A cross-lot path that leads from Roon the Ben in the Turnberry neighborhood to the ballfields for Scarlett-Mitchell schools. A pending ordinance change could eventually place responsibility for capital repairs on the city, but give adjacent property owners the responsibility of shoveling snow. (Photos by the writer.)

First, councilmembers postponed a decision on a change to the definition of “sidewalk” in the city code – which would have implications for the adjacent property owners of “cross-lot paths.” While the definitional change would allow the city to take responsibility for capital repairs on such cross-lot paths – using sidewalk repair millage funds – it would place the burden of winter snow shoveling on adjacent property owners.

That division of responsibility for repair and maintenance is one that’s now familiar to owners of property adjacent to sidewalks that run next to a road or a street. Given the number of open questions about how logistics would actually work, and concerns expressed during the public hearing on July 1 as well as at a previous public meeting on the topic, the council decided to postpone a final vote until Oct. 7, 2013.

Second, the council postponed a vote on adding the South State Street corridor plan to the city’s master plan, which consists of several separate documents. The city planning commission has already voted to adopt the corridor plan as part of the master plan. It’s one of the few issues on which the planning commission does not act just as an advisory body that makes recommendations to the council. For the master plan, the council and the planning commission must adopt the same plan. The postponement came in deference to a request from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). The area of the study lies in Ward 4, which she represents.

Despite the postponement, the South State Street corridor plan still had an impact on a decision made by the council – to deny a rezoning request for the parcel at 2271 S. State St. The change in zoning would have allowed the parcel to be used for car sales. That use isn’t consistent with the recommendations in the corridor plan, and the planning commission had recommended against rezoning on that basis. Even though it was just the initial vote on the rezoning – an occasion when councilmembers sometimes will advance an ordinance change to a second reading in order to allow a public hearing to take place – the rezoning request got no support on the council.

In contrast, the initial rezoning requested for the Kerrytown Place project – an 18-unit townhouse development at the location of the former Greek Orthodox church on North Main Street – received unanimous approval at the council’s July 1 meeting.

Also related to land use, the council reconstituted a 12-member citizens advisory committee to study the R4C zoning area. The re-establishment of the group, which was originally appointed in 2009, comes after the planning commission had voted at its April 16, 2013 meeting to send recommendations to the city council for revisions to the R4C zoning areas. The recommended revisions were not the actual ordinance language. That language would need to be written after councilmembers sign off on the general recommendations. No action is expected by the council until the committee has met two or three times.

Another committee reconstituted by the council on July 1 was a group to sort through some contentious issues between the council and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The council has postponed until Sept. 3 a final decision on a change to Chapter 7 of the city code, which regulates the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The four councilmembers on the committee are: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Two days later, at its regular monthly meeting, the DDA’s complement was appointed: Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel, Joan Lowenstein and Sandi Smith.

A proposed video privacy ordinance that was on the council’s July 1 agenda did not win sufficient support to advance to a second reading. The proposal would have regulated the way that public surveillance cameras could be used by local law enforcement officials. Although the vote was 5-4 in favor, that fell short of the six-vote majority it needed on the 11-member body. So the council voted down the video privacy ordinance on its initial consideration – having postponed the issue several times previously.

The council also decided to delay adoption of amendments to its own internal rules – out of deference to two councilmembers who were absent from the meeting: Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). Highlights of the rule changes include the addition of a public commentary opportunity at council work sessions, and reduction in the time per turn for the public from three to two minutes. A change in councilmember speaking times equates to a reduction from eight minutes to five minutes total per item for each councilmember.

The council handled a number of other items during the meeting, including the adoption of the 2009 International Fire Code, a location change for the Ward 2 Precinct 8 polling place, approval of a special assessment to help pay for sidewalk and curb improvements along Miller Avenue, and confirmation of appointments to boards and commissions.

Sidewalk Definition Change

The council was asked to given final consideration to an ordinance amendment that would change the definition of “sidewalk.”

Sidewalk Definition: Background

The new definition of “sidewalk” would expand the existing definition to include non-motorized paths that are [emphasis added] “designed particularly for pedestrian, bicycle, or other nonmotorized travel and that is constructed (1) in the public right of way or (2) within or upon an easement or strip of land taken or accepted by the city or dedicated to and accepted by the city for public use by pedestrians, bicycles, or other nonmotorized travel, …”

The impetus behind the proposed change is several “cross-lot paths” that exist in the city, where it’s somewhat unclear who owns the land or who’s responsible for repair and winter snow clearing.

If the council changes the ordinance and it also accepts the “cross-lot” paths for public use – through a formal resolution – the impact of the “sidewalk” definition change would be twofold. First, it would make the paths eligible to be repaired by the city using sidewalk millage funds. But it would also make adjoining property owners responsible for winter snow clearing.

Also on the agenda was a resolution accepting 33 cross-lot paths for public use.

The staff summary of a meeting with owners of property adjoining the cross-lot paths included this: “There was a general consensus amongst attendees at the public meeting that city council should postpone voting on these items until further discussion can be had and more details can be worked out.” For many of the specific paths, there was a reluctance to accept the responsibility of snow removal during the winter. [.pdf of maps for all 33 cross-lot sidewalks]

The council had given initial approval to the definition change at its June 3, 2013 meeting.

Sidewalk Definition: Public Hearing

Sherif Afifi introduced himself as the owner of a parcel adjacent to one of the cross-lot paths. He summarized how he sees the issue: The paths are used by a limited number of people [not necessarily the property owners] to provide convenience for them. Transferring financial and legal responsibility to a limited number of people [property owners] for the benefit of others didn’t seem fair to him. An additional problem Afifi identified was the fact that the responsibility would be shared by at least two people [the properties on either side of the cross-lot path.] He asked the council to postpone a vote, to allow further study and input from the public, including people who use the paths. He’d sent a detailed memo to some councilmembers. He felt that if “we could get our minds together” it would be possible to come up with something that everyone would be happy with. He offered to provide as much help as he could.

John Ohanian approached the podium using a wheelchair. He wanted to talk about a letter from the city that says he’s responsible for maintenance of the walkway from Frederick and Middleton drives into Greenbrier Park.

This cross-lot path was described by John Ohanian as one that he’d become responsible for shoveling if the city adopted the change in the definition of sidewalk.

He’d talked to city engineer Deborah Gosselin about that property and stressed to her that he doesn’t own that property. Every year for 47 years the city has cut the grass on either side of the walkway and maintained it, he said. Now the city is asking him to take responsibility for the liability. He described how the property has a timber wall on the edge of it and the kids like to play on it, by walking across the top of it pretending they’re the “Wallendas.” He can’t stop them, he said, and if they ever fall, then he’d be responsible, which he didn’t think was right.

Ohanian also pointed out that the walkway is not for a general good, but for a specific purpose: the entrance to a parkway. It’s been maintained by the city of Ann Arbor for 47 years. And what the city is trying to do now is shift the liability to him by calling it a “sidewalk” when it’s not a sidewalk, he said. The city can’t impose an insurance liability on him for property he doesn’t own, he added.

He’d heard from the city staff that the city also doesn’t own the property. With respect to the ability of the city to use sidewalk millage funds for capital repair, he pointed out that the millage is for five years at a time. That meant that he’d have responsibility for the repair of the walkway depending on the passage or non-passage of the millage by voters. If the city was going to transfer the responsibility and liability to him, then the city should transfer the land to him in a favorable way.

Miranda Wellborn Eleazar introduced herself as the owner, with her husband, of a property adjacent to a pathway to Mitchell Elementary School and Scarlett Middle School.

This is the cross-lot path that the Eleazars would become responsible for shoveling, if the change to the definition of sidewalk is adopted.

She described the pathway as well-used by many people, at all hours. But she objected to the idea that she’ll be made liable for maintenance. There’s no reason for her and her husband to take over maintenance, given that the school district is currently maintaining it, she said. She understood that the current sidewalk repair millage would cover the capital repair of the pathway through 2017, but she wondered what would happen if the millage were not renewed. The ordinance amendment that changes the definition of a sidewalk is just the easy way to go, she said. She suggested that in situations where there is someone already maintaining and snowplowing the path, that person or entity should be made responsible. She would not be able to shovel all the snow, she said.

Jeff Hayner wondered how a request for a sidewalk ordinance change comes about. He pointed out that there are another 28 paths – beyond the 33 cross-lot paths – described in the staff memo. So the council would only be acting on half of the paths. He encouraged the council to postpone action.

Thomas Partridge advocated for fairness and rejected the use of Republican Tea Party tactics in determining fees. Many residents of the county and the state are being driven out of their homes due to the unfairness of flat-rate taxes and fees, he contended, including sidewalk repair assessments.

Sidewalk Definition: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by saying that he’d vote against the change. It’s not a fair way to approach the topic, he contended. Picking up on the remarks of John Ohanian made during the public hearing, Kunselman said the city has been maintaining a path for 47 years, and he wondered why it would stop. If a school is currently maintaining a path, then arrangements should be made to continue that. So he’d vote against the change in the definition.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who sponsored the ordinance change, asked assistant city attorney Abigail Elias and public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium. Briere said that in her own research, she’d learned it wasn’t clear who owns the property. Elias indicated that the language is different in each of the plats. Responding to Briere, Elias didn’t answer the question of whether the ordinance change would give the city an easement or title to the land. Rather, Elias indicated the ordinance would give “access.” Elias said she had not looked at the issue of who owns the property.

Responding to a question from Briere, Hupy confirmed that if the ordinance doesn’t go forward with the change in the definition to “sidewalk,” then the city doesn’t believe it can use sidewalk millage money to repair the cross-lot paths.

Briere asked Hupy if the city thinks it’s appropriate to place the burden for winter maintenance on adjacent property owners. Hupy responded in part by saying the school district is not interested in making the capital improvements – so the city was attempting to find a way to pay for that. Later during the deliberations Hupy ventured that schools might be reluctant to undertake capital repairs because they’re barred by state law from making investments on property they don’t own. Some of the winter maintenance that the school district is doing, he said, is actually done out of convenience to the district staff – to find a good place to turn around, for example. The burden of winter maintenance, Hupy said, is the “collateral damage” associated with the city’s use of sidewalk millage funds for the capital repairs. Briere indicated that she had a problem with the redefinition of who’s responsible for the winter maintenance.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ventured that these paths could somehow be defined as a subset of “sidewalks.” She floated the idea of postponing the ordinance change. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) observed that many councilmembers have a desire to use the sidewalk millage to repair the paths. But he pointed out there’s another problem as well – that non-motorized connections have actually been lost because there’s not a mechanism for accepting them for public use. He was inclined to support the ordinance change, because it puts a mechanism in place to accept a path into public use. But that doesn’t mean that the council has to accept all 33 of the paths for public use. It might be a much smaller set, Warpehoski said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that not all 33 paths were found to be in current need of repair. Hupy indicated that last year there were four paths in dire need of repair that were not repaired, because they were not accepted for public use. Lumm didn’t like the “no-man’s land” aspect of the situation. She saw it as a positive that the millage funds could be used. But the burden on property owners of winter maintenance is a problem, she said.

Mayor John Hieftje.

Lumm indicated agreement with John Ohanian, who spoke during the public hearing to argue that if there’s to be a transfer of responsibility for the maintenance, then the land transfer should be done in a way that’s “favorable” to the property owner. Lumm elicited from Elias the fact that under some circumstances, an owner of property adjoining a path could be required to mow grass in the summer too, as well as clear snow in the winter.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that the 33 paths should be looked at individually and judged on an individual basis.

After summarizing the situation, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) followed up on a possibility raised by Higgins: Can the city find a way to use the sidewalk millage without causing the burden of day-to-day upkeep to shift? Elias traced the issue to the definition of “sidewalk.” So Taylor floated the idea of tabling or delaying in some other way.

Lumm moved to postpone the vote until the first meeting in October, which is Oct. 7. Warpehoski asked how a postponement would affect the pathways that are in dire need of repair. Hupy indicated the postponement would mean they wouldn’t get repaired this year. Mayor John Hieftje ventured that if the city has muddled along all this time, three months wouldn’t hurt.

Kunselman mooted the idea of not using sidewalk millage funds to do the repair of those walkways in dire need of repair. He gave an example of a path that was repaired with park maintenance millage funds. Kunselman suggested that it might be necessary to research the history of the platting, saying that if the city asked for the public paths in the first place, then the city should maintain them.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the change in the definition of sidewalks until Oct. 7. Later in the meeting, the council also voted to postpone the acceptance of the 33 sidewalks for public use until its first meeting in October.

South State Street Corridor Plan

The council was asked to consider the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan into Ann Arbor’s master plan.

The city planning commission had voted unanimously to adopt the plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting. More commonly when the planning commission votes on a matter, it’s to recommend action by the city council. For master plans, however, the planning commission is on equal footing with the council: both groups must adopt the same plan.

