Bob Guenzel chaired his first meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board on Wednesday. (Photos by the writer.)

Those included the monthly parking report, which showed use of the city’s public parking trending upward compared to last year, as well as an annual report on the structure-by-structure breakdown of the parking system.

The reports presented to the DDA board at their meeting – together with a recent report delivered to the city’s environmental commission about parking trends dating back to the mid-2000s – provide reason for some cautious optimism. The number of people getting access to downtown Ann Arbor by driving there and parking suggests an overall slight upward trend, despite a reduced number of number of hourly patrons earlier this year.

Also related to parking, the board received a presentation on a communications plan that the DDA is developing, targeted at downtown evening employees. That communications plan is meant to make sure those employees are aware of low cost alternatives to using on-street parking spaces. The communications strategy would be part of a possible plan to extend enforcement hours for on-street parking meetings past 6 p.m. The DDA will present its tentative proposal for revisions to parking policies to the city council at a joint working session of the board and the council to be held on Nov. 14.

In response to some of the individual success stories that were presented in connection with parking alternatives, DDA board member Russ Collins said, “I wonder how this positive message will play in the media.”

Collins’ remark could have applied to much of the rest of the meeting as well. The board took the report on the basic current financial health of the parking system as an occasion to talk about the overall economic strength of the downtown. Despite the recent closing of some smaller stores, board members gave reports of strong performances by other businesses.

That positive report contrasted with public commentary about ongoing problems with aggressive panhandling and drug dealing and other fringe behavior exhibited downtown. Mayor John Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board, described how some response is being developed by the Ann Arbor police department.

The construction updates on the Fifth and Division streetscape improvement project and the underground parking garage on Fifth Avenue converged on the Ann Arbor District Library. The projects will result in modifying the downtown library building’s front porch, to facilitate access from the new east-west mid-block street – Library Lane – into the library.

As the underground parking garage nears expected completion in the spring of 2012, brief discussion unfolded among DDA board members on the near-term use of the top of that garage. Also related to potential development in the “midtown area” was a report from the partnerships committee. A steering committee comprising DDA board members and community members will be leading the effort to explore alternative uses of specific city-owned parcels downtown, including the top of the underground parking structure (aka the Library Lot).

It was the first board meeting chaired by Bob Guenzel, who was elected to that position at the DDA’s last meeting, which he was unable to attend.

Parking

Roger Hewitt gave the regular report on the parking system. [.pdf of monthly parking report and annual structure-by-structure analysis] He highlighted the annual profit-and-loss statements for each structure for the past year.

Hewitt noted that those parking structures that have paid off their debt service are profitable, and those that still have outstanding debt are less profitable. For example, he said, Liberty Square has no debt service as well as less labor expense, because it’s unattended. Liberty Square has an annual net income of $1,852/space.

From the report, the structures with bond payments still associated with them have the lowest net annual income: Fourth & Washington (-$610/space), Fourth & William ($53/space) and Maynard ($517/space). Last year, the public parking system as a whole showed a net annual income of $3,452,389, which worked out to $508/per space.

Hewitt note that the new underground parking structure is planned to be unattended – but that doesn’t mean there will be no staff on site. There’ll be maintenance people on site, for example, he said. For a parking structure to be “unattended” means that there won’t be cashiers, he explained.

Hewitt said the DDA is also looking at converting other specific parking structures to operation without cashiers. The DDA is looking at various ways to decrease operating expenses. Hewitt noted that on-street meters are profitable because there is no labor attached to them. Overall, Hewitt said, the revenue is quite good.

Although revenues in the public parking system have continued to show increases since the national economic downturn in 2008, Hewitt has often noted on the occasion of his regular updates to the board over the last couple of years, and in a presentation to the city council, that the increase in revenue is either steady or only sightly more than what would be expected, given the rate increases that have been implemented with city council approval over the last three years.

In August 2011, revenues were up by 11.93% and the number of hourly patrons (as contrasted with those who have monthly permits) were up 4.86% as compared to August 2010. That was a bright point for board members at the Oct. 5 meeting.

In August 2010, the basic rates for structures, surface lots and meters were: $0.90, $1.10 and $1.20 respectively. In August 2011, the rates were $1.00, $1.20, and $1.20, respectively. So the August increase of nearly 12% in revenues outpaced the rate increase.

By way of background on the rate increases, the DDA sent the proposed rate increase to the city council in February 2009, which the city council did not choose to veto. That schedule has been implemented starting in September of each year, after the start of the fiscal year, which begins in July.

             STRUC                  LOT
YEAR          HRLY    PERMIT       HRLY      METER
FY 2009      $0.80      $125      $1.00      $1.00
FY 2010      $0.90      $130      $1.10      $1.20
FY 2011      $1.00      $135      $1.20      $1.20
FY 2012      $1.10      $140      $1.30      $1.40

-

To provide additional perspective on demand for access to downtown Ann Arbor, as measured by use of the parking system, a compilation of monthly year-over-year comparisons from last year’s DDA board meeting information packets yields the following charts:

DDA parking revenue. The red revenue line for the most recent year shows an overall pattern of slight increases compared to the blue bars of the previous year. (Image links to higher resolution file. Any errors are the responsibility of The Chronicle.)

DDA hourly parking patrons. The red parking patrons line for the most recent year shows an early pattern of slight decreases with slight increases more recently, compared to the blue bars of the previous year. (Image links to higher resolution file. Any errors are the responsibility of The Chronicle.)

In addition to the last two years’ worth of DDA revenue and hourly patron data, it’s useful to look at a report that city environmental coordinator Matt Naud recently completed and presented to the city’s environmental commission. The report was conducted as a condition of the settlement of an environmental lawsuit filed against the city in connection with the underground parking garage on Fifth Avenue, which is currently under construction. ["City Settles Lawsuit, Must Conduct Study"]

It’s important to note that the report compiled by Naud focuses on “garage parking events,” which are not the same as the statistic the DDA tracks called “hourly patrons.” Naud’s study was confined to parking structures, and counted the entry into a garage by a permit holder as a “parking event.” Use of a surface lot was not counted in Naud’s study as a “parking event.” The focus of that study was on the question of how the construction of additional parking structures impact the number of parking events.

The result of the study on its central question could fairly be described as indeterminate. However, the report shows a steady increase from 2005 to 2009 of parking events in downtown Ann Arbor, despite any number of mitigating factors, such as increased bus ridership:

Parking events in downtown Ann Arbor. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf file)

The demand for access to downtown Ann Arbor as measured by the use of the public parking system is likely to be a point of discussion in connection with two current development projects in and near downtown: The Varsity Ann Arbor and Heritage Row.

Heritage Row is a planned unit development (PUD) located one block south of the underground parking garage on Fifth Avenue and outside the DDA district. In connection with Heritage Row, one possibility the city council may be asked to contemplate – at its Oct. 17 meeting – is approval of that project without any on-site parking requirement.

At the Oct. 5 meeting of the DDA board, Roger Hewitt noted that bond costs for the new underground garage will change the revenue and expenditure picture. The underground parking garage on Fifth Avenue between Liberty and William is one of two major construction projects currently managed by the DDA.

Construction Convergence: Library Lane

John Splitt reported on the two major construction projects currently being managed by the DDA: Fifth and Division streetscape improvements; and the underground parking garage. Light poles have been installed on the 200 block of South Fifth, Splitt said. That finishes everything connected to the streetscape improvements except for the block of Fifth Avenue between William and Liberty. That will need to wait until the underground parking garage is complete, he said.

For the parking garage, the east leg is now waterproofed and back-filled with pea gravel. For that east leg section, form work is starting for the surface concrete pouring. [The deck is being constructed from east to west.] For the middle of the garage, more concrete will be poured next week. Splitt said that for the phase under Fifth Avenue, it was hoped to be done as soon as possible. The DDA is pushing Christman Company, the construction manager for the parking garage, to complete that phase by Dec. 31 to get the street opened back up, but Splitt said it could be into January.

John Mouat said he felt that the new Library Lane (a newly constructed east-west mid-block connector between Division Street and Fifth Avenue) always gets forgotten in all of the discussion about the parking garage. He noted that the DDA is now involved in a discussion with the Ann Arbor District Library about the connection from the library to Library Lane. Russ Collins quipped that it should be called “Parker Place,” alluding to AADL director Josie Parker, who was in the audience.

Josie Parker, director of the Ann Arbor District Library, and DDA board chair Bob Guenzel before the Oct. 5 meeting of the Downtown Development Authority.

Parker was asked to come to the podium to update the board on the Library Lane and library building connection. For the moment, she said, because there’s not a new library being built, they’re simply working on redesigning the existing front of the building – which has its public entrance on Fifth Avenue – to get patrons easily from Library Lane to the existing entrance of the building as it is currently located. Part of the plan includes tearing off some elements at the front of the building and redoing them, Parker said. The idea is to reconfigure some of the existing porch area, she said.

When people talk about the Fifth and Division streetscape improvements and finishing up the 300 block of South Fifth Avenue, the library frontage is included in that, Parker said. [The DDA's streetscape project will be paying for this work.] She expressed that the library appreciated very much the library’s inclusion in the planning. The library was grateful for the attention that’s been given, and the effort to accomodate the libary has been tremendous, she said.

The construction work has had a great impact on library workers and patrons, Parker said, but she added that use of the library has not declined during construction on the underground parking garage. Alluding to the downturn in business suffered by nearby businesses like Earthen Jar and Jerusalem Garden – about which their owners have been vocal – Parker allowed that other neighbors have had a different impact.

John Splitt noted that it might not be possible to finish the sidewalk on both sides of Fifth Avenue before spring, but completion of the east side first – the library side – is the goal.

During the discussion of the underground parking structure, Sandi Smith asked what the plan was currently for the surface of the deck. Would it be surface parking? Splitt clarified that surface parking on top of the underground garage would be located primarily in the center section of the deck [viewed from east to west, not top to bottom] and that section would not be finished until the spring.

The top of the underground parking garage is one of five city-owned parcels that the DDA is currently considering for alternative uses – under the direction of the city council given in April 2011. The others are the former YMCA lot, the Palio lot, the Kline lot, and the bottom floor of the parking structure at Fourth and William.

Future Use of Midtown City-Owned Parcels

Joan Lowenstein reported on the the planning process to frame the redevelopment of five city-owned parcels in the downtown that the DDA will be considering.

The partnerships committee had worked on a goals statement for the midtown planning project, she said. [Midtown is the name of one of downtown's zoning overlay character districts, which includes Fifth Avenue as a civic corridor.] Committee members had discussed the idea of forming a leadership steering committee to shepherd the project. That committee would work directly with DDA staff.

Members of the committee who’d agreed to serve in that capacity include: Brittany Affolter-Caine (Ann Arbor SPARK director of talent enhancement); Ron Dankert (former DDA board member and broker with Swisher Commercial); Bob Galardi (retired Ann Arbor Public Schools administrator); Stas’ Kazmierski (managing parter at ZingTrain); Kirk Westphal (film producer, founder of Westphal Associates and member of the Ann Arbor planning commission); Tony Lupo (formerly director of sales and marketing at Salon Vox, now brand manager at New York-based Oribe Hair Care); Nancy Shore (director of Ann Arbor’s getDowntown program); Hillary Murt (member of Michigan Theater board, and former owner of Pen in Hand); and Bonnie Valentine (director of sales and marketing with the Whole Brain Group).

The first meeting of the steering committee will take place on Tuesday, Oct. 11 at 3 p.m. at the DDA’s offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave. Lowenstein said the meeting will be open to the public. Serving on the committee for the DDA will be Lowenstein, Sandi Smith and John Mouat.

Lowenstein described how the partnerships committee had discussed what the deliverables will be for the planning project, which included a defined role for the area, a framework plan and a set of future goals, and a decision-making matrix, all in one document. The idea is also to look at alternative scenarios for achieving development, Lowenstein said – RFPs (requests for proposals) in addition to other options.

Lowenstein also reported that a communications subcommittee of the partnerships committee had been created, consisting of Russ Collins and Newcombe Clark. The goal of the communications subcommittee is to develop a toolbox of resources to communicate with the public and with each other.

Clark reported out that the communications subcommittee will aim to increase DDA visibility and public awareness of what the DDA does and how it adds value. The approach will be both reactive and proactive, he said. The plan is to involve professionals who know how to do public relations and communications. The initial work plan will be to bring in professionals and see what they think the DDA should do. The subcommittee will report out every month. Once the subcommittee has created a toolbox, staff will use it, he said. Collins said he felt that the subcommittee could make good progress for the benefit of the board and the downtown.

Commenting on the midtown development plan, Sandi Smith allowed that it seemed like it was taking a long time, but she saw no reason to rush. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Planning Poised to Pause"]

Downtown Behavioral Issues

During public commentary John Teeter, manager at First Martin Corp., introduced himself by saying that First Martin managed 10 different properties in the DDA district. He wanted to share with the board some of issues the real estate company has been suffering thorough with respect to crime and panhandling. He stressed the importance of separating perceptions from the reality – perception is actually a separate issue from the actual problem, he said. The problem, he said, is not homelessness. It’s things like urinating and defecating in elevators. He said that compared to the past 13 years, the problem is worse now than it’s ever been.

The problem is not the local homeless population, Teeter said. Rather, the problem is aggressive panhandling and drug dealing. He described the Ann Arbor community as having been generous with its resources for this part of the population. But just because the community offers more robust support services, he cautioned, doesn’t mean this behavior should be tolerated downtown. He said that one solution would be to apply pressure with police, but he recognized the challenge of doing that in the current fiscal climate. The police force needed to be given sufficient tools and manpower. He ventured that maybe some stronger ordinance language would help.

Teeter told the board that he was not there just to complain. First Martin is trying to help things, he said. First Martin takes care of picking up trash at Liberty Plaza six days a week. [The park is immediately adjacent to a First Martin property]. He said that First Martin also takes care of some upkeep at Wheeler Park and the corner at Depot and Main. Because much of the problem is drug- and alcohol-related, Teeter said, First Martin will be donating $1,000 to the Dawn Farm outreach program.

Diana Neering, chief development officer at the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, addressed the board to present the DDA with the annual Robert J. Delonis Community Service award. Neering thanked the DDA for its recent support in the form of a grant. [At the DDA board's Oct. 6, 2010 meeting, a year earlier, a $218,050 grant from the DDA's housing fund was awarded for improvements at the association's Delonis Center on Huron Street. The money was to pay for new washers and dryers, lockers and chairs, an emergency generator, energy conservation measures, medical equipment and software.]

Neering then shared a shelter success story about a man who had come to the Delonis Center shelter and how the shelter staff had helped him.

Also realated to the shelter, in his report out from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, Ray Detter began by saying that the construction of the Delonis Center would not have happened without Bob Guenzel (then Washtenaw County administrator and now chair of the DDA board) and the strong support of Leah Gunn (currently a Washtenaw County commissioner and DDA board member).

As newly elected chair, Guenzel was prepared to proceed with the agenda after public commentary. But mayor John Hieftje interjected that he’d previously suggested adding an agenda item to allow board members to respond to public commentary, and he felt that this was very good time to do that. With Guenzel’s indulgence, Hieftje then reviewed a meeting the day before held by the downtown marketing task force, when Teeter had expressed many of the same sentiments he’d expressed during public commentary.

Chief of police Barnett Jones had been there, Hieftje said, as well as representatives of the downtown merchant associations. He had then met later with the chief and deputy chief of police, and he felt that they’d come up with some good ideas. He indicated that some new things will be announced in the next few weeks.

One strategy will be that community standards officers will be issuing tickets in alleys for dumpster violations. They’ve sent out notice to merchants saying that they’ll be looking for violations starting in November. Also being considered is stepped up enforcement of the city’s graffiti ordinance. Hieftje said he figured that businesses will push back, but that the merchant associations have said they’ll support the city’s efforts at enforcement. Hieftje said he wanted to make sure everybody gets adequate warning of the stepped up enforcement.

Hieftje said the perception is worse than the problem itself, but is equally meaningful. He went on to describe Ann Arbor’s issues as relatively minor compared with other cities. Other than the unsolved sexual assaults, it’s been a good year with respect to crime stats, Hieftje contended.

Guenzel asked Hieftje if the downtown marketing task force was again meeting monthly. Hieftje indicated it was and that they had a schedule of nine times a year with no meetings in the months of July, August, and December. He said it was nice to have city council members (Sandi Smith and Sabra Briere) and DDA members present for the most recent meeting.

Business Climate Downtown

Russ Collins offered a comment on the relative downtown vitality in Liberty-State area. [Collins is executive director of the Michigan Theater, located near the intersection of Liberty and State.] In August, Collins noted, systemwide parking use was up significantly over a year ago – revenue was up 12% and the number of hourly patrons was up 5%. Collins added that the Michigan Theater had had an unusually strong August. Roger Hewitt, who owns the Red Hawk Bar & Grill and Revive + Replenish downtown, said his two businesses had also had a strong September. He allowed that five University of Michigan home football games can affect things – positively.

Adding to the positive message, Hieftje reported that during the downtown marketing task force meeting the previous day, South State Area Association president Tom Heywood had said that despite the challenges faced by some smaller establishments, business is booming. Hieftje said Heywood had contended at the meeting that the new CVS pharmacy on South State had generated the highest amount of sales per square foot in that chain.

Collins continued with the theme that the right business can succeed in downtown Ann Arbor, by noting that when the John Leidy Shop closed, the Michigan Theater had looked to put a penny candy store in the space – as an extension of something the theater already did, which is to sell concessions. But his organization’s business and market analysis found that such an enterprise was not supportable. He was therefore not surprised when the candy store that set up shop there found it difficult – the Michigan Theater’s business planning would have forecast that outcome, concluded Collins.

Sidewalk, Street Repair Millage

Guenzel asked DDA executive director Susan Pollay if there was an update on the situation with the sidewalk millage. Pollay reviewed how there’d been a general discussion at the operations committee meeting about the two millages on the November ballot: 2 mills for street, and 0.125 mills for sidewalk repair. The DDA’s understanding is that the city will take over repairs previously assigned to property owners, except inside the DDA district, where there will be restrictions. Millage money would be spent on sidewalks inside the DDA district, only if they are adjacent to single-family houses or duplexes. Guenzel confirmed with Pollay that the city’s expectations of the DDA are still being checked out.

Hieftje then commented that he did not feel city councilmembers are out in the community saying that the city absolutely needs the millage or that it’s essential. The sidewalk millage merely offers residents a choice, he contended, of having the city take over the responsibility for sidewalk repair. Everybody who was given notice under the last five-year cycle of the sidewalk repair program will have to pay, Hieftje contended – no one gets a free ride. He reported that the city council’s resolution of intent on the use of the sidewalk and street repair millage funds was still pending before the council.

Public Art, Design

The previous night’s meeting of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, said Detter, had begun with the group’s attendance at the dedication of the new fountain designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl. Detter described how more than 200 people attended to celebrate the water sculpture, where mayor John Hieftje gave a speech. Former chair of the city’s public art commission, Margaret Parker, as well as the current chair, Marsha Chamberlin, had also made remarks, he said. He said the CAC had for years supported the city’s Percent for Art program.

Detter recounted how in the 1990s, three CAC members had worked with Jan Onder and Parker on the downtown public art committee. With guidance from local architect Dick Mitchell, they had injected art into the Fourth and Washington parking structure, he said. Detter described how one of the meetings took place in Espresso Royale, and how a man who’d overheard their conversation about what they wanted to do had come over to say he wanted to give the group $25,000. Detter identified the man as the owner of the Amadeus building. When former DDA chair Reuben Bergman had passed away, Detter said, another $13,000 had been donated. Within a matter of a few month, Detter said, Onder had raised another $85,000.

After the dedication ceremony for the fountain on the municipal center plaza, Detter said, the CAC discussed The Varsity at Ann Arbor project. [The same evening as the dedication, the city planning commission voted to recommend approval of The Varsity; it will now be forwarded to the city council. Detter spoke during public commentary at that meeting.] Detter noted that it was the first project to be reviewed by the newly-established design guidelines board. The board had identified design elements that were present and lacking in the project. The board did a good job, he said. He noted that the review by the design guidelines board is mandatory, but compliance is voluntary. He said the developer did a good job in making improvements to the design.

Detter concluded by saying that the city’s commitment to good building design and public art will make the pedestrian experience better.

New Chair

Bob Guenzel, former Washtenaw County administrator, opened the meeting by saying, “I went away and got elected chair of this group!” He was absent from the board’s Sept. 7, 2011 meeting. Roger Hewitt responded to Guenzel by saying, “That’s how it works, Bob!”

The board had been without a chair because board member Gary Boren, who had been elected to that post by his board colleagues at their July 6, 2011 meeting, was not nominated by mayor John Hieftje for reappointment to the board after his term expired on July 31. Boren was replaced on the board by local attorney Nader Nassif.

