collective bargaining process with the Teamsters Civilian Supervisors, Teamsters Police Deputy Chiefs, and Teamsters Police Professional Assistants.

During the public hearing on the subject, Thomas Partridge told the council that he had been a recent Democratic Party candidate for the state legislature. And as a candidate he’d been committed to positions that favor ongoing employee benefit packages, and health care of all forms that protect the health of employees. He ventured that Christ would not advise that we leave public employees without the protections they need.

Responding to Partridge’s commentary, mayor John Hieftje expressed his view that members of the city unions have benefits better than those of most Americans.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance changes without discussion.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Public Transit

A vote taken by the council at its Nov. 8, 2012 meeting – to opt out of a newly incorporated Act 196 transportation authority – prompted two high school students to attend and address the council. Real-time online reviews were positive.

Shoham Geva introduced herself to the council as a senior at Skyline High School in the communications, media and public policy magnet program. She reminded councilmembers that the previous month they’d voted to halt the city’s involvement with the countywide transit plan. As one of the 60% of 17-19 year-olds who don’t have a driver’s license, and as an everyday user of transit, she wanted to remind the council of the impact transit has on the community. Ann Arbor is filled with opportunities for high school students, she said. The University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation, the Neutral Zone and other organizations give students like her the chance to do amazing things.

Ann Arbor is a place where teens are trusted to curate music festivals, serve on boards of local organizations and start businesses, she said. Those are the kinds of experiences that change lives and cause teens to stay in Ann Arbor, becoming the kind of invested, involved members the community thrives on. For her, that experience would not be possible without the Route #18 bus that runs from Skyline High School, the Route #7 bus that runs from Pioneer High School, and the Route #3 bus that runs from Huron High School. For her and many others, she said, “We need that bus.” As a 17-year-old living in an affluent community, in a well-off two-parent home with two cars, she still has no other options. And every day hundreds of high schoolers use the bus to get around. “That bus route has literally changed my life,” she said. Public transit does make an impact, she said, so she encouraged the council to continue to explore that impact.

Alex Kim also introduced himself to the council as a Skyline High School student in the communications, media and public policy magnet program. As a student without a car, he relies on the transit system to get around town. Whether it’s for the art fairs, Top of the Park, a movie at the Michigan Theater, or a program at the Neutral Zone, the bus system is a main reason he’s able to do everything he does. While he knows people from whom he occasionally can get a ride, there are other people who aren’t so lucky, he said. He was disappointed in the 10-0 vote to opt out of the newly incorporated transportation authority. While the plan might not have been everything that was desired, the idea of improving the current system should be considered, he said. Public transit is not a waste of money, he said – as it gives students and seniors freedom of movement. The community benefits from those people going places, he said. Kim asked the council to continue to look for ways to improve how we move from place to place.

Comm/Comm: Public Space – 721 N. Main, Library Lot

Odile Hugonot-Haber told the council she’d read an article in The Ann Magazine by Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, which runs the Delonis Center. Hugonot-Haber reported that Schulmeister’s piece described how there are 1,700 homeless people in Washtenaw County, and on average 200 have no shelter – due to the scarcity of affordable housing. Many homeless people work, she continued, but can’t afford housing. She reminded the council that the homeless are not helpless.

She pointed out that former residents of Camp Take Notice went to New Jersey to help with the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. That showed that the homeless have a heart, she said. But the city has no heart, Hugonot-Haber continued, because homeless people have no place to hang out except the library. And the ability to spend time at the library, she said, doesn’t give them the services they need. She reminded councilmembers that over the course of the last year they’d been addressed by two young women – Orian Zakai and Alexandra Hoffman – and the two have been teaching an art class at the Delonis Center. They’ve been discouraged after a year of work, Hugonot-Haber said.

Their group had focused on trying to convert the 721 N. Main building to a day warming shelter, because it’s a building full of old furniture, she said. But now, the city’s plan is to destroy the building to make a park out of it. [Later in the meeting, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) corrected this statement, pointing out that there are two buildings in the floodway that will be demolished, but a third one is being recommended by a task force to be maintained on the side.] Hugonot-Haber allowed that she’s fought for parks in other locations [like the top of the Library Lane parking structure], but the 721 N. Main building is a good sound building that could be updated and could serve as a day shelter, she said. She told the council they could be a part of the solution. “So let’s do it,” she concluded.

Alan Haber told councilmembers that he’d waited until the end of their previous meeting to address them – and he was hoping for creativity and heart and enthusiasm from the new council. After listening to Kermit Schlansker address the council, who had preceded Haber at the public commentary podium [see below], Haber felt there should be some mechanism to harness our community’s collective energy. He called for open public processes, particularly for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project. [The DDA was tasked by the city council with looking at alternative uses for five city-owned parcels in the downtown, along or near William Street.]

