The council had given initial approval to a complete repeal of the ordinance at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – on a 9-2 vote, though some councilmembers at that time indicated that they would not be likely to support it on the final vote. The 6-4 final vote to amend the law without repealing it came at the council’s Dec. 2 meeting. But even that “compromise” version – offered by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) at the start of deliberations – is something that Hieftje announced immediately after the vote that he would veto.

The  compromise approved by the council left intact the existing language about motorists stopping, not just yielding. But the compromise limited the right-of-way to just those pedestrians within a crosswalk – that is, it did not extend the right-of-way to those standing at the curb.

The compromise reflected the wording of an ordinance used by Traverse City:

When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian within a marked crosswalk …

The Ann Arbor local law, which has been in force for the last two years, differs in two ways from the state’s Uniform Traffic Code. First, under that  law, motorists in Ann Arbor are supposed to yield the right-of-way to those pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also to those who are “stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” Second, when driving toward a crosswalk, motorists in Ann Arbor do not have the option to yield to a pedestrian by merely slowing down; instead, they are required to yield by stopping.

So here’s what the law will continue to say, when Hieftje vetoes the council’s Dec. 2 action:

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets

(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (Corresponds to UTC rule 706)

For more detail on the evolution of the local law, see “Column: Why Did the Turkey Cross the Road?”

Representatives of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, who advocated against repealing the crosswalk ordinance, contended that Traverse City police enforce “within a crosswalk” by including the curb. When The Chronicle interviewed Traverse City code enforcement officer Lloyd Morris by telephone, he indicated that a pedestrian merely standing at the curb, not in the roadway, would not be considered to be “within a crosswalk.” But he allowed that Traverse City enforces the language to mean that a pedestrian who is approaching the crosswalk with a clear intent to enter the roadway should be given the right-of-way. At the Ann Arbor city council’s Nov. 18 meeting, assistant city attorney Bob West had indicated that he didn’t interpret “within a crosswalk” to mean anything except the roadway.

At least some of the community debate on the topic has included the question of whether Ann Arbor’s ordinance is unique. On a national level, the ordinance language used in Boulder, Colorado includes more than just those pedestrians within a crosswalk:

A driver shall yield the right of way to every pedestrian on a sidewalk or approaching or within a crosswalk.“

And in Seattle, a similar effect is achieved by defining the crosswalk to extend from the roadway through the curb to the opposite edge of the sidewalk:

‘Crosswalk’ means the portion of the roadway between the intersection area and a prolongation or connection of the farthest sidewalk line or in the event there are no sidewalks then between the intersection area and a line ten feet therefrom, except as modified by a marked crosswalk.

The council’s Dec. 2 meeting featured a public hearing on the topic lasting about 90 minutes, during which 38 people spoke. The council deliberated about an hour on the question before taking the 6-4 vote. Dissenting were mayor John Hieftje, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Margie Teall (Ward 4) was absent.

For a detailed report of the public hearing and deliberations, see the crosswalk section of The Chronicle’s live updates filed during the Dec. 2 meeting.

Immediately after the vote, Hieftje announced that he’d be using his veto power.

The power of veto is somewhat unusual for a council-manager form of government like Ann Arbor’s – which employs a professional city administrator to manage the city’s affairs. The office of mayor is more akin to an at-large city councilmember, elected by all of the city’s electors, not just those from a single ward.

That Hieftje has never exercised his veto power is a common belief – one held even by many long-time political insiders. But based on city council minutes from early in his tenure as mayor, Hieftje once vetoed a change to the ordinance that regulates the city employees retirement system. The change involved a calculation of final average compensation. The council subsequently overrode that veto. Minutes indicate that the council voted for the ordinance change on April 16, 2001, the mayor vetoed it on April 23, 2001, and the overriding vote came at the council’s May 7, 2001 meeting.

At the Dec. 2 meeting, Hieftje indicated he’d file the veto well within the required time frame. That’s three days after the clerk presents him with the official proceedings of the council meeting, which must within come three days after a meeting of the council. From the city charter:

Within seventy-two hours, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, after a meeting of the Council, the Clerk shall present the record of the meeting to the Mayor for approval. Except in cases of appointment or removal of officers by the Council, the Mayor may disapprove, in whole or in part, any action taken by the Council by resolution, order, or otherwise. The Mayor shall file the disapproval and reasons therefor, in writing, with the Clerk within seventy-two hours, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, following presentation of the record to the Mayor. Such disapproval shall be reported by the Clerk at the next regular meeting of the Council or at a special meeting called for consideration thereof. Council action disapproved by the Mayor shall be of no effect, unless re-affirmed by the concurring vote of at least eight members of the Council within thirty days from the time such disapproval is reported by the Clerk.

The veto exercised by Hieftje in 2001 was overridden, but it’s very unlikely that this one would be. That would make it the first effective veto that Hieftje has cast in his entire tenure as mayor. He’d threatened to veto one of the votes required to approve the construction of the new police-courts building in 2007, but did not follow through on that.

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

DDA board members before their meeting began: Bob Guenzel (foreground); John Mouat (arms extended); Sandi Smith (partially obscured); Russ Collins (jacket and tie). Mouat was not demonstrating how a HAWK pedestrian signal flies. (Photos by the writer.)

But board members heard a series of reports, including a look at the financial picture from the first quarter of FY 2010. Fund balances are lower than they’ve been historically – something the board knew to anticipate with the construction of the new underground parking structure along Fifth Avenue. The report from the capital improvements committee indicated that the project is proceeding apace, with headway being made on solving a problem with de-watering the site. During public commentary, the board heard from proponents of putting a community commons on top of the underground parking garage once it’s completed.

At the meeting, the board indicated that they’d take an extended look at their 10-year budget projections at a board meeting in early 2011. Affecting the DDA’s 10-year plan are at least two major items: (1) the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage construction, and (2) ongoing negotiations with the city of Ann Arbor on the amount of “rent” to be paid by the DDA to the city as part of the parking contract under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system.

Other reports from the meeting with a potential effect on the DDA’s budget included an update on the City Apartments project planned by Village Green and located at First and Washington. The DDA is slated to purchase the parking deck component of the project on its completion – for $9 million. Included with the board’s packet were a series of proposed amendments to the parking agreement between the city of Ann Arbor, Village Green and the DDA. Village Green is scheduled to complete its purchase of the First and Washington parcel in May 2011.

Other potential impacts to the DDA’s budget included a report from the board’s partnerships committee that noted a request for grant funding from the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, plus an additional grant funding request from the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County.

The report from the board’s transportation committee included discussion of enhanced service between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor, as well as the possibility of adapting the #17 route to serve a partial circulator function for downtown. Also related to transportation, the board received a presentation from Pat Cawley, a city of Ann Arbor traffic engineer, on the installation of a new HAWK pedestrian crossing signal at the intersection of Chapin and Huron.

The board also heard from representatives of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone on the delivery of a blueprint for creating other such zones in the downtown.

DDA Finances

The DDA’s financial state was a major theme of the meeting.

DDA Finances: First Quarter Fund Report

Roger Hewitt gave the report from the operations committee meeting. Highlights of that report included an end-of-first-quarter report on the status of the four funds that make up the DDA’s budget: TIF (tax increment financing), parking, parking maintenance, and housing. Hewitt noted that there is some fluctuation based on the payment of construction invoices and reimbursements from the city.

Hewitt pointed out that TIF fund revenues were slightly less than expected. After the first three months of the fiscal year – July through September 2010 – projections are now that $3,850,000 will result from the DDA’s capture of a portion of downtown property taxes. The DDA’s budget calls for $3,935,790 to be collected, or 2.23% more than currently projected. Hewitt noted that this was less than 3% variation. Capital expenses to be paid out of the TIF fund, Hewitt said, would include payments on the Fifth and Division streetscape improvements and would at this point be estimated to come to a total of $2 million for the year – the budgeted amount was $2,020,753.

Based on first-quarter reports, parking revenues are now expected to total $14,635,108, or $378,818 less than budgeted. Hewitt noted that the difference between current projections and the budget amount – which is 2.59% – is still less than 3% variation. Hewitt attributed the shortfall to the fact that the budget was made based on an assumption that parking rate increases would be implemented starting July 1, but the increase had been delayed until Sept. 1.

In September 2010, the most recent month for which data is available, the increase in revenue – despite a decrease in hourly patrons at parking structures system-wide – was attributed to the parking rate increase. The number of hourly patrons was also down for the first quarter of the year, July-September 2010. [Hourly patrons are those who park in structures and pay by the hour, as opposed to purchasing a monthly permit.]

Joan Lowenstein asked if they would see an uptick in hourly patrons for holiday shopping. Joe Morehouse, deputy director of the DDA, indicated that yes, this is typically the case.

Russ Collins noted that for the first quarter, revenue had shrunk by 1/4 of 1% and hourly patrons had decreased 3%. He concluded that this reflected the fact that there is still demand in the system.

John Mouat was curious to know why the Maynard structure showed an increase in the number of hourly patrons, but a decrease in revenues. The explanation was that Maynard had been used for construction parking for the University of Michigan North Quad, with up to 100 construction workers a day parking there. Construction is now complete, said Hewitt, so it will take a while for people to get used to the increased availability of parking there.

DDA Finances: Village Green

The board received an update on the City Apartments project by Village Green, located at First and Washington. The DDA is slated to purchase the roughly 250-space parking deck component of the project on its completion – for $9 million. Included with the board’s packet were a series of proposed amendments to the parking agreement between the city of Ann Arbor, Village Green and the DDA.

At its Aug. 5 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council authorized an extension to the purchase option agreement with Village Green, and that authorization included a series of milestones, which is intended to result in the completion of Village Green’s purchase of the First and Washington parcel in May 2011. The milestones call for a parking agreement to be executed by the DDA by Nov. 21.