Planning commissioners and staff have been working on this project for more than two years. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "State Street Corridor Study Planned," “Sustainability Goals Shape Corridor Study,” “Ideas Floated for South State Corridor.” and “South State Corridor Gets Closer Look.”]

Recommendations in the South State Street corridor plan are organized into categories of the city’s recently adopted sustainability framework: Land use and access, community, climate and energy, and resource management. Among the recommendations are: (1) Evaluate use of vacant parcels for alternative energy generation; (2) Evaluate integrating public art along the corridor; (3) Evaluate use of open land for community gardens; (4) Assess and improve high crash areas along the corridor; (5) create boulevard on State Street between Eisenhower and I‐94 to enable safer automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; (6) Consider utilizing vacant parcels for athletic fields and recreation facilities; (7) Develop a pedestrian and bicycle path along the Ann Arbor railroad that will connect the planned Allen Creek bikeway to Pittsfield Township through the corridor; and (8) Resurface roads in the corridor.

Each recommendation includes several related action items. The plan also provides a section that organizes the recommendations into each of three distinct sections of the corridor: (1) from Stimson on the north to Eisenhower Parkway; (2) from Eisenhower south to the I-94 interchange; and (3) from I-94 to Ellsworth. In addition, there are nine site-specific recommendations for areas including Briarwood Mall, the complex of hotels near Victors Way and Broadway, and the research park development near the corridor’s south end.

From left: Ward 1 councilmembers Sumi Kailasapathy and Sabra Briere.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council’s appointee to the planning commission, introduced the proposal. She said that the South State Street corridor plan was being treated as a model – because it links the recommendations to the sustainability framework that the council had adopted. She described it as very rigorous and helpful for understanding why the recommendations are what they are. The question for the council was whether to add the document to the city’s master plan. The planning commission had been impressed with the work, Briere said, as had been the environmental commission. The North Main Huron River corridor study task force had also positively reviewed the way the corridor plan had been done. So she encouraged councilmembers to include the South State Street corridor plan in the city’s master plan.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she was not supportive of including the plan in the city’s master plan. She still had some concerns in the southern part of the corridor, particularly in the Research Park area. As the economic development collaborative task force has begun its work, that area has come up in discussion, she reported. [The council had appointed the task force at its May 20, 2013 meeting.]

So Higgins asked for a postponement for two weeks.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the South State Street corridor plan until July 15, 2013.

Rezoning for Car Dealership

On the July 1 agenda was a rezoning request for 2271 S. State St. that would have allowed the owner to sell cars on the parcel.

The council was asked to give initial approval to rezoning the parcel from M1 (limited industrial district) to M1A (limited light industrial district). The city planning commission vote on the recommendation was taken at its May 21, 2013 meeting. That vote came out 1-8, with only Eric Mahler supporting it. So the planning commission’s recommendation was for denial.

Rezoning for Car Dealership: Public Comment

Local attorney Scott Munzel addressed the council during the public hearing on the South State Street corridor plan – because the rezoning itself was only up for initial consideration and did not include a public hearing. Munzel was representing the property owner of 2271 S. State St. Munzel pointed out that the proposed rezoning was consistent with the master plan, before the South State Street corridor plan was put forward. He asked the council to remember that when the council considered the rezoning request.

Rezoning for Car Dealership: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pointed out that the council in the past has put off rezoning decisions based on the pending work on the South State Street corridor plan.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson gave the example of the Biercamp property, for which rezoning was not approved because the South State Street corridor study was just getting started at that time. There was also a rezoning request across the street from Biercamp, she noted, so that a property could be used as a medical marijuana dispensary. [The Biercamp rezoning was denied at the council's Feb. 21, 2012 meeting. The rezoning request from Treecity Health Collective was denied at the council's Oct. 3, 2011 meeting.]

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ventured that the city council has the final say on the South State Street corridor plan – to which Rampson replied, “kinda sorta.” The planning commission and the city council have to concur, Rampson noted. Higgins felt like the property owner had been in the pipeline for a while before the South State Street corridor study was under way. Rampson and Higgins engaged in back-and-forth on timing of the citizen participation meetings for the corridor plan and the proposed project’s requiring rezoning.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) drew out the fact that McKinley Inc. had written a letter of support for the corridor plan. Kunselman also noted that the adjoining school bus parking lot might not be a factor – as the school district might decide not to continue to offer transportation in the future.

Kunselman wondered if it’s good policy to get rid of manufacturing zoning. Rampson explained that the planning commission had also grappled with that question. She pointed to Area 1C in the plan that recommends maintaining the current uses, which include manufacturing. The area around the parcel that’s requested to be rezoned, Rampson said, has already seen some transition to office use.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to deny initial approval to the rezoning of 2271 S. State Street.

Kerrytown Place

The council was asked to give initial approval to the rezoning that’s necessary to construct Kerrytown Place – a proposed development at 414 N. Main and 401 N. Fourth Ave.

Kerrytown Place is a project that Tom Fitzsimmons is planning to build on the site of the former Greek Orthodox church on Main Street. The rezoning would be from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district). The 18-unit townhouse development that Fitzsimmons is planning to build is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved at the request of a different owner.

The city planning commission gave a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting. On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council’s appointee to the city planning commission, introduced the items and briefly recited the history of the previously proposed project by a different owner. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he was pleased to support the rezoning. He reminded his council colleagues that when the property was in the hands of the Washtenaw County treasurer, he’d proposed doing something similar – rezoning the property on the council’s initiative. [That proposal of Kunselman's had been voted down by the council at its Aug. 20, 2012 meeting.]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the rezoning changes necessary for the Kerrytown Place project. Rezoning requests require a second and final vote – at a meeting when the site plan is likely to be presented as well.

R4C Advisory Committee

The council considered a resolution to re-establish a citizens advisory committee to provide input on changes in the city’s R4C (multi-family) zoning category.

The idea for re-establishing the group comes after the planning commission had voted at its April 16, 2013 meeting to send recommendations to the city council for revisions to the R4C zoning areas – but without the actual wording of the ordinance changes.

The recommendations are described in two phases. The changes in the first phase are seen as somewhat less controversial, but still diverge in places from those of the advisory committee. For the first phase, the planning commission recommended:

• Parking requirements are less stringent: Recommendations adopted by the planning commission are to make parking requirements less stringent than either the existing requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit or the advisory committee recommendations (1.5 spaces per unit for 0-4 bedroom units, and 2 spaces per unit for 5-6 bedrooms). The planning commission recommendation is for 1 space per unit for 0-4 bedrooms, and 1.5 spaces per unit for 5-6 bedrooms.
• Lot combinations need approval: Planning commission approval would be required for lot combinations in R4C districts, as part of a project’s site plan review. Review standards would be developed, as well as standards for design and massing, to ensure that new development is compatible with the neighborhood. [The advisory committee had recommended instituting a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet, equal to an allowable density of three units. The consensus on the ordinance revisions committee (ORC) of the planning commission was that this maximum lot size would be too restrictive.]
• Conflicting land use buffer for vehicle areas only: The only areas that would require screening would be those used for vehicles – such as areas used for parking. This recommendation essentially reverts to the requirements used prior to 2011, when the city instituted changes to its landscape ordinance. Those changes expanded the conflicting land use buffer requirement in R4C districts to apply to the screening of buildings, in addition to vehicular use areas. The change resulted in an increase in variance requests for redevelopment in R4C districts, given the small size of the lots. [The issue was not part of the advisory committee's recommendations.]
• Further study of R2A district: Further study is called for to determine if the R2A lot size should be reduced to 6,000 square feet, allowing opportunities for duplex conversions. This number is based on the lot size requirement that was in place prior to 1984, when the requirement was raised to 8,500 square feet. [The advisory committee did not recommend zoning changes in the R2A district.]

Based on discussions among staff and the ORC at several meetings attended by The Chronicle, these first-phase recommendations are seen as somewhat easier to implement, because it’s felt there’s general consensus on them.

A second phase would focus on creating a “group housing” zoning district, but that is recognized as controversial.

Any affirmative action by the council on the planning commission’s recommendations at this point would be to direct the planning commission to develop the ordinance language reflecting the recommendations. At that point, the planning commission would need to approve the proposed ordinance language, with final action still required by the council.

Membership on the reconstituted citizens advisory committee that the council was asked to consider included 12 people. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will represent the planning commission. Chuck Carver will represent rental property owners. From the wards: Ilene Tyler and Ray Detter (Ward 1); Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2); Ellen Rambo and Michelle Derr (Ward 3); Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4); Eppie Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5). Weatherbee was designated as chair of the group.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) introduced the resolution, alluding to a neighborhood meeting that had taken place the previous week – in Rose White Park. The issue of the recommendations that are coming to the council was discussed. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Higgins for her work. Lumm wondered when the council might be asked to act on the recommendations. Higgins indicated that the committee would meet only two or three times. But she said that before the council acts on the planning commission recommendations, the committee should be able to weigh in.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to re-establish the R4C citizens advisory committee.

Video Privacy Law

The council was asked to give initial approval to a proposed new local law regulating the use of public surveillance cameras.

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

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

The new ordinance would allow for public surveillance cameras to be installed for 15 days or less at the discretion of the city administrator if the purpose were to address a specific criminal problem. But a period of longer than 15 days would have required two-thirds of nearby residents to give written permission. Regardless of the period of the installation, onsite notice of the camera’s presence was to have been required.

The council had voted several times previously to postpone consideration of the ordinance. The most recent postponement had come at the council’s June 17, 2013 meeting. The council seemed willing to postpone a vote on that occasion based on the fact that police chief John Seto was not available to answer questions about the impact on law enforcement activities. Some councilmembers indicated at that meeting a reluctance even to give the ordinance an initial approval. Ordinances require an initial approval followed by a second vote taken at a subsequent meeting, after a public hearing.

Video Privacy: Public Commentary

During public commentary, several people addressed the council on the topic of the video privacy ordinance.

Will Leaf rejected the idea that the ordinance would tie the hands of the police. [His involvement with the topic dates back several years. He led Students Against Surveillance at the University of Michigan.] Leaf cited news media articles on the topic. They included a June 19, 2013 LA Times article about Muslims suing the New York City Police Department over surveillance of congregants at mosques that has included video surveillance.

Leaf also cited an Oct. 25, 2010 article in The Guardian about the dismantling of video surveillance cameras in Birmingham, England, and a Jan. 13, 2006 BBC News article about CCTV camera operators who pointed cameras into a woman’s apartment and observed her in a state of undress. Leaf said that if public surveillance cameras are installed, then they should be regulated. He pointed out that the ordinance wouldn’t affect any cameras currently in place. He got a round of applause from the roughly two dozen people attended the council meeting in support of the ordinance.

Leslie Stambaugh, who’s chair of the city’s human rights commission, agreed with Leaf. She pointed out that the ordinance originated with a citizens group. She posed the rhetorical question: Why can’t we just trust the police only to adopt this practice when they need it? It seems modern and effective, she allowed, but video surveillance hasn’t been shown to reduce or solve crime, she contended. For nuisance crimes, she allowed it might have some benefit. The city of Lansing had installed 11 cameras, which wound up costing $2.3 million , she said. The Ann Arbor human rights commission doesn’t like video surveillance, she said, and the ACLU doesn’t like it. If the city wants to use video cameras for surveillance, it needs to be regulated, she concluded.

Kent Weichmann weighed in to support the video privacy ordinance. Michael Benson weighed in briefly against it at the conclusion of his remarks during public commentary.

Video Privacy: Council Deliberations

Police chief John Seto addressed the council from the podium to start the discussion on the ordinance.

Ann Arbor chief of police John Seto marched in the 4th of July parade held three days after the council meeting. In the background of the photo is Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton.

He had reviewed many versions of the ordinance, and he thanked everyone for their work. He noted that the ordinance has been under discussion for several years. By way of additional background, the council had been alerted to the forthcoming ordinance proposal six months ago when Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) told his colleagues at their Dec. 17, 2012 meeting that he and wardmate Mike Anglin would be bringing a proposal forward.

And before that, former Ward 1 councilmember Sandi Smith had announced at a council meeting on Aug. 4, 2011 that she’d be bringing a video surveillance ordinance for consideration at the council’s Sept. 6, 2011 meeting. That draft ordinance never came forward for consideration. And a year before that, Smith had indicated the city’s human rights commission would be working on the issue.

Seto said he was sorry that he was not able to attend the previous council meeting, when the council had the item on its agenda. The council had postponed the item so that he could be available to answer questions. Seto said he’d start with a general statement. As chief, Seto said, his responsibility is to provide service and protection for all. He recognized that responsibility had to be balanced between what can be done and what should be done – specifically in the area of technology. He would not deploy technology or implement a policing practice that would have negative implications on community relations or community engagement. Determining that balance is a challenge.

Seto stressed that it’s difficult to determine the appropriate balance, when the kind of video surveillance that’s contemplated by the ordinance is not being done in the city. He could not predict the security concerns and policing needs of the future. Large crowds themselves create an added risk.

Annotation of draft ordinance, in which police chief John Seto notes that large crowds pose a possibly increase risk.