Adopting a more serious tone, Guenzel said it’s a great honor to chair the DDA board and said he felt it would be a good year.

On the Horizon

The board’s Oct. 5 meeting included a presentation from DDA planning and research specialist Amber Miller and getDowntown director Nancy Shore on low cost alternatives for evening employees to use on-street parking spaces. At a Nov. 14 joint working session with the Ann Arbor city council, the DDA board will be presenting a proposal to the council for changes to parking rates and policies, which could include extension of enforcement hours past 6 p.m.

The board also received an update on the status of the getDowntown program and the go!pass, which had been presented to the DDA’s transportation, operations and communications committe the previous week. [See Chronicle coverage: "Also Discussed by DDA: getDowntown, Parking"]

Present: Nader Nassif, Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Nov. 2, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

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

Seated is Roger Fraser, who attended his last Ann Arbor city council meeting on April 19 as city administrator – he gave a formal presentation to the council of the FY 2012 budget. He’s chatting before the meeting with the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, who was appointed interim administrator later in the evening. He’s not telling Crawford: “Whatever you do, don’t let the council tie your hands, see?” (Photos by the writer.)

After public hearings on the two medical marijuana laws, the council did not deliberate long in deciding to postpone both votes until its next meeting, on May 2. Substantive amendments that had been presented to councilmembers late that day for consideration made them reluctant to attempt grappling with the amendments in detail. The May 2 vote on the two laws will likely count only as their initial approval, assuming the amendments are adopted at that meeting. The laws would then need an additional final reading after May 2 before they are enacted.

A tweak to the city’s panhandling ordinance was given its second and final approval at the April 19 meeting. That change to the existing ordinance had come as a recommendation from a task force that worked for six months on the issue, following up on a longer effort in the early 2000s that had led to adopting the language in the existing ordinance.

The longest deliberations of the night involved a resolution of instruction to the council’s “mutually beneficial” committee, which is currently negotiating a new contract under which the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority would continue to manage the city’s public parking system. The direction given to the committee was not to stay firm with its previous bargaining position, but rather to escalate the city’s expectations for revenues from the public parking system.

Previously, the city’s committee had taken the position that the city should receive 16% of gross parking revenues in the first two years of a 10-year contract, and 17.5% in remaining years. That compared with the DDA’s position that the city should receive a flat 16% across all years. But at the meeting, the council voted to direct its committee to take the position that the city should receive a flat 18%. The council’s deliberations included comments directed towards the DDA that could fairly be described as inflammatory.

Called to the podium to comment on the parking revenue figures and the DDA’s overall financial health was the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford. Later in the meeting, Crawford was appointed interim city administrator, effective April 28. Current administrator Roger Fraser is leaving the post to take a job as a deputy treasurer for the state of Michigan.

Although councilmembers did not comment on it, Fraser was attending his last meeting of the council as city administrator. And in his final major act, he gave a formal presentation to the council of his proposed fiscal year 2012 budget, as required by the city charter. The charter stipulates that the council will need to amend and approve the budget by May 16, its second meeting that month.

Parking Revenue

The longest deliberations of the night took place on the issue of how much revenue from the public parking system the city should take for use at its discretion. Those deliberations took place against the backdrop of the formal budget presentation by the city administrator for fiscal year 2012, which begins July 1, 2011.

Parking Revenue: Background – City-DDA Relations

In front of the council for consideration was a resolution giving instruction to its “mutually beneficial” committee, which is currently renegotiating a new contract under which the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority would continue to operate the city’s public parking system.

The city’s negotiating team – councilmembers Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – had previously insisted that in the first two years of a 10-year contract, 16% of gross revenues to the public parking system would be allocated for use by the city at its discretion, with that amount rising to 17.5% of gross revenues in remaining years.

The DDA’s position had been consistent with the city’s previous request for the first two years of the contract, which would have the city withdraw 16% of gross revenues from the public parking system in each of those years. But the DDA’s current position is that for remaining years of the contract, the city’s share of gross parking revenues should remain at 16% instead of rising to 17.5%.

After the meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) gives an interview to Andrew Cluley, a reporter with WEMU, about the outcome of the mutually beneficial resolution of instruction.

The decision to bring a resolution of instruction to the council had come at a meeting between the respective mutually beneficial committees of the city council and the DDA on Monday morning, April 11. The resolution was meant to get a reading of the council’s support for either the DDA’s  position or the city committee’s position. [For detailed previous coverage: "City, DDA Continue to Talk Parking, Taxes"]

The existing contract under which the DDA manages the parking system is not based on a percentage of gross transfer. Instead, it’s composed of a transfer to the city’s street repair fund and “meter rent” of $1 million per year. Renewed in 2005 for a 10-year term, the contract allows for the city to transfer up to $2 million in a given year, provided the total amount transferred as “meter rent” does not exceed $10 million for the term of the contract. In each of the first five years of the contract, the city elected to transfer $2 million. Last year, the DDA transferred another $2 million as meter rent to the city, though it was not required under the current contract. [Chronicle coverage: "DDA OKs $2 Million Over Strong Dissent"]

Parking Revenue: Background – City FY 2012 Budget

Fraser’s formal budget presentation – which he previewed at a city council work session on April 11 and at a town hall meeting on April 13 – does not appear to depart in significant ways from the department-by-department budget impacts that department managers have presented to the council at a series of work sessions since the beginning of the year.

Highlights for 2012 include the layoff of five police officers, three other non-officer positions in the police department, and five firefighters. In other, non-safety services departments, Fraser is proposing – through retirements or already vacant positions or layoffs – to eliminate two positions in forestry, a partial position in facilities, one position in trash collection, a fleet mechanic, a management assistant, a Teamster supervisor, an accountant, two IT positions, and a court clerical position.

With additional reductions in FY 2013, the total employee count for the city would decrease to 688 down from a high of 1,005 in 2001 and from 848 in 1987.

Fraser’s proposed FY 2012 budget also includes a reduction of $116,000 in support for human services nonprofits. Other significant savings – roughly $475,000 – are realized through allocation of some forestry operations to the storm water fund. The FY 2012 also assumes that the street repair millage will be renewed by voters in the fall of 2011, and that the millage will subsume the city’s sidewalk repair program, freeing the Metro Act fund to absorb roughly $212,000 in general fund expenses like snow/ice removal and traffic island maintenance/mowing.

Parking Revenue: Background – “Shortfall” in FY 2012 Budget

At the city council work session on April 11, Fraser had responded to scripted questions from Hohnke and Taylor about the impact on the city’s ability to provide services, assuming the flat-16% scenario as compared to the 16-16-17.5% scenario. They were giving Fraser a chance to respond to the observation that had been raised during discussions by DDA board members: If there’s a perceived “shortfall” in the amount of parking revenues withdrawn from the parking system compared to previous years, then that “shortfall” amount is the same in the first two years of the contract, under either the city’s or the DDA’s scenario. That is, on their face, the two different scenarios would not appear to require different budget decisions this year or next (FY 12 and FY 13) – the two years for which the city is currently planning its budget. [Although the city adopts budgets one year at a time, it plans in two-year cycles.]

But Fraser contended at the April 11 work session that the two scenarios would require different choices this year. He explained that under the city’s 16-16-17.5% scenario, in the third year, the city’s public parking revenues would essentially be restored to their previous baseline revenue levels ($10,000 more, actually) – a baseline established over the course of the last six years at a bit less than $3 million total (when the “meter rent” of $2 million, a transfer to the city’s street fund, and two additional parking lots are all factored in). And starting in the fourth year of the contract, the extra revenue would start to compensate for the “shortfall” experienced in the first two years, erasing the cumulative effect of that shortfall between the sixth and seventh years of the contract, generating a total cumulative excess against the baseline of $1.15 million after the ninth year of the contract.

In contrast, the flat-16% scenario would leave a “shortfall” against the city’s baseline until sometime between year six and seven of the contract, at which point the city would start to recover some of the shortfall in previous years, but still with a cumulative deficit of $1.07 million against the baseline over the first nine years of the contract.

That amounts to the difference between a short-term issue and a structural deficit, said Fraser. So on the city’s 16-16-17.5% scenario it would be appropriate to make up the “shortfall” from the undesignated fund reserve. But on the flat-16% scenario, he said he would recommend taking action to deal with the structural issue in the first year it appeared – by eliminating four police or firefighters in FY 2012 to cover the roughly $400,000 “shortfall,” and two police or firefighters in FY 2013.

Parking Revenue: Background – What Is a Shortfall?

It’s worth noting that the city considers its baseline parking revenue (against which it measures a “shortfall” of revenues from the public parking system) to include all transfers made in the last year. Those transfers include two kinds of transfer that date back at least to 2005 – “meter rent” of up to $2 million per year, and a transfer to the city’s street repair fund, which has an escalator, but stands currently around $840,000. The rationale for the street fund transfer is that the city maintains the streets where on-street metered parking is located. The streets are analogous to a linear, roof-less parking structure/lot, so the logic is that the city should receive at least some portion of the meter revenues to maintain the “parking structure.”

Before the meeting, Joan Lowenstein (left), who is current chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board, chats with councilmembers Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

During the April 19 council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that when she heard that the city would be “held harmless” financially in the renegotiation of the new contract, she assumed that the baseline would include the $1 million annual meter rent figure in the old contract, not the maximum $2 million per year allowable. However, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated to Briere that there had been a consensus by both the city and the DDA that it was the $2 million figure for meter rent that was the basis of the “hold harmless” assumption.

Another part of the baseline used by the city, but not necessarily by the DDA, is more recent in its history – revenues from the 415 W. Washington Lot and the Fifth & William Lot. In 2009, revenues from those two lots began to be transferred to the city outside the context of the city-DDA contract, and it’s not clear whether it was really considered as part of the “hold harmless” principle in the term sheet that guided the two “mutually beneficial” discussions. [Chronicle coverage for a timeline on those two lots: "City-DDA Parking Deal Possible"]

Revenues from those lots were part of an agreement between the city and the DDA to forestall the installation of parking meters in residential areas near the downtown, which the DDA opposed for a variety of reasons, among them a skepticism they would actually generate the levels of revenue the city was hoping for. [Chronicle coverage: "City to DDA on Meters: We're Skeptical"]

Although she did not try to argue the point at great length during the April 19 deliberations, Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who has also served on the DDA board since 2004, noted that if the $170,000 combined annual revenues from those two lots were left out of the calculation, the city would be held harmless over the life of a 10-year contract. In any case, the expectation was that those revenues were temporary, she said, with the idea that both parcels had a future that was different from a parking lot.

But based on the sentiments eventually expressed around the city council table on April 19, whether revenues from those two lots were part of the “hold harmless” calculation was of little interest to the council. Councilmembers were interested in the percentage of gross that would correspond to the total amount of parking revenue transferred last year – they wanted at least that amount this year, too. And when Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) heard the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, say that the hold harmless amount would be roughly 19%, she proposed that number for all 10 years of the contract.

Parking Revenue: Council Deliberations – Intro

Higgins’ amendment to the resolution of instruction to the city’s mutual beneficial committee came after lengthy introductory remarks from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). He set the context of the conversation about the resolution of instruction on the financial side of the contract by describing the progress made in other areas of the contract, contrasting the “narrative” part from the “numerical” part.

As part of that context, he also pointed to the resolution that the council had passed at its previous meeting, which tasked the DDA to lead a process to explore alternate uses for four city-owned downtown surface parking lots. [Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Council Focuses on Downtown"]

Some key non-numerical areas of the contract include:

• Parking rates/hours to be set by DDA. The city council would not have a veto. [Currently the city council holds a veto on rate changes.] The contract stipulates that rates won’t be changed permanently without first: (1) announcing and providing written communication regarding details of the increase at a DDA board meeting; (2) at a subsequent board meeting, providing all members of the public a chance to speak before the DDA board on the matter – a public hearing; and (3) delaying any vote on the rate change until the board meeting following the public hearing.
• DDA to assist with directing parking enforcement. The contract calls for a Standing Committee to be formed that will meet for regular consultation about parking enforcement. The committee will consist of the executive director of the DDA, the parking manager, deputy police chief, community standards supervisor, and the city’s public services area administrator. This addresses the concern expressed by the DDA that while it already had the authority to set hours of enforcement (for example, for later in the evening), it could not actually schedule community standards officers to do the enforcement. [Currently, many downtown parkers pay for meters past 6 p.m. even though the meters aren't currently enforced that late.]
• City to report information to the DDA. The contract would call for the city to provide regular reports on its enforcement activity – data like how many citations have been issued and in which zones. The contract would also call for the city to provide reports to the DDA on its street maintenance activity in the downtown.
• Parking area defined. The contract provides a map designating exactly which areas the DDA has authority to decide placement of parking meters. Not included in the DDA parking area are any of the residential parking permit areas – a program over which the city will maintain its current control.

Later in deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) drew out for emphasis the fact that it was only the financial terms of the contract that the council was being asked to consider that evening, not the other aspects of the contract. Still, some of those non-financial terms drew criticism from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) during his comments, when he indicated that he would not support giving rate-setting authority to the DDA or allowing the DDA to decide to enforce meters in the evening. He also objected to defining a geographic area where the DDA would determine parking policy.

But Taylor began by portraying the DDA as a generous and cooperative party to the discussions on the contract. He said it was not a “commercial negotiation” – if it were, then the city would have been told to “pound sand” long ago, he said. However, the DDA had not behaved that way, said Taylor. He highlighted the fact that last year, the DDA had decided to make a $2 million transfer to the city that it was not required to make under the existing contract. It was a clear example of the DDA’s good faith, he said.

Parking Revenue: Council Deliberations – Interrogatories on Police

Taylor then called the city’s chief financial officer Tom Crawford to the podium, and the two then performed a dialogue that was virtually identical to the one that he and Hohnke had played out with city administrator Roger Fraser a week earlier at the council’s working session. To re-establish the city’s position that its 16-16-17.5% scenario was tenable without service cuts, but that the DDA’s flat-16% would require service cuts, Taylor and Crawford offered the following kind of back-and-forth:

Taylor: So under Ann Arbor’s [the city's] proposal, the revenue shortfall in the first two years is a “one time” occurrence, then it is reasonably anticipated that it would occur and there are no service cuts associated. Under the DDA proposal of a flat 16%, the administrator at our last work session stated that there would be permanent service cuts associated with that. Is that correct?
Crawford: Yes, that would be the recommendation. Because under a 16% flat scenario, even on the 16-16-17.5, in the out years it is a long time before that deficit is actually made up, and that is beyond, it’s assumption upon assumption to actually get that far. So to have a responsible balanced budget, I think you’ve gone too far. You really need to make the cuts if you’re going to be that low and don’t anticipate it being recovered in the near future.
Taylor: Okay, so under the, for colleagues, so under the flat 16[%] that would result in service cuts and the administrator stated his view that it was approximately four [public safety officers] in the first year, because of the $490,000 drop, and then at least two, he said two, I added the “at least,” thereafter going forward?
Crawford: Two to three.

Parking Revenue: Council Deliberations – Fund Balance (Bonds)

The DDA’s board had generally stated, Taylor reported, that its reluctance to adopt the city’s position in the negotiations over the financial terms of the contract was related to their concern about the undesignated fund balance of the DDA. So he then posed a series of questions to Crawford apparently intended to establish: (1) the DDA’s undesignated fund balance is not as important relative to the city’s fund balance; and (2) the reserve fund balances for the DDA on the city’s proposal of 16-16-17.5 would be reasonable, even in the lowest year in the 10-year projections.

Taylor: Okay. The DDA has articulated, the DDA’s description of their lack of comfort with this proposal is based upon what it does to its fund balance. We have stated in the course of our conversations that the city serves as a guarantor of the DDA. And although it’s useful and important for the DDA to maintain some fund balance, that the city serves as its guarantor, so that diminishes the risk of harm to the DDA in the event of a lower fund balance. Is that accurate?
Crawford: That is accurate. In fact the city owns the parking system. And where there has been debt issued on the parking system, the city has issued the debt. And so while the fees from the operation of the decks are the primary source of retiring the debt, the bonds that were issued are capital improvement bonds most recently, and those are in fact guaranteed by the city.
Taylor: Does the DDA fund balance play any role in the determination of Ann Arbor’s bond rating?
Crawford: Not really. The city itself, the DDA is small enough that it really doesn’t, it’s not a material factor, I wouldn’t say.
Taylor: Does the, is the city’s fund balance a material consideration in its bond rating?
Crawford: Yeah. There are many factors. But particularly the general fund balance is something they definitely look at.
Taylor: So if, and this is just for the purposes of fund bal- bond rating, well, why is a bond rating something important to consider?
Crawford: The bond rating, the largest impact of the bond rating financially to the city is in borrowing costs. Your borrowing costs will go up if your bond rating goes down.
Taylor: So if I understand it correctly, then, if we were to privilege the DDA’s fund balance over the city’s fund balance, you know, hold the DDA’s fund balance harmless, or preferred in deference to or over the city’s fund balance, that that at some point, we are not the rating agency, so we don’t know, but at some point that could reasonably be expected to have a negative impact on Ann Arbor’s fund balance [sic]? [Note: Taylor likely meant "bond rating."]
Crawford: Yeah, so to the extent that there is a priority that needs to be given to where fund balance is held, in my view, the city is where the fund balance would need to be maintained. The general fund is a fund that has the ability to transfer monies when it has them available to other funds. It’s not always the case that that can happen in reverse. So it is important to the city have, be healthy.

A few minutes later, mayor John Hieftje and Crawford reprised the same scene about how bond rating agencies evaluate the city:

Hieftje: The other point I wanted to go to, when the bond agencies take a look at who’s qualified and at what interest rate, is their view at the fund balance of the Downtown Development Authority or is their look at the fund balance of the city?
Crawford: The city. They’re evaluating the city.

Parking Revenue: Council Deliberations – Fund Balance (%)

As for the DDA’s fund balance under the city’s desired scenario, Taylor and Crawford seemed interested either in portraying the DDA’s reserves as: (1) adequate on the city’s desired scenario; or else (2) somewhat excessive on the DDA’s desired scenario.

It’s not clear which of those rhetorical points was intended, because Taylor asked for Crawford’s comment on the projected low point of 10.9% fund balance reserve under the DDA’s proposed flat-16% scenario – and the answer seemed to be that what the DDA was proposing wasn’t unreasonable. [When a fund balance is expressed as a percentage, it refers to the balance as a percentage of annual expenses.]

Taylor: … this gets us down from the DDA’s view in the critical year of [FY]15-16 to 10.9%. Is 10.9% a pretty health fund balance, do you think generally for the DDA in these economic times?
Crawford: Fund balance is a gray area, obviously something that people talk about. It’s important, you know each fund has its own characteristics of risk. And so it’s hard to say this is a healthy number or this is not a healthy number. But in my opinion, 10.9 for the risk profile is not unreasonable for that fund. And I say that because when you look at the city’s fund balance policy, which is a range from 8-12[%] and you look at the characteristics of the risk that we have, tax revenues, and then all the fee revenues, state shared revenues, we’re actually in an environment where almost everything is going down. It’s unusual, but it is occurring. In the DDA’s situation, you’re looking at the parking system. The parking system has appeared to be, history would tell us, it’s a fairly stable, more stable revenue source. So certainly expect it to be in that 8-12 range and maybe a little lower.

From later in the exchange between Taylor and Crawford, it appears that 10.9% – from the DDA’s preferred, flat-16% scenario – is still the one they were focused on:

Taylor: Would you have any concerns about the DDA’s fund balance in that critical dip year in the event that we moved to a 16-16-17.5 version?
Crawford: I would want to talk to the DDA more about it. If their plan is 10.9[%] and they’re going to be better than that, then I would not have an issue with that, because as you indicated, it’s my opinion that the TIF [tax increment finance] revenue is conservative in its projection. So no, I don’t have a problem with the 10.9 as it’s projected.

Later in the deliberations, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) focused the conversation on the figure associated with the projected low point for the DDA’s fund balance percentage under the city’s desired contract – the 16-16-17.5 scenario. That number is 7.4%, not the 10.9% that Taylor and Crawford had discussed earlier. She asked Crawford if he really was comfortable with that number. He confirmed that he was, although he allowed that he’d like it to be more – but that the city’s fund balance takes precedence over the DDA’s fund balance.

Smith also asked Crawford to reconcile his statements made around the time the city council was authorizing bonds for the DDA to build the South Fifth Avenue underground parking garage (now under construction) – statements to the effect that a fund balance of 12-15% or perhaps 15-18% would be appropriate. She asked him point blank what the difference was between then and now: What has changed?

