This revision to the set of council rules was first presented to the council on June 17, 2013. However, a vote was postponed at that meeting.

The revisions were prompted by a desire to allow for public commentary at council work sessions – to eliminate any question about whether councilmembers were engaged in deliberative interactions at those sessions. By allowing for public commentary at work sessions, the council would ensure compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The council’s rules committee also recommended additional changes, including a shortening of the individual speaking turns for public comment as well as shortening of time for councilmembers. Those additional changes were included in the June 17 version of the rules.

After again postponing a vote at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council used its following meeting, on July 15, 2013, to eliminate one of the proposed rule changes – the shortening of public speaking turns. But the council postponed further revisions and a vote until Sept. 3. The council’s rules committee – consisting of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje – was supposed to meet before the Sept. 3 meeting to consolidate input from other councilmembers and perhaps present a clean slate of proposed revisions. However, in the interim, the rules committee did not meet.

Among the other changes that had been a part of the proposed revisions, but which were postponed until the Sept. 16 meeting, was the addition of a rule to disallow the use of mobile electronic communication devices at the council table. Another possible change would affect the council’s standard agenda template by moving nominations and appointments to boards and commissions to a slot earlier in the meeting, instead of near the end.

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]

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

For both agenda items, the expectation was that council committees would work during the interim period to hammer out a clarified proposal and recommendation for the full council to consider on Sept. 3. In neither case was that committee work accomplished.

After voting at its May 6, 2013 session to postpone a final vote on DDA ordinance revisions until Sept. 3, the council attempted to ensure that the deliberations at the first meeting of the fall would be productive. The council voted on July 1, 2013 to establish a joint council-DDA committee to work out a recommendation on possible legislation. The main point of controversy involves the definition of the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture.

Already given initial approval by the council is a proposal that would essentially enforce the existing ordinance language. The revision to the ordinance would have an arguably inconsequential impact on TIF revenue received by the DDA – when compared to its most recent 10-year planning document. What makes that comparison controversial, and unwelcome to the DDA staff and board, is the fact that its most recent planning document doesn’t include tax revenue from very recent new downtown construction. The revised ordinance would have a roughly $1 million per year negative impact on DDA TIF revenues – when compared to the amount the DDA would receive if the DDA were allowed to give the existing ordinance language its preferred interpretation.

The charge to the joint committee on July 1 was to begin meeting immediately, but the group did not convene until eight weeks later, on Aug. 26 – after the Aug. 6 Democratic primary election. The outcome of that election left a key vote in place for an ordinance revision that doesn’t favor the DDA – that of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who defeated challenger Julie Grand. Still, DDA board members at the Aug. 26 meeting seemed keen to continue a delaying gambit. That’s because a failure by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to win re-election in November could tip the balance in the DDA’s favor – even factoring in the addition of Jack Eaton in Ward 4. Eaton, who prevailed on Aug. 6 over incumbent Marcia Higgins, supports the idea of constraining the DDA’s TIF capture.

At the one committee meeting held so far, the only substantive concept that was batted around briefly was the idea of defining some kind of fixed cap on TIF revenue. This approach would replace the existing ordinance language, which calibrates the DDA’s TIF capture with the projections in the TIF plan. But the discussion never went as far as to include dollar amounts for the fixed cap. After about an hour and a half of political squabbling and sometimes inaccurate recitation of historical facts, the general mood among councilmembers seemed to be reflected in a remark by Sally Petersen (Ward 2): “I don’t think we can be there by next week.” So the item looks likely be postponed on Sept. 3. However, the council is free to vote the proposal up or down at this meeting.

The one session of the joint DDA-council committee still exceeded, by one meeting, the council rules committee’s effort over the summer. The rules committee did not meet at all between July 15, 2013 and Sept. 3. On July 15, the council had postponed a vote on new rules, but not before rejecting one of the proposed rule changes, which the committee had first presented on June 17, 2013. The council as a whole was not keen to shorten public commentary speaking turns. So the proposal currently in front of the council would maintain the existing three-minute time limit.

But as the council’s July 15 deliberations on other proposed rules changes threatened to bog down that meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the rules committee, encouraged a postponement until Sept. 3. In the interim, the committee – consisting of Higgins, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje – was supposed to meet to consolidate input from other councilmembers and perhaps present a clean slate of proposed revisions.