He gave some examples of some concerns he has about the ordinance in its current form. He believed that large crowds in themselves create a threat, or at the very least, a heightened security risk that the police must address. In light of the recent Boston marathon bombing, Seto said – and in light of the added security concerns that he’d considered subsequently in connection with the Ann Arbor marathon – he couldn’t support an ordinance that would potentially limit his ability to monitor large crowds like those associated with a marathon or University of Michigan football games, or street closures that result in large crowds.

He also felt that short-term use of cameras could be potentially useful for apprehending suspects involved in a specific crime, when there’s credible information. He appreciated the fact that the ordinance provided for the short-term use of cameras without requiring permission from neighbors. However, he felt that the requirement that a notice be posted to alert people to the presence of a camera could hinder an investigation. The ability to use live monitoring only when there’s an imminent risk would be limiting, he said.

His main concern, Seto said, is that he does not know what kind of unknown impacts such an ordinance might have. Because he can’t know the policing needs of the future, there could be unintended consequences, he said. His main two concerns were about large crowds and specific short-term criminal investigations, he said.

He also highlighted a concern with the definition of the cameras that would fall under the ordinance.

There are currently many privately-owned camera surveillance systems that the police might seek to gain access to in connection with a criminal investigation, he said. There were many examples of crimes being solved by using such information, he said. So he wondered if the ordinance would prevent AAPD officers from using information from a privately-owned camera system in its investigations. [.pdf of draft ordinance annotated with comments from various staff]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked Seto if he saw the ordinance as limiting compared to what’s been done in the past. Seto couldn’t recall a case where an unmanned camera had been used and simply been mounted on a pole. One exception was a case when AAPD had worked in cooperation with a property owner, Seto said, and the camera was installed on the property. The possibility of using cameras had been discussed, but Seto did not believe cameras had been used in such a manner since he had assumed a leadership role in the department.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if Seto was familiar with the West Willow neighborhood in Ypsilanti Township. Kunselman ventured that his own impression from media accounts was that the neighborhood had requested installation of cameras and that crime had been deterred through the use of cameras. Seto wasn’t able to confirm Kunselman’s impression in any detail.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) ventured that former police chief Barnett Jones felt that video surveillance installations would never be accepted in Ann Arbor by the community. He asked if Seto felt that the ordinance would give Seto the regulatory framework that would allow those community concerns to be addressed. Seto said he couldn’t speak to Jones’ concerns. He reviewed the main concerns he had about the ordinance potentially inhibiting effective law enforcement. He also ventured that it’s possible that times have somewhat changed, in the few years that the ordinance has been under discussion.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that one of her concerns about crowd surveillance was that almost all of the footage that was useful in the Boston marathon bombing had been from private cameras. It wasn’t police surveillance. As a general statement, “police surveillance” gave her pause. She appreciated that the human rights commission, Warpehoski and Anglin had tried to find a balance – between not giving police general permission, but allowing the police to pursue a discrete goal. But she wondered if the balance had actually been found. Seto responded to Briere by saying that he’s not advocating the use of cameras, but felt that if the need does arise, he wants to make sure that he has flexibility.

Kunselman referred to the comments made during the public commentary about the possibility of police misconduct by personnel in the use of cameras. Seto responded to Kunselman by indicating that the in-car video cameras already used by officers are subject to departmental policies.

Mayor John Hieftje cited a memo written by Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, about the use of cameras in parking structures. Her memo reads in part: “The parking structures are unique, in that they are psychologically viewed by many as very scary places. Because downtown relies on people feeling safe, the parking structures must be included as one of the city-owned sites where security cameras are permitted.”

Hieftje also cited the issue of the perception of safety – saying that some people say they’d feel more comfortable in an underground parking garage if there were video surveillance.

Hieftje noted that in 2001-02 there had been problems in Liberty Plaza, and the city had filmed from the building overlooking the park. Those cameras were hand-held, Hieftje allowed. But he wanted to know if Seto felt that the ordinance would inhibit the police department’s ability to undertake necessary operations.

City administrator Steve Powers and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wondered if the required sign stating the presence of a camera would undermine the point of the surveillance. For short-term use, Seto said, the sign could potentially have a negative impact. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) discussed with Seto the requirements for installing cameras. She recounted how all the windows of her car had been smashed in the Fourth & Washington parking structure, but there were no cameras in place to capture any footage.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) described the ordinance as possibly “a regulation too far.” But he noted that the police chief’s job description was similar to the council’s job: Law enforcement should be consistent with community values. So Taylor felt it should be voted forward to a second reading, which would provide an opportunity for a public hearing.

Kailasapathy ventured that the FBI would not have to adhere to the local ordinance, if the FBI wanted to conduct surveillance. Seto indicated that he thought this observation was correct. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) brought up the issue of University of Michigan football games, saying she thought that crowds are currently monitored for football games. Seto indicated that on a liberal interpretation, the ordinance might have an impact on his ability to use cameras for football crowd monitoring. But UM would be able to use cameras independently of the city ordinance, Seto said.

Kunselman inquired what the law is when a camera catches someone doing something illegal on their own property. He wondered if someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. City attorney Stephen Postema responded to Kunselman by saying he had not researched the issue. Higgins ventured that if the city has been working on the ordinance for a long time, then surely the city has an understanding of what privacy in a home means.

Kailasapathy followed up on the privacy issue by asking if it’s OK for a camera to be trained on a front door to monitor who is entering and leaving a residence. Postema responded by saying it depends on what is done with the footage. Briere adduced the example of Google Street View and how it blurs images of people’s faces. Briere agreed with Taylor that she was willing to support the ordinance so there should be a further discussion in the community. Passive surveillance can be used well or not well, Briere said, adding that she wished it weren’t used at all.

Warpehoski described placing a camera on a pole and pointing it into a neighborhood as an affront to privacy. The ordinance would prevent that affront, he said. The ordinance tries to find a balance between privacy, property owner rights and law enforcement needs, Warpehoski contended. He didn’t want cameras to be deployed over neighborhood opposition. Warpehoski says he put forward the best ordinance he knew how to put forward – but allowed that there were still things that could be worked on. He asked for support of the ordinance at first reading, but told his council colleagues not to vote for it on first reading just to please him – if they were definitely not going to vote for it on second reading.

Anglin described the ordinance as “preemptive,” so that the questions surrounding the use of cameras could be answered before they are used. The ordinance allows cameras to be installed as useful tools, he said. He gave destruction of property in parks as a use case for the cameras. He did not think it’s a solution looking for a problem – a response to remarks from Kunselman at an earlier meeting.

Kunselman responded to the idea of a “regulatory framework” and wondered why the council was not simply providing guidance on policy to the administration. Ordinances are passed to regulate behavior, and there are punishments for violating them. He wondered if Seto violated the ordinance, would he be fired? Kunselman said he would support giving policy direction. In any case, the city could do what it needs to do, Kunselman said. If Seto needs to use a camera to catch a suspect, Kunselman said, then, “By golly, let him do it!”

Kunselman described how the relationship between the police and young people has changed from the time when he was young. He returned to his idea of giving guidance through policy, instead of through enactment of an ordinance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is waving hello on arrival at the meeting.

Lumm stated that the ordinance is overly regulatory. The balanced approach that Seto would take would not result in the application of technology that would harm the community, Lumm contended. She said she wouldn’t support such an ordinance unless it had Seto’s unequivocal support. So Lumm wouldn’t support it at first reading.

Briere said generally she’s inclined to advance an ordinance to a second reading. But she didn’t like the ordinance, because she saw it as giving permission for surveillance. She distinguished between speculative surveillance versus a situation where there’s a targeted deployment. But she was still inclined to hear from the public. That would help the council make a better decision on the issue, she concluded.

Hieftje said he likes the idea of policy guidance – alluding to Kunselman’s proposal that policy guidance would be better than an ordinance. Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor is host to events that have the spotlight of the nation on the city. He couldn’t say he’d support the ordinance at second reading, but he was willing to support it at first reading.

Outcome: The council voted 5-4 to give the video privacy ordinance initial approval, so it failed. Voting against it were Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

DDA-City Committee

The council was asked to establish a committee to sort through issues between the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Named in the original resolution to represent the council were: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Jane Lumm (Ward 2) was added to the group during the council’s meeting.

The current source of friction between the DDA and the city concerns the interpretation of Chapter 7 of the city code, which regulates the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The DDA has chosen to interpret the Chapter 7 language in a way that does not recognize the cap on TIF revenues that is set forth in Chapter 7. That led to a proposal by some councilmembers earlier this year to revise the ordinance so that the DDA’s alternate interpretation is clearly ruled out. The council gave the ordinance change initial approval on April 1, 2013. But later, on May 6, 2013, the council chose to postpone the vote until Sept. 3, the council’s first meeting that month.

In the memo accompanying the council’s July 1 resolution, the group – which was described as a “mutually beneficial” committee – is tasked with coming up with a recommendation for Chapter 7 revised language with a deadline of Sept. 2. During the meeting, the name of the committee was changed from “mutually beneficial” to simply a “joint DDA-council committee.”

The phrase “mutually beneficial” in connection with the sorting out of issues between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor DDA was first mooted in a Jan. 20, 2009 city council resolution. The main issue at that time was the contract under which the DDA administers the city’s public parking system. Subsequently, committees for both organizations were appointed, but they did not achieve any results. The following year, new “mutually beneficial” committees were appointed and those committees met over the course of several months, culminating in a new parking agreement ratified in May 2011. The council formally disbanded its “mutually beneficial” committee at the end of 2011.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the item on July 1 by saying that in May, several people had indicated that the city staff and the DDA staff should be working on the issue. But whatever changes might be made to Chapter 7, she felt councilmembers should have a voice. The mechanism for that was proposed to be to “reinvigorate” the “mutual beneficial” committee. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that when the council approved the ordinance at first reading, he and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) had begun having conversations with DDA board members and staff. He saw the resolution that as solidifying a process that was already underway.

However, Kunselman didn’t like the label “mutually beneficial.” So it was changed by mutual assent to the “joint DDA-council committee.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to add a member – for a total of four councilmembers. Higgins wanted Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to be on the committee, saying that Lumm has put a lot of work into the issue. That proposal was accepted as friendly.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) briefly floated the idea that the existing DDA partnerships committee might be involved.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appoint a joint DDA-council committee, with members Lumm, Taylor, Kunselman and Petersen. Two days later the DDA appointed its members: Roger Hewitt, Sandi Smith, Bob Guenzel, and Joan Lowenstein.

New City Council Rules

The council considered a revision to rules on speaking times and agenda setting for city council meetings.

Highlights of the proposed rules changes include adding public commentary to council work sessions. But public speaking time would be reduced from three minutes to two minutes across all types of public speaking – general commentary, public hearings, and reserved time. A “frequent flyer” rule would prevent people from signing up for reserved time at the start of a meeting two meetings in a row.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). The proposed new council rules include a provision against councilmembers using their personal electronic communications devices during the meetings while at the table. This photo was taken before the meeting started.

The total time that each councilmember could speak on an item of debate would be reduced from eight minutes to five minutes. In more detail, the two turns they get per item would be reduced from five to three minutes and from three to two minutes.

Another change would put nominations and appointments to boards and commissions at the start of the agenda, before the council’s voting business, instead of after all the items. For Chronicle coverage on these proposed changes, see “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.”

New City Council Rules: Public Commentary

James D’Amour told the council that some of the changes to the rules are pretty good. [As former city planning commissioner, D'Amour has some experience with public commentary from the other side of the microphone.] The addition of a public commentary period during work sessions is a good step, he said. But the time reductions are a step backward, he contended. If hundreds of people show up to speak, then the council has done something wrong, he said. The game that councilmembers need to play is to be more accessible, not less accessible.

Thomas Partridge reminded the council that he has run for election to the state legislature in the past. He accused mayor John Hieftje of seeking to suppress public access to the council. Instead of diminishing public participation time, it should be increased, Partridge said.

Michael Benson pointed out that if he had a handout for the clerk, that would be attached to the minutes. So he encouraged the council to advertise that fact as a way to mitigate against reduced speaking time. Benson also suggested that the council pay attention to their own question time that they use during their deliberations. [Hieftje does not count time that councilmembers spend questioning staff as speaking time for councilmembers.] Benson cited a possible problem for organizing the public speaking reserved time at the start of a meeting: A single agenda item could dominate all the slots.

New City Council Rules: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she wanted to postpone the issue, in light of the absence of Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4), who wanted to be part of the conversation. Higgins chairs the council’s rules committee, which brought the amendments forward.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the rule amendments until the July 15 meeting.

2009 International Fire Code

The council was asked to take final action on the adoption of the 2009 International Fire Code, as an amendment to Chapter 111 (Fire Prevention) of the city code. The council had given the ordinance change initial approval at its June 17, 2013 meeting.