Crawford began by saying that he didn’t recall giving the DDA a minimum fund balance that they needed to have. He described it as natural for an organization to save up fund balance reserves for a capital expenditure, then to spend down those reserves for a capital project and possibly dip into the fund balance to a point where it’s not comfortable. He said he didn’t see his comments in 2009 as inconsistent with what he is saying now.

The Chronicle reported Crawford’s comments at the Feb. 17, 2009 city council meeting:

Crawford reported that on looking at the DDA’s financial picture, he noticed that they don’t have a minimum reserve policy. He said he generally used 15-20% as a minimum reserve. In light of the need to maintain adequate reserves, he said that in his view the project is “not affordable with the plans they have.”

A followup email dated March 7, 2009 from then-councilmember Leigh Greden to DDA board members shed additional light on the minimum reserve figure:

I understand there has been some discussion at the DDA that the City does not have a minimum reserve policy similar to the one Tom Crawford has been recommending for the DDA. In fact, the City DOES have a minimum reserve policy, and has had such a policy — in writing – for years. The policy has been printed in the City’s Budget for years, and reads as follows: The City shall “maintain an undesignated General Fund balance with a minimum range of 8% to 12%; provided that when necessary use of these funds occurs, subsequent budgets will be planned for additions to fund balance to maintain this standard over a rolling five-year average.” Tom Crawford has repeatedly urged the City to exceed this policy by maintaining an undesignated General Fund reserve of 15%. Consistent with Tom’s recommendations, the City has exceeded our policy by maintaining an undesignated General Fund reserve of 15-20%.

The on-demand online video archive of CTN recordings no longer includes the Feb. 17, 2009 city council meeting – it existed previously here: [link to Feb. 17, 2009 meeting archive]. According to CTN, some meetings were deleted because of storage-space issues. The Chronicle requested to view a copy of the DVD of the meeting, but according to CTN, as of April 22, staff had not been able to locate the DVD of that meeting – it’s missing from the binder where it was stored. CTN staff continue their efforts to locate it.

Parking Revenue: Council Deliberations – Fund Balance (TIF)

The conversation about the DDA’s fund balance included a focus on the issue of anticipated TIF revenues to the DDA. The TIF (tax increment finance) district of the DDA, in broad strokes, works by capturing property taxes that would otherwise be collected by entities like the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, the Ann Arbor District Library, and Washtenaw Community College. The DDA’s capture is only from the value of improvements to properties (hence, the word “increment”) and does not apply to future appreciation on the increased value.

In its 10-year planning, the DDA has typically projected 2% growth in its TIF revenues. It’s also typically added TIF revenues to its 10-year projections only when the taxes are on the books. The Zaragon II and 601 S. Forest projects – primarily residential developments – are under construction in the DDA district:

Taylor: Do the TIF figures for the DDA’s 10-year plan include any monies associated with 601 S. Forest or Zaragon II?
Crawford: Not that I can tell.
Taylor: Do you have any notion as to, well, do you have any notion as to what those properties would gain the DDA in terms of TIF revenue?

Crawford’s recollection given to Taylor was in the ballpark of the exact numbers provided subsequently to The Chronicle by the city treasurer’s office: Zaragon II and 601 S. Forest projects are expected annually to generate $206,391 and $286,645, respectively.

The DDA has also not included TIF revenues in its 10-year projections that the city reports have already been filed with the state of Michigan for FY 2011. Specifically, the DDA’s 10-year plan indicates TIF revenue of $3,796,929 for FY 2011, but according to the city treasurer’s office, $3,908,576 is actually on the books for this year.

And looking ahead to future years, when construction on Zaragon II and 601 S. Forest is completed, that difference will be even greater. The city’s point, essentially, is that the DDA is under-representing in its 10-year plan what it could reasonably anticipate for TIF revenues. In response to Taylor’s prompt, Crawford responded:

Crawford: Off the top of my head, because I did not bring that with me, I believe, you know, I don’t know what year they pulled those, but we are seeing substantially more than that in [FY12]. … So the tax numbers have been close to finalized now, and we are in the neighborhood of $450,000 more, I would say, in this category.
Taylor: Would you believe it if I, well, I , I I, I didn’t remind you to bring this email, but for 411 [Lofts], we’re bringing in $408,000 in FY12, and for Zaragon I there was $271,000 brought in, is that about right? So that’s several hundred thousand dollars that are already in the bank for FY12 that are going to be going forward …

Mayor John Hieftje also stressed that TIF revenue has continued to climb – at double-digit pace in the last three years, while the city’s general fund tax revenue has shown decreases of 1-4% each year. Hieftje had stressed this point at a March 30 meeting of the DDA operations committee (known officially as the bricks and money committee).

Parking Revenue: Council Deliberations – Economic Development

Contrasted with comments y Taylor and Hieftje on increased TIF revenue, remarks by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) focused more on the parking fund within the DDA, as opposed to the overall fund balance of the DDA. The overall fund balance is shored up by TIF-capture revenues from a range of other taxing jurisdictions, not just the city of Ann Arbor’s. [Previous Chronicle coverage on that issue: "City, DDA Continue to Talk Parking, Taxes: It's about parking fund balances, not TIF revenues"]

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) arrives to the April 19 council meeting.

Smith was consistent at the April 19 meeting with a theme she’s highlighted in recent weeks on the use of the parking fund as an economic development tool. She pointed to the Village Green project planned for the First and Washington parcel, saying that if another opportunity like that came along, the DDA would not currently be in a position to take advantage of it. [The DDA has committed to paying back $9 million of bonds for the construction of a 244-space parking deck on the lower two stories of a 9-story, 156 unit residential development. According to Village Green, the purchase option is still on course to be completed this spring. That would result in a $3 million payment to the city of Ann Arbor, which will go into the construction fund for the new municipal center.]

Smith characterized the issue as a difference in philosophy: Is the parking system and its revenue stream an economic development tool, or is it a way to prop up the city’s general fund? She noted that it was particularly important to consider the city’s efforts in support of economic development, in light of the fact that the city’s economic development fund is being eliminated as part of the proposed FY 2012 budget. The remaining money in that fund – established originally in the amount of $2 million to provide monies as an incentive for Google to locate its offices in downtown Ann Arbor – was folded into the general fund reserve.

In responding to Smith’s talk of economic development, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was not saying anything he has not said before: The city is not in the business of economic development – that is Ann Arbor SPARK‘s job, he said. He, as an elected official, is responsible for health, safety and welfare, not economic development, Kunselman said. He thinks of his role as providing good roads, clean water and good public safety.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) also challenged the notion that the DDA’s mission was economic development, citing the mission statement of the DDA, which refers to supporting public buildings. He remarked that if the mission of the DDA included economic development, then he’d like to see some kind of economic development plan, adding that he’d also like to see some kind of plan from Ann Arbor SPARK.

Smith responded to Rapundalo by pointing out that the second part of the DDA’s mission statement actually includes encouraging private investments:

The mission of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA) is to undertake public improvements that have the greatest impact in strengthening the downtown area and attracting new private investments.

On the relationship of parking revenues to the city’s general fund, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) was willing to say it out loud: To fund the city’s request for additional parking revenue money, the council was basically asking the DDA to raise parking rates.

Along those lines, during the course of the mutually beneficial committee negotiations, an exasperated Roger Hewitt on the DDA board suggested at one point that the arrangement should simply be year-to-year, and should work on a two-step process each year: (1) The city tells the DDA how much money it would like to take out of the parking system; and (2) the DDA sets rates to generate that amount of revenue. Hewitt also raised the specter of signage on parking meters and parking structures indicating what percentage of a downtown public parking dollar goes to the city’s general fund as a “tax.”

The idea received little traction. At that committee meeting, the DDA’s executive director, Susan Pollay, cautioned that demand for parking was at least somewhat elastic. At some price point, people would begin to seek alternatives to paying for public parking or opt out of visiting downtown Ann Arbor.

During the April 19 council deliberations, Hewitt was invited to the podium to report on the level of parking demand. He told councilmembers that revenues continued to increase, but that the increased revenue over the last two years did not match the increase in parking rates. That could indicate a slight softening of demand.

Parking Revenue: Council Deliberations – Committee’s Role

The city’s mutually beneficial committee had essentially brought two choices on a percentage-of-gross figure to their council colleagues for consideration: (1) a 16-16-17.5% scenario; or (2) a flat-16% scenario. Early in deliberations, it became clear that there was considerable support for a third option, which was for the city’s negotiating committee to return to their DDA counterparts with an escalated offer. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) began discussion on that figure at 19%.

Met with resistance from members of the city’s committee, Higgins noted at more than one point during deliberations that the purpose of the resolution was for the council to give the committee direction. The committee had come to ask the council for direction, she observed, but the committee responded by saying it was uncomfortable going back with the higher request – she asked if they would really negotiate based on the council’s direction.

Left to right: Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board members John Splitt and Roger Hewitt, and the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford.

Higgins’ remarks along these lines were consistent with the theme she’d highlighted at the council’s previous meeting, when it had authorized the DDA to lead a process to explore alternate uses of city-owned downtown surface parking lots. On that occasion, the city’s negotiating committee had resisted other councilmembers’ desire to limit the scope of the DDA’s work to just four of the downtown city-owned properties. Higgins had said the last time she checked, a city council meeting was an opportunity for councilmembers to give their opinions, which was what she was doing.

At the April 19 council meeting, Carsten Hohnke – a member of the committee – responded to Higgins by saying he would debate the percentage figure at that meeting, but once the number was decided, he would negotiate that number.

Taylor’s take on the issue was that he would accept the council’s direction on the matter, but that did not mean he felt it was calculated for wisdom or success.

On the issue of the relationship of the council to its negotiating committee, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the DDA’s committee had consulted with the entire DDA board multiple times to get explicit direction, but this was the first time the city council had been asked for direction. She said she was sorry that this left the committee with little time to resolve the issue.

By way of logistical background, the respective committees of the city and the DDA are scheduled to meet again on April 25. The full DDA board will meet at noon on May 2 and the council will meet the same day at 7 p.m. The time is the usual one for the council, but the DDA’s meeting was shifted from the following Wednesday, to allow more board members to attend.

The May 2 DDA board meeting will be the last opportunity for the DDA board to alter its already-approved budget, before the city council must approve the city’s budget – at the second meeting of the month, on May 16. The DDA’s approved budget at this point includes a transfer of parking revenues to the city of around $1 million, covering the street repair fund money, and money from two specific parking lots – at 415 W. Washington and Fifth & William.

When the city votes on May 16, it will be giving final approval to the DDA’s budget, which is part of the city’s budget.

Parking Revenue: Council Deliberations – DDA as Arm of the City

The fact that the city council must ultimately approve the DDA’s budget was a point Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) made during deliberations.

By way of historical background, that approval is not simply a formality – on at least one occasion previously, the council has reached an arm into the DDA’s already approved budget and changed an item on the same night it approved the city’s budget as a whole. From the May 21, 2007 city council minutes [Fund 0003 is the TIF fund]:

[FY 2008 budget] Amendment 11

Resolved, that the Downtown Development Authority fund (0003) expenditure budget be decreased by $1,600,000 to reduce the appropriated reserves for future capital construction projects.

On a voice vote, the Mayor [John Hieftje] declared the motion carried with one dissenting vote made by Councilmember [Joan] Lowenstein.

The possibility that the city council could change the DDA’s budget is affecting how the DDA is currently proceeding with its energy saving grant program. The budget approved by the DDA board includes $100,000 in FY 2012 for that program. But Dave Konkle – former energy manager for the city and now consulting for the DDA on its energy saving grant program – has stressed at recent meetings of the DDA’s partnerships committee that he cannot give assurances to potential grant recipients that the money will be there – until the city council approves the budget.

During deliberations at the April 19 council meeting, mayor John Hieftje reiterated his view, expressed often in various contexts, that the DDA is not an independent body, but rather an arm of the city. At a recent DDA board meeting – the mayor sits on that board – Hieftje compared the DDA to a child, whose parent must co-sign for a loan.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) looks on as his ward colleague Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) weighs in against Taylor’s view that the city should accept a 16-16-17.5% arrangement for a new contract with the DDA.

Kunselman echoed that sentiment, saying that the DDA is like a teenager that needs some tough love. He asserted the primacy of the city council, as elected officials, over the members of the DDA board, which has members who are nominated for appointment by the mayor and confirmed by the council. Kunselman allowed that everyone needed to come together as a team, but he was careful to single out the city councilmembers as the “star players of the team.”

In his assessment of the situation, city administrator Roger Fraser said he was surprised that the council was even still considering “subsidizing” the DDA. The rest of the city’s departments had been skinnied down, he said, yet no one was asking the question of whether we should have “less DDA.”

At one point Taylor noted that the conversation around the table seemed to suggest an assumption that city council could act without the DDA’s assent, which prompted the mayor to interject his disagreement – a breach of parliamentary protocol that appeared to startle Taylor briefly:

Taylor: We are having this conversation as if it is entirely our choice …
Hieftje: … no we’re not!
Taylor: [4-second pause] I understand, uh, I, I, well, it is my perception that that is the nature of this conversation, and I would just recollect to my colleagues that that is not the case …

Parking Revenue: Council Deliberations – 19% Tactic

The opening gambit of a request for 19% of gross parking revenues was based on Crawford’s answer to the question of what the “hold harmless” percentage would be if it were applied to just FY 2012. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) proposed that as an amendment to the resolution before the council.

She tipped the fact that it was a negotiating tactic, when mayor John Hieftje eventually invited her to reduce the number to 18% in order to achieve a greater consensus. Her reply was that she was “not yet” ready. Only just before the vote on her amendment did she change the figure to 18%, with agreement from Kunselman, who was the seconder on the amendment to 19%.

Other councilmembers, including members of the negotiating committee, expressed concern that 19% was over the top – too far in the other direction. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted, however, that if the city’s need is great this year, and if the DDA’s burden to the parking fund is somewhat less this year [because it's using some TIF dollars to shoulder the burden of down payment and bond payments on the underground parking garage], then perhaps the city should be asking for 20% in the initial year, with less in subsequent years.

Parking Revenue: Council Deliberations – 18% Vote

The vote on the amendment of the resolution of instruction to set the percentage-of-gross parking revenue figure at 18% was 8-3. Hohnke – a member of the negotiating committee that had argued for the 16-16-17.5% scenario – joined the majority as the last person to weigh in on the roll call vote.

Dissenting were the other two members of the committee, Teall and Taylor, and Smith, who serves on the DDA board.

Outcome on amendment: The council voted 8-3 to amend the resolution of instruction to negotiate based on an 18% figure across all 10 years of a 10-year contract.

The vote tally on the resolution as amended changed by one from the outcome on the amendment. Teall said that the consensus of the council was clear and that she would thus support the resolution.

Outcome: The council voted to direct the committee to ask the DDA for 18% of gross parking revenues in each year of a 10-year contract. The vote was 9-2, with dissent from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

Medical Marijuana

In front of the council for consideration were votes on both the zoning and licensing ordinances that were being considered for their final votes.

The medical marijuana zoning ordinance received its initial approval by the council at its Oct. 18, 2010 meeting. The delay since the initial Oct. 18, 2010 zoning vote stems from the city of Ann Arbor’s strategy in legislating zoning and licensing of medical marijuana businesses – that strategy has been to bring both licensing and zoning before the city council at the same time for a final vote.

The context for development of zoning regulations was set at the council’s Aug. 5, 2010 meeting, when councilmembers voted to impose a moratorium on the use of property in the city for medical marijuana dispensaries or cultivation facilities. The council also directed the city’s planning commission to develop zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses.

Subsequently, the city attorney’s office also began working on a licensing system. The council undertook several amendments to the licensing proposal at four of its meetings over the last three months: on Jan. 3, Feb. 7, March 7 and March 21. The council finally gave initial approval to the licensing proposal at its March 21 meeting. [.pdf of Michigan Medical Marijuana Act]

Medical Marijuana: Public Hearings

Two separate public hearings were held – one for the licensing and one of the zoning regulations. Many of the same people spoke at both, and many had spoken previously to the council. Here’s a sampling from both April 19 hearings:

Weighing in against the idea of ordinances that provide a locally legal way for people to gain access to medical marijuana was Thomas Partridge. He called on the council to freeze progress of the ordinances. He pointed to national and state news reports of illegal shipments of drugs and cautioned against the violence that is associated with illegal drugs. He said he was committed to not using illegal drugs. He said that marijuana use is intertwined with other addictive drug uses.

After the public hearing, Dennis Hayes (right) and Thomas Partridge (left) discuss their differing views on medical marijuana.

Countering Partridge was Tim Beck, of the Detroit Coalition for Compassionate Care, who said that in the two years the Michigan Marijuana Law has been in effect, Ann Arbor has not fallen into a wave of crime. On the issue of regulating caregivers, he encouraged the council to “let it ride.” He pointed out that in Grand Rapids, when a similar law was enacted, no one ever applied for a license.

Gersh Avery introduced himself as a resident of Dexter, and founder of the Cannabis Cancer Project – which aims to develop cancer-killing agents from essential oils extracted from the cannabis plant. He claimed some success already, and stressed that the goal is not merely symptom relief, but rather to kill cancer and cure other diseases. He pointed to Crohn’s disease as an example of a category of illnesses that may be responsive to treatment with essential oils. Countering Partridge’s point about addictive behavior, he said that a recent study showed that prescription drugs are five-times more likely to be a gateway drug than marijuana is.

Rhory Gould introduced himself as representing Arborside Health and Wellness. He said the proposed number of 15-20 licenses would not be enough to serve Ann Arbor. He suggested that adding 5-10 more would mean 5-10 more businesses and 30-60 more jobs. He criticized the idea of requiring dispensaries to maintain a permanent list of suppliers, saying it would do more harm than good. He also complained about the length of the proposed moratorium, noting that businesses that began operation before it was imposed and are grandfathered in are happy with it.

Along with several other demonstrators outside city hall before the meeting, Chuck Ream told the council that the regulation of cultivation facilities and the requirement of list-keeping included in the ordinances needs to be removed. He also criticized city attorney Stephen Postema for his handling of the medical marijuana issue.

Postema was also sharply criticized by Trena Moss, who described an encounter with Postema on Liberty Street when she was collecting petition signatures for the medical marijuana referendum. [Postema sometimes walks to work downtown along Liberty Street from his home in the Eberwhite neighborhood.] She asked him if he remembered the encounter, which he apparently did not. She told him that she remembered him well, and reported that he’d told her she was wasting his time – that he and his friends wouldn’t let it pass, even if they collected enough signatures to get the measure placed on the ballot. She asked him if perhaps he had something personal against medical marijuana patients, and that if he did, then he should perhaps step aside.

During council deliberations, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said that Postema had accepted the guidance of the council in working on Ann Arbor’s medical marijuana ordinances.

Dennis Hayes addressed the 1,000-foot setbacks required in the zoning regulations by suggesting either 500 or 200 foot setbacks. He also encouraged the council to consider office districts as allowable locations for dispensaries under the zoning code.

Several speakers, including Matthew Abel, noted that the federal government is interested in getting information about caregivers and patients. Abel also noted that caregivers should be able to grow the amount of marijuana allowable under the state law without restrictions. The only real concern that the council should be addressing in legislation on growing, he said, was the possibility that people could buy houses for the sole purpose of setting them up as “grows.”

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations

The number of amendments that had been proposed by councilmembers and the city attorney’s office as late as the afternoon of April 19 led Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to start deliberations with the suggestion that the council delay the votes on both measures until May 2. Smith noted that councilmembers had received the most recent updates in proposed amendments at 3:38 p.m. and 6:29 p.m. that same day – the council meeting’s scheduled start was 7 p.m.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that it was difficult to provide the public with the material that the council would be considering in advance of the meeting, because she’d been told by the city attorney’s office that it had to be vetted by the whole council before it could be shared publicly. Seated next to Briere, city attorney Stephen Postema told her that proposed changes suggested by councilmembers or by others could be shared with the public. She replied: “I was not told that.”

Subsequent back-and-forth among councilmembers, the mayor and the city attorney confirmed that if proposed amendments are passed on May 2, it would likely reset both ordinances to their first readings, which would require that they receive an additional second reading.

In discussing postponement, some councilmembers pointed to specific issues that they wanted to focus on in the postponed deliberations. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated he was not certain that the proposed legislation yet achieved the goal of providing a “safe harbor” for caregivers.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) check over the April 19 agenda.

Taylor said that on further reflection, he felt that patients who are availing themselves of the opportunity to gain access to medical marijuana do so with the full knowledge that the product they’re getting has not been certified with the rigor that the federal Food and Drug Administration would apply. So he alerted his colleagues to the idea that he might be more inclined to support some kind of disclaimer

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje responded to the suggestion raised during public commentary that the city attorney or councilmembers had personal issues against marijuana. Hieftje said he would support legalization of marijuana, if a way could be found around the risks posed to young people. Hohnke said his background in neuroscience led him to conclude that the medical benefit of marijuana is well documented.