DDA staff have made a number of recommendations for amendments to the parking agreement with Village Green. At Wednesday’s meeting, Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, noted that the amendments were intended to ensure that the parking deck would be completed with the specification that it have a 75-year life and that copies of all relevant environmental reports and certifications would be provided to the DDA.

John Splitt encouraged board members to have a look at the draft of the Village Green amendments, saying that he wanted to have as many eyes on it as possible.

DDA Finances: 10-Year Plan

The operations committee report wound up with a discussion of the DDA’s 10-year plan. Russ Collins noted that the document contains the financial projections for the next 10 years and is constantly revised. Roger Hewitt confirmed that it was revised regularly, and he indicated the revision schedule was every three months. Collins noted that the document was not some kind of narrative or mission statement, but rather deals with hard numbers.

The conversation from Collins and Hewitt noted that there would be three or four years in the near future with fund balances that are significantly lower than board members are accustomed to seeing. At the Jan. 5, 2011 board meeting, there will be an extended operations committee report, to walk through the 10-year plan. Joan Lowenstein asked that board members who might not be able to attend on that date – due to the holiday period – let her know so that the meeting could be rescheduled if necessary.

By way of background, the projected fund balances for the DDA were the subject of scrutiny by city of Ann Arbor CFO Tom Crawford in early 2009, when bonds for the underground parking garage were authorized by the city council. His concerns had resulted in the downsizing of the project by 100 spaces – the extension of the underground excavation to William Street was eliminated. The benefit that proponents had claimed for the extension was the ability to create an underground connection from the parking structure to whatever development might be constructed on the Fifth and William street lot [aka the old Y lot] and to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s Blake Transit Center.

From The Chronicle’s coverage of the Feb. 17, 2009 city council meeting:

[Tom] 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.”

The proposed structure would occupy area under Fifth Avenue. But [Carsten] Hohnke expressed concern that the cost of an extension along Fifth Avenue southward past the southern edge of the library lot all the way to William Street (part of the current plans) didn’t offer commensurate value for the investment. He was concerned that the cost would constrain the DDA in making other needed investments. He said that while there’s no doubt more space is required, he thought that the roughly 770 spaces to be built exceeded what’s required.

Hohnke then proposed an amendment that would slightly reduce the scope of the project, by whittling around 100 spaces off the total through eliminating the Fifth Avenue extension all the way to William Street. Even the reduced number of spaces would represent roughly a 10% increase in the 5,000 spaces currently in the city’s off-street parking inventory, Hohnke said.

…

[Sabra] Briere continued her questions with Crawford.

Q: Would the DDA be able to build the underground parking garage and make bond payments if they didn’t raise parking fees?

Crawford didn’t mince words: “No.”

Q: Is the plan before us – even cut down by $6 million – within reach of currently available funding?

Even with the reduced size, said Crawford, it’s still really unaffordable, but it’s within reach for the DDA to explore other options. Asked by Briere as a followup to that, if the DDA would need to raise parking rates even further, replied Crawford: “That would be up to the DDA.”

In the current version of the DDA’s 10-year plan, the combined fund balances for the parking fund and the TIF fund are shown as negative for FY 2011-13. But combined fund balances for all four funds – including the parking maintenance fund balance and the housing fund balance – would be positive for the 10-year period.

Expressed as a percentage of operating expenses, here’s what can be calculated based on DDA projections:

      COMBINED      BALANCE AS
YEAR  FUND BALANCEs % of EXPENSES

2010 $10,621,218    56%
2011   5,274,003    27%
2012   2,667,637    13%
2013   1,692,514     8%
2014   3,052,667    15%
2015   4,402,736    21%
2016   7,065,031    33%
2017  10,482,627    47%
2018  14,172,518    65%
2019  17,764,457    79%
2020  22,757,279   103%

-
The current 10-year plan assumes a $2 million payment to the city each year – designated as a contingency. It also assumes that the funding of alternative transportation in the form of the getDowntown program’s go!pass would end after 2013 – that’s currently about a $500,000 annual program. The current 10-year plan also does not allow for continuation of the energy saving grant program or any housing grants after 2013.

DDA Finances: Mutually Beneficial Committee Report

The future of DDA finances will be impacted by current negotiations between the city of Ann Arbor and the DDA about the amount of rent the DDA should pay to the city for the use of the parking facilities that it manages for the city.

Roger Hewitt reported that the two mutually beneficial committees – from the DDA and the city council – had met twice in October. The two committees are renegotiating the contract under which the DDA manages the city’s parking system. At this point, he said, they need some feedback from the city council as a group. A work session on the DDA’s proposal for a development process would be held at 6 p.m. before the regular city council meeting the following day, Hewitt said. On Nov. 15, there will be another working session of the council to focus on the parking agreement itself.

Based on The Chronicle’s observation of the October meetings of the mutually beneficial committees, among the central issues now under discussion are (1) whether the DDA should be able to set parking rates without a city council veto, and (2) how the amount paid by the DDA to the city might escalate – to what is now typically described in committee meetings as $3 million. The $3 million figure does not itself reflect an escalation, but rather the inclusion of the $2 million in “rent” plus the roughly $1 million that the DDA pays into the city’s street repair fund.

DDA Finance: Partnerships Grants – Energy Saving

The report out from the partnerships committee was given by Keith Orr, because the two co-chairs of the committee, Russ Collins and Sandi Smith, had been unable to attend their meeting. The report included a discussion of various grants.

The DDA administers a grant program to encourage downtown property owners to invest in energy saving improvements. It includes an audit that’s paid for by the DDA and generally costs $2,000-$5,000. The program also includes a 50% DDA match on implementing recommended improvements – with a maximum payout by the DDA of $20,000 for each building. The audit is Phase I and the implementation is Phase II.

Based on the materials in the board’s packet, the DDA has paid $298,818 since the start of the program in FY 2009. Including the DDA-paid portion, a total of $241,253 has been spent on installation of energy-saving measures.

Orr reported that to date, 71 audits had been approved. Applications are currently available for this year’s program.

DDA Finances: Partnerships Grants – Housing

Orr reported on two housing grants on which no decision had yet been reached. One is for additional money to be granted to the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County. At its October meeting, the board had approved $218,050 for various capital investments, while holding in abeyance an additional $113,210 for solar panels. From The Chronicle’s report of the October DDA board meeting:

At the partnerships committee meeting, the consensus reached by members was that they should proceed with the recommendation for the $218,050 worth of improvements, while holding in abeyance the approval of more than $113,210 for installation of solar panels and for computer hardware at the shelter.

Committee members had concerns about the length of the payback period for the solar panels, which appeared to be much longer than the kind of payback on investments the DDA is familiar with in connection with its energy saving grant program.

At Wednesday’s board meeting, Orr reiterated the concern that the committee had about approving the grant, noting that it was a projected 29.2-year payback period – relatively long.

Orr also reported that the Ann Arbor housing commission had approached the DDA with a request for a grant. The housing commission, said Orr, maintains 355 low-income housing units across 17 sites in the city. The grant would specifically target Baker Commons, Orr said, which is a building located at the intersection of Packard and Main. The grant would be for a 50% match on $500,000, Orr said, and would be used for window replacement, hallway carpet, and parking lot resurfacing. The committee had not reached a decision about whether to recommend making the grant, Orr reported.

DDA Finances: Partnerships Grants – Solar

The Michigan Theater had made a request for $35,000 to help support a solar demonstration project that would be mounted on the side of the theater. Orr reported that no decision had been made on that proposal. [In August, the city's historic district commission had approved the installation plan: "More Solar Energy Projects In the Works"]

Library Lot

The city-owned parcel known as the Library Lot is the location of an ongoing construction project by the DDA – an underground parking structure that will provide parking for 660 cars.

From the top of the Fourth and William parking deck, this is the view to the east, of the east leg of the underground garage as the first floor of the deck is getting poured.

Library Lot: Construction Update

Reporting out from the capital improvements committee, John Splitt said that 300 yards of concrete had recently been poured for the first floor of the east leg deck. With respect to the de-watering problems that he had noted at the previous month’s meeting, Splitt said the water level is now dropping. This had allowed the foundation to be built for the tower crane next to the library. Once the tower crane is built, he said, the pace of the construction would pick up.

Mass excavation is 96% complete, Splitt reported. So far 240,000 cubic yards have been “excavated and removed.” When he stumbled over the word “excavated,” Splitt’s board colleagues kidded him, saying he should just say, “dug up.”

Library Lot: RFP Review Committee

John Splitt reported that the RFP (request for proposals) review committee had not met since the last board meeting. The committee has not met since the spring.

Library Lot: Commons

Two people addressed the board during public commentary on the topic of the development of the top of the underground parking garage. Introducing himself by saying, “Hello folks, I think you’ve seen me before!” was Alan Haber. He indicated that he continued to talk to the community about the idea of a community commons on top of the underground parking structure. He was there, he said, to show them some drawings and sketches, made by Stephan Trendov, an architect and urban designer who also addressed the board. Haber stressed the economic benefits of a commons. He said the proposal was to maximize people space and subordinate automobile space.

Trendov described himself as a “conceptualist.” The evolution of a city, he said, is based on water. He said that as he’s lived in Ann Arbor and walked the streets with people like Shakey Jake, he’s noticed that there is a “hardness.” It’s not the kind of city we want, he said. The concept for the top of the underground structure that he had sketched, he told the board, doesn’t interfere with the light wells that are meant to help illuminate the lower floors of the underground garage. His design also does not interfere with access to the underground levels or with future development of the site.

At public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Trendov picked up on the theme of pedestrian amenities that Ray Detter raised in his report from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council and their concerns about the alley connecting Liberty and Washington streets. Trendov warned that the University of Michigan had its eye on some of Ann Arbor streets – Monroe Street – and that it’s important not to let “the octopus” spread out further.

Transportation

Streets and transportation were another main theme of the board meeting.