Even though the rules committee didn’t meet, based on comments by Briere and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) at the Sunday night caucus on Sept. 1, they might push to eliminate all proposed revisions to the rules except for the one that had prompted the rules committee to consider some changes in the first place. The rules changes were prompted by a desire to allow for public commentary at council work sessions – to eliminate any question about whether councilmembers were engaged in deliberative interactions at those sessions. By allowing for public commentary at work sessions, the council would ensure compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. By enacting that rule change on Sept. 3, the council would be set for a fully deliberative work session on Sept. 9 – which is scheduled to be a joint session with the board of the DDA.

Three other significant items on the Sept. 3 agenda are tied together with an environmental thread. The council will be considering a resolution directing city staff to explore options with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to help to set the clean-up requirements for 1,4-dioxane so that the Pall-Gelman plume is cleaned up to appropriate standards. The council will also be asked to act on a resolution urging the city’s employee retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies. And finally, the council will consider a resolution directing staff to work with DTE on a pilot program for a “community solar” initiative.

More detail on other meeting agenda items is available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network. The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article “below the fold.” The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

6:54 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers is here. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and mayor John Hieftje are the only members of council who are here.

7:01 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) won’t be able to be here tonight. She’s looking after family in Pennsylvania. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) are now here. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) have now arrived.

7:03 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) have arrived, as has Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

7:07 p.m. And we’re off.

7:08 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. Absent tonight are Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

7:08 p.m. Proclamations. Three proclamations are on tonight’s agenda. The first one honors disability community activist Lena Ricks. Her passing was highlighted at the last meeting of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority during public commentary. On that occasion, Carolyn Grawi, director of advocacy and education for the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, described Ricks as a long-time local advisory council (LAC) member for the AAATA. The LAC is a group that provides input and feedback to AAATA on disability and senior issues. Grawi described Rick’s hard work and devotion to disability rights. She described Ricks as the “matriarch of the disability movement,” beginning with work almost 40 years ago.

The second proclamation recognizes Dawn Farm’s 40th anniversary. Dawn Farm is a nonprofit offering both residential and out-patient services supporting recovery for alcoholics and drug addicts. The organization was founded in 1973 by Gary Archie and Jack Scholtus in a rented old farmhouse on Stony Creek Road in Ypsilanti. The organization has grown to include facilities in downtown Ann Arbor.

The third proclamation honors Bill Kidd for volunteering in Ann Arbor’s parks and natural areas. The proclamation mentions pruning, weeding, monitoring street and park trees through the Citizen Pruner Program and removal of invasive species as activities Kidd has helped with.

7:11 p.m. The proclamation honoring Lena Ricks has been given. It’s met with a round of applause. A family member is expressing her appreciation, calling Lena Ricks a “very dear advocate” for those with disabilities.

7:12 p.m. Representatives of Dawn Farm are now at the podium to receive the proclamation. They include one of the founders – Jim Balmer, who serves as president – as well as Janis Bobrin, former water resources commissioner for Washtenaw County. Bobrin is on the nonprofit’s board of directors.

7:17 p.m. Now at the podium is Bill Kidd to receive his proclamation for volunteering in the city parks and natural areas preservation program.

7:17 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Signed up tonight, with topics in parens, are Thomas Partridge (Martin Luther King Jr. freedom march), Jim Mogensen (Downtown Development Authority ordinance) Roger Rayle (cleanup criteria for the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume), Jeff Hayner (environmental issues), Mike Shriberg (fossil fuel company divestment), Monica Patel (fossil fuel company divestment), Mark Koroi (council rules revisions), and Henry Herskovitz (weekly demonstrations at Beth Israel).

7:21 p.m. Partridge introduces himself as a 2010 senate candidate and 2012 candidate for the Michigan house of representatives who’s now a write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council this year. He speaks as an advocate supporting Martin Luther King Jr.’s agenda. Partridge calls for emphasis on affordable housing, public transportation, and fair access to public meetings. He calls for 3- to 5-minute public participation time. There should be no reductions in the amount of time offered to the public, he says. A forward-looking city council would look for new ways to increase public participation time, he concludes.