To prepare for future deliberations, Briere asked her colleagues to reflect on the appropriateness of licensing cultivation facilities. She pointed out that home occupation businesses are not required to be licensed under the proposed ordinances, but cultivation facilities are. The difference, she said, boils down to whether growing by a caregiver takes place in one’s own home or in some other location (making it a “cultivation facility”). She also pointed to a newly proposed amendment, which requires a zoning compliance permit, as potentially posing problems by creating records about caregivers, which the city might be forced to produce, even if the city were to fight a request to produce those records.

Following up on Briere’s remarks, Stephen Kunsleman (Ward 3) gave notice to his colleagues that he would not be supporting the text that refers to zoning compliance permits.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone deliberations on the zoning and licensing of medical marijuana businesses until May 2.

Interim Administrator

Added to the council’s agenda at the start of the meeting was a closed session to discuss applications that had been solicited internal to the city for the interim city administrator’s job. The section of Michigan’s Open Meetings Act allowing for a closed session under those circumstances reads:

15.268 Closed sessions; permissible purposes. Sec. 8. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes: …
(f) To review and consider the contents of an application for employment or appointment to a public office if the candidate requests that the application remain confidential. However, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, all interviews by a public body for employment or appointment to a public office shall be held in an open meeting pursuant to this act.

After the closed session, two items were added to the agenda – one to establish a process for hiring the permanent administrator, and another to appoint an interim. The city’s current administrator, Roger Fraser, announced at the end of February that he would be resigning to take a job with the state of Michigan as a deputy treasurer.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) is chair of the search committee, which brought both recommendations to the council. Other members of that committee were: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje.

Higgins reviewed the search committee’s work over the last few weeks, which included a total of four meetings. The committee’s recommendation was to appoint Tom Crawford as interim city administrator. Crawford currently serves as the city’s chief financial officer.

The job for permanent city administrator will now be posted and advertised. Affion Public will be contracted to assist the city’s human resources department with the search – for a flat fee of $18,000 plus additional travel expenses expected to total less than $25,000. The targeted salary range for recruitment will be $145,000-$150,000.

Affion’s work will begin with a visit to Ann Arbor in the first week of May to meet with councilmembers, city employees, and members of the public to get a clearer idea of the intangible qualities that are desired in an applicant. An ideal timeline would include closing the application window after 30 days, using late May and June to winnow the field and interview candidates, with an offer to be made by July 1. On the ideal timeline, the new administrator would start work on Aug. 1.

Although the city’s public services area administrator Sue McCormick had been widely assumed to be a natural choice for interim, a condition on the interim appointment was that the person would not be a candidate for the permanent job. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Fills City Administrator Job"]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the hiring process recommended by the search committee and to appoint Tom Crawford as interim city administrator, effective April 28, 2011.

Panhandling Ordinance

In front of the council for consideration was final approval to a revision to the city’s code on disorderly conduct – the part dealing with solicitation, which is more commonly known as panhandling. All ordinances must be approved on two separate votes before the council, the second of which must be preceded by a public hearing. The panhandling ordinance revision received its initial approval from the council at its April 4 meeting.

The revised ordinance prohibits panhandling in one generally-defined additional location (in or within 12 feet of a public alley) and one specific location (within 12 feet of the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library.) [.pdf of revisions to existing ordinance as they were drafted at the start of the April 19, 2011 meeting]

The proposal to revise the law grew out of a street outreach task force, which was appointed at the council’s Sept. 20, 2010 meeting and charged with developing cost-effective recommendations for addressing the issue of downtown panhandling and the needs of those who panhandle. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Task Force Consults Panhandlers"]

At the council’s March 21, 2011 meeting, the council received a report from two members of the task force – Maggie Ladd, executive director of the South University Area Association, and Charles Coleman, a project coordinator with Dawn Farm. A recommendation contained in the report included revising the city’s ordinance on solicitation to prohibit panhandling in additional locations. [.pdf of street outreach task force report]

Panhandling: Public Hearing

Four people spoke during the public hearing on the ordinance. Thomas Partridge said it was a very curious time to be considering the ordinance – a time when the city, county and state all have budget concerns. He characterized the change in the law as a measure that would “clamp down” on the most vulnerable members of society. He called for postponing the vote, until the sociological and psychological ramifications could be studied on an academic basis. Partridge noted that politicians also ask for handouts when they ask for contributions to their political campaigns.

Bob Dascola introduced himself as the owner of a two-generation family business since 1939 and a board member of the State Street Area Association. He told the council that he had been a member of the last task force that had addressed the issue of downtown panhandling, in 2001-2003. He told the council that they’d identified three kinds of panhandlers: (1) substance abusers; (2) the mentally ill; and (3) opportunists. He said that most of the panhandlers in the area of his barbershop are opportunists. He described the previous ordinance revision as raising the bar for acceptable behavior in the community, and urged support for the current ordinance revision and the other recommendations of the task force.

Bob Dascola (left) and Peter Ludt (right) seated in the audience before the start of the April 19 council meeting.

Ray Detter introduced himself as the head of the downtown citizens advisory council, saying that he’d participated in the previous effort in 2001-2003. He noted that last summer there had been a noticeably worsening situation. He said that a member of the DCAC had walked from her home on East Liberty to the White Market on William, and had been accosted four times by panhandlers. They’d taken up the issue with chief of police Barnett Jones, deputy chief John Seto and Ward 1 representative Sabra Briere. Of the new task force that had been formed out of those communications, Detter joked, “I was on it, but I still say it did an excellent job.”

Detter stressed that no one needs to panhandle due to hunger, given the various resources in the community. He said that almost universally, panhandlers are not homeless. He noted that the recommendation of the task force was to emphasize education of people who might be inclined to give money to panhandlers – the marketing slogan is “Have a heart, give smart.”

Peter Ludt introduced himself as a board member of the State Street Area Association and a member of the street outreach task force. He said he was a manager of a coffee shop on the 300 block of State Street and had resorted to calling the police department about panhandlers on more than one occasion. He affirmed the First Amendment rights of people to panhandle, but also noted that some people feel uncomfortable when they’re solicited. He recognized that with the city’s budget cuts, the beat cops would not be brought back. Most people, he said, don’t know if the activity they are witnessing is illegal. The number one message, he said, is education.

Panhandling: Council Deliberations

Because Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who chaired the task force, had briefly left the table when the council came to the agenda item, mayor John Hieftje filled the time by noting that he was around when the previous task force had been appointed. He told the council that professionals say that giving panhandlers money is not the correct thing to do. He noted that almost all panhandlers are not homeless and that free meals are available three times a day in Ann Arbor. He said that previously the downtown merchants had tried collection boxes placed at cash registers to provide an alternative way for people to give cash.

Andrew LaBarre, new vice president for government affairs for the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Chamber of Commerce, before the meeting. A former staffer for Congressman John Dingell, he apologized when he introduced himself to the council for not wearing a jacket. He had locked it inside his new office and was without a key.

Hieftje said that the city respected the right of people to solicit, and he complimented the task force’s work

When she returned, Briere stressed that the ordinance change is just one of three “legs in the stool,” the others being education and community commitment.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he’d received a lot of communications from constituents about the ordinance, including a long message from a law school student and comments from merchants at a meeting of the Main Street Area Association. He said it would be important to evaluate how well the ordinance is serving its intended purpose.

That same evening, Andrew LaBarre introduced himself to the council as the new vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce. The chamber is related to the panhandling ordinance inasmuch as the mayor’s downtown marketing task force was tapped by the panhandling task force as leading the educational component of its recommendations. At recent meetings of the council and the DDA board, Hieftje has pointed to the vacancy at the chamber, left by Kyle Mazurek, as the reason that his marketing task force has been on hiatus.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give final approval to the ordinance revision.

Former Bessenberg Bindery Site Plan

In front of the council for consideration was a site plan for 215 N. Fifth Ave. – formerly the site of the Bessenberg Bindery, which has moved to the Thomson-Shore Inc. facility in Dexter. The Fifth Avenue property is now owned by Jon and Lisa Rye. Jon Rye, a University of Michigan alumnus, is president and chairman of Greenfield Partners and Greenfield Commercial Credit, both located in Bloomfield Hills.

The plan calls for tearing down the one-story building and constructing a two-story, single-family, owner-occupied house with an attached two-car garage. The entrance will be oriented to the north, and the garage will be accessed from the public alley on the west side of the site. The site is directly north of the Armory condos and south of a two-story residential rental property.

The project requires a site plan because the single-family house is on property that’s not zoned solely for residential purposes. It’s zoned D2 (downtown interface) and is located in the Old Fourth Ward Historic District. The Ann Arbor historic district commission already reviewed the site plan and issued a certificate of appropriateness at its Feb. 10, 2011 meeting. The Ann Arbor city planning commission had given its recommendation for approval of the site plan at its March 15, 2011 meeting.

During the public hearing at the city council meeting, only one person spoke – the architect on the project, Dick Mitchell, of the Ann Arbor firm Mitchell and Mouat. He stressed that the planned design met the requirements of the zoning ordinance with respect to setbacks and height, and had been approved by the city’s historic district commission. The design was also supported by the downtown citizens advisory council, he said. He indicated that he was available for any questions.

Later in the meeting, when the council’s vote was taken, there were no questions or deliberations by the council. Mayor John Hieftje thanked Mitchell for sitting through the meeting, which had included lengthy deliberations on the contract under which the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority manages the city’s parking contract.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the site plan for 215 N. Fifth Ave.

Near North PUD

The council was asked to consider an authorization for revisions to the elevations of the Near North planned unit development (PUD) affordable housing project on North Main Street. The city council originally approved rezoning for the project – a four-story, 39-unit mixed use residential building on a 1.19-acre site – on Sept. 21, 2009.

The changes include modifying the locations where exterior materials – glazing, panelized exterior cladding materials, plus accent materials – will be used. Roof lines have also been proposed, but the building is still under the maximum height permitted. The changes, which were prompted by alterations to the interior layout of the building, were presented to the surrounding neighbors at a meeting on March 17, 2011.

Developer Bill Godfrey of Three Oaks was present at the meeting, but was not asked to the podium to answer any questions from the council.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the changes to the Near North PUD.

Loan Forgiveness

In front of the council for consideration was approval of a policy that grants to the city administrator the authority to forgive certain loans made by the city on affordable housing units that have affordable housing covenants. The city administrator would need to determine that loan forgiveness is necessary to protect the long-term affordability of the housing, and that loan forgiveness would facilitate the transfer of ownership to other income-qualified purchasers.

The request to have such a policy came from the office of community development. It arose from two recent foreclosures on properties in Stone School Townhomes, one of three housing developments where the city currently has affordable housing covenants. The other two are Ashley Mews and Northside Glen.

When a property is foreclosed, the affordable housing covenant automatically terminates.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without comment to approve the loan forgiveness policy.

City Energy, Emissions Goals

On the agenda was a resolution setting a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Ann Arbor’s municipal operations by 50%. The baseline standard for the percentage reduction would be emission levels in 2000, which measured 46,435 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CDE). The city’s goal is to achieve the 50% reduction target by 2015. The city’s most recent figures, from 2010, put CDE emissions for municipal operations at 34,445 tons, which is roughly a 26% reduction from 2000 levels.

As part of the same resolution, the council also set a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 8% throughout the community for the same time period. In 2000, the city estimates the entire city produced 2,087,463 tons of CDE, which has improved little in the most recent year for which figures are available, 2009: 2,054,221 tons.

The resolution also updated goals on renewable energy use. The city had previously had a goal of 20% renewable energy for municipal operations by 2010, which was subsequently increased to 30%. The 20% target was met – when the figure was rounded upward only slightly. The resolution approved on April 19, 2011 reset the goal of 30% renewable energy in municipal operations and 5% community-wide by 2015.

The resolution also directs city staff to consider options to purchase long-term, fixed-rate renewable electricity from Michigan wind turbines.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without comment to approve the reset goals.

Police Car Purchase

In front of the council for consideration was approval of the purchase of two police cars totaling $54,625 – a Chevy Caprice for $25,604 and a Chevy Tahoe for $29,021 from Shaheen Chevrolet. At the council’s Feb. 22, 2011 meeting, it had authorized the purchase of five police cars – Crown Victoria Police Interceptors – for $20,730 each, a total of $103,650.

But at that meeting, city administrator Roger Fraser had indicated that the city might opt not to purchase all five. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting: “The city might decide not to buy all five Crown Victorias, and instead purchase a new model that Chevrolet is making available in late summer or early fall, Fraser said.”

The two purchases authorized on April 19 will replace cars under the police union’s contract that stipulates cars cannot exceed 80,000 miles or a six-year life. Adding the Caprice to the Dodge Charger that the department purchased previously will allow the Ann Arbor Police Department to assess how it wants to stock its fleet in the future, given that the Crown Victoria is going out of production. A third option besides the Caprice and the Charger would be whatever model Ford uses to replace the Crown Victoria.

The Chevys that were authorized by the Ann Arbor city council would be purchased under the cooperative bidding programs of the State of Michigan, Oakland County, and Macomb County. Shaheen Chevrolet in Lansing was the lowest bidder under the State of Michigan’s program.

Outcome: The council voted without comment to approve the purchases of the Chevy police cars.

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: Parkinson’s Disease Awareness

Kathleen Russell and others were on hand to receive a mayoral proclamation designating April as Parkinson’s Awareness Month.

Comm/Comm: Volunteer of the Month

John Dentler was honored as volunteer of the month for his service to the Ann Arbor police department.

Comm/Comm: Historical Perspective

In her communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that April 19 is the second night of Passover, which is about liberation through sacrifice. She also noted that on the same day 236 years ago, the first shot in the Revolutionary War was fired at Lexington and Concord. She noted that on that evening the council was engaged in politics. She mused that John and Sam Adams would be surprised, perhaps, at the topics they would be discussing. She figured that Abigail Adams would be pleased that there were women at the table [Briere, Sandy Smith, Margie Teall and Marcia Higgins]. She allowed, however, that they have a long way yet to go.

Comm/Comm: Library Lot

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that the Library Lot request for proposals (RFP) had been put aside, but that the community continues to discuss the issue. He wondered who the stakeholders will be. He noted that some city councilmembers had attended a recent meeting of the city’s Democratic Party club where the issue of the Library Lot had been discussed.

Comm/Comm: What Would Christ Say?

As the only speaker who signed up for public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County and Ann Arbor city Democratic Party member. He called the council’s attention to the fact that April is a particularly prayerful month – the month of Palm Sunday, Good Friday and Easter. He posed the same question that he has during recent weeks at public commentary at a range of different public meetings: What would Christ say? Would Christ fund affordable housing, education, and transportation for the most vulnerable? Partridge declared that he is a Christian and an advocate for seniors, disabled people, children, middle class families, teachers and other public employees. He encouraged people to recall Gov. Rick Snyder.

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

Next council meeting: May 2, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The revised ordinance prohibits panhandling in one generally-defined additional location (in or within 12 feet of a public alley) and one specific location (within 12 feet of the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library.) [.pdf of revisions to existing ordinance as they were drafted at the start of the April 19, 2011 meeting] Sabra Briere (Ward 1) stressed that the ordinance change is just one of three “legs in the stool,” the others being education and community commitment.

The proposal to revise the law grew out of a street outreach task force, which was appointed at the council’s Sept. 20, 2010 meeting and charged with developing cost-effective recommendations for addressing the issue of downtown panhandling and the needs of those who panhandle. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Task Force Consults Panhandlers"]

At the council’s March 21, 2011 meeting, the council received a report from two members of the task force – Maggie Ladd, executive director of the South University Area Association, and Charles Coleman, a project coordinator with Dawn Farm. A recommendation contained in the report included revising the city’s ordinance on solicitation to prohibit panhandling in additional locations. [.pdf of street outreach task force report]

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

Councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ticks through the list of parcels that would be the focus of a DDA-led development process. (Photos by the writer.)

Councilmembers voted on two major downtown-related agenda items – one affecting the immediate future of an individual parcel, the city-owned Library Lot. The other item involves a process by which the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority would lead the planning of development for multiple downtown parcels, including the Library Lot.

The council voted, over dissent from two of its members, to end the RFP process for the Library Lot and to reject a draft letter of intent they’d discussed at a March 14 work session, which would have called for the city to work with Valiant Partners to craft a development agreement for construction of a conference center and hotel on the lot. The Ann Arbor DDA is currently building a roughly 640-space underground parking garage on that parcel.

Based on a separate resolution passed by the council, the future use of the Library Lot could emerge from a process to be led by the DDA. The council required lengthy deliberations before narrowly approving an amendment that reduced the area of focus for the DDA-led process. The amendment limited the area to the square bounded by Ashley, Division, Liberty and William streets, which would include the Library Lot on South Fifth Avenue, the Kline Lot on Ashley, the old YMCA Lot at Fifth and William, and the Palio Lot at Main and William.

The resolution on the DDA-led process is part of a broader ongoing negotiation between the city and the DDA, related to the contract under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system. That contract is being renegotiated, and since January, the city has not budged from its position that the DDA should pay the city a percentage-of-gross parking revenue of 16% in the contract’s first two years and 17.5% in years thereafter. It appears that the DDA board is gradually conceding to the city’s bargaining position. That will become clearer at the DDA board meeting on Wednesday, April 6.

The city’s negotiating position is based in part on the idea that the DDA is, as mayor John Hieftje has described it, “an arm of the city.” Hieftje’s view of the DDA as part of the city was further accentuated on Monday, when he announced at the end of the council’s meeting that he would be inviting the DDA to move its offices into newly-renovated space in the city hall building. The DDA currently leases space about a block south of city hall.

Also a part of Monday’s downtown-themed meeting was initial approval the council gave to a revision to the city’s ordinance on panhandling. That ordinance revision – which added some areas where panhandling is prohibited – will require a second reading and a public hearing in front of the council before it can be enacted.

An additional part of the downtown discussion came at the start of the council’s meeting, with a presentation on work being done to plan and study the 415 W. Washington parcel for future use as a center for artists and as a greenway park.

In non-downtown business, the council accepted a series of easements that will set the stage for TIGER II grant funds – already awarded by the federal government – to be formally obligated to the city. At stake is $13.1 million, which is currently still part of a continuing resolution for the federal budget. But that continuing resolution expires April 8, so the council was acting with some urgency.

The council also gave necessary approvals for a bus pullout to be constructed on Washtenaw Avenue, and authorized emergency purchase orders for furniture. And the council heard a presentation from Andrew Brix, the city’s energy programs manager, about efforts to increase the percentage of renewable energy that the city uses.

Library Lot RFP Termination

At its Monday meeting, the council considered a resolution to formally end the review process for proposals that had been received in response to a request for proposals (RFP) that the city issued in 2009 for use of the city-owned Library Lot.

A letter of intent (LOI) had been presented in draft form at a March 14, 2011 council work session, which would have called for the city to work with Valiant Partners over a four-month period to draft a development agreement for construction of a conference center and hotel at the South Fifth Avenue Library Lot site. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is currently constructing a roughly 640-space underground parking garage on the parcel.

The RFP review committee, which was charged with evaluating the proposals, had selected the Valiant Partners conference center and hotel proposal as the preferred one out of six responses to the city’s RFP. The name “Valiant” is an allusion to the University of Michigan fight song, which includes the line, “Hail to the victors, valiant.” The partners include prominent UM alums Fritz Seyferth and Bruce Zenkel. [Previous Chronicle coverage "Library Lot from Top to Bottom"]

Added on Friday, April 1 to the Ann Arbor city council’s April 4 agenda, the resolution to end the Library Lot RFP process was sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and councilmembers Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1). At Monday’s meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked that his name be added as a co-sponsor of the resolution.

Library Lot RFP Termination: Public Commentary

Alan Haber opened by saying, “It’s nice to be here again.” He said that he was again there to address the council on the topic of the community commons – a proposal he’d supported as a use for the Library Lot. He also told them that he was again disgruntled.

Haber objected to the fact that the council was contemplating termination of the RFP process, when the process had generated a proposal for a community commons that he said never received a fair hearing.

Sign held by an audience member in support of rejecting the Library Lot conference center proposal.

[Haber had worked with a group that submitted the proposal for a commons as one of six responses the city received to its RFP for use of the lot. The commons proposal was presented publicly, along with the other five proposals, and eliminated early on by the RFP review committee. It was then reinstated for consideration by the request of the city council, then eliminated a second time.]

Haber told the council they should take a look at the proposal. He suggested that the council was simply embarrassed by the flawed process and was now throwing everything out. He allowed that the council was tired of seeing him, and that the DDA was tired of seeing him – still, he wanted to know why the council didn’t want to look at the proposal.