Haber said he’d tried to be involved with that process but has been dissatisfied with it. The space above the new underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue should be looked at as a space where the community can gather, he said. He was somewhat disturbed to hear members of the Connecting William Street’s leadership outreach committee say how pleased they were with the robustness of their public engagement process – because they didn’t consult those who wanted that parcel to be considered as a community gathering place, he said.

During council communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) clarified that the main building at 721 N. Main is not slated for demolition. Two other buildings at that site are in the floodway and will be removed. The technical committee reviewing that site has tentatively agreed that keeping the building is prudent until a use for the rest of the land is determined, Briere noted. She indicated that the council would have an item on its Dec. 17 agenda based on the North Main corridor task force‘s recommendation for the 721 N. Main property. What’s important to understand, Briere said, is that there’s a deadline for a grant application at the end of December – which is why the task force has moved so swiftly.

By way of background, the December grant deadline is for a Connecting Communities grant from Washtenaw County parks and recreation. A later deadline at the end of March is coming up for the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. For a Chronicle report on a recommendation from the city’s park advisory commission, see “Grant Applications Recommended for 721 N. Main.”

Briere noted that after making a recommendation for 721 N. Main, the task force will focus on the rest of its tasks, which includes looking at connections across Main Street and the railroad, connecting parks, and making recommendations for the best use of the old MichCon site on Broadway. Briere ventured that it’s a lot for the task force to do between January and July.

Comm/Comm: Budget Planning Session

City administrator Steve Powers announced that the city council would hold a budget planning session on Dec. 10, from 4-11 p.m. in the jury room of the Justice Center. More details on that would be forthcoming, he said.

Marcia Higgins – who’s chair of the budget committee, which has been planning the Dec. 10 session at its meetings over the last two months – noted later in the council meeting that an emergency contact telephone number would be set up so that councilmembers could turn off their computers and cell phones for the duration of the planning session. The Justice Center has airport-style security, so a question was raised about accommodating the public and minimizing disruption. Powers is working on the logistics for that, but it was indicated that the media would be able to bring electronic devices into the building.

Comm/Comm: Homelessness

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County and of the 18th District of the Michigan Senate and the 53rd District of the Michigan House – for which he noted that he’s stood for public office in the last few years. He was there to advance the cause of justice, liberty and progress for the most vulnerable residents of city, county, state and nation, Partridge said. He posed the question: What would Christ advise with respect to housing the homeless? What would Christ advise on policies for those who lack money for basics like food and medical care?

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Partridge said he was speaking out of frustration that after 20 years as a dedicated advocate for those needing representation, his calls for action had not been heeded by the city’s leadership. He was critical of mayor John Hieftje’s leadership.

Comm/Comm: Inventions

Kermit Schlansker told the council that there’s a tremendous need for invention to bolster our economic system and create the mechanisms of a sustainable society. Most citizens do work that does not contribute toward sustainability, he observed. He described various kinds of systems that need to be built, including solar energy, windmills, bio-digestive systems, and methods for planting trees from seeds. He also described his frustration at the fact that it’s difficult to bring inventive ideas to fruition, citing his own ideas on saving the braking energy of cars and his work on a three-piston heat pump. He called on the government to create an energy research farm where entrepreneurs can meet and work on new ideas.

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

Next special meeting: Dec. 10, 2012 at 4 p.m. in the fourth-floor jury room of the Justice Center, 301 E. Huron. The topic is a resolution on state legislation regarding a regional transit authority (RTA).

Next regular council meeting: Dec. 17, 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!

At its Dec. 3, 2012 meeting, the council raised several questions and concerns, and ultimately voted to postpone consideration of the approval until Jan. 7, 2013.

The changes to the building that the council was asked to approve were motivated by a change to the upper level residential portion of the Packard Road facade. It was moved 10 feet to the east to make it line up with the front stairwells. That also increased the footprint of the building by 4,720 square feet.

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]

At their meeting last week on May 18, Washtenaw County commissioners had postponed action on a request to approve a $1 million loan application to the state Dept. of Environmental Quality for brownfield cleanup at the former Georgetown Mall site. Developers were asking to use the county’s full faith and credit as a guarantee for the loan – a request that caused concern over entering into a relationship with a private developer that might pose a financial risk for the county.

The board was expected to take up the request again at their June 1 meeting, along with consideration of a broader public-private investment policy they’re developing, which was also postponed from the May 18 meeting. But now that there’s no loan in play, commissioners seemed inclined to defer action on the policy as well, giving the county’s attorney more time to analyze the issue.