While the change is essentially administrative – changing the version of the International Fire Code adopted in the ordinance from 2003 to a more recent 2009 – some councilmembers on June 17 indicated an interest in exploring the question of frequency of fire inspections. They’ve heard complaints that fire inspections are being conducted too frequently – as a way to generate revenue.

On June 17, fire chief Chuck Hubbard indicated that some of the confusion could be attributed to re-inspections, which are done when a deficiency is found. But Hubbard indicated on June 17 that fire inspections have increased. He’s increased the number of personnel assigned to fire inspections from three to seven.

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

During the public hearing on the issue, Thomas Partridge said that councilmembers and the mayor are out of touch. He says that the councilmembers who sponsored the ordinance change should explain it in their own words. He contended that the city looks for ways to impose costs on those who can least afford it.

Earlier in the meeting during communications time, city administrator Steve Powers had indicated that staff were available to answer questions about why the ordinance change adopting the 2009 International Fire Code was necessary. It was portrayed as a separate question from the inspection issue that councilmembers had previously expressed concern about. Powers described how there would be a meeting for property owners and the public about fire safety inspections – on July 16, at 1 p.m. in city council chambers.

Deliberations by the council were scant. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked staff for their work in responding to questions.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the 2009 International Fire Code.

Miller Avenue Special Assessment

The council was asked to take the final step in approving a special assessment on property owners to finance sidewalk and gutter improvements along Miller Avenue.

The assessment would apply to 18 private property owners, who would pay an average of $365 apiece. The total construction cost of the project is stated in the table of assessment as $42,860 – with about 75% of that to be paid for with federal funds. The resolution approved by the council was the fourth and final one in the process. A public hearing had been held at the council’s previous meeting.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the special assessment for Miller Avenue improvements.

Precinct 2-8 Polling Place

The council considered a resolution that changed location of the polling place in Ann Arbor’s Ward 2 Precinct 8 (2-8) to the First United Methodist Church at 1001 Green Road. The location for several years has been St. Paul Lutheran School.

According to a letter sent to the city earlier this year by school principal Brad Massey, the decision to stop offering St. Paul Lutheran Church and School as a polling place to the city was based on “recent events affecting the safety of school children.” [.pdf of April 16, 2013 letter]

During the brief deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked St. Paul for allowing the city to use the facility as a polling location for many years.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to change the Precinct 2-8 polling location to the First United Methodist Church.

Appointments, Nominations

The council was asked to confirm the appointment of Jeremy Peters to the city planning commission. Peters works in creative licensing and business affairs with Ghostly Songs. Peters had been nominated at the council’s June 17 meeting. Tony Derezinski had originally been slated at the June 3 meeting to be nominated for re-appointment, but his name was never put forward by mayor John Hieftje.

The council was also asked to confirm the appointments of Eric Jacobson to the local development finance authority (LDFA) board and Jan Davies McDermott to the economic development corporation board.

Outcome: The council voted to confirm all the appointments.

Also at the council’s July 1 meeting, Hieftje nominated Russ Collins for re-appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Hieftje indicated that he would not yet be nominating replacements for Newcombe Clark or Leah Gunn, as he felt there was “no rush.” The terms of Clark and Gunn expire on July 31, 2013.

Also at the council’s meeting, Jean Cares was nominated by the council as a whole to the greenbelt advisory commission as the agriculture landowner representative. Christopher Taylor, who serves on GAC as the council representative, introduced the resolution, mentioning that Cares owns the Dexter Mill. Hieftje noted that the agriculture landowner representative slot is difficult to fill.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone a vote on Cares’ appointment. This is a standard procedure, as the initial consideration is considered the nomination by the council. GAC is one of the few boards and commissions for which the council, not the mayor, makes the nominations.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Safe Streets

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) told the council he wanted the dialogue on safe streets to continue. People who live on all kinds of streets should be listened to, he said. He wanted traffic directed away from residential streets that are not designed for that kind of traffic.

Comm/Comm: D1 Zoning Review

The council had directed the city planning commission on April 1, 2013 to undertake a review of areas of the city zoned D1 (downtown core).

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who’s the council appointee to the planning commission, indicated during communications time that the D1 zoning review would begin the next day as the executive committee of the planning commission would be meeting to hire a consultant.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked Briere if a schedule has been established for the review and how it will be implemented. The executive committee of the planning commission will be interviewing potential consultants, Briere explained. That’s because staff and commission members were felt to be too close to the process to lead a public meeting. So someone with an outside view would be used, Briere said. There’ll be A2 Open City Hall surveys or perhaps also Survey Monkey surveys. The consultant will look at those issues and move to have a public meeting in August. Briere noted that the timeline requires the work to be done at the end of September. In response to a question from Lumm, Briere said she’s not sure how it relates to the old Y lot, at Fifth and William streets. [Later in the week, councilmembers were informed that Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas have been selected to handle the possible sale of the former YMCA lot.]

Comm/Comm: Website Down

During communications time, city administrator Steve Powers asked CFO Tom Crawford to explain what happened with the city’s website, which was down that day, except for a limited set of links.

Crawford explained it was a software/hardware failure. He believed all the data was still there, and would be back up by 8 a.m. on July 2, the following day. [It was back up by that time.]

Comm/Comm: Pizza in the Park

At the May 20, 2013 city council meeting, several people spoke to oppose the fee that was apparently charged to the Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor as part of its Friday evening homelessness ministry. That ministry is called Pizza in the Park, which the church conducts at Liberty Plaza. While oral assurances had been given, at the council’s June 3 meeting there was some follow-up during public commentary that included an interest in getting some kind of written commitment from the city that the fee would not be charged to the church.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

So during communications time on July 1, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) updated the council on the park advisory commission’s action at its June 18, 2013 meeting to recommend a waiver of fees for Liberty Plaza – in response to a request from Camp Take Notice to make sure that Pizza in the Park can continue at that location.

During public commentary at the end of the July 1 meeting, Seth Best addressed the council on the topic, beginning by thanking everyone. He spoke on behalf of Camp Take Notice’s advocacy for humanitarian aid generally, not just for Liberty Plaza. He was concerned that humanitarian aid is being excluded because of concern for music, bands and art. He told his story of becoming homeless in Texas, eventually making his way to Ann Arbor. Pizza in the Park had allowed him to be human again, he said – at least for an hour.

Greg Pratt introduced himself as an Eastern Michigan University faculty member and vice president of MISSION. He spoke in support of the Camp Take Notice advocacy for Pizza in the Park. He provided some context for the situation. As the weather turned warmer, the Delonis Shelter ended the warming shelter, and that happened around the same time as Pizza in the Park was having a fee applied. He noted that MISSION had been working with councilmembers and he would prefer to approach it that way.

Caleb Poirer began his remarks by quipping that this was too early to end a council meeting and that he felt cheated. [Compared to recent council meetings, the time was relatively early – around 11 p.m. ] He characterized the PAC resolution as an attempt to address the concerns that Camp Take Notice had raised, but said that it doesn’t actually address their concerns. That’s why they’re continuing to push for a more general ordinance. He allowed that the homeless are not natural constituents of any politician. So he was grateful that the council had been willing to give them “the time of day.”

Comm/Comm: Saying Something Nice

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she’d attended an event recently where people were asked to say something nice about others, and that she had been present at another meeting when people were expected to say something nice about departing members of a commission. So she was going to say something nice about everyone. Briere read aloud remarks that she posted later on her blog.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Briere for making her remarks.

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

Absent: Margie Teall, Sally Petersen.

Next council meeting: Monday, July 15, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

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

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

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

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

The council will vote on adoption of the rules at its July 1 meeting. [For previous Chronicle coverage, see: "Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes."]

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

County commissioner Yousef Rabhi, who was re-elected chair of the working session and successfully lobbied to keep public commentary time unchanged at those sessions. (Photos by the writer.)

Unchanged were the board officers – as is its custom, the board re-elected the same leaders from the previous year. Conan Smith retained his position as board chair, but did not use the meeting to continue the discussion he’d started in December regarding strategic planning for the county. Smith has proposed focusing county efforts on shoring up the county’s east side, an area that he has said is facing a “perfect storm of despair,” including high unemployment, low graduation rates and poor health.

Rather, the main action of the Jan. 4 meeting focused on significant changes regarding public commentary, as part of revisions to the board’s rules and regulations. The majority of commissioners voted to shorten the time available per speaking turn – from five to three minutes – and to eliminate one of two agenda slots for public commentary at its bi-monthly meetings. Commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr., Ronnie Peterson and Felicia Brabec voted against the changes, but were in the minority.

Yousef Rabhi, who was re-elected chair of the working session, proposed an amendment to keep both public commentary slots in place at the working sessions. His amendment – which was supported unanimously by the board – also kept the five minutes alloted per speaker for public commentary at the working sessions.

An amendment to the rules proposed by Dan Smith was tabled. The change would give commissioners the option of abstaining from a vote. Wes Prater questioned the amendment, arguing that state law requires commissioners to vote on resolutions unless there’s a conflict of interest. It was eventually tabled until the second meeting in February, allowing the county attorney to research the legality of the proposed rule. In a follow-up query from The Chronicle, Smith indicated that he doesn’t intend to pursue the amendment.

Dan Smith was successful in another effort, however – an amendment he proposed to the board’s 2012 calendar. Commissioners voted to change the start time of working sessions to 6 p.m. and add the administrative briefing as the first agenda item. Previously, administrative briefings – held to review the board’s upcoming agenda – were held at 4 p.m. the week prior to a regular board meeting. It had been a difficult time of day for some commissioners, including Smith, to attend.

An issue not addressed at the Jan. 4 meeting was the status of the county’s negotiations with the Humane Society of Huron Valley. After the meeting, deputy county administrator Kelly Belknap told The Chronicle that the county had signed a one-month extension – at $29,000 – for HSHV to continue providing mandated animal control services for the county through January. The county’s previous contract with HSHV expired Dec. 31, and Belknap said negotiations continue to try to reach a longer-term agreement. Belknap said she was optimistic the two sides could reach a resolution, even if it required another temporary extension. Reached by email later in the week, HSHV executive director Tanya Hilgendorf indicated that she shared that optimism.

The Jan. 4 meeting was initially officiated by the Washtenaw County clerk, Larry Kestenbaum, who presided until the election of the board chair. Kestenbaum took the opportunity to give some tips on campaign finance reporting to commissioners and other potential candidates in the upcoming 2012 election. 

County Clerk: Tips for an Election Year

The Washtenaw County clerk – currently Larry Kestenbaum – leads the first meeting of each year for the board of commissioners, before officer elections are held.

Kestenbaum began the Jan. 4 meeting by noting that 2012 is an election year, and that all county commissioners and other county-level elected officials – including himself – would be up for re-election. The county has a fantastic roster of city and township clerks who’ll handle the process, he said, starting with the presidential primary in February.

There’s always tension between campaigning and governance, he said, adding that everyone around the board table had experience with that situation. [The exception would be Felicia Brabec, who was appointed to her seat in District 7 last October after the resignation of Kristin Judge.]

Washtenaw County commissioner Felicia Brabec (D-District 7) talks with county clerk Larry Kestenbaum before the Jan. 4, 2012 county board of commissioners meeting.

For anyone who’s running for office, Kestenbaum said he wanted to underline the importance of paying attention to campaign finance reporting, which is handled locally by his office. For example, he said, if a previous campaign has more than $1,000 in the bank, an annual statement is due at the end of this month.

Kestenbaum also clarified the reporting requirements for late contributions. If $200 or more is contributed to a campaign between the last campaign finance filing and the election, then it must be reported. This is the most frequently sanctioned violation of campaign finance law, he said. The fine accumulates daily, to a maximum of $2,000. Kestenbaum said that in the past, he has used his discretion and sometimes waived the fine. However, he said, he’s been informed that he doesn’t have the authority to do that.

Every time candidates file to run for office, they must sign a statement saying that they’re up to date with their campaign finance filings. If you haven’t reported some contributions, but sign the statement, you’re committing perjury, Kestenbaum said.

His final piece of advice related to a campaign’s treasurer. It’s possible for candidates to serve as treasurer of their own campaigns, “but it’s not a good idea,” Kestenbaum said. He added that he speaks with some experience on this issue, but did not elaborate.

[More information about campaign finance can be found on the county's website or on the state's campaign finance website. All commissioners have active campaign committees, as do several former candidates and candidates who have declared their intent to run in 2012. The latter category includes Democrats Andy Labarre and Christina Montague, who both plan to run for the seat in the new District 7, which covers an area on the east side of Ann Arbor, which is now represented by Democrat Barbara Bergman. Bergman is not seeking re-election.]

Officer Elections

Washtenaw County commissioners are elected to two-year terms, with elections for all 11 districts held in even-numbered years. [Redistricting, which was completed last year, will shrink the number of county districts to 9 for the upcoming election cycle and take effect at the start of the 2013 term.] The first meeting of each year is an organizational meeting, when the board’s primary business is electing officers and approving the board rules and regulations.