Transportation: Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, Cut-Through

Ray Detter gave his usual report from the city’s downtown citizens advisory council. They’d received an update on transit issues, he said, from the DDA’s executive director, Susan Pollay, as well as an update from the panhandling task force. They’d also received an update on the status of Courthouse Square, which he described as “not very promising.”

Detter also described how Steve Kaplan had addressed the issue of the alley between Liberty and Washington streets. [The alley has long been the focus of concern – it's part of the public-private partnership connected with the Liberty Square (Tally Hall) parking structure. A year ago, the alley was discussed at a Sunday night caucus: "Council and Caucus: A Pedestrian Agenda"]

This was the issue that Trendov had alluded to during his closing public commentary. The current condition of the alley, with the smell of dumpsters placed close to it, was not conducive to use by pedestrians as a mid-block cut-through, Detter said. He stressed the need for all parties to carefully plan the future of the alley, and weighed in against a “helter-skelter” approach where only the developer of  the hamburger joint on the corner played a role.

Transportation: Buses, Bikes

John Mouat reported out from the transportation committee that they’d discussed service improvements between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti with Chris White, manger of service development with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The idea is to enhance service for those riders who work in Ann Arbor, but live in Ypsilanti. Route #4, he said, offered some interesting possibilities, including the idea of serving Blake Transit Center first, then the University of Michigan hospitals, instead of first serving UM, then BTC, which is how the current service operates.

Mouat discussed the idea of looping other funding partners, besides the DDA, into the mix by offering challenge grants.

The DDA’s transportation committee has in recent months also discussed the idea of resuscitating The LINK, which was a downtown circulator service jointly funded by the AATA, the DDA, and the University of Michigan. Riders did not pay a fare on boarding the buses. Mouat reported that White had discussed a possibility of altering Route #17 to increase circulation to the downtown area. Route #17 currently runs a loop up Division to the Amtrak station and back up Fifth Avenue.

Mouat also reported that a rental bike company would be offering a demonstration to the committee in late November. Quipped Russ Collins: “Will the bikes have snow tires?”

Mayor John Hieftje remarked that he felt even right-of-center voters were beginning to recognize the importance of transit and that there is a growing recognition that transit is something that southeast Michigan needs.

Transportation: HAWK Traffic Signal

What drivers and pedestrians will see when a HAWK signal is activated. (Image links to .pdf with higher resolution images.)

Pat Cawley, traffic engineer with the city of Ann Arbor, appeared before the board to alert them to the installation of a high intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) traffic signal at the intersection of Chapin and Huron. He described how for the last year or more the city had worked with the Michigan Department of Transportation on the project. It’s considered a pilot project, the first to be installed in Michigan on a state trunk line. He stressed the need for pedestrians and motorists to know what to expect.

When not activated, he explained, motorists would see three black balls – two on top and one on the bottom. When a pedestrian presses a button to activate the signal, he said, there is some lag time for the signal to coordinate with other traffic signals. Then motorists see a flashing yellow, followed by a solid yellow, which is then followed by a twin-red solid stop beacon. Pedestrians get a seven-second white walking signal. That’s followed by flashing red for motorists and a 30-second countdown for pedestrians.

Cawley indicated that the underground construction is done. It’s hoped that the ribbon cutting can take place on Nov. 17, he said.

Asked after the presentation by The Chronicle if there was any potential for people to create mischief by simply standing and pressing the button, causing traffic to stop as a perverse entertainment, Cawley suggested that the delay – after the button press and before coordination with other traffic signals – and the length of the entire cycle would make that kind of mischief unattractive.

Reorganization of DDA Committees

Board chair Joan Lowenstein had indicated the possibility of a committee reorganization at the board’s October meeting. At Wednesday’s meeting, the board considered a resolution to reorganize its committees. The previous committee structure included committees for operations, capital improvements, partnerships and transportation. The new structure merges operations and capital improvements and creates an additional committee with responsibility for economic development and communications issues.

The resulting structure would be:

• merged operations/capital improvements committee: review financial statements; formulate budget; oversee parking operations; oversee parking agreement with the city; oversee construction.
• transportation committee: review getDowntown projects; personal transportation issues (bicycle parking, scooter parking, walkability); mass transit projects (coordination with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority).
• partnerships committee: oversee DDA projects involving other entities like the city of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan; housing fund expenditures; energy saving grant program; coordination with city council and the city’s planning commission.
• economic development/communications: background research for downtown redevelopment; inventory of city-owned sites; hiring of real estate experts and other consultants; facilitate process for development (public process and with the city council); assemble information on downtown’s assets for inclusion in promotional efforts of Ann Arbor SPARK, the regional economic development agency.

Asked by Keith Orr when the new committee structure would be implemented, Lowenstein indicated that it would begin right away. Several board members expressed uncertainty about scheduling and their ability to attend a December meeting of the new committee. DDA executive director Susan Pollay suggested that things would “sort themselves out” and that board members with an interest in attending would make that known, and that the meeting time would eventually accommodate the schedules of those who wanted to attend.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved a reorganization of its committees to include an economic development and communications committee.

Main Street BIZ Blueprint

Ed Shaffran and Betsy Jackson appeared before the board on behalf of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The DDA had provided start-up support to the MSBIZ initiative – a self-assessment district, which property owners along Main Street, between William and Huron, had voted to approve earlier this year.

Betsy Jackson and Ed Shaffran, who addressed the board on behalf of the Main Street BIZ, relax before the DDA meeting started.

The goal of the district is to provide a high level of services, such as sidewalk cleaning and snow removal. [Some previous Chronicle coverage of the formative stages of the MSBIZ includes "Work Session: Trains, Trash and Taxes," "Business District, Bicycle Parking Get OK" and "Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ Clears Hurdle"]

The DDA’s support of the MSBIZ – in the form of a $75,000 grant with a 10% contingency – had come with the expectation that a blueprint or template would be provided by the MSBIZ that could be used for the creation of other such districts in the downtown, or to expand the MSBIZ itself. From The Chronicle’s coverage of the DDA board’s April 1, 2009 meeting:

What about other downtown areas that might want to form a BIZ? In board discussion of the proposal, Sandi Smith had explained that out of the current proposal the DDA would get a template for creating other areas. In our phone conversation, [Ed] Shaffran suggested that another possibility was that other areas could be added to the Main Street BIZ. [The areas must be contiguous, according to the enabling legislation.] He said that the initial concept was to include the entire DDA district, but that they’d opted to start small and possibly expand.

At Wednesday’s DDA board meeting, Shaffran led off by briefly thanking the DDA for their support. He told them that the provision of services had now begun – from 5:30-6 a.m., sidewalks were getting cleaned. He reported that there was already a noticeable difference in the MSBIZ area as compared to the rest of the downtown. He indicated that they were coordinating with the city of Ann Arbor on snow removal and developing procedures for dealing with snowfalls of varying amounts.

Betsy Jackson gave a more detailed presentation on the MSBIZ strategy for providing a blueprint. The goals of the blueprint, she said, included: (1) creating an archive for the first BIZ, (2) providing details of the process for forming a BIZ, and (3) reducing grant requests to the DDA for the formation of future districts.

DDA board chair Joan Lowenstein reiterated that the DDA’s intention in providing support to the MSBIZ was not simply to provide seed money for one BIZ, but rather to help develop a template for the creation of other districts.

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

Absent: Gary Boren, Newcombe Clark

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Dec. 1, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Ann Arbor chief of police Barnett Jones chat during a break in the July 19 council meeting just after passage of a new pedestrian ordinance. During deliberations on that ordinance, Jones had cited the Canadian cultural practice of pedestrians standing on the curb and simply pointing to the crosswalk, which prompts motorists to stop for them. The remark had earned a thumbs-up from Rapundalo, who is a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen.

Intended as an extra measure of support for Zingerman’s was a third resolution communicating to the city’s historic district commission (HDC) the council’s view that the project represents a substantial benefit to the community. The proposal includes demolition of one house and the integration of another house into the architecture of the proposed new construction. Because the site is located in the Old Fourth Ward, the HDC will need to give its approval, in order for the project to be built. The message sent by the council to the HDC was clear: We want this project approved.

The council also sent a clear message to its firefighter and police unions, which the city hopes will soon ratify contracts that will save the city money. At the meeting, the council approved labor agreements with two other groups – the Teamsters civilian supervisors and the Teamsters police professional assistants. That added to bargained changes with the police deputy chiefs union that were approved at the council’s previous meeting on July 6. All three agreements reflected cost savings to the city through greater contributions by union members to health and retirement benefits and no increase in wages.

The implicit message to the firefighter and police unions was given explicit form through a position statement from the council’s labor committee and read aloud by Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), the chair of that committee. The statement calls on those unions to follow the example of the three who have already ratified contracts.

The council also gave final approval to a new pedestrian safety ordinance, which requires motorists to stop for pedestrians who are in, or even approaching, crosswalks that lack any traffic control device. During deliberations, the council swapped in “stop” to make the ordinance stronger than the originally proposed “yield.”

In other business, the council authorized the specific allocation of over $1 million in already-budgeted funds to nonprofits providing human services, approved liquor licenses for two downtown businesses, authorized the hire of a community energy coordinator using federal funds, got an update on the future of the Library Lot, and heard public commentary on a range of issues.

Zingerman’s Deli Expansion

Before the council were three resolutions involving the proposal by Zingerman’s Deli to expand their facility, located at Kingsley and Detroit streets in the Kerrytown district of downtown Ann Arbor.

Zingerman’s first brought forward a proposal in June 2008 that was submitted to the city’s historic district commission (HDC) – it called for the demolition of two houses. One of the houses, at 322 E. Kingsley, was fire-damaged. The other house is the Zingerman’s Annex, also known as the “orange house.” The city’s HDC turned down that proposal.

This time around, Zingerman’s met twice with the HDC during working sessions, but started the approval process with the city’s planning commission, followed by the city council. The planning commission has already given the project its unanimous recommendation for approval by the city council.