Peter Zetlin offered his support for the idea of terminating the RFP process. He criticized a “resolved” clause in the resolution that he said made the financial return to the city primary and the beneficial use secondary. He asked the council to consider the larger body of analysis that concludes that public space creates significant economic vitality. He suggested eliminating or amending the resolved clause.

Odile Hugonot-Haber tried to address concerns she’d heard from people who say they don’t understand the idea of a “commons.” She talked about growing up in France, getting woken up by the clanging of cowbells as the cows went off to a common pasture. She also spoke of heating the raw milk to kill microbes, using the pasteurization technique developed by Louis Pasteur, not far from where she grew up. The field where the cows grazed was a commons, she said, as was the knowledge used to make milk safer to drink.

Thomas Partridge looped the idea of a community commons into his remarks when he asked the council what Christ would advise – protect the most vulnerable of Michigan’s citizens by providing access to affordable housing and transportation, or follow the proposal of Gov. Rick Snyder. That’s the kind of question, he suggested, that would be discussed in a community commons, if the mayor were to wave a magic wand to bring one about.

Ali Ramlawi introduced himself as a Ward 5 resident and the owner of Jerusalem Garden. He ticked through a number of complaints about the DDA, citing attitudes and actions towards him that he characterized as indifferent, borderline illegal, and dangerous. He cited specifically the sinkhole that had opened up behind his restaurant two weeks ago. [Ramlawi's business is located next to the Library Lot where the underground parking garage is currently under construction. Due to a breach in the earth retention system some 30 feet below grade, a sinkhole opened up just behind the building that houses his restaurant. Other Chronicle coverage: "Library Lot from Top to Bottom"]

Ramlawi noted that Fifth Avenue had been closed for seven months now and that he had been deprived of the quiet enjoyment of the land where his business is located without compensation or consideration. He complained about the road congestion and the dirt and dust from the construction. Running his business, he said, has been a hardship due to interruptions in trash collection, recycling collection and electric service. All he’d received, he said, was a string of Christmas lights, some parking validation stamps, and a sign on the construction detour signs indicating he was still open for business.

In winding up his remarks, Ramlawi said that Jerusalem Garden is a part of what makes Ann Arbor Ann Arbor: “I don’t want to be another city.” He called on the city council to “keep Ann Arbor organic” and “let it grow on its own.”

Lou Glorie congratulated the councilmembers who’d sponsored the resolution to reject the letter of intent, saying the proposal was “dead on arrival.” She called on the council also to issue a “do not resuscitate” order. She said the main problem from the beginning was a lack of public process. The conference center proposal had a small group of boosters who supported it, she said, but it had no community support. She said she wanted to see public process made a part of the resolution. She figured it would take as long as a year for the community to weigh in before another RFP could be issued.

Jean King told the council that she wanted to talk to them about openness of the process for deciding the use of the Library Lot. She told them the process had not been open, and that the council had not been open to Alan Haber’s proposal. Echoing the same sentiment expressed by Peter Zetlin, King said that instead of measuring proposals in dollars, the council should weigh proposals in terms of the benefit to the city.

Library Lot RFP Termination: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) led off deliberations by saying he was pleased to be a part of sponsoring the resolution. He characterized the process has having “borne a fruit we’re not interested in consuming.” He characterized the resolution as a way to “call the question” on Valiant’s proposal – an allusion to the parliamentary move “calling the question,” which ends debate by a deliberative body. He stressed that this does not reflect poorly on Valiant.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicates he'd like to speak.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the RFP process had begun in response to the fact that with construction of the underground garage commencing, there had been an opportunity to alter the design of the underground garage to change the location of support columns – if a design were proposed that required that relocation. She said the whole financial world had shifted at the time when the city issued the RFP. The overall economic climate, she said, made it the worst possible time. As a result, she continued, the responses from proposers were along the lines of people just seeing what they could get.

Smith cautioned that stopping the process now should not preclude starting up a new process soon. She indicated some concern about the word “robust” modifying “public process” in one of the “resolved” clauses that sketched a path forward for determining how the Library Lot should be used.

Smith said “robust” is ambiguous. She pointed to the history of various city planning initiatives, starting with the Calthorpe study in 2005, through the A2D2 process and the adoption of the new Downtown Plan as part of A2D2 – this process included a vast amount of public input. She proposed an amendment to remove the word “robust.”

Taylor responded to Smith’s concern about the word “robust” by saying it was simply aspirational, not contractual language. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) read aloud a statement that essentially supported the idea that the process should involve a lot of public input, based on the fact that it’s public land.

Mayor John Hieftje said he wouldn’t support the amendment, saying that one of the resolution’s co-sponsors, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who could not attend the meeting that night, had been in agreement with the resolution’s language.

Outcome on “robust” amendment: The council rejected the amendment, which drew support only from Smith and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

In continuing the council discussion on the unamended resolution, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that they’d heard from many of the speakers and sign wavers in attendance that they would have preferred a different procedure. She said the council had reached a novel conclusion – that as a council, they’d recognized a need to say they were not satisfied with the result of the process. She said it was a sad moment. She noted that Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) had said a year ago it was time to hit the reset button and that Smith had said two years ago that the whole area of the site needed to be master-planned.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

For his part, Hohnke said he was not a fan of the city taking on financial risk – he would be supporting the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he would support the resolution. He allowed that everyone knew of his disdain for RFP processes. He did have some concern about the last “resolved” clause, which stipulates that the future use of the Library Lot will be one that results in property taxes being paid. He worried that this might preclude public buildings that might be built as part of a public-public partnership involving the Ann Arbor District Library or perhaps the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

Derezinski indicated that he was only in slight disagreement with Smith. Given the number of significant decisions in front of the council – the budget, city-DDA relations, medical marijuana regulation – Derezinski wanted to postpone the issue and let things cool down. He expressed concern about the message that the council’s action would be sending to the outside world.

In arguing for a postponement, Derezinski said the process had yielded a lot of questions to which no answers had yet been given. He pointed to questions raised at the council’s March 14 working session, such as: Could the financial arrangement with Valiant Partners be arranged as an outright sale? He characterized a decision against Valiant’s conference center proposal that night as premature.

Derezinski spoke of the way that people mouth wonderful things about the inevitability of change and the need for growth, but when an actual project comes, people don’t necessarily act.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) read aloud prepared comments that focused on the failure of the council to see the RFP process through to the end. Valiant Partners, she said, has been left out of the process to date. Valiant had not been given a chance to respond to the questions that had been raised.

Teall said Valiant was more than willing to work with the council, and that there has to be room for negotiation. Valiant had not been given a chance, she said, to modify its proposal. She said it was true that Valiant was free to come back and offer cash for the air rights, and she hoped they would, saying they are a great team. Teall said Valiant has the best interests of the city at heart – financial and cultural. She said if people did not believe her, they could ask Josie Parker, director of the Ann Arbor District Library. Valiant had worked to integrate their proposal with the library, she said.

Taylor responded to Teall and Derezinski by saying he disagreed with them, though their sentiments were heartfelt, earnest and reasonable. He allowed that the early termination to the process did raise the question of the message it would send to the outside world. The city’s devotion to growth, said Taylor, is in the $5 million investment in the lot [the cost of the foundations for the underground garage, which will allow it to support a substantial structure on top]. He said he was committed to the final “resolved” clause [stipulating the financial benefit for future uses of the lot]. It was not a matter of closing all doors, he said, but rather only this one.

As a counterpoint to the objections based on early termination of the process, Taylor pointed out that continuing a process that has little hope of success would amount to leading someone on.

Sabra Briere and Sandi Smith, Ward 1 colleagues on the Ann Arbor city council, chat with the audience before the April 4 meeting.

Smith acknowledged Teall and Derezinski’s comments, saying she appreciated the dialogue. She allowed that passing the resolution would not allow the process to go all the way to the end, and that there had been no opportunity for a counter offer by Valiant. However, she said it’s a strong negotiating point to say, No, you’re not anywhere near what we’re talking about. She indicated dissatisfaction with Valiant’s willingness to put something in writing that put the city in a subordinate position, no matter how ambiguous the city’s RFP might have been. She characterized it as Valiant testing the waters to see how desperate the city is.

Briere immediately echoed Smith’s point about how it was a problem to put the city in a subordinate position – the city needs to be paid first, ahead of any other bank or loan payments, she said.

Teall complained that she believed the negotiations with Valiant could be flexible and that Valiant was in the process of changing its position even last week.

Hieftje said he respected Teall and Derezinski’s point of view. He noted that the conceptual sketch that had been associated with the proposal was unlikely to have ever been built, because of changing circumstances. He assured everyone that there was never any danger of the city accepting risk. For him, the questions reduced to whether he had confidence that the concept would work – he did not. Given that the University of Michigan was not willing to sign on to use the facility, he didn’t think it would be financially successful.

He then touched on several general points that seemed intended to support the final “resolved” clause and to reduce expectations that the parcel would now become a community commons. He spoke of adequate parking as providing a powerful economic development tool. He described how downtown development authorities were created to give downtown areas an advantage. He reiterated Taylor’s point about the $5 million investment in additional foundation strength being built into the underground parking garage to support a structure on top.

There are other parcels, Hieftje said, for people who would like to establish a community commons. The proposed greenway park portion of the city-owned 415 W. Washington parcel was one possibility, he said. In any case, the commons did not need to be located on the most valuable piece of real estate in the city. He cautioned that the city already included 2,100 acres of parkland and that adding a greenway park to it would require finding a way to pay for it. He also noted that the Ann Arbor District Library did not want to see a large commons located next to it.

Derezinski wondered what would happens next – would signs appear with slogans like “No Conference Center,” no matter what shape it was? He wondered what would happen with the proposed Fuller Road Station – would the city back off from its vision there? “Are we always going to back down from our vision?” he asked.

Teall, Anglin and Hieftje each took another speaking turn, touching on their previous positions.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) weighed in, echoing the complaints by Teall and Derezinski about the early termination reflecting a problem with the process. Higgins focused on more technical issues. For her part, she felt the council should be taking action on some recommendation from the RFP review committee. She noted that during the March 14 work session, the council did not have a current draft of the letter of intent. That part of the process was disappointing, she said – she felt like the work session had produced a mish-mash of information.

However, Higgins said she felt there was not a prayer that the proposal would pass, if it came in front of the council. The final “resolved” clause gave her hope, she said. The council needs to be clearer in its process going forward, she said, especially on the point of when the council will insert itself into the process.

Smith responded to Derezinski’s point about the amount of work currently in front of the council, saying she felt another related factor is the imminent departure of Roger Fraser as city administrator, who’s leaving at the end of April. There would be no one to take ownership of the project to carry it forward, she feared, though she allowed that an interim administrator could do that. However, with any interim, she cautioned, there tends to be some kind of void.

Briere wrapped up the deliberations by saying that she’d teased Smith in an aside about using the word “dialogue” when the word they needed was “discussion.” The council should have a discussion to identify exactly the process for finding a use for the Library Lot. That evening was not the time for that discussion, she said, but she is looking forward to taking part in it.

Outcome: The council voted to reject Valiant’s letter of intent and to end the RFP process for the Library Lot, with dissent from Derezinski and Teall.

The final “resolved” clause, which was often cited by councilmembers and public commenters, read:

RESOLVED, That future planning and proposals for this site shall recognize that this is a valuable, one of a kind parcel, and that whatever future project is contemplated for this site shall compensate the city with fair market value and a positive financial return, contribute to the tax base by paying property taxes, add vitality and density to Downtown and provide appropriate open space for public use.

DDA-Led Plan for Downtown Parcels

Before the council was a resolution that would establish a process to develop alternate uses for city-owned downtown surface parking lots, to be led by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The council had considered but postponed the resolution at its March 7, 2011 meeting, and before that at its Jan. 18, 2011 meeting. At the March 7 meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had complained that no revisions had been made to the resolution to accommodate objections made at the Jan. 18 meeting. [.pdf of the unamended resolution with the parcel-by-parcel plan] At that meeting, objections to the proposal included “resolved” clauses in the resolution that would (1) require placement of items on the city council’s agenda; and (2) under some circumstances require the city to reimburse the DDA for its expenses.

At its Jan. 5 board meeting, the Ann Arbor DDA board had approved a resolution urging passage of the council resolution, which had been circulated as early as the city council’s Dec. 20, 2010 meeting, when Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had attached a copy of the draft resolution to the council’s meeting agenda, and alerted his council colleagues to it at that meeting.

DDA-Led Plan: Council Deliberations – Dissent

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) began deliberations by offering amendments to the resolution that among other things added additional language about public process: ”Solicit robust public input and conduct public meetings to determine residents’ parcel-level downtown vision.”

Taylor also added clarifying language that would require the DDA to account for its direct costs – those costs would have to be reported along the way, in order to potentially have them reimbursed. Those amendments were undertaken as revisions to the resolution at the start of deliberations.

Taylor said the process would respect the desire for public input and would task the DDA with being the workhorse for the process, but would not grant control to the DDA to create the vision for the downtown. At various times in the process, the DDA would come in front of the council to check in.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) addressed a number of specific questions to Taylor. For example, she wanted to know how tasking the DDA with this job would differ from hiring a consultant, like Calthorpe.

Taylor responded by stressing that this new endeavor was not meant to be redundant with prior efforts like the Calthorpe study. He allowed that using the DDA in the way described by the resolution is similar to hiring a consultant, but that it would tap the DDA’s energy and enthusiasm and understanding of what makes Ann Arbor work. It’s akin to consulting, he said, but it would be a consultancy among friends. The DDA would be better suited to the task, he said, than a private consultant.

Briere wanted to know why the city’s own planning staff could not undertake the work. Taylor indicated that the volume of work would exceed the city’s planning staff capacity.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) has served with Taylor on the “mutually beneficial” committee that has discussed the parcel-by-parcel plan with DDA board members over the last several months. Later in the council discussion he noted that the parcel-by-parcel process would not supplant the city’s planning staff, but rather would integrate it into the process.

Hohnke also emphasized that the city would not be ceding any authority to the DDA – the process would be a part of the mutually beneficial relationship.

Briere wanted to know if the DDA would be making any decisions. No, Taylor said, the DDA would make proposals, which would then be decided on by the city council.

Briere wanted to know if there would be any expense to the city. Taylor indicated that the work would be free to the city. The only case in which the city would wind up paying any costs would be in the event that a proposal was advanced to the final stage and was rejected by the city council for some reason other than that the project did not meet zoning code.

Briere posed a question that led to considerable back and forth between Taylor and Sandi Smith (Ward 1): What does the label “parcel-by-parcel” actually denote? Taylor portrayed the idea of the process as more like settling on a vision for all the parcels of downtown before prioritizing specific parcels for implementation of development. Smith offered a portrayal that seemed to allow for identifying first a specific area of the downtown to focus on, which could then proceed to development of specific parcels within that area – without necessarily master planning all the parcels within the downtown area.

[At a January 2011 DDA board partnerships committee meeting, Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city of Ann Arbor, had led board members in a conversation about the midtown character district – part of the A2D2 zoning regulations – as a way to make more concrete for board members what the parcel-by-parcel process might be like.]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) worried that the process would not be sufficiently public, and asked what the information distribution system would be like.

Taylor indicated that all of the parcels that would be part of the process were identified on a map attached to the resolution. He stressed that without some measure of consensus from the community on a proposal, the process would go nowhere. He said he anticipated “quieter times” with respect to public reaction, not because they’d be quelling dissent, but because there would be a consensus on whatever came forward. He adduced the example of Zaragon II, which recently won approval without opposition, as the kind of process that might be hoped for. That mostly residential building is under construction at the corner of William and Thompson.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) objected to the Zaragon II example, saying that the project met the new A2D2 zoning requirements, which made it somewhat different from city-owned property.

Higgins went on to state that she still had a problem with the idea that the DDA would be considering all of the city-owned downtown parcels. She noted that while it’s DDA money that would be spent, it’s still taxpayer money. She felt it was an irreverent use of taxpayer money, and she’d heard nothing to sway her to support the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) added a voice of dissent, saying that he, too, thought the proposal was too far-reaching. He didn’t feel like the DDA has the expertise to undertake the work – they’d simply be hiring a consultant. He suggested focusing just on the old Y Lot (at Fifth and William) and the Library Lot. He noted that the city faces a balloon payment on the Y Lot of $3.5 million. Those two properties are pressing issues, he said. He asked who at the DDA would be the project manager.

Taylor indicated that he didn’t understand Kunselman’s question. Kunselman clarified that when a project is reviewed by the city planning staff, it’s typically assigned to a specific staff member who takes responsibility for it.

Smith, who also serves on the DDA board, told Kunselman that the board’s partnerships committee would monitor the project. The partnerships committee, she told him, included two councilmembers, and regularly interacts with other government entities like the Ann Arbor District Library and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

Kunselman said he could support the resolution if it were restricted only to the Library Lot and the old Y Lot.

DDA-Led Plan: Council Deliberations – Amendment/Consensus

Observing the clear dissent from Kunselman and Higgins, and possibly factoring in opposition from Briere and Anglin, Hieftje then indicated that he’d like to have a greater consensus and not pass the proposal on a mere six-vote majority. He seemed to float the idea of a postponement. Teall and Smith both indicated they wanted to see the proposal go forward that evening.

Smith then offered an amendment that added a resolved clause reducing the area subject to the process. The amendment reduced the area from the DDA district to a rectangle bounded by Ashley, Division, Liberty and William streets.

Light pink areas are all city-owned land. The red outline area is the DDA tax district. The green rectangle is the smaller area of focus proposed by Smith – bounded by Ashley, Division, Liberty and William streets. (Image links to higher resolution image. Map data is available on the city's website at a2gov.org/data)

Taylor was straightforward in stating his opposition to the amendment, starting with “I will absolutely not support this.” He noted that the proposal was the product of a great deal of conversation and that the DDA was very interested in applying a comprehensive view of all parcels in the downtown.

Hohnke also said he would not support the reduced area, but said he appreciated the effort to get a larger council consensus. He told Smith that she herself had been part of the conversation leading to the proposal that includes the entire downtown. He cautioned against trying to amend the proposal on the fly and said that the change would not be viewed as mutually beneficial by the DDA. It was too complex a task to be accomplished on the fly, Hohnke said.

Higgins bristled at the suggestion that the council should accept the proposal as it was, just because the city council and DDA committees had spent a long time discussing it already. She observed, “last time I checked,” a city council meeting is an opportunity for city councilmembers to add input.

Higgins observed that there are only four surface lots on the map that are not already built out – the Kline Lot, Palio Lot, Library Lot and the old Y Lot.

Later, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that he would be inclined to defer to the members of the mutually beneficial committee who were doing the negotiations with the DDA.

Hieftje noted that Kunselman was trying to express a priority of where to focus and he thought that was reasonable.

Briere noted that the council had heard a presentation about 415 W. Washington earlier that evening, which was included on the map of properties associated with the parcel-by-parcel resolution. She suggested that what was needed was a way to politely modify the focus – not change the absolute priorities, but rather to change the focus.

Smith argued for her own amendment by saying that even the reduced area would be a huge undertaking, a big bite to chew off, she said. She didn’t think the DDA would be offended if the council said to prioritize the smaller area.

Taylor came back with the idea that the value of the parcel-by-parcel plan is its consideration of the downtown area as a whole. So reducing the area to the small rectangle does the process a deep disservice, he said. He offered an amendment to Smith’s amendment that essentially softened it to say that the city council believed the reduced rectangle likely represented the first opportunities for development. Smith was willing to accept the amendment, but Kunselman, who had seconded her motion, was not.

With his proposed amendment to the amendment not accepted as friendly, Taylor eventually insisted that it be put to a vote.

Outcome on Taylor’s amendment to Smith’s amendment: Taylor’s amendment nearly succeeded, resulting in a 5-5 split. Voting for it were: Hohnke, Smith, Derezinski, Taylor, and Teall. Voting against it were: Anglin, Hieftje, Briere, Kunselman and Higgins. Rapundalo was absent.

Returning to the deliberations on Smith’s amendment that would restrict the parameters of the process to focus on a reduced rectangle of the downtown, Hohnke said he felt it was oxymoronic to speak of “master planning” a subset of properties.

Smith countered by saying it allows the DDA to focus on a smaller area with the most opportunity.

Outcome on Smith’s amendment: The reduced area of focus to the rectangle bounded by Ashley, Division, Liberty and William streets was approved with support from Hieftje, Smith, Briere, Kunselman, Teall and Higgins. Dissenting were Hohnke, Anglin, Derezinski and Taylor.

In final deliberations after the amendment was approved, Hieftje noted that the council was giving away the process but not the decision-making authority.

Kunselman reiterated his view that the old Y Lot needs to be put up for sale one way or another. He was resistant to the idea that the city council should be trying to do economic development work – it should be left to organizations like Ann Arbor SPARK. He also observed that the Library Lot, the Kline Lot and the Palio Lot had been surface parking lots all his life.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the DDA-led development process as amended to focus on the rectangle bounded by Ashley, Division, Liberty and William streets.