It’s been the board’s custom to elect commissioners to the same leadership roles for two consecutive years, starting with the first year of their two-year terms. This year was no exception, and all previous officers were re-elected unanimously. There were no competing nominations, and only congratulatory discussion.

The board unanimously re-elected Conan Smith (D-District 10) as board chair and Alicia Ping (R-District 3) as vice chair. Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) was re-elected chair of the board’s ways & means committee, with Dan Smith (R-District 2) re-elected vice chair. The working session chair is Yousef Rabhi (D-District 11), with Rob Turner (R-District 1) to serve as vice chair.

Before the officer elections but not during the official public commentary time, Thomas Partridge stood up and demanded an answer to a question he’d asked, saying it was pertinent to the election. He has frequently lobbied for the chair of the board to be elected by a vote of the general public, not by the board itself.

Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, informed commissioners that according to the board’s rules and regulations, the chair must be elected from among the commissioners. From the relevant section of the board’s rules and regulations [emphasis added]:

D. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING:  At the first or regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners held in January of each year the Clerk/Register of the County shall call the meeting to order then shall call the roll of all elected Commissioners. The members of the Board elect shall take the oath of office as their first order of business, If a quorum is found to be present, the Board shall proceed to elect by ballot one of the Commissioners, elected and serving, as Chair. The Commissioner receiving six (6) votes of the members, elected and serving shall be the Chair of the Board.

Outcome: By a series of unanimous votes, all 2011 officers were re-elected to leadership roles on the board.

Board Rules & Regulations

At the first meeting of each year, the board approves its rules and regulations with revisions, if any. This year, three changes were proposed. [.pdf of original draft revisions to board rules & regulations]

One of the rule changes was uncontroversial, and yielded no discussion. It related to the eligibility of county employees for claiming per diem payments and mileage. Under previous rules adopted in 2011, no county employee could claim a per diem or mileage reimbursement for service on a county board, committee or commission. The rules adopted on Jan. 4, 2012 now apply that rule only to regular, benefitted county employees. This allows part-time county employees who receive no county benefits to receive a per diem and mileage payment. The rule does not apply to county commissioners – their per diem and mileage are handled under separate flex accounts, which were not changed.

Commissioner Dan Smith holds up his hand to indicate the number of minutes available per speaker for public commentary. He was helping out county clerk Larry Kestenbaum, who officiated the start of the board of commissioners first meeting in 2012. By the end of the meeting, the board majority had voted to reduce public commentary time to three minutes.

The other two proposed rule changes considered at the Jan. 4 meeting dealt with public commentary. Commissioners spent much of their meeting discussing those changes to public commentary. The revisions shortened the time available per speaking turn and eliminated some of the agenda slots for public commentary.

Most significantly, the second of two opportunities for public commentary was proposed to be eliminated at three different meetings: the board meetings, the ways & means committee meetings and the working sessions. The corresponding times slated for commissioner response to public commentary at the end of those meetings were also proposed to be eliminated. Previously, public commentary and commissioner response were provided near the start and end of each meeting. The ways & means committee meetings and regular board meetings are held back-to-back, currently providing four opportunities for public commentary during the same evening.

In other revisions to the board’s rules and regulations, the five minutes alloted per speaker during general public commentary at the board meeting and working session was proposed to be reduced to three minutes each. The time alloted for commentary at public hearings (held on a specific topic) was proposed to be cut from five to three minutes per speaker.

Three minutes is already the current time alloted for public commentary at the board’s ways & means committee, where the bulk of the board’s business is conducted. Prior to 2009, ways & means public commentary was also five minutes. But at the board’s Jan. 7, 2009 meeting, commissioner Conan Smith proposed reducing it to three minutes. He won support for that resolution from the majority of the board, with dissent from commissioners Rolland Sizemore Jr. (D-District 5) and Jeff Irwin, a Democrat from Ann Arbor who now serves in the state legislature.

At that same January 2009 meeting, Conan Smith also proposed a change requiring that public commentary during ways & means address only items on the agenda. That change also won support from the board, with dissent from Sizemore and Irwin. Previously, there had been no such limitations. A year later, at the board’s Jan. 6, 2010 meeting, Irwin won support from his board colleagues to remove the topic limitations on public commentary.

Board Rules & Regulations: Working Session Amendment

Yousef Rabhi began the discussion by saying he opposed putting new limits on public commentary. He didn’t believe it was the right move, but he realized that many other commissioners supported it. As a compromise, he proposed an amendment to keep both public commentary slots in place at the working sessions. [Rabhi has chaired those sessions for the past year, and was re-elected chair of the working sessions at the Jan. 4 meeting.] His amendment also kept the five minutes alloted per speaker for public commentary at the working sessions.

Outcome on amendment: Rabhi’s amendment to retain two opportunities for five-minute public commentary at working sessions was approved unanimously.

Board Rules & Regulations: Abstaining Amendment

Dan Smith proposed an amendment to the rule relating to board resolutions. The current section states:

VI. RESOLUTIONS
Where a resolution proposes to amend a prior board resolution, County policy or County ordinance, the resolution shall conform to the style set forth below:
1. The section of the existing resolution to be changed shall be presented in its entirety, including any language proposed to be deleted by the resolution/motion such deletion shall be indicated by a horizontal line running through the deleted language.
2. New language shall be indicated by being presented in bold and italic.

Smith said he wanted to give commissioners the option of abstaining from a vote. His amendment would add the following statement: “Members may abstain from voting on any resolution expressing support (or opposition), but otherwise taking no action.”

Smith did not elaborate on his reasons for proposing the change, but the issue was relevant at the board’s last meeting in December 2011. A resolution brought forward then by Yousef Rabhi urged state lawmakers to reject HB 4770, HB 4771 and “any legislation that codifies discrimination.” The state legislation, which was later signed by Gov. Rick Snyder, removed the ability to extend benefits to same-sex partners. During deliberations on that resolution, commissioners Dan Smith and Rob Turner had objected to bringing forward resolutions that were not focused on Washtenaw County issues – both commissioners ultimately voted against it.

At the Jan. 4 meeting, Wes Prater questioned Dan Smith’s amendment, stating that state law requires commissioners to vote on resolutions unless there’s a conflict of interest. He asked the county’s corporation counsel, Curtis Hedger, to weigh in on the issue.

Hedger’s initial thought was that since the amendment pertained to resolutions that were advisory in nature, it would be permissible to allow commissioners to abstain. Hedger took a few minutes to try to find the applicable law but was unable to locate it, so he proposed tabling the amendment to a future meeting. He noted that the board’s rules and regulations can be voted on at any time throughout the year.

Barbara Bergman said she didn’t care what Hedger found – she’d be against the amendment, even if it were allowed by law. Commissioners are elected to govern, she said. Even on non-action item, their votes are important because they indicate the board’s direction and philosophy. To not have an opinion is very sad, she said. It might protect a commissioner in future elections if the vote is controversial, she added, but commissioners have a responsibility to vote on any resolution before the board. She said she’d be ashamed to be so concerned about getting elected. “If you’re here, vote,” she concluded.

Leah Gunn proposed tabling the amendment until the board’s second meeting in February, which falls on Feb. 15.

Outcome on tabling Dan Smith’s amendment: Commissioners voted unanimously to table the amendment until the second meeting in February.

Responding to a follow-up email query from The Chronicle, Dan Smith stated that he believes he’s made his point, and he doesn’t intend to pursue the amendment. He wrote: “My contention would be that a resolution saying ‘we support (or oppose) …’ does not constitute ‘act’ as contemplated by the law. Furthermore, the list of lawful actions does not specifically include ‘voting on resolutions of support’ or something similar. To underscore his argument, Smith pointed to three sections of relevant state law in Act 156 of 1851, which pertains to the state’s county boards of commissioners:

Act 156 of 1851 – Section 46.3: ”The county board of commissioners of a county shall act by the votes of a majority of the members present. However, the final passage or adoption of a measure or resolution or the allowance of a claim against the county shall be determined by a majority of the members elected and serving. …”

Act 156 of 1851 – Section 46.3a: “The names and votes of members shall be recorded on an action taken by the board of county commissioners …”

Act 156 of 1851 – Section 46.11: “A county board of commissioners, at a lawfully held meeting, may do 1 or more of the following: …”

Smith also wrote that if the issue is simply a matter of following Robert’s Rules of Order, then the board’s own rules and regulations supersede that, and could be changed.

Board Rules & Regulations: Public Commentary

Ronnie Peterson spoke at length about the proposal to reduce opportunities for citizen participation. He opposed eliminating the number of slots, and also opposed cutting the time limit. He said he got into government because of citizen participation, “from the audience to the election box.” Not everyone gets off work at the same time, he noted, so it might not be possible for citizens to make it to the start of the meeting for the first public commentary.

As for cutting the time limit from five minutes to three minutes, Peterson said he understood why city councils usually limited their public commentary to three minutes per speaker – there are usually far more people speaking at city council meetings than at board of commissioners meetings, he contended. Typically, there are only one or two people who show up to public commentary, he said, so he didn’t see the importance of limiting it. Also, people speak at different speeds, Peterson said – for people who speak more slowly, they might need the full five minutes.

Peterson also objected to eliminating the time for commissioners to respond, saying he’d feel uncomfortable if he couldn’t say a word. Overall, he said he saw no rationale for these changes to public commentary.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. agreed with Peterson. The community already feels a disconnect between the public and elected officials, he said. Noting that he’s the kind of person who likes to ask others what they think, Sizemore said he didn’t want to prevent the public from asking him. The public should have the right to tell commissioners what they think.

Rob Turner clarified that the proposed changes wouldn’t eliminate all public commentary or commissioner response. They would just be eliminating one of the two current opportunities at each meeting.

Yousef Rabhi thanked commissioners for supporting his amendment earlier in the meeting, and said that keeping working sessions the way they currently are made him more comfortable with the other changes.

Outcome on main resolution regarding the board’s rules & regulations: There was only one resolution and one vote taken on the overall changes to the board’s rules & regulations. It passed on a 10-1 vote, with dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. However, Felicia Brabec and Ronnie Peterson wanted the record to reflect that they were voting against eliminating public commentary. Peterson also voted against reducing the time allotment to three minutes. The changes mean that there will be only one opportunity for public commentary at the start of each board meeting and at each ways & means committee meeting, followed by a time for commissioner response. Public speakers will have three minutes each for their remarks during public commentary and at public hearings.

Board Rules & Regulations: Public Commentary

Speaking during the last opportunity for public commentary, Thomas Partridge said there’s a “cabal” on the board that’s imposed restrictions on citizen participation, even for the disabled and elderly. He called it unethical, and said it indicated corruption. The decision calls into question the integrity of each commissioner, he said. There should be a legal challenge to the change, he said. Even though many people on the board run as progressives, Partridge said, they behave and speak like conservatives in the Tea Party. [Eight of the 11 commissioners are Democrats.]

Board Meeting Calendar: Administrative Briefings

Dan Smith noted that since the last board meeting on Dec. 7, when commissioners had approved their 2012 meeting calendar, he had circulated via email some proposals to modify the times for administrative briefings.

Administrative briefings are informal meetings that have been held the week prior to the board’s regular meetings, to review the upcoming agenda. They are public meetings and are noticed in accordance with the Michigan Open Meetings Act. They are held in a small conference room and unlike the regular board meetings, ways & means committee meetings and working sessions, they are not televised.

By way of background, in March 2011 the board voted to eliminate the briefings entirely. That decision was made in the wake of criticisms by commissioner Ronnie Peterson, who did not attend the briefings because of his objections to the format. He called the briefings “backroom” meetings where deliberations occur that he believed were too far out of the public eye. After that March 2011 vote, a weekly agenda-setting meeting took the place of briefings, attended by senior staff and just three commissioners: Smith, as board chair; Rolland Sizemore Jr., chair of the ways & means committee; and Yousef Rabhi, chair of the working sessions. Because the meetings did not involve a quorum of commissioners, they were not be required to be open to the public.

Later in the year, the briefings were re-instituted. The 2012 calendar approved by the board at its Dec. 7, 2011 meeting included administrative briefings scheduled at 4 p.m. on the Tuesday during the week prior to the board’s regular Wednesday meetings. The time – prior to the end of a typical work day – has been difficult for some commissioners, including Dan Smith, who has often been unable to attend.

At the board’s Jan. 4 meeting, Dan Smith proposed amending the calendar schedule so that administrative briefings would be held at 6 p.m. prior to the 6:30 p.m. working sessions, which are typically held on the first and third Thursdays of each month. Because board meetings are held on the first and third Wednesdays of each month, this change would mean a nearly two-week span between the tentative agenda being reviewed at the briefing and the next board meeting.

Conan Smith suggested that the briefings could simply be listed as the first agenda item at the working sessions, rather than holding separate meetings.

Barbara Bergman noted that commissioners have an informal goal of ending the working sessions by 8:30 p.m. She recommended that they consider pushing the time back to 9 p.m., to accommodate the briefings. Leah Gunn proposed a possible solution: Starting the working sessions at 6 p.m. and adding the administrative briefing as the first agenda item.