The site plan still calls for tearing down a house at 322 E. Kingsley, but would integrate the Annex into the design of the new construction. The new building is planned as a two-story, 10,340-square-foot addition that would be connected to the 5,107-square-foot deli building via a glass atrium. They’ll add underground tanks for stormwater detention and several environmentally-friendly design elements, including a green roof on the deli’s existing one-story wing. Phoenix Contractors of Ypsilanti is the project’s construction manager and general contractor.

All along, Zingerman’s executives have cited concerns over the project’s expense, particularly the cost of renovating the Annex. The overall project is expected to cost about $6.7 million. Roughly $500,000 is associated with renovating the house, which is relatively small – less than 900 square feet. Renovation will entail moving the Annex off its existing foundation, replacing the foundation, renovating the house, then moving it onto the new foundation and incorporating the structure into the new deli addition.

Previous Chronicle coverage:

“Zingerman’s: Making it Right for the HDC”

“Zingerman’s Deli Expansion Moves Ahead”

“Zingerman’s Project Seeks Brownfield Status”

“DDA Approves Grant for Zingerman’s”

The three Zingerman’s resolutions covered: (i) approval of the the site plan, (ii) approval of a brownfield application, and (iii) encouraging the HDC to grant a “notice to proceed.”

Zingerman’s Public Comment: Site Plan and Brownfield Plan

Around a dozen letters of support accompanied the city council’s electronic agenda. One representative sample is from Jeremy Peters, director of creative and business affairs for Ghostly Songs:

We have come to know many members of the staff, management, and ownership over the course of the past few years, and can speak volumes to what we have learned from them as a “good” business who invests in their staff and community. Zingerman’s has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to this community and its citizens through continued investment in our area and generous philanthropic support of efforts aimed at community betterment. Zingerman’s is, in every sense, a community partner and one of Ann Arbor’s most valuable assets.

We hope to follow in their model of success as much as possible.

Allowing Zingerman’s to grow its business at its present location will be of substantial benefit to the community. It will inject capital into our local economy by creating both temporary construction and permanent retail jobs.

Grace Singleton, a managing partner with the deli, led off the public hearing by reiterating much of the same material she’s previously presented to the planning commission and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The deli has grown quite a bit since it started in 1982. In the first year, they’d sold 2,000 sandwiches, she said, but last year they estimate they made over 300,000. They’d begun with three employees and have now grown to employ 180. But they still have the same kitchen, she said.

Singleton stressed how they’d made improvements in one-off, “hodge podge” fashion, adding some seating capacity in a tent behind the Annex, and adding some outside storage units. What they are now proposing, she said, is a large upgrade that would last a long time into the future. There are inherent challenges in the project, she said, which include the removal of one house, the construction of a two-story building, plus the restoration of another house, all while keeping the deli open for business, she said.

Next up for the Zingerman’s project team was Christy Summers of Beckett & Raeder Inc. She described Zingerman’s as an “iconic” business of Ann Arbor. She described the project as providing Zingerman’s with more flexibility. She also stressed the greater accessibility the project would afford Zingerman’s patrons, citing the ramps, slopes and handrails that would be a part of the project. She noted the stormwater management system that would re-use some of the water and allow some to infiltrate into the ground naturally.

Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects.

Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects continued the presentation for the project team, and talked about how the project was designed to fit into the historical context of the neighborhood, partly through the choice of appropriate materials. He also discussed various acoustical controls that would help damp down possible noise from mechanical systems. He said the project was planned to achieve LEED certification on either the silver or gold level. Among the environmental features he mentioned were green roofs, a highly-insulated building envelope and heat recapture. Clein noted that city council approval was the “last hurdle” before historic district commission approval.

Jim Mogensen began by noting that the Star Wars episodes were not released in chronological order. He was alluding partly to the fact that the proposal was getting approval from the planning commission and city council, before seeking approval from the city’s historic district commission.

By way of background, the sequencing was explained in a recent memo prepared by Jill Thacher, a city planner specializing in historic preservation issues:

All [other] approvals are required so that the HDC has as many assurances as possible that the applicant seriously intends to build the project and is in a position to do so. This is necessary since the Notice to Proceed will result in the permanent removal of historic resources. In order to apply to the HDC for a notice to proceed, the project must have an approved site plan from City Council, have proof of financing, and have any other zoning or environmental approvals that may be necessary to build the project. In order for the HDC to grant the project a Notice to Proceed, Zingerman’s must prove that their project will be of substantial benefit to the community. How that benefit is defined and whether it is substantial enough to warrant the removal of contributing resources is determined by the HDC.

From the city code on issuance of a notice to proceed:

8:416. Notice to proceed.
(1) Work within a historic district shall be permitted through the issuance of a notice to proceed by the commission if any of the following conditions prevail and if the proposed work can be demonstrated by a finding of the commission to be necessary to substantially improve or correct any of the following conditions:
(a) The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or to the structure’s occupants.
(b) The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances.
(c) Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.
(d) Retaining the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community.

Mogensen, however, was also using the topic of chronological sequence as an opportunity to riff on some of the zoning history of Ann Arbor. First, he said, it was thought to be beneficial for students to be able to live off campus – so the R4C zoning district was created, which he suggested stood for “residential for cash.” When matter-of-right apartment buildings started to get built, he said, historic districts were established to preserve the character of the neighborhood. The zoning, together with the historic districts, combined to allow students to live off campus in multi-unit houses in a way that preserved the neighborhoods.

Mogensen urged the council to approve Zingerman’s proposal, but asked councilmembers to reflect on what might happen several years down the road. What if the Ann Arbor Public Schools decided that Community High School – on the property adjoining Zingerman’s – was no longer needed? What if that parcel, too, became a part of a huge Zingerman’s project?

Thomas Partridge drew a connection to the project and the need for increased affordable housing and a transportation system that so that Zingerman’s workers would have a place to live and a way to get to work.

Jared Belka, part of Zingerman’s legal team, spoke to the issue of the brownfield redevelopment plan. He described Zingerman’s total investment in the project as amounting to $6.7 million. He reviewed with the council how the brownfield application was being made under the provision that allowed for redevelopment of functionally obsolete buildings. The plan would cover up to $817,000 in eligible activities, Belka said, including site preparation [$534,800], demolition [$100,000], infrastructure improvements [$41,300] and lead and asbestos abatement [$25,000].

Also a part of Zingerman’s legal team, Gary Bruder indicated that the reason Zingerman’s was applying for brownfield financing was that the project is very expensive because it’s being undertaken in a historic district. But Zingerman’s is committed to Ann Arbor, he said, and to that site in particular. They’ll be using a surgical, even “micro-surgical” process in the construction, Bruder added. A specific example is that they’ll use pile and timber lagging in the course of construction, he said.

Singleton returned to the podium for the second public hearing, on the brownfield plan, to reiterate her earlier point about past growth at Zingerman’s and to suggest that in the next five years, they expected to add as many as 65 more jobs, having added 35 over the previous five years. She also mentioned the philanthropic work done by Zingerman’s, having founded Food Gatherers and the Delonis Community Kitchen, and donating 10% of profits to local nonprofit organizations. Singleton said she realized that the tax capture mechanism of brownfield development was not popular with some in the community, but she pointed to the return to the city’s nonprofit community as something that helped to counterbalance that.

Zingerman’s: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) led off deliberations on the brownfield plan, which had been reordered at the start of the meeting to appear first on the agenda. She urged support of the plan, saying Zingerman’s is an excellent corporate citizen, noting that they gave back to the community. They are good neighbors with the North Central Property Owners Association and the Old Fourth Ward, she said. Zingerman’s is the second most-requested location when visitors are seeking directions, she said – first is the University of Michigan hospital. The brownfield plan would allow Zingerman’s to stay in the city, she said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) described the Zingerman’s project as exactly the kind of project meant for non-environmental brownfield plans. He noted how there were a lot of things going on in a tight space.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed the sentiments of Smith and Hohnke.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that as a member of the brownfield committee, he supported the plan because the buildings in question were functionally obsolete. He also noted that the implementation of stormwater detention is an important use of the tax credits.

Kunselman also reflected on the fact that Zingerman’s had existed for 28 years – he remembered a time when it was not there. He’d attended Community High School, before Zingerman’s was located there, and noted that it was not as “likeable” an area as it is now. He recalled how the entire area had been planned for urban renewal – everything had been planned for demolition. Alluding to Jim Mogensen’s speculation that Community High might be eliminated by the school system, Kunselman said that there was active speculation when he was in school there that the school would be eliminated, and fortunately, that had not taken place.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Zingerman’s brownfield plan.

Deliberations on the site plan were brief. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) acknowledged that Zingerman’s was a valued community member. She noted that it was a sensitive site plan for a difficult site.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Zingerman’s site plan.

While the site plan and the brownfield plan for Zingerman’s were before the city council for consideration as a standard part of the approval process, a third resolution fell outside that process. The measure called upon the city’s historic district commission to take note of the city council’s support of the Zingerman’s project:

RESOLVED, That City Council respectfully requests that the Historic District Commission consider this resolution during its deliberations as some evidence that the Zingerman’s Deli site expansion will be of substantial benefit to the Ann Arbor community; and

RESOLVED, That City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit this resolution to the Historic District Commission.

In deliberations on the resolution, Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) noted that in order for the project to move forward and grant a notice to proceed, the city’s historic district commission must reach the conclusion that the project will be a substantial benefit to the community. Taylor acknowledged that the HDC would come to its own conclusions on the matter, but contended that the city council, as elected representatives of the citizens of Ann Arbor, is competent to speak to the issue of what constitutes a benefit to the community.