7:25 p.m. After Partridge’s remarks, mayor John Hieftje tells those holding signs to move to the sides of the room in accordance with the council rules. Mogensen is categorizing Michigan cities, based on their challenges. Ann Arbor tries, as does the general public, to deny these challenges exist. Some people blame liberals for spending money. He alludes to the old quip about Ann Arbor during the football season: “Fake left, run right.” The basic idea is to make the city function well.

7:28 p.m. Rayle introduces himself as chair of Scio Residents for Safe Water. He speaks in support of the resolution on the agenda calling on the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality to tighten up the standards for the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane cleanup. When the standards were loosened back in 1985, he says, it happened overnight. He notes that this doesn’t have to be the last resolution on this topic. He’s glad that the council’s attention is back on this topic. Ann Arbor’s water system could eventually be threatened, he says, and a “new hit” was recorded on a well where nobody expected it. He describes his work with GoogleEarth to show how the plume has spread. He calls on Gov. Rick Snyder to get involved and to get the MDEQ straightened out as well as the state attorney general’s office.

7:31 p.m. Hayner, who’s running as an independent for city council in Ward 1 against incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere, is now at the podium. He talks about the balance between vision and common sense. He speaks in support of the community solar resolution. He also speaks in support of the divestment of fossil fuels companies, but urges caution and warns of possible losses. Is social gain worth the risk? he asks. He thanks Rayle for speaking about the 1,4-dioxane resolution. It’s a complex problem that is not going away, he says.

7:34 p.m. Shriberg is speaking on behalf of the city’s energy commission. He asks the council to support the community solar resolution and the fossil fuel divestment resolution. He mentions Seattle, San Francisco, State College and Boulder as examples of cities that have divested. He describes the increased financial risk as minimal.

7:35 p.m. Patel is now supporting the resolutions on community solar and fossil fuel divestment on behalf of the Ecology Center. She gives the council petitions signed by Ann Arbor residents.

7:38 p.m. Koroi reminds councilmembers that he’d spoken to the council previously on the topic of public commentary at working sessions. He says he wants to see the issue taken care of. He notes that Higgins is not here and calls her “the invisible woman.” More public commentary means that the council will hear more from Partridge and Blaine Coleman, Koroi says, adding that the U.S. Constitution must be upheld. He says the Michigan Open Meetings Act should be upheld.

7:41 p.m. Herskovitz cites two news articles about the protests in front the Beth Israel Congregation on Washtenaw Avenue. He notes that at the previous council meeting, the council had been asked to express its displeasure about the protests. He objects to comments made by mayor John Hieftje and other councilmembers. Herskovitz reports that three days ago, someone had spat on a protestor. A police officer had come out to investigate and to view video of the incident, he says.

7:42 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:42 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is giving an update on the work of the North Main Huron River Corridor task force’s work. Their final report has been submitted. The report includes some before-after photos depicting possible improvements, like a pedestrian bridge across the Huron River connecting the Argo berm to the MichCon property. The task force was established at the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting, and had been due at the end of July. But Briere had apprised the council at previous meetings of the slight delay.

7:43 p.m. Briere apologizes for the delay in the delivery of the report. She hopes there will be a presentation at the next council meeting on Sept. 16. Briere also reports that the D1 zoning review could be delayed. More public meetings have been added than were originally planned.

7:47 p.m. Petersen announces that on Sept. 15 at 1 p.m. a Sensory Garden will be dedicated at Liberty Plaza – the downtown park at Division and Liberty. It’s a project of the Ann Arbor commission on disability issues, in collaboration with the city’s adopt-a-park program and the University of Michigan Matthaei Botanical Gardens. A ceremony will be held to honor former commissioner Pamela Baker-Trostle.

7:47 p.m. Kailasapathy reports that she’s been working with staff on getting a report from a professional traffic engineer regarding the recommendation for the city’s crosswalk ordinance. She indicates that she might bring forward a resolution at the next meeting calling for an independent review of the crosswalk ordinance and the associated infrastructure.