DDA-City Mutually Beneficial Negotiations

During deliberations on the DDA parcel-by-parcel proposal, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) described the process as part of the mutually beneficial relationship between the city and the DDA. He noted that the city was asking the DDA to step up during tough economic times by making a financial contribution to the city, and the parcel-by-parcel plan was another way they’d identified where the DDA could contribute in a mutually beneficial way.

During his communications time, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reported out on the financial contribution the DDA is making. Specifically, he gave an update on the progress of negotiations between the city and the DDA on the parking contract under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system.

[At a Monday, March 28 morning meeting of the two so-called "mutually beneficial" committees, the city council's team asked their DDA counterparts to convey a request to the full DDA board to reconsider the board's previous consensus, reached at a full-board retreat. That consensus, as part of renegotiating a parking agreement with the city, was that the DDA would pay the city a percentage-of-gross parking revenues – 14% in the first two years of a future contract, and 15% in years thereafter. The city's position since January has been that the DDA should pay the city 16% of gross parking revenues in the first two years of the contract and 17.5% in years thereafter.

At a Wednesday, March 30 DDA committee meeting, attended by 10 of 12 DDA board members, they reconsidered the city's request and reached a consensus that they could live with 16% in the first two years, and for remaining years as well. That is, they came to agreement on the first two years of the contract, but a 1.5% difference persists for remaining years. That translates to $270,000, based on roughly $18 million in revenues projected for fiscal year 2014, which would be the third year of the contract.]

At Monday’s council meeting, Taylor reported that on the morning of April 4, the two mutually beneficial committees had met again, and that city councilmembers had asked the DDA committee to take back to the full board a request to reconsider their flat 16% position and to think about increasing the figure to 17.5% in the third year and years thereafter. Taylor reported that the request would be taken back to the full board, which meets on Wednesday, April 6. Taylor had indicated some possibility that the increased percentage would need to be coupled with an increase from the length of the contract term to 15 years. [The city has floated the possibility of a contract as short as seven years, but in recent talks the term seemed to have settled on 10 years.]

Taylor indicated that they were looking forward to reaching an agreement in short order, which can then be incorporated into city administrator Roger Fraser’s proposed budget. Fraser will formally present the fiscal year 2012 budget at the council’s April 19 meeting.

415 W. Washington Update

The council received a presentation with an update about planning work that’s being done by a group tasked with working on an “innovative process of community collaboration to explore a greenway park and arts center” at 415 W. Washington. The parcel at 415 W. Washington, located across from the YMCA, is currently used as a surface parking lot.

The group was called on by a Feb. 1, 2010 city council resolution to provide a progress report on their work at the council’s first meeting in February 2011. [Chronicle coverage of the Feb. 1, 2010 council meeting: "Council Restarts 415 W. Washington Process"] The report at Monday’s meeting was in response to that resolution.

The Greenway Arts Committee includes: John Hieftje, Carsten Hohnke, Margie Teall, Christine Schopieray (the mayor’s administrative assistant) on behalf of the city council; Joe O’Neal and Jonathan Bulkley for the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy; and Tamara Real, Susan Froelich and David Esau for The Arts Alliance.

David Esau of the Arts Alliance gave the presentation for the group.

Highlights of the work included a report out on focus groups conducted with artists. The committee also had made site visits to The Russell in Detroit, the Park Trades Center in Kalamazoo, and the Box Factory in St. Joseph.

The committee had secured a donation that had allowed a grant writer to be hired, who’d help submit applications for several grants, but none had yet been won, Esau reported. He said the next step would be to raise $100,000 for additional studies on the old buildings located at the site, which are protected by the Old West Side historic district.

DDA Invited to Move

During his communications period at the conclusion of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje announced that he and councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1) would be presenting the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority with an invitation to move its offices into newly renovated space on the lower level of city hall. Hieftje and Smith also serve on the DDA board.

That invitation will be made at the DDA’s Wednesday, April 6 board meeting. The DDA is contemplating signing a lease renewal for its existing space at 150 S. Fifth Ave., where the DDA currently pays $26 per square foot for 3,189 square feet of office space. Under terms of the new lease, the DDA would pay $16.75 per square foot in the first year of a 5-year deal, for a total of $53,415. After the first year, the amount would increase to $17.25, $18, $18.75 and $19.50 per square foot.

The DDA’s current arrangement with Weinmann Block LLC, which owns the building, ends on June 30, 2011.

Panhandling Law Tweak Gets Initial OK

The council considered a first reading of an amendment to the city’s code on disorderly conduct – the part dealing with solicitation, which is more commonly known as panhandling. To be enacted, the ordinance revision will need a second vote by the council and a public hearing.

The revised ordinance prohibits panhandling in one generally-defined additional location (in or within 12 feet of a public alley) and one specific location (within 12 feet of the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library.) [.pdf of revisions to existing ordinance as they were drafted at the start of the April 4, 2011 meeting]

The proposal to revise the law grew out of a street outreach task force, which was appointed at the council’s Sept. 20, 2010 meeting and charged with developing cost-effective recommendations for addressing the issue of downtown panhandling and the needs of those who panhandle. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Task Force Consults Panhandlers"]

At the council’s March 21, 2011 meeting, the council received a report from two members of the task force – Maggie Ladd, executive director of the South University Area Association, and Charles Coleman, a project coordinator with Dawn Farm. A recommendation contained in the report included revising the city’s ordinance on solicitation to prohibit panhandling in additional locations. [.pdf of street outreach task force report]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who chaired the task force, introduced the ordinance change, saying she hoped that the council would not need to discuss it too much, as it was the first reading.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wondered about a specific point that had been a part of the task force’s recommendations – though not a part of the ordinance change. It had to do with the mayor’s downtown marketing task force as the agent for implementing some of the educational steps – providing people with information about alternatives to giving money to panhandlers. Smith wondered if it was a role that the marketing task force was willing to take on. Mayor John Hieftje indicated that it was.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had a question about some phrasing in the existing language of the ordinance, which was not proposed to be changed: ” … from a person who is a person who is in any vehicle on the street.” She suggested it was redundant and should read ” … from a person who is in any vehicle on the street.” [The awkwardness could have arisen in the original due to a parallel with a different part of the ordinance "... a person who is a patron at any outdoor cafe or restaurant."]

Hieftje indicated he appreciated the rapid work of the task force.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give its initial approval to a revision to the city’s panhandling ordinance.

East Stadium Bridges Project

Before the council were four items related to its East Stadium bridges replacement project: a road right-of-way easement from the University of Michigan for $563,400; two utilities easements from UM totaling $426,650; and an unrecorded water utilities easement.

The city was able to get TIGER II federal funds formally “obligated” for that first right-of-way phase of the project – city council held a special meeting on March 16, 2011 to sign the necessary agreement.

Mayor John Hieftje signs documents related to East Stadium bridges easements. Standing next to him is assistant city attorney Mary Fales.

The approval of the easements at the April 4 meeting will allow the city to proceed with getting an additional $13.1 million of TIGER II grant funds obligated that have already been awarded for the second phase of the bridge replacement project. A continuing federal budget resolution passed by the U.S. Congress – which would preserve the TIGER II funding – expires on April 8. Previous proposals by House Republicans have included cuts that would have eliminated the TIGER II funding.

The council is acting with some urgency to get the funds obligated before the program is eliminated – if, in fact, it is eliminated.

The urgency was reflected in the fact that the council took a brief recess immediately after the easements were accepted, in order for mayor John Hieftje to sign the documents that needed to be forwarded to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the four easements related to the East Stadium bridges reconstruction.

Washtenaw Bus Pullout

The council was asked to approve the award of a construction contract worth $159,107 to Fonson Inc. The company will build a bus pullout as part of a bus transfer center on eastbound Washtenaw Avenue, east of Pittsfield Boulevard.

In a related item, also before the council was authorization for the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority for the city to manage construction of the bus pullout – the project will be paid for with federal stimulus funds provided to the AATA. The AATA board authorized its side of the MOU at a special meeting held on April 1.

The bus pullout is part of a larger project – a transfer center on the south side of Washtenaw Avenue at Pittsfield Boulevard, opposite Arborland mall – which will include a “super shelter.” For now, only a center on the south side is being contemplated, because topographical and right-of-way issues pose challenges on the north side.

Construction on the bus pullout is to begin later in April and be completed by June of this year.

The need for a transfer center at that Washtenaw Avenue location, of which the bus pullout is a part, stems from the termination in July 2009 of a previous arrangement with Arborland shopping center, which provided for a bus stop and transfer center in the Arborland parking lot.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved both items related to the Washtenaw Avenue bus pullout.

Furniture Purchases

Before the council were two emergency purchase orders for used furniture, but for different reasons.

The first purchase order was for $32,291 worth of used furniture – office cubicles and work stations – to be purchased from Steven C. Proehl Office Interiors. The furniture will go in the first and sixth floors of the city hall building, which are currently being renovated.

A staff memo describing the purchase order refers to a lease expiring for a Southfield, Mich. business, which has resulted in the availability of furniture at one-quarter to one-third the cost of furniture on the regular used furniture market. The emergency purchase order is being requested to take advantage of the savings. Reportedly, one consequence of the used furniture acquisition is that the old chairs around the council table will be replaced.

The second purchase order was a supplement to one that the council had authorized at its Dec. 6, 2010 meeting, for $39,000 worth of furniture for the 15th District Court, housed in the city’s new municipal center. The court had anticipated being able to use furniture it already owned in some areas of the new facility, but an on-site inspection showed that it was not usable as anticipated. The resolution passed by the council at its April 4 meeting increased the purchase order by $17,240, to $56,240.

During brief council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked city administrator Roger Fraser to review the background to the emergency nature of the purchase orders. In elaborating a bit on the information provided in the staff memos, Fraser said that once the furniture had been moved into the new court facility, it was apparent that it would not be usable, without using something like a chainsaw to modify it.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve both emergency purchase orders.

Sakti3 Industrial Development District

At its previous meeting on March 21, 2011 , the council set a public hearing on the establishment of an industrial development district (IDD), which could lead to tax abatements for Sakti3. The company is a University of Michigan spin-off focused on advanced battery technology, headed by Ann Marie Sastry. The IDD would be established for just under an acre of land, located at 1490 Eisenhower Place. Sakti3 is reportedly considering an investment of $2.4 million in new equipment and hopes to hire five additional people.

At Monday’s meeting the public hearing was held – no one spoke.

Outcome: The council voted without comment to establish the IDD, which now allows for Sakti3 to apply for the tax abatements.

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: City Administrator Search

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who is chairing the city administrator search committee, reminded councilmembers that they’d been asked for input on a job description to be used in the job posting. The target for completing that work is April 8, Higgins said.

Comm/Comm: Oxbridge Area Student Safety

Katie Rosenberg and Stephanie Hamel addressed the council, representing the University of Michigan Student Safety Commission. Rosenberg said that as president of the Panhellenic Association, she saw how safety is an issue that’s consistently discussed. She told the council that the Oxbridge neighborhood – an area east of Washtenaw Avenue, between Angell Elementary School and Berkshire Road – is packed with different kinds of student housing. In December 2010 and January 2011, two armed robberies had taken place in the neighborhood, which had involved four students.

The steps that Rosenberg said had been taken in response to the incidents included: creating the student safety commission, holding a safety forum attended by UM Dept. of Public Safety officials, and allocating some funding by a Greek Community committee to install some lights.

Hamel reminded the council how in 2008, when concerns were raised about safety in the Packard Street area, the city had responded by selecting that neighborhood as a pilot area for converting standard streetlights to LED lights – 58 conventional streetlights had been converted to the brighter, more reliable technology. She asked the council to extend the concept to the Oxbridge neighborhood.

Hamel said that the students wanted to partner with the city council on the issue, by beginning a conversation about how to make that student neighborhood safer and brighter.

During his communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that he served on the council’s student relations committee and had attended the safety forum that Rosenberg had mentioned. As the father of two 17-year-old twin girls, Kunselman said he could vouch for the fact that the safety concerns were legitimate. He said he was looking forward to helping out.

Comm/Comm: Reminder of MLK

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reminded her colleagues that on the same day as the council meeting, April 4, in 1968 Martin Luther King had died. During a recess in the meeting, Briere told The Chronicle that on that day in 1968, she’d attended a speech given by Bobby Kennedy in Indianapolis, in the wake of the news about King’s assassination.

Comm/Comm: Energy Challenge Update

The council received an update on the city’s energy planning from Andrew Brix, the city’s energy programs manager. That included a report on results from a February energy challenge. The goal of the February program was for households to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5%. According to the city, the average Ann Arbor household has an annual carbon footprint of 40,700 pounds of CO2 per year, which translates to a reduction goal of 170 pounds of CO2 per month.

Around 130 people signed up for the challenge. Based on the online reporting tool provided on the website created for the challenge, participants reduced their carbon footprint by an average of 5.4% in February 2011, resulting in a total reduction of 250,441 pounds of CO2.

Brix’s presentation mentioned the February challenge just briefly, taking a broader look at the city’s energy policy, which includes a goal established in 2006 of 30% renewable energy. Mayor John Hieftje had initially set a goal of 20% in 2005. Brix reported that the goal of 20% had been met, though he allowed that they rounded up from 19.8%. The city achieves its renewable energy percentage through landfill gas capture, two hydroelectric dams and a green fleets program. They’re still working on meeting the 30% goal, which came from Ann Arbor’s energy commission.

Brix also noted that the city itself accounts for only 3% of all the energy used in Ann Arbor, so their efforts will also target households.

Comm/Comm: City of ONE

At the council’s April 4, 2011 meeting, a mayoral proclamation was issued, declaring Ann Arbor a “city of ONE.” ONE is an international group that works against extreme poverty and preventable disease by advocating for better development policies and trade reform. ONE’s board of directors includes Bono, lead singer of the band U2.

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana

Chuck Ream addressed the council about the zoning and licensing regulations that will be coming for final consideration at the council’s April 19 meeting. He complained that the legal department is “sticking a dagger” in the ordinance. He said that Michigan has a crystal clear law that a lot of people hate, but 79% of Ann Arborites had voted for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act written just the way it is. He complained that the city attorney is trying to inject inspection and searches into the city’s ordinances.

Ream called on the council to separate dispensaries from cultivation facilities. Dispensaries should be included in the ordinance, he said, but cultivation facilities should not.

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

Absent: Stephen Rapundalo.

Next council meeting: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The revised ordinance prohibits panhandling in one generally-defined additional location (in or within 12 feet of a public alley) and one specific location (within 12 feet of the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library.) [.pdf of revisions to existing ordinance as they were drafted at the start of the April 4, 2011 meeting]

The proposal to revise the law grew out of a street outreach task force, which was appointed at the council’s Sept. 20, 2010 meeting and charged with developing cost-effective recommendations for addressing the issue of downtown panhandling and the needs of those who panhandle. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Task Force Consults Panhandlers"]

At the council’s March 21, 2011 meeting, the council received a report from two members of the task force – Maggie Ladd, executive director of the South University Area Association, and Charles Coleman, a project coordinator with Dawn Farm. A recommendation contained in the report included revising the city’s ordinance on solicitation to prohibit panhandling in additional locations. [.pdf of street outreach task force report]

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 100 N. Fifth Ave. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Highlights of the report include recommendations that: (1) the city council revise the city’s ordinance on solicitation to prohibit panhandling in additional locations; (2) the police chief increase police attention downtown during the busiest hours of the week; (3) the city’s community standards division increase their interaction with the public; and (4) the mayor’s downtown marketing task force take an expanded role working with residents, merchants and service providers.

The task force report describes an educational campaign to advise downtown visitors and University of Michigan students about options they have besides giving money to panhandlers, a campaign with the slogan “Have a Heart, Give Smart.” [.pdf of street outreach task force report]

This brief was filed from the boardroom in the Washtenaw County administration building, where the council is meeting due to renovations in the city hall building. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Now that the task force is roughly halfway through that six-month period, The Chronicle attended its December meeting to check in on the group’s work.

You buy local, think global, pay it forward, recycle. You’re a good person.

So how do you respond to a panhandler? Is opening your wallet helping someone in need? Or is it enabling an addiction? Can you look the other way and still consider yourself compassionate?

At the Dec. 15 meeting of the city’s panhandling task force, three paid consultants gave their perspective on the issue – as panhandlers. Geoffrey Scott said he enjoys talking to the people almost as much as he appreciates the money they give him.

But one member of the city’s panhandling task force says people don’t realize the damage they do in the name of kindness.

“Unfortunately, panhandling hurts a delicate economy, which is like a delicate ecosystem,” says Brian Durrance, secretary of MISSION, which supports people who are homeless in Ann Arbor. “And if you have an invasive species that comes in and damages it, it will be altered. Ann Arbor survives because it’s an attractive place for people to come who have money and are willing to spend it. And as they’re spending that money, they are being taxed. And that money is used to help people of all kinds. Panhandlers are not contributing to that system, and particularly the aggressive ones are destructive.”

That’s because it takes some extra effort to get downtown, says Durrance. And merchants spend a lot of money trying to get people there. And if people are put off by aggressive panhandlers, they’ll go elsewhere.

The three panhandlers who spoke at the task force’s December meeting were each paid $20 – or about what they might have collected on the streets during that time.

When task force members learned that Durrance had paid the three out of his own pocket, they pitched in to reimburse him, cheerfully calling it “another example of panhandling.” That line settled well with Tate Williams, who after the meeting said we’re all panhandlers from time to time.

“The word panhandling is thrown out there to keep people in a different class,”said Williams, co-founder and resident of a tent community in Ann Arbor called Camp Take Notice. “I can guarantee that over half of that room has solicited the private sector for campaign funds. They asked people for money; i.e., panhandling. Other people there have written grants asking other entities for money; i.e., panhandling. And everyone has opened their wallet at lunchtime and said, ‘Oh, I’m a buck short … Got a buck?’”

Still, Williams agrees that aggressive panhandling is a serious issue that can scare visitors and deter commerce. Particularly problematic are the aggressive younger panhandlers who come to Ann Arbor during the summer.

Geoffrey Scott was the most vocal of the three panhandlers who spoke at the meeting. Scott, who says his drinking has made a mess of his life, lives in a parking structure and panhandles all day long, mostly at the corner of State and Liberty. ”I specifically say I need a quarter for the bus,” says Scott, who contends he does not act aggressively. “After you’ve talked to 200 people, you have the money you need.”

Among Scott’s observations:

• Panhandlers come to Ann Arbor because there is money here, and because it’s home to a bunch of rich college kids with soft hearts, and because it’s known to be a liberal city with plenty of support services for the needy.
• The money he makes is not used for food. “If you don’t know how to find food in Ann Arbor, something’s wrong with you … No one’s hungry.”
• The best money is made on expressway ramps.
• You’ll make a lot more money if you say you’re a Vietnam vet. Scott is not a veteran in that sense. “I say I’m a street vet,” he says. “That’s true.”
• The colder you look, the more money you make. “If you can cry, all the better.”
• Some panhandlers choose it as a profession. Others feed drug addictions.

Durrance says every panhandler he’s ever met has been mentally ill.

“We find that most of the panhandlers are suffering from one kind of drug addiction or another, and underneath all of that is a mental illness problem which is not being dealt with,” he says. “So they started with a mental illness that is not being dealt with. They self-medicate. They’ve developed addictions. And they are surviving in the way anyone would survive – by doing what they can do. And panhandling is one of the ways they survive.”

Durrance says the best way to help panhandlers is not to give them cash, but to help them get needed mental health services, which should be a higher priority at the federal level.

People need to know that Ann Arbor is rich in social services, so that panhandlers’ shelter, clothing, and food needs are already met, Durrance says.

He thinks the merchants themselves should be the educators, and the city should try to support those merchants. They could pass out cards listing the food and shelter help available, put up signs in their windows, collect money to help provide services for those in need, use the media to help educate students.

This past summer, Boise, Idaho launched a program called “Have a Heart, Give Smart,” using posters and leaflets to encourage people to donate to charity rather than panhandlers. Panhandling was down 10% within a few months.

Some may wonder why it’s wrong for one person to ask another person for spare change. Durrance explains it this way: When a street musician performs for tips, he’s offering something in return. The merchants, too, are paying into the tax system, which supports services for everyone. ”Panhandlers are not offering anything in return,” he says. “They’re simply taking.”

It’s wrong to assume that the homeless are panhandlers, he says, noting that most homeless people are just trying to quietly get by. They come to Ann Arbor for its excellent social services, but they’re more likely to collect cans than ask for handouts.