Other items previewed from the June 1 agenda include: (1) five drain projects in the city of Ann Arbor that require bonds backed by the county’s full faith and credit, totaling $6.54 million; (2) acceptance of $455,000 in federal stimulus funds for the county’s weatherization program, which has already received over $4 million in grants over the past three years, and (3) approval of a new public health medical director. The current director, Diana Torres-Burgos, recently announced her resignation – she’ll be leaving her job at the end of June.

Agenda Briefings Resurrected – For Now

Tuesday’s briefing, attended by five of the 11 commissioners, marks a modified resumption of sessions that were previously held prior to every board meeting to review the upcoming agenda. Those administrative briefings were eliminated in February of 2011, after some commissioners objected to the fact that they weren’t sufficiently in public view.

Even though the informal briefings were public meetings, properly noticed under the Michigan Open Meetings Act and attended regularly by The Chronicle, they were held in a small conference room and – unlike other meetings of the board – were not televised.

Earlier this month, the board resurrected the briefings – at least for the summer – with the first one held on Tuesday to preview the June 1 agenda. In the summer, the board works on a reduced schedule, holding its Ways & Means Committee, regular board and working session meetings only once a month, rather than the twice-monthly schedule that’s in place the rest of the year. Additional briefings for the summer meetings are set for June 28 and July 26. The board will decide later whether to continue the briefings into the fall.

The briefings begin at 4 p.m. in the county boardroom at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor, and are recorded for broadcast on Community Television Network and on the county’s website.

Packard Square Loan, Public-Private Policy

At Tuesday’s briefing, the draft agenda for the June 1 meeting still included an item to vote on the public-private partnership investment policy being developed in large part to address the Packard Square loan request. When commissioners were told that the developers no longer planned to seek the state loan, the question became this: Did the board still want to keep the policy item on the agenda?

Board chair Conan Smith asked what the implication would be to eliminating the state loan – the brownfield plan approved by the board on May 18 assumes the $1 million loan will be part of that project. Commissioner Yousef Rabhi, who serves on the county’s brownfield redevelopment authority board, said the developers would need to seek a private loan if they intended to keep the brownfield plan as is – otherwise, they’d need to seek approval from the board to amend the brownfield plan.

Regarding the public-private policy, Curtis Hedger – the county’s corporation counsel – told commissioners that he’d sent the draft policy to John Axe for review. Axe, of the Grosse Pointe Farms law firm Axe & Ecklund, provides bond counsel and other legal services to the county on a contract basis. Hedger said Axe would be providing feedback, but couldn’t attend the June 1 meeting – he’d be celebrating his wedding anniversary.

Leah Gunn questioned the need for the policy at all. Aside from Packard Square, she couldn’t remember the county ever being asked by a developer to back a loan. Typically, the county’s full faith and credit is used for public projects.

Hedger cited the Broadway Village at Lower Town project in Ann Arbor as a similar situation, but noted that it didn’t move forward. He clarified that with the Packard Square loan, the county wouldn’t have been entering into a direct relationship with a developer – it’s illegal to extend the county’s full faith and credit to a private entity, he said. Rather, the relationship would have been between the county and the state, which was providing the loan through a program for brownfield projects. The county’s involvement benefits the developer only indirectly, he said.

County commissioner Leah Gunn, after the May 24 agenda briefing. She recently announced her intent not to run for re-election in 2012. Redistricting would have put her into the same district as incumbent and fellow Democrat Yousef Rabhi, whom she says she'll support in his re-election bid.

The county needs to make sure that whatever policy is adopted is crafted precisely, Hedger said, so that they deal with any type of public-private partnership legally.

Gunn said she didn’t think they should waste time on developing a policy – they won’t be encountering this type of situation regularly. “It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me,” she said.

Smith observed that he’d made a considerable time investment in it so far – after a special working session on May 17 to discuss the issue, he’d worked up a draft policy that was brought to the May 18 meeting, though it was ultimately postponed.

“Sometimes you have to let it go,” Gunn advised.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. speculated that there will likely be more public-private projects proposed in the future. He wanted to make sure they didn’t create a policy too quickly that would hurt the county down the road. He said he wasn’t in a mood to rush it through.

The consensus among commissioners who attended the briefing was to pull the item from the June 1 agenda, and possibly bring it back to the board at a later date.

Full Faith and Credit – Public Works Projects

The issue of full faith and credit came up again in relation to five requests from the county’s water resources commissioner, on the June 1 agenda for initial approval. The projects, which require the county to back bond payments totaling up to $6.54 million, are all located in Ann Arbor:

• Allen Creek drain cistern installation, downspout disconnection and tree planting – up to $330,000.
• County Farm drain stream bank stabilization – up to $1.2 million.
• Malletts Creek drain/Burns Park porous alley; Malletts Creek cistern installation, downspout disconnection, and tree planting; and Malletts Creek stream bank stabilization – up to $3.48 million.
• Swift Run cistern installation, downspout disconnection, and tree planting – up to $75,000.
• Traver Creek cistern installation, downspout disconnection, and tree planting; and Traver Creek stream bank stabilization – up to $780,000.