7:48 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers indicates that he’ll be providing an update to the council on the review of the new crosswalk ordinance, and of the sanitary sewer overflow in the Arboretum at the start of the weekend. He describes some praise from a resident on Lincoln Street who was pleased with the performance of the Ann Arbor fire department earlier today.

7:49 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Only one public hearing appears on the agenda tonight. It’s a proposal to build a new Hampton Inn at 2910 Jackson Ave., across the street from Weber’s Inn. The proposed four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, would include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet. A 163-room Clarion Hotel stands on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel.

The planning commission gave this “planned project” a recommendation of approval at its July 2, 2013 meeting. Commissioners had discussed the proposal at length during their June 18, 2013 meeting. Ultimately, they unanimously voted to postpone action at that meeting, instead asking the developer to address concerns over pedestrian access within the site. The planned project status is being sought that the existing foundation can be used. In 2008, when an earlier site plan had been approved, but nothing beyond the foundation built, no maximum front setback had been required. Now, however, a maximum front setback of 50 feet is required on at least one of the site’s three front property lines. A planned project status would allow that requirement to be waived.

A drawing of the proposed Hampton Inn on Jackson Avenue – next to the larger existing Clarion Inn – was shown to commissioners at their July 2 meeting. The design includes improved pedestrian features.

7:51 p.m. Thomas Partridge is speaking on the Hampton Inn planned project site plan. He says he’s wary of the planning commission’s approval. We don’t want more pedestrian casualties or deaths, he says. Many people use this stretch of Jackson Road to deliberately speed, he contends.

7:54 p.m. Andy Wakeland with Giffels-Webster Engineers of Washington Township, Mich., – the civil engineer for the Hampton Inn project – is now addressing the council. He discusses the pedestrian issues. He calls it a pedestrian-friendly site and says, “We’re pretty proud of it.” The architect for the project is now addressing the council. He recalls how the project was started several years ago, and the foundations had been completed. In the interim, the city changed its zoning ordinance, and those concerns had to be addressed. He notes the planning commission voted 8-0 to recommend approval.

7:54 p.m. Minutes and consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes just one consent agenda item. It’s a resolution to accept the board of insurance administration minutes of Aug. 15, 2013, and to approve workers’ compensation coverage – through Accident Fund Insurance Company of America ($56,192) and an agreement with CompOne Administrators for third party administrative services ($28,000).

7:55 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. No one separates out the single item.

7:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the consent agenda.

7:55 p.m. DDA ordinance revision. The ordinance proposed to be changed is Chapter 7 of the city code, which regulates the way the tax increment finance (TIF) capture of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is calculated. Up until two years ago, the existing limitation expressed in the ordinance had never been applied. But in May 2011, the city treasurer called the issue to the DDA’s attention, characterizing it as a roughly $2 million issue, dating back to 2003.

However, when the DDA retroactively calculated its revenue, as well as rebates to other taxing jurisdictions, it applied a methodology chosen to minimize the amount of “rebate” owed to other taxing jurisdictions, reducing the amount to roughly $1.1 million. When challenged on its method of calculation, the DDA subsequently reversed its position, claiming that the money it had already paid back to other taxing jurisdictions was a mistake. The DDA’s new position was to claim an interpretation of a clause in Chapter 7 as providing an override to limits on TIF revenue – if the DDA has debt obligations, which it does. So in 2012 and 2013 the DDA did not return any of its TIF capture to other taxing authorities.

The proposal to revise the ordinance, as approved at first reading by the council on April 1, 2013, would essentially enforce the language that’s already in the ordinance, but disallow the DDA’s interpretation of the “debt override” clause. Compared to the DDA’s own 10-year planning document, revenue to the DDA under the ordinance change would be roughly similar:

Ann Arbor DDA TIF revenue projections. The vertical line indicates the year when the clarified calculations would be implemented. The red line is the amount of TIF revenue assumed by the DDA in its FY 2014 and FY 2015 budgets, and in its 10-year planning document. The blue line is the estimated TIF revenue under the proposed clarified ordinance calculations. The yellow line is the estimated TIF revenue that the DDA would receive if the DDA continued to interpret the city’s ordinance in its own way. (Numbers from the city of Ann Arbor and DDA. Chart by The Chronicle.)