So the resolution, Taylor contended, seeks to “affirm for all the world, not that it requires our affirmation, but nonetheless” that it’s the HDC that will make the determination on the community benefit. But the resolution also seeks to affirm, he continued, that it’s the city council’s judgment that the proposal constitutes a substantial benefit to the community.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) echoed the sentiments of Taylor and noted the “iconic” status of the business as expressed during the public hearing. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) indicated that when asked what would happen if the project did not go through, Zingerman’s had indicated that they would have to move from that location. Smith said that would be devastating to the area, but that Zingerman’s would be fine – their fans would follow them, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to pass the resolution communicating to the historic district commission the council’s support of Zingerman’s.

Union Bargaining

The city council also communicated a clear message to its firefighter and police unions, with whom the city is currently bargaining.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2)

Before the council were labor agreements with two other groups – the Teamsters civilian supervisors and the Teamsters police professional assistants. That added to bargained changes with the police deputy chiefs union that were approved at the council’s previous meeting on July 6. All three agreements reflected cost savings to the city through greater contributions by union members to health and retirement benefits and no increase in wages.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who chairs the city council’s labor committee, indicated that the previous council meeting had run so late [concluding just past 1 a.m.] that he did not think many people noticed the approval of the agreement with the police deputy chiefs union.

From The Chronicle’s report of the July 6 meeting:

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said that as chair of the council’s labor committee, he was pleased to see the agreement and the resolution come forward. The terms provide savings to the city, he said, specifically in the area of increasing their own contributions to health care benefits. The health care plan they were voting on, Rapundalo said, is the same one enjoyed by the city’s non-union workers, with the same contribution level. Rapundalo also highlighted the fact that there’ll be an increase in the pension contribution made by employees and no across-the-board increase in wages.

Rapundalo thanked members of the union for stepping up and making sacrifices to help the city work within its budgetary constraints.

Ann Arbor is not unique in the need to achieve savings, Rapundalo reminded his council colleagues. He ticked through several other Michigan cities where safety services personnel had accepted significant percentage decreases in total benefits.

With the council’s approval of the two additional bargained agreements, with similar terms to the previous one, Rapundalo made the implicit message to the police and firefighter unions explicit. From the position statement by the council’s labor committee:

Currently, the firefighters, the police officers and the police command officers pay only a deductible of $250 per person or $500 per family. They do not pay a monthly premium or co-insurance. The new plans ratified tonight include an increased deductible, a 20% co-insurance and the option of a monthly premium for lower deductibles and out of pocket maximums.

We are hopeful that negotiations with the remaining groups will be successful and lead to the type of savings that other bargaining units have already achieved and ratified. However, if negotiations are unsuccessful, we are supportive of staff pursuing Act 312 binding arbitration to resolve these contracts.

The collective bargaining units which have not yet ratified contracts should be aware of the current economic conditions facing the City and we hope they will act accordingly. We encourage all members of the remaining bargaining units to become more engaged in their respective negotiations and especially in learning the specific details of what is being bargained on their behalf.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the agreements with the Teamsters civilian supervisors and the Teamsters police professional assistants.

Crosswalks: Pedestrian Ordinance

Before the council for its second reading was a proposed change to the pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

Before the change, it read:

[Old Language] 10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets.
(a) No pedestrian shall cross a street at a location other than at a crosswalk into which vehicle traffic is then restricted by a traffic control device unless such crossing may be done safely and without interfering with motor vehicle and bicycle traffic on that street.
(b) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger, but a pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

The ordinance revision provides greater protection for pedestrians approaching crosswalks. The revision requires motorists to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians not just in crosswalks, but also approaching them. Previous language was stricken, which limited the requirement on motorists to yield only to pedestrians in the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling.

In the course of deliberations, the “yield” language was strengthened to include “stop.” Additional language amended at the council table is in italics.

[New Language] 10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets.
(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian approaching or within a crosswalk.
(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.
(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

The ordinance change came at least in part due to advocacy from Ann Arbor resident Matt Grocoff, who contacted Ward 5 councilmembers Mike Anglin and Carsten Hohnke as early as Jan. 9, 2009 alerting them to the relatively weak protections that Ann Arbor’s ordinance provided to pedestrians, compared with other communities. From an email he sent to them and posted on the Washtenaw Biking and Walking Coalition‘s GoogleGroup:

The recent conversation about Roundabouts and neighborhood Mini-Roundabouts raised questions about pedestrian crosswalk and cyclist safety at both types of roundabouts. Roundabouts have been proven to be among the safest traffic tools available.

However, I strongly urge that these conversations MUST include revising the current Ann Arbor pedestrian right-of-way ordinance. Without absolute pedestrian right-of-way and strict enforcement of the rule, NO crosswalk, roundabout, or any other traffic device will make our roads as safe as those in other states. [...]

The fact is, Ann Arbor’s ordinance does not give true right-of-way to pedestrians. It is overly broad, complex, and ambiguous. When read carefully, drivers need to yield to pedestrians only if they are about to hit them.

In communities with clearly stated rules (Essex, NJ; Sarasota, FL; Boulder, CO, the entire State of California, Seattle, Portland, etc), cars come to a FULL STOP when a pedestrian APPROACHES a crosswalk in a roundabout or mid-roadway.

Crosswalks: Public Comment

Kathy Griswold spoke specifically about the mid-block crosswalk at King Elementary School, which she has for more than a year advocated be moved to a four-way stop intersection. She reviewed the history and work of the Transportation Safety Committee, which had evaluated the King School crossing. She indicated that the project had been engineered, funded, and staked out, with part of the expense for an asphalt path to be provided by a $500 contribution from an anonymous donor. She characterized the halt to the project as due to “good-old boy cronyism.”

On the more general issue of the proposed crosswalk ordinance, Griswold said during the public hearing that she fully supported it, but noted that she’d been unable to read the text of the proposed ordinance online as of 10 a.m. that morning. [According to the city clerk's office, the issue related to how that agenda item was submitted to the online Legistar system by the community services department – it had been marked as "not viewable via the web." By 2 p.m. the status of the item had been changed by the clerk's office to be visible.]

But Griswold likened the ordinance to giving a kid a bicycle and telling them we’d buy them a helmet later. She called for greater attention to sight-line issues at intersections and at other points along the roadway. Sight-lines, she said, can be obstructed by vegetation as well as utility boxes. A specific example she gave of utility boxes causing sight-line problems is eastbound Glazier Way at Huron Parkway.

Calling the council’s attention to the crosswalks like the one at State and William was Jim Mogensen during the public hearing. He said that due to limitations on his mobility, he only crossed when the walk signal indicated it was okay for him to go. But at that intersection, he pointed out, the walk signal coincided with a conflicting left-turn arrow for motorists. [A related column on the timing of walk signals was published almost two years ago in The Chronicle: "Column: Waiting Too Long for the Go"]

Kris Talley of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition speaks in favor of the pedestrian ordinance.

Speaking during the public hearing on behalf of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, board member Kris Talley indicated the group had been working on the issue for more than a year. She pointed the council to a video that they’d created to illustrate what motorist behavior is like towards pedestrians who are trying to enter crosswalks. What had been particularly striking, Talley said, was a forum attended by city transportation staff, a city attorney, a police officer and advocates for non-motorized transportation where there’d been a lack of consensus about what was required by the city’s current pedestrian ordinance – for pedestrians and motorists alike. The proposed revision, she said, is language that makes crosswalks meaningful.

Crosswalks: Council Deliberations – Stop versus Yield

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who co-sponsored the ordinance change along with mayor John Hieftje, led off deliberations by saying that the change had come about through their work with a number of city staff and community members. He characterized the ordinance as one tool among many to help improve the environment for pedestrians in Ann Arbor – other tools include targeted enforcement, education, and engineering solutions [e.g., traffic islands].

Under the current ordinance, Hohnke said, a pedestrian has to actually “take ownership” of the crosswalk by entering it, before a motorist is required to yield. Hohnke described the video, to which Kris Talley had alluded during her remarks, as “scary to see.” He talked about how it depicts people trying to cross streets around Ann Arbor with motorists failing to yield and included images of young children dashing across the street after first hesitating but noticing other kids in their group crossing.

Hohnke identified the specific challenges that they had to work through as: (i) ambiguity – how do you know when someone is approaching a crosswalk? and (ii) change in culture – how are motorists supposed to know something different is expected? He said they’d concluded that the kind of ambiguity that might be present was no different from other kinds of ambiguity in traffic laws – like that associated with yellow lights, he said. And the changes in behavior that will be required, he concluded, would likely be similar to the adjustments that are necessary when a new stop sign is installed somewhere. He thanked the WBWC for their work on the issue.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she’d seen people trying to cross Plymouth Road – they know they have the right-of-way, but nobody stops. How will we get them to stop?

Chief of Ann Arbor police, Barnett Jones, told Briere that they’d need to “hit the community hard” with education. He said he would actually prefer language that was somewhat more blunt than “yield,” saying that the interpretation of “stop” is universal and clear.

Jones then cited the Canadian cultural practice of pedestrians standing on the curb and simply pointing to the cross walk, which prompted motorists to stop for them. The remark had earned a thumbs-up from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who is a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen. Jones said it was important that citizens are “not playing Frogger” trying to cross the roadways.

Hieftje noted that the educational effort was made difficult by the fact that half the motorists on Ann Arbor roadways at any given time do not live in Ann Arbor.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked from a motorist’s perspective whether the new law meant they would need to yield to pedestrians at the second crosswalk of a four-way stop if they’d already begun through the intersection – she noted that at an intersection like Forest and South University Avenue, the pedestrians just “stream across.” Jones indicated that yes, you need to yield in that situation. Hohnke also pointed out that the new ordinance applies to crosswalks were there is no traffic control device.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) picked up on the remark by the police chief to the effect that the chief would prefer the ordinance say “stop” and pointed out that the current ordinance had similar language, which the revision proposed to strike: “slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield.”