Dan Smith agreed to Gunn’s proposal as a friendly amendment.

Outcome: The amendment changing the start time of working sessions to 6 p.m. and adding the administrative briefing as the first agenda item passed unanimously.

Communications & Commentary

There were several opportunities for communications during the Jan. 4 meeting, and two slots for public commentary.

Thomas Partridge spoke during both opportunities for public commentary. In addition to the commentary reported above, Partridge also advocated for an expansion of services for the homeless in Washtenaw County, specifically citing the conditions of Camp Take Notice. He called for more affordable housing and access to public transportation. Partridge also demanded more transparency in local government, asking that meetings of all public boards, commissions and committees be held in locations where the meetings can be recorded for broadcast on the Community Television Network.

From left: Orian Zakai and Alexandra Hoffman talk with county commissioner Conan Smith after the Jan. 4 board of commissioners meeting. Zakai and Hoffman are organizing a daytime warming and community center for people who are homeless.

Orian Zakai told commissioners that she was a University of Michigan graduate student who was speaking on behalf of organizers of an all-day winter community center. The idea emerged from conversations in the Occupy Ann Arbor camp at Liberty Plaza. It’s become clear that there’s an urgent need for a warm, safe place to gather, she said, where people could feel empowered. But local officials have been discouraging of the effort. Organizers have been told that the Delonis Center – a homeless shelter on West Huron Street – serves that purpose, but Zakai noted that the shelter isn’t open during the day.

People who are supposedly served by the Delonis Center see it as disconnected from their needs, Zakai said. One man characterized it to her as like living in an institution, either a prison or a hospital, and said that he was neither a criminal or sick. It’s the opposite of an empowering place, she said. Delonis Center officials had said they want people to be put into housing and to find jobs. But there are no jobs or housing, Zakai said, so people just spend their days walking around outside. Instead, they could be building community by spending time at a community center, where they could watch movies, do art or music, read books, or help each other look for jobs.

Organizers are having difficulty finding space for the center, she said. The biggest obstacles are prejudice and fear of change, she concluded, and she hoped commissioners could help find space for the center and support its formation.

During the time available for commissioners to respond to public commentary, Conan Smith thanked Zakai for speaking out on this issue. He said the county has a long-standing commitment to working on homeless issues. The board could direct Zakai and her fellow organizers to county staff and other resources that might help break through the bureaucracy, Smith said. The issue of empowerment that Zakai raised is an important one, he said. It’s an issue that he hadn’t previously given much thought to, and he thanked her for raising it.

Communications & Commentary: Road Commission

Rob Turner, who serves as a liaison to the Washtenaw County road commission, reported that earlier in the week he had attended a WCRC meeting – the first one since Roy Townsend had been selected as the new executive director late last year. Townsend previously served as WCRC’s director of engineering. Turner reported that for the year’s budget through November, the road commission was about 1.4% ahead of budgeted revenues for the year. Because it’s been a mild winter, they’ve had to spend less on salt and snow removal, he said, and that bodes well for their budget.

Later in the meeting, Rolland Sizemore Jr. expressed frustration that the board hadn’t been briefed on changes at the state level, as he said he had previously requested. State legislation affecting the road commission is one example of changes that will be coming fast, he said.

Yousef Rabhi, who chairs the board’s working sessions, responded by saying he could schedule a session on that topic and invite the county’s lobbyist, Kirk Profit, to brief the commissioners. Barbara Bergman pointed out that commissioners regularly receive email updates from Profit regarding state-level issues. Sizemore replied that these are issues the board needs to discuss – simply reading emails isn’t enough.

Communications & Commentary: Courthouse Renovation

Rob Turner reported that he’s been regularly attending meetings regarding the renovation of the Washtenaw County trial court in downtown Ann Arbor, at the corner of Huron and Main. The trial court is an entity that includes the 22nd Circuit Court, juvenile court, probate court and Friend of the Court program. Phase two is now completed and the project is back on schedule, after giving the contractors a little prodding, he said. Turner said the hallways still look like vintage 1960s, but the customer service areas and offices are bright and up-to-date.

Jason Fee with the county facilities unit would like to give commissioners an update on the project, Turner said, perhaps at a working session in February. Rolland Sizemore Jr. suggested that the topic be scheduled at the same working session when Greg Dill gives the board a report on county-owned facilities and space use. Dill is the county’s director of infrastructure management.

In response to a query from Barbara Bergman, Turner elaborated on the different phases of the project. The board had been briefed on the renovations nearly a year ago – at its Jan. 19, 2011 board meeting– by Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenew County trial court. And at their July 6, 2011 meeting, commissioners had authorized $1 million for the second phase of the project, which entailed renovation of the first floor of the courthouse.

Sizemore noted that Turner had failed to answer the most important question: “Is Judge Shelton happy?” Turner indicated that he was.

Communications & Commentary: Farmland Preservation

Yousef Rabhi, who serves on the county’s agricultural lands preservation advisory committee (ALPAC), reported that the group met in late December and looked at the scoring of farm applications for the county’s natural areas preservation program. The applications were from owners of farms who are seeking to sell development rights to the county. The county has about $1 million available for the purchase of development rights, Rabhi said, and the committee narrowed the set of applications to 10. “We’re hoping to keep some farmers in business,” he said. ALPAC makes recommendations to the county park & recreation commission, which will make the final decision on these applications.

A 10-year millage renewal to support the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP) was approved by voters in November 2010. Earlier that year, commissioners had approved changes to the ballot language that allowed a portion of NAPP funds to be used for the purchase of development rights (PDR) for farmland. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Washtenaw Natural Areas Tweaked for Ballot.”

Communications & Commentary: Retirements & Staff Reorganization

Wes Prater reported that he had asked for the number of county employees who had retired at the end of 2011 – there were 117 retirements, he said. The board needs to take a close look at these positions, he said, to see which of them could be eliminated. The county needs some structural changes to its organization, Prater said. He suggested instituting a hiring freeze until the board could hold a working session on the issue. He noted that a new purchasing agent has recently been hired, and his concern is that the administration is actively trying to fill these vacant positions without reviewing whether the jobs are necessary.

Leah Gunn argued that it’s not the board’s purview to look at the organization job-by-job. The administration knows that structural changes are needed, Gunn said, and so the administration should bring a plan to the board. Commissioners don’t know which positions should be eliminated or kept.  The budget in 2014 and 2015 will be difficult, but Gunn said she relies on the staff’s expertise. The department heads did heroic work in cutting their budgets for 2012 and 2013, she noted. The staff is working hard, and commissioners should respect that, she concluded.

Deputy county administrator Kelly Belknap responded. [County administrator Verna McDaniel had traveled to New Orleans to attend the Jan. 2 Sugar Bowl, and was not present at the Jan. 4 meeting.] Belknap told commissioners that before any job is posted, the position goes through a review to determine if it should be filled or not. In some departments, six or seven people retired, she said. Some of those jobs need to be filled in order to continue providing services to residents, she said.

Prater took issue with Gunn’s opinion that the board doesn’t have purview over the positions. The board does have authority to eliminate or create jobs, he said. The administration makes recommendations, but it’s the board that decides. Prater noted that four years ago, the county employed about 1,360 people, and about the same number are employed today, he said. And every year, the county hires hundreds of temporary workers too, he said.

Prater said he’s concerned that the county needs to use its fund balance to balance the budget, and “once it’s gone, it’s gone for good.” The county needs to make structural changes, he said, or it will be in big trouble.

Rolland Sizemore Jr. circled back to the issue of the newly hired purchasing agent, saying that person should have come to the board to be introduced. Belknap indicated that she would make sure the new employee attended an upcoming meeting.

Present: Barbara Bergman, Felicia Brabec, Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson, Alicia Ping, Wes Prater, Yousef Rabhi, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith, Dan Smith, Rob Turner.

Next regular board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at the county administration building, 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. The ways & means committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public commentary is held at the beginning of each meeting, and no advance sign-up is required.

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

The board’s rules and regulations, adopted at the beginning of each year, were modified in three ways. Most significantly, the second of two opportunities for public commentary was eliminated at both the board meeting and the ways & means committee meeting. The times slated for commissioner response to public commentary at the end of those two meetings was also eliminated. Previously, public commentary and commissioner response were provided near the start and end of each board meeting and each ways & means committee meeting. Now there will be only one opportunity for public commentary at the start of each meeting, followed by commissioner response.

In addition, the five minutes alloted per speaker during general public commentary at the board meeting has been reduced to three minutes each. The time alloted for commentary at public hearings (held on a specific topic) has also been cut from five to three minutes per speaker. Three minutes is already the current time alloted for public commentary at the board’s ways & means committee, where the bulk of the board’s business is conducted.

The original rules-change proposal called for eliminating the second public commentary at the board’s working sessions as well. Yousef Rabhi, who was re-elected chair of the working session at the Jan. 4 meeting, proposed an amendment to keep both public commentary slots in place at the working sessions. His amendment also kept the five minutes alloted per speaker for public commentary at the working sessions. Rabhi’s amendment was approved unanimously.

The third change in the board’s rules & regulations relates to the eligibility of county employees for claiming per diem and mileage. Under previous rules adopted in 2011, no county employee could claim a per diem or mileage reimbursement for service on a county board, committee or commission. The current rules adopted on Jan. 4, 2012 now apply that rule only to regular, benefitted county employees. This allows part-time county employees who receive no county benefits to receive a per diem and mileage payment. The rule does not apply to county commissioners – their per diem and mileage are handled under separate flex accounts, which were not changed.

There was only one vote taken on the overall changes to the board’s rules & regulations. It passed on a 10-1 vote, with dissent from Rolland Sizemore Jr. However, Felicia Brabec and Ronnie Peterson wanted the record to reflect that they were voting against eliminating public commentary. Peterson also voted against reducing the time allotment to three minutes.

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

Larry Kestenbaum, Washtenaw County clerk, listens to a public commentary speaker at Wednesday's meeting of the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. Kestenbaum presided over the meeting until the board elected its chair for the new year. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was re-elected unanimously to his second term as chair of the board.

The board loosened its rules regarding public commentary, discussed – but ultimately rejected – an attempt to change the flex account method for managing its own portion of the budget, and got an update on the search for a replacement for retiring county administrator Bob Guenzel.

A job posting will be made for that position on Monday, Jan. 11, with the possibility of making a new hire as early as Feb. 3.

The board also heard from an advocate for the homeless during public commentary, who urged the board to take more of a leadership role in addressing that issue.

Commission Leadership

Because it was the first meeting of the year, Larry Kestenbaum presided over the meeting until Rolland Sizemore was elected chair of the board. The county clerk chairs the year’s first meeting until a chair is elected.

By custom, the chair serves for two consecutive years. Rolland Sizemore Jr. was first elected as chair of the board a year ago – he was nominated again on Wednesday, prompting commissioner Conan Smith to ask, “Does he really want that job?” Sizemore was re-elected unanimously, followed by a round of applause from his colleagues.

Also re-elected unanimously: Mark Ouimet, board vice-chair; Conan Smith, chair of the Ways & Means Committee; Jessica Ping, chair of the working session; and Ken Schwartz, working session vice-chair.

The only dissenting vote cast during the elections was by Barbara Bergman, who voted against the re-election of Kristin Judge as vice-chair of the Ways & Means Committee. Bergman said that Judge had made a personal, unprovoked attack on her, and that it did not demonstrate leadership behavior. She did not elaborate. Judge was re-elected on an 9-1 vote (commissioner Ronnie Peterson was absent).

County Administrator Search

Rolland Sizemore Jr. gave an update on the search for a new county administrator. Bob Guenzel, who has served in that post since 1994, in December announced plans to retire in mid-May.

Sizemore said that he, Conan Smith and Jessica Ping met in mid-December to talk about a process. [The three commissioners hold the board's leadership positions: Sizemore is board chair; Smith is chair of the board's Ways & Means Committee; Ping chairs its working session.] The process set by that group – and approved by the board at Wednesday’s meeting – calls for the position to be posted online on Jan. 11, with candidate interviews to take place at the board’s Jan. 21 working session, which is open to the public.

There was some discussion about whether to update the job description, with a decision to handle via email this week any suggestions for change . [.pdf of current county administrator job description]

Ken Schwartz wondered whether the proposed timeline was too ambitious. But Wes Prater spoke about the need for urgency, given the budget situation. Even though they just passed the two-year budget last month, Prater said, they have a lot of work to do, including keeping an eye on revenue and adjusting the budget accordingly as the next two years unfold. Several others agreed that the process needed to move forward – a vote to approve the proposed timeline was unanimous.

Though anyone will be eligible to apply, the board is not conducting a broad search and it’s expected that there will be internal candidates for the job, including deputy county administrator Verna McDaniel. A vote on the new hire could happen as soon as the board’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Board Rules & Regulations

Approval of the board’s rules and regulations is an action item at the group’s first meeting of each year. This year, commissioner Jeff Irwin raised three issues.