However, the 10-year planning document in question did not include a large amount of new construction in the downtown area, that has already generated higher TIF revenue than in the 10-year plan. The ordinance revision also includes term limits for DDA board members, and would make the appointment of the mayor to the board of the DDA contingent on a majority vote of the council. Without majority support, the mayor’s spot on the board would go to the city administrator.

The council voted at its May 6, 2013 session to postpone final consideration of the ordinance revision until Sept. 3. At its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council voted to establish a joint council-DDA committee to work out a recommendation on ordinance revisions. The charge to the committee was to begin meeting immediately, but the group did not convene a meeting until eight weeks later, on Aug. 26, leaving only one week before the meeting when the item was next scheduled to appear on the council’s agenda. The general mood at the committee meeting was that the vote should again be postponed.

7:57 p.m. Kunselman leads off, recalling the history of the proposal, mentioning the meeting of the committee on Aug. 26. Not enough information was available, he says. Staff has been directed to come up with draft language. He says he wants to postpone again, so the committee can meet again and bring it back with something that has more substance. The proposal is to postpone until Oct. 7.

8:00 p.m. Petersen says she might be out of town at that meeting. Kunselman asks Powers if draft language could be ready for the Sept. 16 meeting. Powers indicates that the upcoming work session will have the parking agreement as its topic. He ventures it could be a challenge to schedule that many people to meet. Hieftje suggests postponing until the next meeting and assessing how things stand then.

Kailasapathy says that she’d requested that Chapter 7 be included in the city audit and the answer that had come back was that the ordinance language was not clear. Briere asks if the DDA needed to be able to vote on something before the council acted. Hieftje says no.

8:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the DDA ordinance until its next meeting, on Sept. 16.

8:01 p.m. Shell/Tim Hortons revised PUD. The council is being asked to consider changes to the supplemental regulations for a PUD (planned unit development) for the Shell station and Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. It’s a 1.44-acre site.

The changes to the PUD regulations would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. Access to the drive-thru lane would be off of the site’s existing entrance from Ann Arbor-Saline Road. A PUD had previously been approved by the council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, but without plans for a drive-thru restaurant. The city planning commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

8:04 p.m. Warpehoski asks for a representative of the project to come forward. He says that the area plan doesn’t support a car wash. That possible use was left in, and Warpehoski would like it removed. The developer’s representative doesn’t have any objection. Warpehoski also wants to strike the language that describes the ability for someone to get food and beverage without leaving their vehicle as a public benefit. He describes going through the drive-thru as getting a “salt-sugar-fat fix.” He also doesn’t like the idea of describing the drive-thru as a “gateway.”

8:09 p.m. Teall is now asking questions of the developer’s representative. All he’s asking for is a small drive-thru window, he says. Teall wants to make sure the design of the window fits the architecture. The developer is proud of what the building looks like.

Briere recalls the planning commission discussion. [She serves as the council's representative on the commission.] She asks for an explanation of why the seating area is an appropriate place for such an area. He says the location can be a welcoming symbol, a gateway, so to speak. At the citizens participation meeting, they were told there was quite a bit of pedestrian and bicycle traffic, so the seating area was thought to be a good amenity. Briere asks city planning manager Wendy Rampson to come to the podium. She asks Rampson to comment on the number of residents in the area. Rampson indicates that there are a lot of people who cross through the area. So there’s a lot of pedestrian travel, in addition to the auto travel, Rampson says.

8:11 p.m. Briere says that the confusion is resulting from the fact that there’s a list of eight items and it’s not clear if each item is a discrete benefit. So she had no problem removing an item from the list. Briere asks Rampson to explain how it’s determined what counts as a public benefit for the purpose of evaluating a PUD.

8:14 p.m. “It’s fairly unusual to have a gas station PUD,” Rampson says. The property was originally owned by the school district, she reports. She said that the planning commission felt that as a whole, the items were felt to be a benefit. Kunselman asks about the iterations of the PUD. Did more public benefits get added to the list each time? Kunselman questions whether an amendment to a PUD really requires an additional benefit above and beyond the original public benefit.

8:17 p.m. Kunselman says if the word “gateway” were removed, he’d be fine with everything else. Rampson reports that the owners have expressed concern about making a substantive change, which would require additional readings. City attorney Stephen Postema ventures that the proposed change by Warpehoski isn’t substantial.