Kunselman proposed that the new ordinance be amended to include the “slowing down or stopping” language. Hieftje was not inclined to entertain the possibility of changing the language, saying that he and Hohnke, along with the WBWC and the city attorney’s office, had worked on it. Rapundalo weighed in for keeping things simple. He didn’t see the need for “stopping or slowing down” if that’s what “to yield” means. Teall contemplated removing “yield” and simple using “slowing down or stopping.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) responding to Hieftje’s remarks, said that just because the language was vetted didn’t mean it isn’t ambiguous. She focused away from “yield” to the question of “approaching,” asking how close someone needed to be to the crosswalk to be considered to be “approaching” it. Hieftje responded by saying that under the old ordinance, a pedestrian would have to “dance out into the intersection” in order for a motorist to be required to yield. He contended that “approaching” isn’t ambiguous.

Rapundalo inveighed against “overthinking” the question, saying that currently “the car rules” and the ordinance should simply state that the pedestrian gets the right-of-way, period. There should not be language available, he said, that would allow a motorist to “worm their way out of it.” He concluded that no further massaging of the language was necessary. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d been impressed by her visit to Calgary nine months ago, when she’d been a curb and a car had stopped for her as a pedestrian, even though the car had a green light. Briere echoed Rapundalo’s sentiments.

Higgins then brought forward an amendment that won the day, which she suggested reflected the council’s real intent: insert “stop and” before “yield.” The resulting line, which Hohnke accepted as a friendly amendment, reads: “the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian approaching or within a crosswalk.”

Outcome: The council unanimously adopted the pedestrian ordinance requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians approaching crosswalks.

Downtown Liquor Licenses

Before the city council were two recommendation to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission that downtown development district liquor licenses be approved for two downtown businesses: @Burger, which will open at 505 E. Liberty St.; and Revive, located on the ground floor of Zaragon Place at 619 E. University.

The liquor licenses were recommended under Public Act 501 MCL 436.1521A(1)b, which enabled the MLCC to grant additional licenses to businesses located in development districts.

The city council’s liquor license review committee consists of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

From Chronicle coverage of the city council’s May 17, 2010 meeting:

Before the council was a resolution to approve issuance of a downtown development district liquor license to the New York Pizza Depot. It came before the council on a 2-1 vote from the council’s liquor license review committee. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who chairs that council committee, indicated that he had been the dissenting vote and would not be supporting the issuance of the license. He noted that such licenses are meant to be an economic development tool and that he had tried to make his decisions on such licenses consistent across applications.

Specifically, such licenses are meant to provide a benefit to the community. In the case of the New York Pizza Depot, he contended, the petitioner could not show any anticipated growth in employment due to the issuance of the license. In addition, Rapundalo said, a consideration for issuance was the location – is it unique? The existing density of licenses in the area, he said, did not indicate to him a dire need for an establishment of that kind.

Liquor: Council Deliberations

At the request of Mike Anglin (Ward 5), representatives from @Burger gave a presentation to the council on how the business would work at the East Liberty location.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the recommendations that @Burger and Revive be granted downtown development district liquor licenses.

Human Services Funding

Before the council were the specific allocations to various nonprofits providing human services funding for FY 2011. The city funds for the allocations were approved as part of the city’s FY 2011 budget, which was adopted at the city council’s May 17, 2010 meeting.

The city allocates funding to these nonprofits based on a formal request for proposals (RFP). The RFP for this year’s funding cycle, as well as for last year’s funding, was issued in January 2009. The RFP indicated that the funding would be allocated for both FY 2010 and FY 2011. A total of 47 nonprofits applied, making 67 proposals for grant funding totaling $3,773,435.

Making the recommendations was the human services review committee – a nine-member body consisting of three members appointed by the Ann Arbor city council, three members from the Urban County and three community development staff members. In addition to making recommendations for the city’s allocation of human services funding, the review committee made recommendations on county funds as well as HUD’s community development block grants (CDBG).

          City of Ann Arbor

$  25,500 Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, Inc.
    5,850 Ann Arbor YMCA
   80,750 Avalon Housing, Inc.
   20,000 Barrier Busters Action Group
    9,000 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Washtenaw County
   12,100 Fr. Patrick Jackson House (CSS)
   10,000 The Oaks (CSS)
   22,000 Maximizing the Independence (CSS)
    6,300 Emergency Food Program (CSS)
   17,550 Employment Skills/Goal Setting Workshops (CSS)
   50,000 Neighborhood Senior Services (CSS)
  210,000 Child Care Network
   20,400 Preventing Evictions (CAN)
   23,800 School Comes First! Hikone and Green Baxter (CAN)
    8,500 Food & Health Care Hikone and Green Baxter (CAN)
    8,500 Community Housing Alternatives
   19,295 COPE
   38,250 Domestic Violence Project, Inc.
   26,076 Family Learning Institute
  123,200 Food Gatherers
   13,200 HIV/AIDS Housing Assistance Program (HIV/AIDS RC)
    5,000 Harm Reduction Program (HIV/AIDS RC)
   25,000 Home of New Vision
   38,500 Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw Co.
   10,000 Jewish Family Services of Washtenaw County
   73,000 Legal Services of South Central Michigan
   34,000 Housing Supports Team (MAP)
   18,121 Representative Payee (MAP)
   38,250 Packard Health Inc.
   15,000 Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan
   10,000 Meal Delivery to Under Age 60 (Meals on Wheels)
   16,000 Weekend Meal Delivery (Meals on Wheels)
   16,250 UM Nurse Managed Centers/Maple Meadows
   24,000 UM Housing Bureau for Seniors
   19,500 The Student Advocacy Center of Michigan
   30,000 The Women's Center of Southeastern Michigan
  117,700 Washtenaw County CSTS/Project Outreach (PORT)
   27,500 Washtenaw Literacy  

1,268,092 SUBTOTAL
    7,652 Human Service Contingency  

1,275,744 TOTAL

CDBG Public Service Funds

$  40,885 Northfield Human Services
   51,700 Ozone House, Inc.
   58,300 Shelter Association Service Center (SAWC)
  151,015 Night Shelter Program (SAWC)
   32,500 Delonis Center Health Clinic (SAWC)
    8,600 SOS Community Center

  343,000 TOTAL      

Washtenaw County General Funds

   46,400 Housing Crisis Services (SOS)
   13,200 Homeless School-Aged Children's Program (SOS)
   20,000 The Corner Health Center
   20,400 Ypsilanti Meals on Wheels

  100,000 TOTAL

-

Human Services: Public Comment and Deliberations

Jim Mogensen’s red ribbon presentation has become an annual event associated with the allocation of human services funding. It includes the unfurling of a red ribbon as a bar in a bar chart representing the rest of the city’s budget excluding human services allocations. As the ribbon is unwound and stretches across the council chambers, the point is illustrated that the amount spent on human services is relatively small.

Coverage of last year’s red ribbon presentation: “Ann Arbor Allocates Human Services Funding.”

Though Mogensen attended the council meeting, he did not make the red ribbon presentation this year. When The Chronicle conveyed its disappointment after the meeting, Mogensen accepted the message with typical good cheer.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved its human services allocations.

Library Lot

Background for some public comment and councilmember communication at the meeting is the issue of what, if anything, should be built on top of the city-owned Library Lot – currently the construction site for an underground parking structure. The city issued a request for proposals last year, with the idea that if one of the proposals were approved, the underground garage design could be tweaked to accommodate certain design features.

Alan Haber addresses the council on the topic of the Library Lot.

The responses were all presented in a public forum, and the committee tasked with reviewing them subsequently winnowed them down to two proposals. Along the way, a citizen-generated proposal for a community commons was eliminated from further consideration, then added back to the pool, then finally eliminated. The two finalist proposals selected by the review committee were for hotel/conference center projects.

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority authorized money to hire a consultant to evaluate the financial merits of the two proposals, but that consultant has not been hired. The committee has not met in several months. The window of opportunity to make any design tweaks in the underground parking garage passed back in the spring, and the sense of urgency that drove the committee’s initial work has ebbed. A starting point for Chronicle coverage: “Hotel/Conference Center Ideas Go Forward.”

Library Lot: Public Comment

Addressing the city council during public commentary reserved time was Alan Haber, who had helped put together the proposal for a community commons on the Library Lot. He ticked through a number of specific questions for the council:

1. Will you call on the advisory committee to deliver its report?
2. Will you allow the city council to consider the proposal for the community commons?
3. Will you call for public hearings on the best use of the Library Lot?
4. Do you think that paving the top of the garage for use as a surface parking lot is the best use of the land?
5. Will you consider directing the DDA to re-allocate the bond funds allocated for paving the lot for landscaping materials like earth and bulbs?
6. Will you consider the idea of a conservancy for a community commons, which would be the entity charged with the maintenance of the commons?

Library Lot: Update from Council

During his communications, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who chairs the RFP review committee, gave an update on progress. He reviewed a recent update he’d given about a month ago at the council’s June 7, 2010 meeting. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) responded to Haber’s comments on the Library Lot by describing the process as being in a “holding pattern.” The committee had been prepared to engage a consultant to assist in the review of the two finalist proposals, and the potential consultant had been reviewed by city administrator Roger Fraser and executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay, but they’d stopped short of signing a contract with the consultant. An unanticipated change in personnel within the consultant’s organization had led them to re-evaluate the pool. Rapundalo said it was unfortunate that Fraser himself was not there at the meeting to provide more details.

At Monday’s meeting, Rapundalo indicated that concerns centered on the “glitch” that had arisen on the consultant’s part – the staffing change – had now been eliminated. They were in discussions with the consultant to develop a work plan, he said, and they’d determined that the DDA would also use an intern to provide additional comparative analysis. In the coming week, Rapundalo said, they would sit down with the two Library Lot finalists, Valiant and Acquest, and “with a little bit of luck,” he concluded, by late August the committee would be able to pick things back up and continue their work.

At a recent candidate forum, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) expressed the view that the community conversation should begin anew with a completely clean slate.

Floods

A couple of items related to the impact of heavy rains in the area were brought up during the July 19 meeting.