Irwin proposed eliminating the requirement that public commentary for the Ways & Means Committee be related to an item on the agenda. This rule was imposed a year ago by the board, with Irwin and Rolland Sizemore Jr. dissenting. The Ways & Means Committee, on which the entire board serves, meets immediately prior to the regular board meeting. The meeting often lasts several hours.

From The Chronicle report of the Jan. 7, 2009 board meeting, when this rule was introduced:

Irwin said he thought people should be able to read the phone book for 5 minutes if they wanted to, though he’d prefer they didn’t. He said the board generally gets very few people at its public comment sessions, and that he didn’t want to restrict it in any way. “We need to keep our doors as open as possible.” He also noted that the Ways & Means Committee meeting can last for two hours or more before the board meeting begins, thus forcing someone to wait who wants to speak on a topic that’s not on the agenda.

In fact, a member of the public did read from the phone book in 2009, in protest of the rule. At the board’s Dec. 2, 2009 meeting, Janelle Baranowski spent part of her time during public commentary reading from the “Violins” category of the yellow pages. She urged commissioners to change the rule, saying that otherwise she’d attend each meeting and do the same thing. “It’s a mighty thick phone book, so please don’t make me go there,” she said at the time.

On Wednesday, the board unanimously approved Irwin’s motion to strike the following sentence from their rules and regulations:

E. Comments from the public during Citizen Participation shall be germane to items on the agenda or the commenter shall be ruled out of order.

However, his colleagues were much less supportive of another motion: To increase the time allotted to public commentary during the Ways & Means Committee meeting from three minutes to five minutes. [A year ago, commissioner Conan Smith had proposed limiting commentary at Ways & Means to three minutes per speaker, rather than five. Previously, citizens were allotted five minutes each at both Ways & Means and the regular board meeting – there are two opportunities to speak at each of those meetings. The board approved Smith's motion, with Irwin and Sizemore dissenting.]

On Wednesday, Irwin proposed increasing the time limit back to five minutes. However, his motion was not seconded and did not move forward to a vote.

Irwin then expressed some reservations about the commissioners’ flex accounts. During budget discussions in 2009, commissioners addressed their own compensation. From The Chronicle’s report on the board’s June 3, 2009 meeting:

The commissioners first considered a resolution to cut their own piece of the budget by 11.3%, and to create “flex accounts” that would pool previous line items for per diem, travel, and convention/conference expenses. The budget calls for $3,550 per commissioner for these flex accounts. The total budget for commissioners after the reduction is $532,885, an amount that includes salaries ($177,387), consultant fees ($55,150 for a lobbyist in Lansing), fringe benefits ($41,979) and an amount to cover administrative expenses (called the Cost Allocation Plan, at $143,462), among other things. The resolution also includes new guidelines for administering the flex accounts.

This resolution is the third iteration of an attempt to cut the commissioners’ budget, following two resolutions presented at the board’s May 20 meeting that did not receive sufficient support to pass. There was little discussion on the issue at Wednesday’s meeting.

Outcome: The motion carried, with Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn and Jeff Irwin voting against it.

[.pdf file of current rules and regulations relating to commissioner flex accounts]

On Wednesday, Irwin described the new flex accounts as “a Rube Goldberg kind of solution to a problem that didn’t exist,” and said he’d vote against the rules and regulations as a whole if the flex accounts remained in place.

Kristin Judge said the flex accounts mean that commissioners are more accountable for their spending than in the past, and that she plans to disclose her spending publicly. As an example, she said that previously there was no limit on the amount of per diems that commissioners could request. Now, their spending on per diems or other items can’t exceed $3,550, unless they get board approval for additional funds. If some commissioners have money in their account that they don’t spend, others can request to use those funds.

Wes Prater noted that the commissioners had done their part in reducing their portion of the budget. But Irwin responded by saying the amount of the budget wasn’t an issue – it was the methodology for managing it. Smith reasoned that the change simply added more flexibility, allowing commissioners to spend their allocated dollars based on their own priorities. He said they would receive quarterly reports throughout the year, and if the new system didn’t work, they could change it.

Agreeing with Irwin, Barbara Bergman moved to amend the rules to remove the following sections:

2. Should a Commissioner choose not to expend his/her full share, the balance will revert to a sub account of the CFA known as the ‘General Flex Account Fund” (GFAF), which may be used by other Commissioners once they have exceeded their allotted amount.

6. Commissioners must obtain majority Board approval to draw from the GFAF, once their allotments have been depleted.

The motion failed, with support from only four commissioners; Bergman, Irwin, Leah Gunn and Mark Ouimet.

The board then approved its rules and regulations, as amended, with Irwin and Smith dissenting.

[.pdf file of the complete board rules and regulations, as revised at Wednesday's meeting]

Items for Future Discussion

Several commissioners raised issues that they’d like to bring back for further discussion at future meetings.

Jason Brooks, seated, was praised at Wednesday's board of commissioners meeting by board chair Rolland Sizemore Jr. for his work on behalf of the board. Brooks is deputy clerk, and is the official recordkeeper for the board. Behind him are commissioners Kristin Judge and Conan Smith.

Prater called for a look at the county’s internal financial controls. Given the budget situation – the county faces declining tax revenues and had to cut expenses to deal with a projected $30 million deficit in 2010 and 2011 – he said that having tight controls would be even more critical in the coming years. He clarified that he wasn’t saying there was anything wrong with the county’s current financial management.

Kristin Judge asked that the board have a discussion to set priorities. She also asked that the working sessions begin to include discussions about policy changes. Board rules dictate that policy changes be first introduced at working sessions, she said, adding that policy discussions aren’t typically initiated at those meetings, which often focus on staff reports.

Conan Smith said he’d like to examine the employee compensation structure, looking specifically at the equity between union and non-union compensation. He noted that this issue arose during the 2009 budget discussions.

Leah Gunn asked that they revisit the issue of getting the board out of the Money Purchase Pension Plan (MPPP). [Commissioners are the only county employees still participating in this defined contribution plan. Other county employees have been moved to the Washtenaw County Employees’ Retirement System, known as WCERS, a defined benefit plan.] A resolution to eliminate the county’s contribution for commissioners to the MPPP was pulled from the board’s Nov. 18, 2009 agenda, at Wes Prater’s request. Prater had asked that the item be moved to the board’s Jan. 20, 2010 meeting.

Several commissioners said they hope to discuss ways to reorganize county departments and services, in light of budget cuts. Also related to the budget, Mark Ouimet said they all needed to be sensitive to revenue projections in the coming months. It was important for both the current and future county administrators to track revenues closely and keep the board informed, he said, because that would set all of the board’s actions in motion. They need to be aware of what they can and can’t do, he said, based on county revenues.

Public Commentary

Two people spoke during the time set aside for public commentary.

Brian Nord: Speaking on behalf of the homeless advocacy group MISSION, Nord thanked civil rights attorney David Blanchard, University of Michigan law student Jen Coleman and the Michigan ACLU for their work on behalf of Caleb Poirier. Poirier – who is part of the local Camp Take Notice – had been arrested for trespassing on public property. Poirier had just been trying to survive, and his situation is the tip of the iceberg, Nord said. Though the county prosecutor dropped the charges against Poirier, Nord wondered how much money in general was being spent to prosecute the homeless. It’s indicative of a system with misplaced priorities, he said. Support from the public has been strong – people are ready to get “off their keesters” and take action, Nord said. The issue deserves a more coordinated community response, he said, and Nord urged commissioners to take a leadership role. Referring to the county’s Blueprint to End Homelessness, “if the blueprint is still our guide,” he concluded, “then it needs an architect and it needs a carpenter.”

Tom Partridge: Speaking during the two times allotted for public commentary, Partridge identified himself as a Democrat and a potential candidate for elected office in 2010. He urged commissioners to start making substantive reforms, including an expansion of the board and the creation of positions that are elected on a countywide basis, rather than within specific districts within the county. He said the board’s chair and vice-chair should be elected to those positions by voters, not by the board. And reflecting on the fact that no county or city leaders had appeared recently on any of the three major TV network’s weekend public interest programs, Partridge said that showed there was a lack of leadership among local officials. Regarding the search for a new county administrator, Partridge said the person should be hired on a contract basis, with the goal of making that job an elected one, as it is in nearby counties. As he often does, Partridge called for an expansion of countywide and regional transportation, health insurance, lifelong education, affordable housing and aid for the homeless.

Response to Public Commentary

Commissioner Jeff Irwin thanked Brian Nord for his comments on the plight of the homeless, and said he was glad that county prosecutor Brian Mackie had used his authority to drop charges against Poirier. Irwin said he agreed with Nord about the use of resources – he noted that county administrator Bob Guenzel had worked hard on the Blueprint to End Homelessness and on the building of the Delonis Center, a homeless shelter, but said there are now more people in need than there are resources to help them. The community needs to come together, Irwin concluded, and that can only happen if people like Nord speak out.

Larry Kestenbaum, Washtenaw County clerk, was presiding over the meeting during Partridge’s first public commentary turn. Kestenbaum clarified that the board did not have the authority to make the kind of changes that Partridge suggested, in terms of expanding the board and changing the way that members were elected. State law requires that an apportionment committee look at the composition of the board every 10 years – that process will likely begin in 2011, Kestenbaum said.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Jeff Irwin, Kristin Judge, Mark Ouimet, Jessica Ping, Wes Prater, Ken Schwartz, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith

Absent: Ronnie Peterson

Next board meeting: The next regular meeting is Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at the County Administration Building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. [confirm date] (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting. No advance sign-up is required.

Rolland Sizemore, right, newly elected chair of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, confers with Curt Hedger, the county's corporate counsel, at Wednesday night's board meeting.

County Board of Commissioners (Jan. 7, 2009) In an uncharacteristically short session, members of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners were sworn in. They then elected new leaders, adjusted their rules to cut the amount of time given to public comment – and adjourned in less than an hour.

Rolland Sizemore Jr., whose district primarily covers Ypsilanti Township, was elected to chair the commission, replacing Jeff Irwin, who represents District 11 in Ann Arbor. Both are Democrats. Any drama that occurred over the change in leadership happened behind the scenes – no dissenting votes were cast in the election of any officers on Wednesday night.

Swearing In

The meeting began with County Clerk Larry Kestenbaum officiating, a role he maintained until after the board chair was elected. Judge David Swartz of the Washtenaw County Trial Court swore in the nine commissioners in attendance – absent were Ronnie Peterson and Leah Gunn, who was reported ill by fellow commissioner Barbara Levin Bergman.

The swearing-in ceremony: Commissioners Jessica Ping, Mark Ouimet, Wesley Prater, Kristin Judge and Conan Smith.

Each commissioner said a few words after the swearing-in ceremony, and all spoke about the financial challenges facing the county in the coming year – county officials had to make cuts to their 2009 budget to deal with a $15 million shortfall, and difficult decisions will be made as they look to 2010-11. Even so, many expressed optimism that the difficulties could be overcome. Jeff Irwin stressed the importance of continuing to invest in areas that would spur economic development, such as transit and energy. That approach, he said, would create jobs and drive a “Keynesian recovery,” rather than having the local economy “fall victim to the waves that are rising around us.”

Conan Smith, after joking that he was “shocked and amazed” that the citizens of Washtenaw County had sent him back to the commission, said it would take every ounce of intellect and energy to deal with the financial challenges, but that they weren’t insurmountable. Mark Ouimet, who thanked his family and constituents, said they needed to look at government differently than they had in the past.

Election of Officers

Though Jeff Irwin, at a previous board meeting, had expressed a desire to remain board chair, Mark Ouimet nominated Rolland Sizemore Jr. No other nominations were offered up and Sizemore was elected on a voice vote with no discussion or dissent. Jessica Ping nominated Mark Ouimet for vice-chair, and he too was elected on a voice vote with no discussion or dissent. Ouimet and Ping are the only two Republican commissioners, representing District 1 (western Washtenaw) and District 3 (Saline and several townships in southwest Washtenaw), respectively.

Later in the meeting, Wes Prater made the remaining nominations, which were all approved by voice vote with no discussion or dissent: Conan Smith, chair of the Ways & Means Committee; Kristin Judge, vice chair of Ways & Means (from District 7, Pittsfield Township); Jessica Ping as chair of the board’s Working Session; and Ken Schwartz (District 2, northeastern Washtenaw) as vice chair.

As noted in a Stopped.Watched. item, Smith is the only Ann Arbor commissioner who was elected an officer on Wednesday. Previously, Ann Arbor commissioners chaired both the board (Irwin) and the Ways & Means Committee (Bergman), where much of the board’s business is conducted. Also of note: Ouimet is the first Republican elected to a county board leadership position in several years. (Ouimet told The Chronicle that he was informed it had been more than 20 years – we are as yet unable to confirm that time frame.)