The problem isn’t so much evident in the fall and winter as in the spring and summer, when transient young people move here for a while, says Peter Ludt, general manager of Espresso Royale and a board member of the State Street Area Association. Ludt also serves on the panhandling task force.

The kids panhandle on State Street and on the Diag, often aggressively, and get involved in drinking and drugs. They would take over Espresso Royale’s outdoor café on South State Street, soliciting money from people walking by, and use the bathroom, leaving bottles and drug paraphernalia.

At one point last summer, Ludt began locking the bathrooms.

“In the spring and summer, you can’t walk from one end of State Street to the other without being solicited several times,” he says. “Customers have said they don’t feel comfortable walking down State Street. And that’s a problem for the city of Ann Arbor when citizens or students or visitors don’t feel comfortable walking down a street.”

Ludt agrees that the task force needs to educate both the panhandlers about the social services available to them, and the public – especially college students – about the reasons to not hand out money. ”It’s a cycle,” he says, referring to the alcohol and other drugs that panhandlers buy with the money they’re given. “People who think they’re helping panhandlers are really just hurting them further.”

First Ward city council representative Sabra Briere, who chairs the task force, says the city’s 2003 panhandling ordinance specifically targets those standing in certain locations, or who are aggressive. It doesn’t target everyone asking for a hand-out. From the city’s ordinance:

9:70. Solicitation.
Except as otherwise provided in Chapters 79 and 81 of this Code, it shall be unlawful for any person to solicit the immediate payment of money or goods from another person, whether or not in exchange for goods, services, or other consideration, under any of the following circumstances:
1. On private property, except as otherwise permitted by Chapters 79 and 81, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or occupant;
2. In any public transportation vehicle or public transportation facility;
3. In any public parking structure and within 12 feet of any entrance or exit to any public parking structure;
4. From a person who is in any vehicle on the street;
5. By obstructing the free passage of pedestrian or vehicle traffic;
6. Within 12 feet of a bank or automated teller machine;
7. By moving to within 2 feet of the person solicited, unless that person has indicated that he/she wishes to be solicited;
8. By following and continuing to solicit a person who walks away from the solicitor;
9. By knowingly making a false or misleading representation in the course of a solicitation;
10. In a manner that appears likely to cause a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities to feel intimidated, threatened or harassed;
11. Within 12 feet of the entrance to or exit from the Nickels Arcade, located between State Street and Maynard Street; the Galleria, located between S. University and the Forest Street parking structure; and the Pratt Building, located between Main Street and the Ashley parking lot; or
12. From a person who is a patron at any outdoor cafe or restaurant.

Because budget cuts have cut down on the number of police officers walking the streets downtown, merchants and residents have begun complaining more about panhandlers. Briere said it’s clear the task force can’t put more police on the streets – which is what merchants on the task force originally wanted. There’s a push to get more residents downtown, which requires making them feel safe and comfortable there.

“If we can’t do it by having a strong police presence because of budget issues, then we have to come up with some other way,” she says.

Members of the task force were selected to represent different parts of the community. In addition to Durrance, Ludt and Briere, members include Raymond Detter, Maggie Ladd, Susan Pollay, Mary Jo Callan, Charles Coleman, Paul Sher, Maura Thomson, Barnett Jones and Mary Campbell.

Briere hopes the task force will somehow ensure the panhandlers’ basic needs are met and educate people that giving money to panhandlers does not solve poverty or help them get back on their feet.

“It’s tough to figure out how to meet the needs of people who frankly don’t want their needs met,” Briere says. “It’s easy for us to think we’re all doing enough. It’s easy to fear that if we do too much, we’ll become a magnet for people seeking support. I don’t have any good solutions. We’re just trying to work on ways to treat people humanely in our community.”

How does Briere react to panhandlers?

“I’ve done a number of things, like everybody else,” she says. “I once gave a panhandler my yogurt. It depends on the panhandler. The guy people call Crutchy – I’ve been known to give him a quarter. I’ve also been known to say no when approached by people I don’t know. I’ve pointed people to help.”

Doesn’t that quarter contradict her advice? “I’m not noble,” she says. “I’m human.”

About the author: Jo Mathis is an Ann Arbor-based writer.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), standing, shares a moment with Kim LeMasters, mother of Renden LeMasters, who died in an April 2010 fire on South State Street in Ann Arbor. Taylor sponsored the city ordinance to ban couches on porches – a contributing factor in the fire that killed LeMasters. (Photo by the writer.)

The case for the change in the city’s code was based primarily on the fire hazard posed by outdoor couches as compared to indoor couches – increased oxygen supply outdoors, coupled with decreased ability of indoor occupants to detect outdoor fires.

The council chambers were filled with friends and family of Renden LeMasters, who died in an April 2010 fire on South State Street. Though that blaze did not start in upholstered furniture, a porch couch was analyzed by city fire officials as contributing to that fire by helping to spread flames from a waste container to the house itself.

University of Michigan students opposed certain aspects of the proposed enforcement mechanism, and after the vote reminded the council that the measure they’d enacted that evening was one part of a large piece of work yet to be done on ensuring safety of off-campus student rental housing in the city.

The council also approved the creation of a task force that will work for the next six months to identify cost-effective ways to achieve better enforcement of the city’s ordinance against panhandling, and to provide help to panhandlers who are addicted to drugs. The idea is to build on the knowledge gained from the work of a previous task force that had been formed in 2001 and continued through 2003.

Several people addressed the council in support of a resolution, added to the agenda on Monday, which reaffirmed community support for religious freedom, in the wake of increased anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence. The resolution required some modification to gain support of all councilmembers – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was dissatisfied with the singling out of Muslims in the language of the resolution – but in the end, it passed unanimously.

Some councilmembers made clear on Monday night that they saw the vote as a reaffirmation of the council’s previous 2004 resolution, which condemned the demonstrations against U.S. support of Israel that had then begun each Saturday outside the Beth Israel synagogue on Washtenaw Avenue – and continue to the present.

The meeting was also notable in that no action was taken to reconsider the Heritage Row project. Betsy de Parry, wife of developer Alex de Parry, attended on his behalf and expressed her disappointment that the council had not seen fit to bring back the project for reconsideration that evening, reviewing many of the same points of discussion at the previous evening’s caucus.

Ban on Upholstered Furniture Placed Outdoors

Before the council for its second reading was a proposed revision to the city’s nuisance code that prescribes a fine of up to $1,000 for a “responsible person” who places or allows to be placed “upholstered furniture which is not intended or designed for outdoor use” in various outdoor locations.

For details of the history of the measure, which dates back to 2004, and discussion of the contrasts between that version and this one, see previous Chronicle coverage: “Couch Ban Smolders.”

The basic case for the ban on porch couches was based on safety risk. That case was advanced during the staff presentation at the council’s Sept. 7, 2010 meeting by city housing inspector Rita Fulton: couches placed outdoors have a virtually unlimited supply of oxygen; if a couch is burning on the outside of a structure, people on the inside have little opportunity for early detection – either through smell or through detection devices. That case was advanced again on Monday night by the sponsor of the ordinance change, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), as well as by several speakers during the public hearing.

Ban on Upholstered Furniture: Public Hearing

A dozen or so people addressed the city council during the public hearing on the couch ban, which had begun at the Sept. 7 meeting when the council chose to postpone a decision on the measure until Monday, Sept. 20.

Thomas Partridge questioned whether the proposed ordinance went far enough, wondering if it would have an impact on the misuse of grills on balconies, patios and porches. He called for an ordinance with greater impact that would have amendments providing for the involvement of insurance companies.

Several of the speakers were members of Renden LeMasters’ family, or mentioned his death as part of their remarks. LeMasters had died as a result of burns sustained in an April 2010 house fire on South State Street.

Gary Supanich extended his condolences to the LeMasters family. He said that while the ordinance cannot bring Renden back to life, it could prevent the next loss of life. He suggested that the piece of city code be called the LeMasters Ordinance. He called passage of the ordinance a “no-brainer,” asking since when does the city council not listen to its own fire department and housing inspectors. He asked that a decision not be based on the “temporary whims” of student residents and called the idea that porch couches are an Ann Arbor tradition a “silly, sophomoric claim.”

Jeff Crockett noted that he’d appeared before the council to speak in support of the ordinance that had been considered, but tabled by the council six years ago. At that time, he said, then-fire chief Joe Gorman had given the reasons for a ban, which included the lack of detection systems on porches and the blockage of egress that porch couches posed. He suggested that for people who valued the social dimension of porch couches, they could be equally social inside the house.

Fifteen-year-old Alex Semifero delivered a narrative that recalled the morning before Easter earlier this year  when her stepbrother, Renden LeMasters, was lying in a bed in a small hospital room with attending family after suffering burns in a house fire to which a porch couch contributed. She said that they had prayed for him to pass so that he didn’t continue to suffer. She called on the council to pass the ordinance – a life could have been saved just by taking a couch off a porch.

Kim Pisano noted that student housing needs should be addressed and that the safety of kids should be the top priority for parents, as well as for the university and the city. She allowed that the origin of the fire was still unknown, but said that the fire was accelerated by the couch.

Jim Mogensen introduced himself as a former occupational safety and health engineer and stated that he was speaking in favor of the ordinance. He framed the issue in terms of a tension between the zoning for student rental areas – which provides for multi-family housing – and the kind of housing stock that predominates. That housing stock, he said, consists of older houses, which lack fire stops between stories, which the staff presentation on the subject had highlighted at a previous city council meeting.

One approach, Mogensen said, would be to say you can’t have multi-family housing in old houses – which he rejected as a bad idea, because fires don’t happen often. However, when fires do happen in those older homes, he cautioned, they are catastrophic – in the same way that plane crashes are not terribly frequent, but when they do, it’s catastrophic. So the council needed to think about how to make the older housing stock that houses lots of students as safe as possible. He encouraged the council to pass the ordinance, without making it too complicated.

Cindy Kominek introduced herself as Renden LeMasters’ aunt. She related how Renden’s uncle had once remarked that it’s going to take someone dying in order to get couches off of porches – and it was her nephew’s death that had prompted the ordinance. It was a shame, she said, that it had come to that.

John Nystuen introduced himself as a neighbor of a fraternity that was not a good neighbor. He reported that his car has been damaged by the activities of the fraternity. He encouraged the council to pass the ordinance.

Tony Pinnell encouraged the council to think about the issue from the point of view of a probabilistic safety analysis, weighing the benefit against the hazard. He concluded that he hoped the council would pass the ordinance.

Deanna LeMasters introduced herself as Renden LeMasters’ stepmother. She said that one death is too many, when the problem could be so easily solved. After the staff presentation at a previous council meeting on the safety risks of porch couches, she said she was flabbergasted that anyone could still be against the ordinance.

Kim LeMasters introduced herself as Renden LeMasters’ mother, noting that she’d spoken at two previous council meetings. She allowed that it was understandable that the Michigan Student Assembly would oppose the ordinance, but that its enactment had been delayed so that students could fully participate in the discussion.

Michael Benson introduced himself as president of the Rackham student government, which represents 7,000 graduate students at the University of  Michigan. He thanked the city council sponsor of the ordinance, Christopher Taylor, for his assistance. The student government had entertained three weeks of discussion on the issue, Benson said, and people spoke on both sides of the issue, with those voices ranging across the various graduate school disciplines.

Their vote, Benson said, was resoundingly in opposition. The specific criticisms of the ordinance included: the fine, at $1,000, is too high, with no graduated schedule; the mechanism to ensure notice to the responsible parties is not clear – an up-to-date database of contacts for properties does not seem to exist; the notion of separately, but jointly responsible parties is problematic; the list of city officials who can enforce the ordinance is extensive and should be reduced; the code is being enacted as part of the city’s nuisance code as opposed to the fire safety code; the time limit for exceptions for yard sales, at 6 p.m., is too early.

The issue of a landlord database was one that was taken up by another Rackham student government leader as well as city officials later during council deliberations. As city officials clarified, they maintain a list of rental properties for purposes of executing rental property inspections. What Benson and Cherisse Loucks were concerned about is the lack of a database that lists the contact information for the possible responsible parties as defined by the ordinance.

Cherisse Loucks introduced herself as treasurer of the Rackham Student Government. She said that she believed in there being a partnership between students and the community. She asked for a justification of the fine amount, saying that graduate students were trained to base decisions on well-thought-out and executed research. She asked why there was no up-to-date database of landlords. She noted that graduate students might oftentimes leave town for 4-5 months on research trips, which could complicate notification. She also questioned the ability of the cable television administrator, for example, to enforce the ordinance and suggested the ordinance needed more thought.

Ban on Upholstered Furniture: Council Deliberations

The council sponsor of the ordinance change, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), characterized it as a “vital safety measure necessary to protect Ann Arbor’s residents.” He allowed that it would not protect everyone, but called it a reasonable measure that would reduce risk. Upholstered furniture in outdoor locations, when the furniture is not designed for outdoor use, poses a significant safety hazard, he said, due to the fuel load as well as its outdoor location. Outdoor locations, as contrasted with indoor locations, provide ample oxygen but little opportunity for detection and warning for inside occupants, he said.

After the council’s initial discussion, Taylor reported, the city fire marshal Kathleen Chamberlain had provided additional data:

Upholstered Furniture Fire Data
(furniture outside of structure/on porch)

124 Total fires 2000 – present
 80 Total fires April 2003 – present
  7 Significant structure fires            

  1 Civilian deaths
  7 Civilian injuries

-

The 80 fires involving upholstered furniture reflect 21% of the 373 total fires in multi-family dwellings. [That data had been available the previous evening at the council's Sunday night caucus, and had convinced one attendee from the public who had been opposed to the couch ban to flip his position.] Taylor thanked the Washtenaw Area Apartment Association and the Michigan Student Assembly for their useful input and their interest in an ongoing conversation.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked Taylor for putting together the ordinance and doing the leg work, meeting with all the parties and making everyone feel heard. That element had been missing six years ago, she said – when the council had voted to table a similar proposed ordinance. As a member of the city council at the time, Teall said if she went back in time six years, she felt she should have pushed for it and that she felt bad that she had not done so.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she was troubled about the mechanics of the notification. She asked for a comparison with the enforcement mechanics of other code violations. Rita Fulton, a city housing inspector who had given the staff presentation at a previous council meeting on the fire hazards posed by porch couches, told Smith that every 2.5 years all rental property is inspected. Most of the time, she said, the property owner is present for the inspection.

For violations on trash and debris, Fulton said, a notation is made on the three-part form she fills out and which the property owner must sign, acknowledging the infraction. She tells them they have a couple of days to address the problem, and that is what always happens. Smith then surmised that from a practical sense, the goal is not to fine people for the infraction, but rather to give notice and have the offending furniture removed. Fulton confirmed that was the case and said that compliance with her personal directives on those occasions was good – “I guess they take me seriously,” laughed the diminutive Fulton. Smith quipped, “You’re intimidating.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) picked up on Smith’s concern about the mechanism of enforcement. She expressed some skepticism about effecting enforcement merely through the regular rental housing inspections – enforcement as set forth in the ordinance would allow over 20 different city staffers to write citations for porch couches. Higgins noted that the procedure Fulton had described, where a hand-written note was put on a rental housing inspection form, is not the same as a citation. Higgins also noted that the ordinance does not just apply to student rental housing – if someone puts a couch on their porch in her neighborhood, said Higgins, the ordinance says they should get a citation.

City administrator Roger Fraser weighed in on the issue of the number of staff who are able to write citations, saying that it gives the city flexibility as the city experiences staff shortages.

Higgins clarified with the fire marshal that the manufacturing processing for upholstered furniture designed for outdoors is different from that designed for indoors – outdoor furniture does not deteriorate as quickly, because it is designed and manufactured to be outdoors.

Higgins then picked up on the remarks of the representatives of the graduate student government and asked how the 2.5 to 3-year rental housing inspections were accomplished, if there was no database of landlords, as the students had contended. Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, stated that the city maintained a list of rental properties.

Higgins questioned how removal of existing porch couches would be handled – the spring and fall en mass solid waste removal days cost the city around $30,000 a year. If additional days were going to be offered, then it would have an impact on the city’s bottom line, she cautioned. Bahl said they had not talked about having additional days for solid waste pickup. [The city has previously established free solid waste drop-off sites in campus neighborhoods, timed to coincide with student move-in and move-out.]

Addressing the issue of disposal of existing couches, Taylor indicated that he’d discussed with Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, the idea of some kind of “couch amnesty” with a solid waste pickup. Higgins concluded that there would be an additional cost to the city of Ann Arbor for this.

Higgins noted that six years ago, when the ordinance was proposed, it was a case of lease provisions that were already there, but not being enforced. Landlords, in effect, said Higgins, wanted the city to enforce their leases. She’d voted against it six years ago, said Higgins, because it had not been clear how it would be uniformly enforced across the city and that there had not been sufficient discussion and buy-in – she would support it this time around for those reasons, not based on the loss of someone’s child.

Hieftje interrupted Higgins during her remarks when she spoke of voting against the ordinance previously, saying that previously it had never come to a vote, never even making it to a first reading before the city council. Although Higgins accepted the mayor’s comments unchallenged, they are not historically accurate – the council did consider the ordinance at a first reading, but tabled it. From the council minutes of Aug. 16, 2004:

ORDINANCES – FIRST READING 22-04 TABLED

FIRE PREVENTION An Ordinance to Amend Section 9:111and Add New Section 9:110, of Chapter 111, Fire Prevention, of Title Ix of the Code of the City of Ann Arbor (The complete text of Ordinance 22-04 is on file in the City Clerk’s Office.)

Council Member Greden moved seconded by Council Member Teall that the ordinance be approved at first reading. Council Member Greden moved, seconded by Council Member Reid to table the ordinance. On a voice vote, the Mayor Pro Tem declared the motion carried.

Speakers during recent public commentary have also made explicit reference to the vote and the tabling. From The Chronicle’s report of the Aug. 5, 2010 city council meeting:

As [Bob] Snyder pointed out, the council had considered a similar ordinance back in August 2004. But they’d tabled it, which meant that after six months, with no councilmember willing to take it up off the table for action, the measure died. Snyder had also spoken in favor of the ordinance at the city council’s Aug. 16, 2004 meeting. At that meeting, he was joined in his support by Lou Glorie, who lost the Ward 5 Democratic primary last Tuesday to incumbent Carsten Hohnke.

The Aug. 16, 2004 tabling had come after a postponement of the measure from the July 19, 2004 meeting.

At Monday’s council meeting, Taylor clarified some of the features of the ordinance in response to questions from Higgins and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). The $1,000 fine is “up to,” so the exact amount would be set at the magistrate’s discretion. The language of the ordinance will also be included in the standard tenant’s rights and responsibilities handbook.

Hohnke stated that he supported the ordinance, citing the fact that if a couch catches fire, then it’s a hazard for the occupants and the safety responders. There’s a balance and trade-off between quality of life and safety, he said, but he felt that not having couches on porches didn’t impinge much on the overall quality of life, citing the fact that in other communities similar ordinances are in place.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that he felt the overwhelming support for the ordinance was an indication that the ban was an idea whose time had come. The idea had unfortunately come too late for one family, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he’d been reluctant to support the ordinance previously but that when tragedy had struck, he’d changed his mind. He thanked Taylor for incorporating some exceptions in the ordinance that could be used as defenses – moving days and garage sales. He did note that his practice of moving his furniture out onto his porch to refinish his hardwood floors would make him out of compliance.

The range of different staff who are allowed to enforce different ordinances is something he’s been concerned about previously, Kunselman said – but on inquiring about it, he’d learned that it goes back to the early 1990s and was beyond his comprehension.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she supported the ordinance, and reminded her council colleagues about what Michael Benson and other students had told them – students want to work to address a broader set of issues. The council should not consider its work done if they passed the ordinance.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) indicated that he agreed with Briere, saying that he had hesitancy about the ordinance because he sees it as a small piece of the larger puzzle.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that for him, the most important thing was to extend their condolences to the family of Renden LeMasters – all of the council shared their grief, he said. The council would continue to address safety issues, he said.

Hieftje said he’s always been very reluctant to impose additional restrictions, but in some cases it’s warranted, he said. For example, some people are against requirements that motorcyclists wear helmets, when it’s clear they should – as should bicyclists. He also introduced the idea of cement siding on houses – he’d had cement siding installed and had tested whether he could set it on fire and could not do that. He speculated that if the rental house where Renden LeMasters lived had had cement siding, he didn’t think the tragedy would have happened.

As he was wrapping up his remarks, the mayor said there was “a culprit that I don’t want us to let off the hook tonight. With everything we know about this particular fire, somebody set it.” Seeking confirmation from city fire chief Dominick Lanza, the major invited him to the podium, where Lanza stated: “That’s not true.” Nothing in the investigation had proven that, he said – which included laboratory tests.