Briere says that the advantage of putting items in the PUD language is that the developer can be held accountable for those items.

8:18 p.m. Teall appreciates Briere’s remarks about accountability. She doesn’t have a problem with stating more benefits or with the word “gateway.” She appreciates the attention to detail the developer is giving the project. She won’t support Warpehoski’s amendment to the language. The property is located in Ward 4, which Teall represents.

8:21 p.m. Hieftje says he doesn’t think the change is substantial. Petersen says that she thinks it’s important to consider the gas station as a gateway. She says that Tim Hortons has healthy choices on its menu. Anything that helps beautify the corridor should be supported, Petersen says.

Warpehoski suggests separating the amendment into the part about the car wash and the part about the benefits.

8:23 p.m. Outcome on the benefits language: The council has approved that amendment over dissent from Teall, Anglin, and Petersen.

8:24 p.m. Outcome on “car wash”: The council has approved the elimination of the word “car wash.”

8:24 p.m. Outcome on changes in the Tim Hortons/Shell PUD: The council has voted to give initial approval to the PUD changes. The council will need to vote again at a subsequent meeting, after a public hearing, to give the changes final approval.

8:25 p.m. Resolution to approve the 2013 city council rules. This revision to the set of council rules was first presented to the council on June 17, 2013. A vote was postponed at that meeting. The revisions were prompted by a desire to allow for public commentary at council work sessions – to eliminate any question about whether councilmembers were engaged in deliberative interactions at their work sessions. By allowing for public commentary at work sessions, the council would ensure compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

However, the council’s rules committee recommended additional changes, including a shortening of the individual speaking turns for public comment as well as for councilmembers. And those additional changes were included in the June 17 version of the rules. After again postponing a vote at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council used its following meeting, on July 15, 2013, to eliminate one of the proposed rule changes – the shortening of public speaking turns. But the council postponed further revisions and a vote until Sept. 3.

The council’s rules committee – consisting of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje – was supposed to meet before the Sept. 3 meeting to consolidate input from other councilmembers and perhaps present a clean slate of proposed revisions. However, in the interim, the rules committee did not meet. It’s possible that at tonight’s meeting the council will reduce its focus to the original issue – public commentary at work sessions – and leave any further revisions to the newly composed council in November.

8:28 p.m. Taylor suggests postponement. Warpehoski asks if postponement would preclude allowing public commentary at the Sept. 9 meeting. City attorney Stephen Postema indicates that it wouldn’t be precluded. Warpehoski asks that a postponement include direction to notice the public that public commentary will be provided and that it be added to the work session agenda.

Kailasapathy asks if signing up will be required. Postema indicates that he imagines it will simply be general time. Without the rule change, Postema claims there’s nothing in the council rules about the agenda for work sessions.

8:29 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the change to council rules, but will allow public commentary at its next work session.

8:29 p.m. Resolution on cleanup criteria for 1,4 dioxane plume. This resolution would direct the city administrator and city staff to explore actions available to the city, including meeting with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and petitioning the U.S. EPA to help set cleanup criteria for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane in Michigan, including the Pall-Gelman plume and without site specific criteria for the Pall-Gelman plume.

The history of Gelman Sciences, which caused the 1,4 dioxane contamination, goes back 40 years. The MDEQ’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But the EPA’s criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb. The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and according to the council’s resolution, is anticipated to miss a new deadline set for a year later in December 2013.

Here’s a map of the plume. The yellow region is estimated plume area where the 1,4-dioxane concentration is greater than 1 ppb. That area encroaches well into the city of Ann Arbor and extends outside the well prohibition zone (red border).

Map of Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume. Map by Washtenaw County. Back arrow added to indicate baseball field at West Park.

8:33 p.m. Briere is describing the chemical properties of 1,4-dioxane. She describes the long history of the problem. Some people have voiced concern that the people who have been involved in advocacy should have been involved in the drafting of the resolution – specifically, the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD). She agrees. She says she has a substitute resolution she wants the council to consider. She describes the changes as minor. There’s an added “whereas” clause. Briere says that MDEQ is eager to talk to the city about the issue and welcomes the resolution.