Floods: Task Force for Bryant Neighborhood?

Speaking on behalf of the Community Action Network (CAN), during public commentary reserved time, Joan Doughty requested that the city council appoint a task force to address flooding in the the Bryant neighborhood. She asked that the charge of the task force specifically be to identify a remediation plan and a funding source. She allowed that nobody on the city council was responsible for causing the flooding, but noted that it was a long-standing and frequent problem. She cited the recollection of a civil engineer with the city 20 years ago who said it was already a problem back then.

Flooding is not a rare event in the neighborhood, Doughty said, but rather happens with every heavy rain, several times per month. She noted that Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) had some experience dealing with similar issues in the Orchard Hills neighborhood, while allowing that every neighborhood is unique. The Bryant neighborhood, she said, had lacked a political voice up to now.

Previous Chronicle coverage of the Bryant neighborhood flooding issue: “Bryant Neighbors Dig into Drainage” and “Water Main Project Set for Bryant Area.”

Floods: Insurance Board of Review

Also tangentially related to floods and heavy rains was confirmation of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) as a member of the city’s insurance board of review. At the city council’s previous meeting, there had been a call for a council volunteer to serve on the city’s board of insurance administration – a three-person body consisting of the city treasurer and two councilmembers. Rapundalo volunteered at the last meeting to accept the mayor’s nomination and to join his Ward 2 colleague, Tony Derezinski, on the board.

Before the council on Monday night was confirmation of Rapundalo’s nomination.

The function of the board is to supervise the city’s self-insurance fund, to review all employee worker’s disability compensation claims and to handle any claims by citizens filed against the city.

The board’s composition is governed by chapter 8 of the city code, which addresses the organization of boards and commissions:

1:193. Board of Insurance Administration.
The Board of Insurance Administration shall consist of 2 members of Council appointed by the City Council, and the City Treasurer, ex officio. Said board shall supervise the self-insurance fund of the city, also referred to as the risk fund of the city, shall make recommendations concerning the actuarial sufficiency of said fund and the investment of accumulated reserves.

The board meets on the fourth Thursday of every month, so its next meeting is July 22. At that meeting the board will hear claims from residents on Iroquois Place, who experienced backups of sewage in their basements as a result of the heavy rains in early June of this year.

State law lays out the specific conditions that must be met to overcome governmental immunity for sewage backups:

(3) If a claimant, including a claimant seeking noneconomic damages, believes that an event caused property damage or physical injury, the claimant may seek compensation for the property damage or physical injury from a governmental agency if the claimant shows that all of the following existed at the time of the event:
(a) The governmental agency was an appropriate governmental agency.
(b) The sewage disposal system had a defect.
(c) The governmental agency knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, about
the defect.
(d) The governmental agency, having the legal authority to do so, failed to take reasonable steps in a
reasonable amount of time to repair, correct, or remedy the defect.
(e) The defect was a substantial proximate cause of the event and the property damage or physical injury.

Previous Chronicle coverage of the drain disconnect program, which is intended to ameliorate the basement sewage backup problem: “Drain Disconnect Time for Homeowners.” Ann Arbor has separate sanitary and stormwater sewers systems. Under the disconnect program, houses that have storm drains connected to the sanitary sewer are connected to the stormwater sewer system instead.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved Rapundalo as a member of the insurance board, with the mayor thanking Rapundalo for stepping up to serve even while his other committee obligations were already heavy.

Energy Coordinator

Before the council was a $260,000 contract with Clean Energy Coalition (CEC), an Ypsilanti-based nonprofit, to hire a community energy program coordinator. The coordinator, to be hired by CEC with input from city staff, will be supervised by Andrew Brix, the city’s energy programs manager.

The contract also includes technical assistance from CEC to a community energy financing program such as a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. The funds for the contract come from a U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) worth $1,243,400.

Outcome: The council approved the contract without discussion.

Clean Communities

Before the council was an amendment to the city’s solid waste management code related to regulations on trash left outside. As the cover memo describes it, this is the ordinance used to compel clean up after parties:

Community Standards officers often use this ordinance to compel the clean-up of any type of solid waste strewn about on the exterior premises of a property. Solid waste includes, but is not limited to, party-related debris, paper, cardboard, building materials, appliances, and other solid waste.

The substantive change to the ordinance was laid out by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). It was motivated by situations where there is a rental property, and it is tenants who have strewn the waste. Many landlords require tenants to pay fines associated with tickets issued under the ordinance. The fines are tiered based on the number of offenses at a property. However, a current tenant may not be guilty of every prior offense resulting in an increased fine amount. That inherent unfairness, said Taylor, can result in a “judicial downcharging” with lessor fines being imposed than they would otherwise.

So the amendment prevents landlords from requiring tenants to pay any fine amounts due to offenses committed prior to their own tenancy at the property [emphasis added]:

(e) No property owner, landlord, or agent who incurs fines and costs for a violation of this section shall require tenant(s) or occupant(s) to pay fines and costs for or reimburse the owner, landlord, or agent for payment of fines and costs, except in keeping with the following requirements:
(1) For a first violation within the period of time that the tenant(s) or occupant(s) reside(s) on the property, the owner, landlord, or agent shall not require the tenant(s) or occupant(s) to pay more than $200.
(2) For a second violation within the period of time that the tenant(s) or occupant(s) reside(s) on the property, the owner, landlord, or agent shall not require the tenant(s) or occupant(s) to pay more than $400.
(3) For each additional or subsequent offense within the period of time that the tenant(s) or occupant(s) reside(s) on the property, the owner, landlord, or agent shall not require the tenant(s) or occupant(s) to pay more than $1,000.

Outcome: After brief discussion, the council unanimously approved the amendment to the city’s solid waste code.

Rail Transportation

Added to the council’s agenda the same day as the meeting was a resolution expressing support for development of high-speed and intercity passenger rail service in Michigan, as well as the city’s interest in participating in a municipal rail caucus. The resolution had been requested from Ann Arbor by the The Michigan Municipal League (MML). The league is trying to enlist the support of cities located on three Amtrak routes for railroad initiatives.

Outcome: The resolution expressing support of rail transportation was passed unanimously.

Rail Transportation: Public Comment

Jim Mogensen addressed the council at the conclusion of its meeting on the topic of transportation. Several years ago, he said, the Federal Transit Administration had issued a report on the civil rights implications of rail versus bus service, he said. There is no plan for what happens to people who live on MacArthur Boulevard or other areas of Ypsilanti, he said.

There’s an Aug. 3 ballot initiative in Ypsilanti to fund transportation, he said, but it “doesn’t count” – the state attorney general has ruled that the proposal must be voted on during a general election, not a primary election. Still, he said, if it fails, people might come to the conclusion that the voters have spoken.

In the June 23, 2010 AATA board meeting packet, he said, there was an indication that $75,000 of Ann Arbor millage money had been allocated for the commuter express service to Ann Arbor from Chelsea and Canton. What, he asked, are the demographic differences between Canton and Ypsilanti? This is something that will “vex this community, if we don’t get it right,” Mogensen cautioned.

He noted that the AATA had a large public engagement process going on, but feared that we would find ourselves in a situation where people don’t understand the impact that it will have if there is no bus service to Ypsilanti. He noted that everybody adjusts and everybody will try to figure out how to cope, and stressed that he is not against rail service. But there has to be both rail as well as bus service for those who use public transportation to get around, he suggested.

Other Comment and Communications

A variety of topics were brought up during the meeting.

Communication: Design Guidelines

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that the committee working on the design guidelines as part of the A2D2 downtown rezoning process was on schedule, had really gelled as a group and might even finish its work sooner than expected.

Communication: Streetlights

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reported on a field trip at night he’d made with neighbors of the Brockman area to assess the initial result of a city program to deenergize some streetlights in order to save money. The measure was approved as part of the city’s FY 2011 budget, adopted in May 2010, and is expected to save around $120,000. The reaction of neighbors, Taylor said, was uniform: “They did not care for it.”

Communication: Sidewalk Repair

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reads the city’s public service ad about the sidewalk repair program from the Ann Arbor Observer.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) read aloud a letter from a somewhat dissatisfied constituent who had repaired their sidewalks in accordance with the city’s sidewalk repair program, but whose neighbors had not all complied.

Kunselman asked what the status of the sidewalk repair program is, noting that the city’s advertising in The Ann Arbor Observer seemed to provide conflicting information about when it ends – 2009 or 2010. Kunselman noted that citizens who complied with the city’s requirements to replace defective slabs are wondering why “scofflaws aren’t being held accountable.”

In response to Kunselman’s query, city administrator Roger Fraser indicated that the follow-up is in process.

Communication: Misc. from the City Administrator

City administrator Roger Fraser told the council that the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) would be hearing a presentation on Argo Dam at its Tuesday, July 20 meeting. The consent agreement with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment, as well as the request for proposals on repair and reconstruction of the earthen berm, would be discussed, Fraser said.

Fraser also gave an update on the city hall construction site. The DDA Fifth and Division streetscape project had come through the section of Fifth where the building is located and improvement in appearance is significant, he said. Interior work on the new building is continuing, as well as work in the basement of the old Larcom building, he reported.

Comment: Resolution Against Arizona’s Immigration Law

During public commentary reserved time, Joseph Miriani criticized the council’s resolution, passed at its last meeting on July 6, which opposed the law recently passed by the state of Arizona. The Arizona law requires local law enforcement officials to investigate the immigration status of a person, when there is reasonable suspicion they are in the country unlawfully. Miriani noted that the law explicitly prohibits racial profiling, and noted that there’s a difference between people who legally immigrate – like Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – and those who enter the county illegally.

Comment: Partridge

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for 18th District state Senate seat. He called for a “Washtenaw Promise” that would assure middle- and lower-income residents that they would be protected. He called on the city council to address significant issues like job creation, affordable housing, transportation, health care and education.