From the preliminary investigator’s report, which was widely circulated soon after the fire took place [an "accelerant dog" is a canine trained to sniff out gasoline and similar substances]:

An accelerant dog did not hit on any accelerants in the area of origin. At this time there has not been any evidence to indicate that this fire was deliberately set. Samples have been collected and are being processed at the Northville State Police Crime Lab. We are awaiting their results to see if they pick up on any “foreign” material.

Hieftje then asked the fire chief to confirm that around the same time there’d been several deliberately set vehicle fires, which the chief was able to confirm. But the chief said it appeared to be coincidental. Further questions from Hieftje to the fire chief yielded the same conclusion about the idea that the fire was deliberately set: “We have no evidence.”

Hieftje said that he would support the ordinance.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance that prohibits placement of couches on porches.

Ban on Upholstered Furniture: Commentary Coda

At the conclusion of the council meeting, Michael Benson and Cherisse Loucks – representatives of the graduate student government – re-addressed the council, urging better communication between the council and the student community. Benson also cautioned against lumping “students” together into a single unified homogeneous group.

Benson, for his part, noted that he personally supported the ban, even though as a representative of the student government he’d conveyed the opposite position to the city council. He suggested that the city treat the couch ordinance as it sometimes treated other ordinances, reviewing them and their effect after a specified time period. As far as the ordinance goes, Benson said, “Education starts now.”

Resolution to Support Religious Freedom

The resolution before the council was reaffirmation of religious freedom. In its original form, it read as follows – the portion that is struck through in the first resolved clause was eventually amended out:

Whereas, The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has enshrined religious freedom as a fundamental right and Thomas Jefferson considered it to be “the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights;”

Whereas, Since the foundations of this country, this freedom has historically been extended to people of all religions and those who are nonreligious, as seen in the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom in 1779, explicitly referencing but not limited to Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and Atheism, along with Christianity;

Whereas, In recent weeks there has been an increase in anti-Muslim rhetoric in the public discourse, especially surrounding the construction of the Park51 Islamic Community Center, formerly known as Cordoba House, in the borough of Manhattan in New York City;

Whereas, This anti-Muslim rhetoric has translated into violent actions across the nation. On August 24, 2010, Ahmed H. Sharif was stabbed in New York by someone who attacked him because he was a Muslim. In the early morning of August 28th, parts of the construction to the Islamic Center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, were set on fire;

Whereas, On September 10, 2010, a burned Qur’an was found at the front entrance of the Islamic Center of East Lansing, Michigan;

Whereas, Ann Arbor, Michigan is home to a sizeable Muslim community that is put at risk by the rise in anti-Muslim activities;

Whereas, On October 18, 2004 the Ann Arbor City Council unanimously passed a resolution recognizing the importance of religious freedom and affirming that, “Democracy and the freedoms it engenders cannot exist without civil discourse that shows tolerance for all beliefs;”

Whereas, The Council on American Islamic Relations – Michigan, and local interfaith organizations have asked that communities and their elected leaders affirm their commitments to religious freedom and tolerance;

RESOLVED, That the City Council of Ann Arbor continues to affirm its commitment to the full rights and dignity for people of all religions and those who are nonreligious, promotes a community of respect and compassion for all people, and condemns harassment and violence based on religious bias, including anti-Muslim harassment and violence;

RESOLVED, That the City Council of Ann Arbor encourages community members and organizations to participate in Religious Freedom Day activities on the weekend of January 16, 2011, as a time to learn about different faith traditions and to foster respect for religious diversity.

RESOLVED, That the City Clerk be directed to transmit copies of this resolution to the President and the Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to each Senator and Representative from Michigan in the Congress of the United States.

Religious Freedom: Public Comment

Blaine Coleman led off public commentary on the religious freedom resolution by asking the camera to focus on the sign he’d brought to the podium, which read “Boycott Israel.” He noted that a lot of coordination and work had gone into that night’s resolution that had come to the conclusion that “violence against Muslims is bad.” He told the council that if they really cared about Muslims, they would pass a resolution to stop spending money on killing millions of Muslims in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, and instead spend the money rebuilding Detroit. He characterized the resolution as “pitifully microscopic,” and reflective of the hard work that had been done to “smother talk of boycotting Israel.”

The remaining speakers were uniformly supportive of the resolution, many of them representing organizations who had helped draft its language. Leslie Stambaugh spoke as the chair of the city’s human right’s commission. She noted the participation of several other organizations who helped with the drafting of the resolution, including Michigan Peaceworks, Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, the Interfaith Roundtable of Washtenaw County and the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, among others. Several suggestions from the various organizations had been incorporated into the resolution, she said.

Speaking on behalf of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Lucia Heinhold thanked the city council for appointing a human rights commission that would put forward such a resolution. In an apparent response to Coleman’s earlier remarks, implying that the crafters of the resolution did not really care about Muslims, Heinhold stated that she did care about Muslims, and pointed to the fact that the city council began its meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the phrase, “with liberty and justice for all.”

Heinhold said she watched Muslim children take the bus to Skyline High School, and said that Muslims number among her neighbors. She reported that her husband teaches English as a second language, and that Muslims were among his students. As evidence of Ann Arbor’s religious diversity, she cited the 123 different religious organizations listed in the Ann Arbor Observer’s City Guide. The resolution, Heinhold concluded, was not little, it was important. Things can go from bad to worse in a hurry, she cautioned, noting that Michigan Catholics had had crosses burned in their yards.

Ian McGregor identified himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and a social worker. He encouraged the city council to reaffirm its commitment to religious freedom.

Introducing herself as a member of the ICPJ board was Vickie Wellman, who noted that the country was founded on the principles of religious freedom. She talked about how it’s possible to teach hate, but that it’s also possible to teach love, and that people can learn to celebrate our rich and diverse background. The resolution is a tiny bit, she allowed, but it’s an important step.

George Lambridges, director of the Interfaith Roundtable of Washtenaw County, said his organization is in the business of building bridges – it consists of 30-40 different religious congregations, he said. He described Ann Arbor as a “welcoming community” and said that the spirit was quite positive, but that we never know when some unwelcoming act might emerge out of nowhere. He acknowledged that the Muslim community is a vulnerable part of the community, but that other faith communities are as well. He said that Religious Freedom Day on Jan. 16, 2011 would be an occasion for education.

Also speaking on behalf of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice was its director, Chuck Warpehoski, who addressed the question of why the resolution was needed now. He ticked through stories in the press, which included a burned Qur’an left at the door of a mosque in East Lansing in early September 2010. That kind of act sent a message that Muslims are not wanted here, he said, and the resolution is meant to repudiate that message of hate: We will stand with them when they’re threatened, he said.

The local aspect of this issue, Warpehoski continued, was not based on any headlines from Ann Arbor, but he noted that in the community there is hateful language and cold stares. Muslims are wondering, he said, if anybody will stand with them. The resolution, he said, is not meant to focus only on Muslims, but rather on particular acts of violence and rhetoric. The resolution is meant to be a reminder of a deeper commitment to religious freedom. He concluded that the resolution strikes a good balance between the specific and the particular and the global – it deserved the council’s support, he said.

Leslie Desmond spoke on behalf of the Washtenaw County branch of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, extending thanks to Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and the city’s human rights commission. In her remarks, she took pains to include the freedom not to worship as well as the freedom to worship in whatever way people wanted. She said that preventing Muslims or any other group from the free exercise of their religion violates the Constitution.

Ahmed Chaudhry spoke in favor of the resolution. He said that in his role as a contributor to AnnArbor.com, providing an interfaith perspective, he’d found the majority of commenters to be supportive, but he noted that there was some anti-Muslim sentiment expressed – anonymously. He allowed that Ann Arbor was welcoming and accepting, but was also politically charged. As a Muslim, he said, the resolution doesn’t make him feel safer – he doesn’t feel unsafe now. He said he felt the resolution would be helpful to other minority groups as well.

Religious Freedom: Council Deliberations

The initial sponsor of the resolution, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), began deliberations by apologizing for the fact that it had not been added to the agenda until that very day. He was not just concerned, he quipped, because he was sitting “within striking distance” of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). [She sits immediately to Hohnke's right at the council table, and has cultivated a reputation for being a stickler about following rules, and there's a council rule that indicates that councilmembers will use their best efforts to place items on the agenda prior to the Friday before the next council meeting.] Rather, he said that it was important that agenda items be added in a timely way.

However, Hohnke noted that he had announced at the previous meeting that it would be coming forward. From The Chronicle’s report of the Sept. 7 city council meeting:

Council To Take Stand Against Quran Burning

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated that the city’s human rights commission had asked that the council address the anti-Muslim rhetoric that had received national attention recently, partly in the form of threatened burning of the Quran. He indicated that he would be bringing forward a resolution to the next meeting to condemn that kind of rhetoric. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) also expressed his support for that kind of resolution. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) commended Hohnke for bringing forward the resolution.

At Monday’s meeting, Hohnke thanked the various organizations who had helped craft the language of the resolution. He said that because those organizations felt that the timeliness of the resolution itself was also important, he’d agreed to add it on the same day.

Hohnke addressed the potential criticism that the resolution was not substantive, in that it did not address fixing roads or picking up trash. He said the resolution did not take away from the council’s focus on physical infrastructure and went on to say that physical infrastructure was a means to an end, not an end itself. Contrasting the community’s physical infrastructure with its “intangible infrastructure” of values, Hohnke said that the community’s intangible infrastructure also required maintenance.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Hohnke for his eloquent speech and reflected on the fact that the previous Friday had marked the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked for the phrase “including anti-Muslim harassment and violence” to be stricken from the first resolved clause, saying she did not want to separate Muslims out. Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who had been added as a sponsor to the resolution along with Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), said that this issue had arisen in discussion of the resolution language. He said it was not meant to separate out Muslims, but rather to related the resolution to specific events.

Hohnke noted that he considered the input from Higgins as “friendly” but did not extend that to wanting to incorporate the suggestion as a friendly amendment. [Friendly amendments are made with the consent of the maker of a motion and the seconder, without vote of the entire body.] His reasons for not wanting to do so essentially echoed Anglin’s comments about wanting to connect the resolution to recent activities.

Higgins stated that for her to support the resolution fully, the language would need to be removed. She recalled how the council had affirmed in the aftermath of 9/11 that there should not be repercussions against Muslims, that they are all equal and that no one group should be singled out.

Higgins then proposed the change in language as an amendment. Hohnke then said he would vote for the amendment, saying it was more important to have unanimity than to “wrestle” over a clause in the language.  Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), however, said that he felt that anti-Muslim activities were front and center in the reason why this kind of resolution had come back around. The clause called out what we’re dealing with today, not highlighting one religion, he said.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he supported the amendment, saying there should be no tolerance for any bias. Today there is anti-Muslim activity, he said, but tomorrow it could affect some other group. He stated that week after week there is “bigotry on display” on Washtenaw Avenue. [The allusion was to weekly demonstrations against U.S. support of Israel that began in 2004 2003 each Saturday outside the Beth Israel synagogue on Washtenaw Avenue – and continue to the present. The 2004 city council resolution mentioned in the "whereas" clauses of Monday's resolution condemned those demonstrations.]

Outcome on amendment: The amendment citing the specific reference to anti-Muslim violence was struck from the first resolved clause, with dissent from Kunselman.

When deliberations resumed, Anglin noted that it was important to have freedom from fear.

Mayor John Hieftje reiterated Rapundalo’s point about the demonstrations on Washtenaw Avenue. He recalled how he’d addressed a crowd on the UM Diag in the wake of 9/11 and had been quoted in the media for his remarks saying that Ann Arbor would not tolerate religious discrimination. He said he felt his statement had had an effect. Ann Arbor, he continued, had not had some of the same kind of problems as other communities had had. This type of resolution has a tradition in Ann Arbor that goes back for decades, he said.

Outcome: The resolution reaffirming religious freedom was unanimously passed.

Panhandling Task Force

Before the council was a resolution to establish a task force to address the problem of aggressive pan handling in downtown Ann Arbor. The group will work for the next six months to identify cost-effective ways to achieve better enforcement of the city’s ordinance against panhandling, and to provide help to panhandlers who are addicted to drugs.

The task force will include members representing the homeless community, the county/city office of community development, Dawn Farm, legal services providers, downtown merchant associations, the Downtown Development Authority, the Ann Arbor police department, the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, and a member of the city council. Serving on the task force for the city council will be Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who sponsored the resolution.

The topic has received discussion at the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, as well as at the September meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board.

During public commentary reserved time at Monday’s meeting, Lily Au stressed that not all panhandlers are homeless.

The city’s “panhandling ordinance” is not known by that label in the city code. It’s a part of Chapter 108 on disorderly conduct and is covered in the section on solicitation:

9:70. Solicitation.
Except as otherwise provided in Chapters 79 and 81 of this Code, it shall be unlawful for any person to solicit the immediate payment of money or goods from another person, whether or not in exchange for goods, services, or other consideration, under any of the following circumstances:
1. On private property, except as otherwise permitted by Chapters 79 and 81, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or occupant;
2. In any public transportation vehicle or public transportation facility;
3. In any public parking structure and within 12 feet of any entrance or exit to any public parking structure;
4. From a person who is in any vehicle on the street;
5. By obstructing the free passage of pedestrian or vehicle traffic;
6. Within 12 feet of a bank or automated teller machine;
7. By moving to within 2 feet of the person solicited, unless that person has indicated that he/she wishes to be solicited;
8. By following and continuing to solicit a person who walks away from the solicitor;
9. By knowingly making a false or misleading representation in the course of a solicitation;
10. In a manner that appears likely to cause a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities to feel intimidated, threatened or harassed;
11. Within 12 feet of the entrance to or exit from the Nickels Arcade, located between State Street and Maynard Street; the Galleria, located between S. University and the Forest Street parking structure; and the Pratt Building, located between Main Street and the Ashley parking lot; or
12. From a person who is a patron at any outdoor cafe or restaurant.

Briere led off the council deliberations by noting that nine years ago to the day, the council had established a previous task force to address the same issue. The purpose of re-staffing a task force, she said, was to find cost-effective solutions to enforcement that would not necessarily bring back downtown police patrols, while meeting the needs of those on the street.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know the budget implications. Briere noted that previously one of the major efforts at enforcement was by means of foot and bicycle patrols in the downtown, and that the ordinance is still there, but the foot and bicycle patrols had been reassigned.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked chief of police Barnett Jones to give an update. Jones indicated that from a practical point of view, the No. 1 crime in Ann Arbor this past summer was aggressive panhandling. He attributed it to the culture and nature of our community – it has both the wherewithal and the inclination to share, he said. He said that those who visited the city during Punk Week this year had taken advantage of the goodwill of the community, citing a post on a website that stated: “Let’s see how much we can get away with.” He also cited the sentiment of some of the Punk Week visitors: “You don’t like us, we don’t like you, give us money, we’ll go away.”

Smith thanked the chief for the perspective. She noted that in Northville and Plymouth there is not a panhandling problem. She noted that even if the panhandling is not aggressive, it’s still perceived as aggressive.

At the urging of Margie Teall (Ward 4), representatives from State Street and Kerrytown were added to the task force.

Mayor John Hieftje stressed the need to react to facts, not perceptions. He suggested that some of the perception could be attributed to just a couple of individuals, one in particular. He noted that panhandling per se is not illegal. He agreed with Jones’ sentiment that the problem was partly attributable to the culture of Ann Arbor and how it’s perceived – Ann Arbor offers more support services than any other city, he said. He said that the goal of many panhandlers is to purchase alcohol. He also described how panhandlers at expressway ramps worked in shifts, with cars arriving to pick people up and drop others off.

Outcome: The resolution to establish a panhandling task force was unanimously approved.

Heritage Row Not Reconsidered

Staying until the end of the council meeting and addressing the council during public commentary general time was Betsy de Parry. Although she’d held out hope that the Heritage Row project would be reconsidered on Monday night, Betsy de Parry, wife of developer Alex de Parry, did not see those hopes realized.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who was a strong supporter of the Heritage Row project, spoke with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) before the meeting, who’d voted against it twice. However, that conversation did not result in a third consideration for the project on Monday night.

Heritage Row was a proposed 154-bedroom residential project by Alex de Parry, which would have been located on Fifth Avenue, a few squares south of the city-owned Library Lot, where an underground parking structure is being built. Heritage Row was rejected by the council at its June 21, 2010 meeting, on a 7-4 vote in favor of it, falling one vote short of the super-majority needed to approve the planned unit development (PUD) project. The super-majority was needed because of a protest petition filed by nearby property owners.

Heritage Row was brought back for reconsideration at a subsequent council meeting on July 6, 2010, but again failed, that time on a 7-3 vote. It was nearly brought back a third time – on that same evening. But Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) abandoned the effort in the middle of a parliamentary procedure that had appeared momentarily would result in another vote, this time with the possibility that Hohnke would provide the deciding vote in favor of Heritage Row. Hohnke had voted against the project on both previous occasions.

De Parry has an already approved “matter of right” 144-bedroom project in the same location as Heritage Row – called City Place. Approved last year, the City Place project contrasts with Heritage Row in that it would demolish seven existing houses and replace them with a streetscape consisting of two buildings separated by a parking lot. In the Heritage Row project, the seven houses would be renovated, and three additional buildings would be constructed behind them, with parking located under the site.

De Parry would like to begin construction in May 2011 – on either Heritage Row or City Place – and he indicated at Sunday’s caucus meeting that the necessary lead time for permitting means that work on construction drawings needs to start now.

In her remarks to the city council on Monday, Betsy de Parry told the council that Alex was out of town and could not attend. She said they’d truly hoped the council would bring it back for consideration that night. She told councilmembers that she and her husband appreciated their patience. She felt it was a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. She talked about how developers typically don’t think about preservation, but that the neighbors had managed to change her husband’s mind about that. She said that they were “so close to a compromise.”

What she meant by a compromise had been discussed in more detail at the previous evening’s Sunday night caucus. The Heritage Row proposal on which council has already voted included up to 163 bedrooms in 82 total units – distributed in three newly constructed buildings and seven existing houses. Of those 82 units, 14 would have been offered as affordable, based on 80% annual median income (AMI) of renters. Under the modified version, the total number of bedrooms dropped to 154 and the unit count dropped to 79, with 12 units offered as affordable, but six of the 12 would be offered to renters earning lower incomes – 50% AMI.

In the modified version of the proposal, the “greenness” of the project would be boosted, by having the new construction certified according to the LEED standard, and by increasing the insulation and upgrading windows in the existing houses. Under the modified proposal, the height of the three new buildings would be reduced by two feet.

On Monday night, Betsy de Parry noted that Alex had already met with a city engineer and construction drawings needed now to be prepared for City Place. She asked councilmembers to think about what it would be like to drive past the site on Fifth Avenue and see an empty hole.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Glen Ann Place

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the city planning commission, reported that the developer of the Glen Ann Place project has asked for an extension of the site plan approval, which is due to expire on Nov. 30. The request for an extension will come before the city council at its Oct. 4 meeting, he said, and in order to inform the vote, he asked that a report be prepared by staff on the question of whether to extend the approval, and if so, for how long, with the pros and cons of various alternatives.

Glen Ann Place is a mixed-use residential project proposed for the west side of Glen Avenue between Ann and Catherine streets. It would stand 10 stories tall. Its approval was denied by the city’s historic district commission, but the developer, Joseph Freed and Associates, contested the denial in court in 2006, and in a consent judgment, the project won approval.

Comm/Comm: Police/Courts Building – City Hall HVAC

As part of the update on the construction of the police/courts facility directly adjacent to city hall, city administrator Roger Fraser indicated that the move-in would begin in two weeks, with the IT department the first to take up residence on the first floor. Their space can be isolated by the HVAC system. Fraser enumerated a number of other departmental shuffles between floors in city hall.

Fraser indicated that as part of the construction work, on Friday, Sept. 24, the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system in city hall would be shut down – for three weeks. He said that they were hoping for decent weather that was not too hot or cold. There would also be no air circulation provide by the HVAC system, he said, so that would be achieved through fans.

By way of background, the 15-day weather forecast from AccuWeather starting on the day after the HVAC is turned of is as follows:

                HI   LO
Sat  9/25/2010  68°  40°
Sun  9/26/2010  63°  41°
Mon  9/27/2010  66°  47°
Tue  9/28/2010  69°  46°
Wed  9/29/2010  73°  47°
Thu  9/30/2010  71°  44°
Fri  10/1/2010  67°  36°
Sat  10/2/2010  56°  36°
Sun  10/3/2010  56°  35°
Mon  10/4/2010  57°  39°
Tue  10/5/2010  62°  40°
Wed  10/6/2010  57°  39°
Thu  10/7/2010  64°  35°
Fri  10/8/2010  55°  43°

-

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

Next council meeting: Oct. 4, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]