8:40 p.m. Hieftje indicates that the city’s lobbyist, Kirk Profit, has been working hard to keep the issue in front of the state. Teall thanks Briere and Warpehoski for their work on the resolution. She’s glad there might be movement on the part of the MDEQ.

Petersen complains that the resolution came to the council just late last week. The resolved clauses don’t “have enough teeth,” she says. The language could be strengthened by defining specific criteria and to define the goals and consulting the expertise of CARD members. She wants the resolution postponed.

Briere asks assistant city attorney Abigail Elias to explain the “teeth.” Elias describes the settlement between the city and Pall-Gelman related to the northwest supply well. She’s not sure what might be added. Kailasapathy says she didn’t want to bring up the issue, but as long as Petersen has done so, she’s going to pursue it. She describes herself as a social scientist turned CPA and values the input of more people. She has mixed feelings about the process. Petersen indicates she wants to move to postpone. Hieftje asks city environmental coordinator Matt Naud to the podium.

8:41 p.m. Hieftje ventures that the resolution is about as strong as it can be made at this time. Naud says the Pall situation is very complicated. CARD has worked hard on the issue and there’s a long list of things they’d like done. What’s clear in this resolution, he says, is that the federal government now thinks 1,4-dioxane is more cancer-causing than the EPA previously thought. The state’s job is to take that and promulgate it under the Clean Water Act, but that hasn’t been done.

8:47 p.m. Naud said that the resolution is a message to the MDEQ. Changing the standard would radically change the attention being paid to the Pall-Gelman site. Michigan has had an 85 ppb standard for a very long time, when everyone else has had a much lower standard, Naud says.

Petersen asks what the risk is in identifying a specific standard. Naud says that he’s not sure what number would come out of Michigan’s algorithm. Naud says that Rayle’s work has in part included hand-entering data from paper copies. Petersen wants to postpone in order to add CARD’s “wish list” to the resolution.

8:50 p.m. Kunselman asks Naud why the state is dragging its feet. Naud says that it’s broader than the 1,4-dioxane issue. He doesn’t really know more than that, he says.

Kunselman asks what the city is doing in the way of contingency planning in the event that a 1,4-dioxane plume reaches Barton Pond. That’s the question that needs to be addressed, he says. “What would we do?” Would we have to filter out the 1,4-dioxane before pumping drinking water to residents? He has no problem postponing or voting on it tonight. But he wants the city to think about what it’s doing itself, as opposed to asking others to do something.

9:02 p.m. Anglin says that the problem is that the courts are generally going to find in favor of Pall-Gelman. He says that when he started serving on the council, he attended some CARD meetings and it was very confusing. Anglin wants to hold a work session on the topic. He points out that the question was asked in connection with the City Apartments project: Who would be responsible if the contamination were to penetrate to that site? Anglin says he’s in favor of postponement because of the magnitude of the issue. But he thanks Briere and Warpehoski for their effort.

Briere says that the odd thing is that it’s not a new emergency. Rather, it’s an ongoing problem. The first step seems to be to get MDEQ to act, Briere ventures. Naud indicates some agreement with that idea. The change at the federal level should have trickled through to the state level, Naud says. Pall-Gelman says that currently they don’t have to worry about areas that have concentrations below 85 ppb.

Briere says she assumed that other councilmembers were already up to speed on the issue. She thought that the opportunity to achieve something should be seized. Naud says that there’s no question that the state should have acted in some way, and that’s why the resolution focuses on that. Petersen asks if the purpose of the resolution is just to put MDEQ on notice. Naud indicates basic agreement. Petersen says that two more weeks shouldn’t be a problem, saying she wants to hear from CARD on this, to see if the language can be strengthened. She moves for postponement.

9:08 p.m. Hieftje says he doesn’t think that the resolution can be strengthened and says that the resolution can provide a start to a conversation. It would give the city’s lobbyist something to work with, Hieftje says. He was impressed that Rayle had been consulted and had spoken in favor of it. Hieftje says he’ll vote against postponement.