Rule Changes

The board also adjusted some of its rules and regulations. Most notably, a proposal by Conan Smith – and approved by the board, with only Jeff Irwin and Rolland Sizemore Jr. dissenting – cut the time alloted to each public commenter at the Ways & Means Committee to 3 minutes, down from the current 5 minutes. He also proposed, and the board (aside from Irwin and Sizemore) agreed, to require that public comment during Ways & Means address only items on the agenda. Currently, there are no such limitations.

Smith said his goal was to make the meetings more efficient, and that the public still had the opportunity to speak before the entire board with no change in the current time limit or topic rules. (Public commentary sessions are at the beginning and end of both the Ways & Means Committee and board meetings, which are held back-to-back.) He said that the public still had a total of 16 minutes to speak over those four periods, down from the current 20 minutes.

Curt Hedger, the county’s corporate counsel, said he thought there might be free speech issues associated with limiting the topics of public commentary, and that he’d check on that.

Irwin said he thought people should be able to read the phone book for 5 minutes if they wanted to, though he’d prefer they didn’t. He said the board generally gets very few people at its public comment sessions, and that he didn’t want to restrict it in any way. “We need to keep our doors as open as possible.” He also noted that the Ways & Means Committee meeting can last for two hours or more before the board meeting begins, thus forcing someone to wait who wants to speak on a topic that’s not on the agenda.

Smith said he believes citizens should be treated more like staff, and that he would be willing to allocate them even more than 5 minutes if they contacted him before the meeting and if it were appropriate to the agenda.

Bergman said she’d like to see that approach codified into the commission’s rules and regulations. She also wondered how citizens would know that they could get this additional time, and urged the board to do some kind of outreach about it.

Public Comment

Interestingly, given the discussion, no one spoke at the board’s final public comment session of the evening. The first public comment session early in the meeting had two speakers: Tom Partridge and Ken Siler.

Partridge admonished the commission to pay more attention to the situation of the homeless in Washtenaw County, urging them to open the doors to public buildings so that homeless people would have a place to stay on cold, snowy evenings like this one. He said they should consider meeting outside in the cold, just like the homeless. He also wanted the commission to pass an emergency resolution calling for affordable, accessible transportation and health care throughout the county.

Siler was recently reelected president of the Washtenaw County Farm Bureau, and distributed a list of resolutions by the bureau stating what they’d like to accomplish. He said he hoped the commission would support their work, as the bureau hoped to support the commission.

Liaison Report: Road Commission

After the first public commentary, Mark Ouimet gave a liaison report from the Washtenaw Road Commission. He said federal funds might be available for road work this year, and that the commission was preparing a list of roads that were a high priority for repair. He said that David Rutledge had been elected chair, and Doug Fuller is vice chair. Fred Veigel is the road commission’s third board member.

Wes Prater, who previously served on the road commission, said the staff had started working on a comprehensive preservation and maintenance plan in 2007, but that it wasn’t yet done. He expressed frustration that he hadn’t been able to get a clear answer about its progress, and said the county commission might need to pass a resolution to push it along. (The county board appoints road commissioners, but has no real authority over their actions.) Prater said the plan was important to have soon, given the possible availability of federal funds.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Jeff Irwin, Kristin Judge, Mark Ouimet, Jessica Ping, Wes Prater, Ken Schwartz, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith

Absent: Leah Gunn, Ronnie Peterson

Next board meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 21 at 6:30 p.m. at the County Administration Building, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date] The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting.

In other board business, a bylaws change was passed to allow for public comment at the beginning of board meetings on any of the board’s agenda items. Board chair David Nacht described it as “an opportunity to make a pitch in advance of our actions,” and said that he thought it was “a really good idea.” A time limit of two minutes per individual will apply to the commentary at the beginning of the meetings. A time for public comment on any topic will still be available at the end of meetings.

Meeting Agenda (not including resolutions)

Communications: In his communications to the board, chair David Nacht acknowledged that AATA’s web service provider, IAS, had experienced some issues, but he was pleased with the response of staff, which was working in coordination with the city to get everything back up and running as soon as possible. He assured the public that the board was aware of what was going on and said that he was comfortable that AATA staff was making all appropriate steps. [It's not yet clear to The Chronicle whether AATA has retained the services of IAS as its provider, but based on comments left on The Chronicle by someone with IAS, this seems to be the case – AATA website services are back up and running except for real-time RideTrak information.]

Nacht also noted that he’d had a “fantastic session” over lunch with the executive board of the AATA local advisory committee. He said that it was something he wanted to do on a regular basis.

He said that he’d had a chat with the headhunter for the new executive director (since Greg Cook’s resignation in early 2007, AATA has been led by interim executive director Dawn Gabay) and was excited that this process was underway. He also previewed the resolution on the change in the bylaws to allow for public commentary on agenda items before they are discussed by the board. He characterized it as consistent with their efforts to keep themselves streamlined, but to keep themselves responsive to the public.

Approval of previous minutes: Board member Jesse Bernstein noted that because he had been absent, he could not have moved for adjournment as the minutes indicated, saying that, “I’m good, but not that good.” The minutes were revised to reflect that Rich Robben had made the motion.

In discussing the minutes, Ted Annis noted that he’d also been absent, and thus had read the minutes, though he’d be abstaining on voting to approve them. He noted that the minutes, under the heading, “Planning and Development Committee Report,” indicated “There was no report.” Annis chairs that committee. He noted that the PDC had been very active, having met three times since the last board meeting. Each of these meetings, Annis said, generates minutes, and historically these minutes had always been in the committee report. Based on his understanding, Annis said, those minutes would be made available on the AATA website, but he stressed that those minutes needed to become a part of the public record. He asked if something needed to be done to incorporate them in the board minutes by record. Nacht said that the point was well-taken, because the board minutes leave the impression that there’s nothing going on, when in fact there was a lot of work taking place.

Board and Staff Reports: Noting that the new board format would not include going through the various reports from committees and staff verbally, Nacht was prepared to move to question time for the executive director. Board member Charles Griffith, however, noted that it would be useful for committees to “point out what we should be looking at” in the reports, or at least note whether the committee had met or not. Annis indicated that he’d planned to say that his committee had met – a light-hearted quip that earned some laughs. Nacht then quickly polled the committee to establish that they’d all met, and made a gambit to move the board along to the new business, “unless we have something we need to talk about.”

Annis said that he needed to give the board “a little headline news.” “Fire away!” replied Nacht. Annis said that the planning and development committee had met three times since the last board meeting, and that one focus had been fare adjustments. The committee’s Dec. 9 meeting summary, as well as Annis’ verbal description, indicates a proposed base fare structure starting May 2009 of $1.25 per ride, moving to $1.50 per ride in May 2010. In response to a query from Nacht, Annis said that they’d given staff the go-ahead to begin conducting public hearings, with the matter to come before the board roughly around April. Nacht said that it was important to weigh the matter carefully before undertaking an action that will have “an impact on human beings.”

There are various accommodations for discounts and reductions in the fare proposal, which include the possibility of a zero fare for those with disabilities and for seniors. Annis said the committee had also asked staff to look at contingency plans in the event of 10%, 20%, or a 40% reduction in revenues. In light of the situation with GM and Ford, Annis said the committee felt that preparing contingencies was simply a wise move to make.

On the subject of WALLY, the proposed north/south commuter rail, Annis said they’d spent some, but not too much time taking a look at Act 196 (under which AATA might be able to reorganize itself as an authority to include regional rail). He also said that they’d spent time looking at the Ann Arbor Transportation Plan Update (AATPU), which had been presented to the whole board at a previous meeting. [Eli Cooper, transportation program manager with the city of Ann Arbor, who had given that presentation, was in the audience as Annis gave his summary.] He advised that the city of Ann Arbor was looking at AATA spending around $11 million over the next five years in support of that plan. Annis had praise for the AATA staff in preparing the analysis underpinning the fare adjustments, saying that “it was so good that I included it in the minutes.”

Annis elicited from his colleague on the planning and development committee, Rich Robben, a status report on the north-south connector study, for which AATA had authorized an increase in its share of the funding to $160,000. Robben advised the board that the DDA had declined to increase its own contribution, choosing instead to turn the matter back to UM, one of the partners in the study (along with the DDA, and the city of Ann Arbor) to explore the possibility that UM would take on a greater share of the study’s funding.

Jesse Bernstein asked for feedback on service productivity standards with a chart and definitions that staff had prepared, and said that he felt it represented a clear and effective way to look at it. Bernstein said the material would be available on the website.

Old Business (WALLY, Roundabouts): Nacht inquired of interim executive Dawn Gabay whether AATA was in the process of recruiting someone to handle the WALLY project (a proposed north-south commuter rail service). Gabay said that they were coordinating with the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and that they were heading towards a staffing solution that would involve a contracted employee as opposed to a new staff person. Further, she said, they would likely issue an RFP for public relations.

Jesse Bernstein inquired what the implications might be of MDOT’s intention to install a double roundabout at Geddes and US-23 and whether it would work for buses. Chris White, AATA manager of service development, said that the area currently posed a problem due to traffic backups and that as long as buses can get through the roundabouts, it would be a benefit.

Resolutions

Public Speaking: The board unanimously approved the new bylaw. It provides at the beginning of board meetings for two minutes of public speaking time per person on items the board is considering on its agenda.

Authorization to Execute a Contract for Insurance Brokerage Services: Four responses were received from an RFP sent to 17 firms. Based on the scoring criteria applied by the evaluation committee, the contract, which provides for around $4,000 per month in insurance brokering services, was awarded to Marsh USA, Inc. Satisfied that the vendor had been vetted sufficiently by committee, the board unanimously approved the resolution.

Contract for Design of Park and Ride at Plymouth and US-23: A contract for design work was awarded to OHM in the amount of $125,400. Although the Federal Highway Administration still needs some additional information, at a Nov. 24 meeting of Nacht, FHWA and MDOT (on whose property the park and ride lot will be built), it was indicated the project would be approved by FHWA, thus the need to begin design work. OHM performed traffic studies in connection with the project. Nacht said he was also familiar with their work from his service as Scio Township trustee. The resolution passed unanimously.

Public Commentary

Tom Partridge: Partridge began by criticizing the time restriction of two minutes for public speaking at the beginning of board meetings as too short. He said that the board should encourage public commentary without restrictions and should take an attitude towards the public that indicated they wanted to have as much communication as possible, calling it the fundamental principle on which our Constitution was founded. He described the meeting format as “not public-friendly,” indicating that not everyone had access to the AATA website to get the minutes from committee reports – an allusion to the new meeting format in which committee reports are to be received in written form and eventually posted on the website, but not discussed at board meetings. Partridge also called for the taping of the board meetings for broadcast on the Internet or on CTN, and suggested that venues for the meetings be chosen that can accommodate a large in-person audience. Partridge said that it was incumbent on a “Harvard-educated chair of the board” to bring all this about – Nacht earned a degree from Harvard.

Partridge concluded by noting that the ballot in the recent November elections contained a millage to address revenue for parks, but nothing for transportation. It is to the detriment of the county that there is still not an adequate bus network in Washtenaw County, he said. Referring to the proposed north-south commuter rail project that goes by the acronym WALLY, Partridge asked the board to turn their attention away from “Mister WALLY,” saying that it was a project for the future, but what was needed now is better bus transportation.

From Nacht, Partridge’s turn at public comment earned a thank-you and the characterization, “Coherent and spirited!”

Jim Mogensen: Mogensen took up the topic of discounted and free fares that had been a part of the Annis’ summary of the planning and development committee’s report on fare increases. He drew an analogy to food stamps, drawing on a meeting he’d attended of Food Gatherers at the United Way. There the question had been, “Why don’t people who qualify for food stamps go ahead and get them?” Among the reasons, Mogensen said, is the fact that qualifiers need to go someplace to get them, as well as the fact that as their income situation changes slightly, there’s a need to constantly update and inform the various bureaucratic bodies. In light of that, he said, the AATA board should be mindful of the need to reach out to those who qualified for discounted or free fares and to go to where they are to provide them with their discount cards. This, as opposed to asking people to come out to the AATA administration building, for example.

Carolyn Grawi: Grawi called the board’s attention to the last day of the state legislature’s session the following day (Dec. 18), which represented an opportunity for $150 million in transportation funding, and urged people to call Sen. Liz Brater to express their support. She also thanked the board for the change in bylaws allowing for public commentary to precede agenda items [Editor's note: Grawi had asked for the change at the first AATA board meeting that The Chronicle covered.] Grawi also suggested that minutes from the committee meetings be posted to the website as soon as they were available, even if they were in draft form. She said that she was encouraged that the board was thinking about the impact that fare increases would have on the people who use the bus, and said that if they are successful in putting through fare reductions for A-Ride, the people who use the A-Ride (physical disability and seniors) would be thrilled.

Present: Ted Annis, Charles Griffith, Jesse Bernstein, David Nacht, Paul Ajegba, Rich Robben

Absent: Sue McCormick

Next meeting: Wednesday, Jan. 21 at 6:30 p.m. at AATA headquarters, 2700 S. Industrial Ave.