During his communications time, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that Partridge’s comments had provoked a thought – there’s been a group studying the Washtenaw Avenue corridor with respect to transportation and development. The group includes Eric Mahler of the city’s planning commission, Derezinski said, as well as Washtenaw County planner Anya Dale, who was recently appointed to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

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: Aug. 5, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

The crosswalk on Liberty Street, looking west at Crest. (Photo by the writer.)

Ann Arbor City Council Sunday caucus (Aug. 16, 2009): Sunday evening’s lightly attended city council caucus reflected a light agenda for Monday. But light as that agenda is, it had not been published in the newspaper – as one caucus attendee pointed out to the three councilmembers present: Mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Even though the agenda itself is dominated with items like perfunctory rezoning – pedestrian in the sense of “ordinary” –  there’s a presentation to be made at the start of the meeting by Sue McCormick, director of public services for the city, that should draw some community interest. She’ll be giving council an update on the East Stadium Bridge situation. The bridge needs to be repaired or replaced.

At caucus, then, residents and councilmembers were free to focus on some items not on Monday’s schedule. And one common theme cutting across two different resident concerns as well as council discussion were pedestrian issues – pedestrian in the sense of folks on foot.

In other brief discussion, councilmembers indicated, in response to a question, that they had not contemplated re-voting the issuance of bonds that would fund the underground parking garage. The legality of the council’s February vote authorizing the bonds has been challenged by a lawsuit filed last week, which contends that the council violated Michigan’s Open Meetings Act on the evening it approved the bonds.

Also at caucus, councilmembers gave a public indication that they were contemplating possible council rules changes that would affect how email communications are handled during council meetings.

Pedestrian Issues

-

King Elementary School Crosswalk

One audience member asked for an update on the installation of a crosswalk at King Elementary School, which she’d inquired about at a previous caucus meeting. Hieftje indicated that he had no new information yet, but did not expect that anything would happen before school started in the fall.

The resident told the mayor that city staff, in conversation with her, had expressed an interest in seeing the Ann Arbor Public Schools take responsibility for shoveling snow off the sidewalk in the winter.

Pedestrian Right-of-Way Ordinance

Another audience member reported having attending a recent public meeting about installation of a pedestrian refuge island at 7th and Washington. He suggested that while refuge islands and roundabouts might help a particular intersection, it would be more effective to think about the broader educational goal of reminding motorists of the ordinance that gives pedestrians the right-of-way. Signs of the kind that Traverse City uses, he said, would be a step in the right direction.

By way of background, the pedestrian right-of-way ordinance in Ann Arbor reads as follows:

10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets.

(a) No pedestrian shall cross a street at a location other than at a crosswalk into which vehicle traffic is then restricted by a traffic control device unless such crossing may be done safely and without interfering with motor vehicle and bicycle traffic on that street.

(b) No operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle shall interfere with pedestrian or bicycle traffic in a crosswalk into which vehicle traffic is then restricted by a traffic control device.

(c) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger, but a pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

The ordinance itself has been criticized in recent months on the Washenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition Google Group for not providing right-of-way to pedestrians in the whole crosswalk. Wrote Matt G.:

Carsten Hohnke is working hard to have our pedestrian ordinance changed to provide right-of-way in the entire crosswalk (anything less is NOT actually a right-of-way). It’s a great place to start. We need to show him support by helping to educate other council members and city staff.

Hohnke is one of two representatives from Ward 5 to the city council.

At caucus, Hieftje said that the 7th and Washington intersection warranted specific attention, but that the broader educational angle was one that the city was also pursuing. He pointed out that the city had allocated $10,000 for non-motorized safety education. That funding was authorized at council’s June 15, 2009 meeting.

Hieftje reiterated what Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, had said at the June 1, 2009 council meeting about one fundamental challenge of motorist education in Ann Arbor:  Half of the drivers on the roads of Ann Arbor don’t live here.

Alley to the east of the McKinley Towne-Hall Centre, shown in an Ann Arbor city planning staff report. (Image links to larger version).

Mid-Block Cut-Through

During caucus discussion among councilmembers, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported to her colleagues that she’d had a meeting with Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Ray Detter, who’s president of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council, and  Steve Kaplan about the alley to the west of the Liberty Square (Tally Hall).

Some background on the alley. At its Jan. 7, 2008 meeting, the city council approved a PUD rezoning for McKinley Towne Centre-Liberty at 515 E. Liberty St.

The planning commission deliberations on the issue included considerable discussion of closure of the alley on the west side of the parcel that was proposed for the PUD by the petitioner.

The planning staff report includes an analysis of the alley on the east side of the parcel as an alternative pedestrian path from Liberty to Washington:

Staff finds that this alley does offer pedestrians a mid-block passage between East Liberty and East Washington Streets, but only for those “in the know.” It does provide a useful function and makes closing the existing alley on the west side of the proposed PUD site less concerning. However, it is not an ideal space to safely convey pedestrians, mostly because of the portion that is the theater loading dock. Staff would be concerned about promoting its use for the general public.

Looking north from Liberty Street down the alley to Washington Street. The black posts at the alley's entrance are bollards. (Photo by the writer.)

Briere said there was concern that the bollards that had now been installed would cause people to perceive the alley as not public. She was also concerned that any delivery trucks entering the alley from Washington Street to service the new retail locations would have to back their way out onto Washington.

Briere also wondered if an alley that was lined its entire width with cafe tables – one possible use if the adjoining retail space just built by McKinley houses a restaurant – would be conducive to conveying pedestrians between Liberty and Washington.

The bollards that have been installed can be removed – there’s a bolt visible at the base – but are not the kind that can simply be run over by an emergency vehicle if that need should arise, Briere said.

Parking Garage Bonds

The recent lawsuit filed by the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center against the city of Ann Arbor contends that the city council violated the Michigan Open Meetings Act when it authorized the issuance of general obligation bonds at its Feb. 17 meeting. The suit asks for declaratory relief that in part invalidates that council decision:

(c) Enter an order which invalidates City Council’s approval of the site plan for the Parking Garage and the bonding to fund the project which occurred at its meeting on February 17, 2009 ;

At its July 20, 2009 meeting, council authorized a change from tax-free municipal bonds to taxable bonds – the increased cost being more than offset by the Build America Bond Program. The Chronicle had inquired at the July 19 caucus whether that change would require an additional 45-day window, during which citizens would have the opportunity to circulate a petition that – if successful in achieving signatures from 10% of registered voters – would force a voter referendum on the bond issuance.

When the council considered the matter at its July 20 meeting, Briere explained that night that they’d learned no additional 45-day period would be required, because it had been satisfied with the Feb. 17 vote. But what if the council on July 20 had simply taken a new vote on the bond issuance? That vote would have taken out of play the contention in GLELC’s lawsuit that the Feb. 17 vote was not valid.

Council could conceivably re-vote the bond issue even now, as a strategy to take the financial piece of the equation out of jeopardy. So the question The Chronicle asked the three councilmembers present was: Has anyone given any consideration to undertaking such a re-vote?

They had not contemplated such a re-vote themselves, nor were they aware that anyone else had, either.

Possible Council Rule Changes

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who chairs the council’s rules committee, had asked Briere to request that a work session be held on the topic of council ethics and rules. Briere reported that she’d done that.  However, the next available work session would be in October. September’s work session is already committed to a joint meeting with planning commission on A2D2 zoning. October was a long time to wait, said Briere.

Mayor John Hieftje indicated his preference for just putting the rules changes on the agenda for the council’s Sept. 8 meeting and discussing them at the table. Briere said she’d like to get a draft of the proposed rules changes out and available for people to look at as soon as possible. Hieftje said he thought that should be possible as early as next Tuesday.

The rule changes, Briere indicated, would address email, as well as an issue with newspaper publication of notices and agendas. Council will likely eliminate its own rule that requires it to publish its agenda in the local newspaper.  The FY 2010 budget, which council adopted earlier this year, aimed to save $15,000 by no longer publishing the counci’s agenda in the newspaper.

Notices Published in Newspapers

One resident addressed councilmembers on the issue of publication of notices and agendas in the newspaper. She noted that public hearings for the planning commission and the historic district commission had been published in “the Sunday paper, such as we have now,” but that the city council agenda had not been published there.

She said  the public hearings for planning were required by the city code. She’s right – from Chapter 57 of the code for the city of Ann Arbor:

A written notice shall be sent to the petitioner and to the property owners and residents within 300 feet of the boundary of the property not less than 10 days before the Planning Commission hearing indicating the time, date and location of the hearing. A notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 7 days before the hearing. [emphasis added]

And council has a rule that requires the publication of its agenda:

The approved agenda for all meetings of Council, including Work Sessions, shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City no later than the Sunday prior to each meeting, except those meetings called less than six days prior to a meeting.

The caucus attendee suggested that the reason council did not publish its agenda was because it cost a lot of money to publish it. Based on the budget discussions earlier in the year, that’s in fact the case.

The caucus attendee also pointed out that the definition of what counted as a newspaper required that it have been published at least a year, in order to qualify as “legitimate.” Here’s the state statue statute to which she was alluding – MCLA 691.1051:

The term “newspaper” as used in any statute of this state, except the revised judicature act of 1961 relative to the publication of a notice of any kind, shall be construed to refer only to a newspaper published in the English language for the dissemination of local or transmitted news and intelligence of a general character or for the dissemination of legal news, which

(a) has a bona fide list of paying subscribers or has been published at not less than weekly intervals in the same community without interruption for at least 2 years, and

(b) has been published and of general circulation at not less than weekly intervals without interruption for at least 1 year in the county, township, city, village or district where the notice is required to be published. A newspaper shall not lose eligibility for interruption of continuous publication because of acts of God, labor disputes or because of military service of the publisher for a period of not to exceed 2 years and provided publication is resumed within 6 months following the termination of such military service,

(c) annually averages at least 25% news and editorial content per issue. The term “news and editorial content” for the purpose of this section means any printed matter other than advertising.