Bonds would be repaid from special assessments to the city of Ann Arbor. For the County Farm, Malletts Creek and Traver Creek projects, special assessments would also be made to the state and county.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. asked why the city of Ann Arbor couldn’t guarantee the bonds with its full faith and credit, since the projects are all located in that city. Conan Smith explained that these improvements are being made to county drain systems within the city. As such, the county is allowed to create special assessment districts, like any other public works project, he said.

Smith added his thanks to the staff of the water resources commissioner for preparing these projects in time for the June 1 meeting. He said that he and Sizemore had made a commitment to ensuring that – as much as possible – items didn’t get considered for initial and final approval on the same night.

Agenda items are first brought to the Ways & Means Committee, chaired by Sizemore and consisting of the entire board, for an initial vote. They are then forwarded to the regular board meeting, chaired by Smith, for a final vote. The meetings are held back-to-back, but items from Ways & Means typically aren’t considered on the same night – they are forwarded to the board meeting that’s held two weeks later – or, on the summer schedule, a month later. The intent is to allow for more time for commissioners to reflect on the items between casting their initial and final votes.

Departmental Reorganization

An effort is in the works to consolidate three county departments: the office of community development (OCD), ETCS (the employment training and community services department) and the economic development & energy department. Commissioners were briefed on this reorganization at their May 5, 2011 working session, with the expectation that it would be brought to the board for approval at the June 1 meeting.

At the May 24 agenda briefing, however, Joanna Bidlack – a county administration staffer who leads the briefings – said the item had been pulled from the June 1 meeting. She reported that Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, had met with union leaders earlier in the day and they had asked for more time to assess the change. Now, the plan is to bring the reorganization to the board’s July 6 meeting for initial approval, with a final vote on Aug. 3.

Community Corrections Grant

Commissioners will be asked to approve a grant application for the county’s community corrections program, operated by the sheriff’s office. The grant of $421,801 – for the period from Oct. 1, 2011 through Sept. 30, 2012 – is only a portion of the program’s $1.01 million budget. Other revenues include $215,983 from the county’s general fund, $76,386 from the program’s fund balance, and an estimated $295,890 in program-generated revenues, including fees from tethering and drug testing.

Programs run by community corrections are designed in part to provide sentencing alternatives to the Washtenaw County Trial Court. Programs include pre-trial screening, drug testing, electronic tethering, supervised release, and educational efforts, such as the “Thinking Matters” program offered in partnership with the nonprofit Dawn Farm.

Weatherization, Food Grants

Two items on the June 1 agenda relate to the county’s employment training and community services (ETCS) department.

Commissioners will be asked to accept $455,000 in federal stimulus funds – from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – to pay for weatherization assistance. The funds were originally granted to other municipalities but weren’t used, and are being redistributed.

Washtenaw County has already been granted $4.3 million in weatherization funds from 2009-2011, and has finished work on 611 residences. The new funding will pay for about 70 additional residences. The services – including home inspections, refrigerator efficiency testing and consumer education – are available to residents with an income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. That’s $23,448 for a single person, or $45,088 for a family of four.

ETCS is also asking the board to approve a grant application to fund a summer food program for children. Nearly $116,000 in federal funds, distributed through the state Dept. of Education, are available to pay for breakfasts, lunches and snacks to low-income children at 30 sites throughout the county. Kelly Belknap, interim deputy county administrator, told commissioners that more details about the exact sites will be available by the June 1 meeting.

Public Health Medical Director

Diana Torres-Burgos, the county’s public health medical director, recently announced her resignation – she’ll be leaving her job at the end of June.

On the June 1 agenda is an item asking commissioners to approve the hire of a new medical director. However, there were no additional details available at the May 24 briefing. The board will be asked to make both an initial and final vote that same night.

[After the briefing, interim deputy county administrator Kelly Belknap told The Chronicle that interviews with three finalists are being held this week – no decision has yet been made on a hire.]

Conan Smith objected to the process, saying it was a nightmare to handle it this way, because it gave the board and public no opportunity to vet a senior level staff position. Leah Gunn pointed out that no one from the public ever comments on the medical director appointment. It’s not a nightmare, she said. Smith allowed that perhaps he was just in a grumpy mood.

Belknap explained that the public health department needs a doctor on staff – if they don’t get final approval at the June 1 meeting, the appointment would have to wait until the July 6 meeting, and there’d be a gap between the departure of Torres-Burgos at the end of June. Medicare services provided by the county – including immunizations and the maternal infant health program – require that a licensed medical doctor on staff bill Medicare, via the state, for reimbursement.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.