Kunselman expresses concern that the city is “going it alone.” Briere says she’s talked to other elected representatives – county commissioners, Scio Township representatives, and members of the state legislature. She says that it’s not Ann Arbor going it alone, but rather Ann Arbor taking the first step. Taking that first step, she says, seems to be vital. She’d attended a briefing with Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, and the message at that briefing was that the first step is for MDEQ to change the 85 ppb number.

Taylor asks how things stand in the city. Naud indicates that when 1,4-dioxane was detected in the northwest supply well in 2003, the city stopped using that well.

9:20 p.m. Naud describes various locations where the city tests for 1,4-dioxane. Taylor says that he’s delighted the proposers have brought it forward, saying that the revised version would be a “scootch” more detailed. He says he doesn’t think that a delay of two weeks would matter.

Teall asks about testing locations. There’s a couple hundred monitoring wells, Naud says. Anglin asks about the city’s conversations with the EPA. Anglin asks about the Armen Cleaners site.

Warpehoski says he’s going to violate the council rules by sending the media revisions to the resolution via email. Warpehoski supports the approach that Briere has taken as “more surgical” than to try to hang a bunch of wish list items as if the resolution were a Christmas tree. He summarizes the intent of the resolution as saying, “Do your job!” Warpehoski says that Briere has done a lot of heavy lifting.

9:20 p.m. Outcome on postponement: On a 4-5 vote, the motion to postpone fails. Voting against postponement were Teall, Warpehoski, Anglin, Hieftje and Briere. Lumm and Higgins are absent.

9:26 p.m. Kunselman says he’ll support the motion. He indicates that if the city’s water system were compromised, then Ann Arbor would connect to the Detroit system. Responding to a question from Briere, Naud indicates that he’s not sure that would be the first place the city would go. Kunselman says that it’s important to hear what the contingency plan is.

Kunselman asks what the criteria would be for shutting down Barton Pond as a water source. Powers indicates he’ll follow up on that. Hieftje says that shutting down Barton Pond is not imminent. Briere asks Naud if there’s any imminent risk. Naud replies that the geology is complicated because of the glaciers. There’s a lot of science and research that would need to be done to determine if the plume could get to Barton and if so, how fast. He allows that 1,4-dioxane has shown up in places where it was not expected.

9:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to direct city staff action related to helping to set cleanup standards for 1,4-dioxane.

9:29 p.m. Street closing for ESPN Game Day. This was added late to the agenda. The request is to close Washington Street between Thayer and Fletcher streets from Thursday, Sept. 5 at 3 a.m. until 9 p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 7.

9:29 p.m. Outcome: The ESPN Game Day street closing was unanimously approved.

9:30 p.m. Disbursements from the Community Events Fund. This was also added late to the agenda. It includes 18 disbursements to nonprofits, mostly in the $1,000 to $3,500 range. The largest one is $25,000 to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival to cover city costs for the Top of the Park event beginning on June 13, 2014.

9:30 p.m. Outcome: The disbursements from the Community Events Fund were unanimously approved.

9:30 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess.

9:43 p.m. The council has returned from recess.

9:43 p.m. Hampton Inn planned project. The proposed four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, would include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet.

9:47 p.m. Warpehoski asks city planning manager Wendy Rampson to answer questions. He asks if there’s any plan to install signalization of crosswalks like HAWK or rapid flashing beacons. No, she says. He asks for some explanation of the traffic analysis. Rampson reports that city planner Jill Thacher and traffic engineer Pat Cawley had visited the site. The location of the crossing was the best one available, Rampson says. Warpehoski ventures that of the bad options, he can see how this could be the best one. But as consultations with MDOT and as the project goes through the building permit phase, he’d like attention paid to the issue and urges that every appropriate analysis and protection is put in.

9:49 p.m. Briere says that the planning commission held up the project asking for additional pedestrian amenities within the site. However, the crosswalk had been a part of the initial proposal, she says.

9:55 p.m. Anglin suggests that he and Warpehoski could meet with AAATA staff about the bus stop.

Kunselman asks about the stormwater detention pond. He ventures that the overflow discharge goes to the expressway. Yes, and that will need to be approved by MDOT, says a representative of the developer. Kunselman asks if MDOT will dictate the signage on the crosswalk. Rampson is not sure if the signs would be different from the other signs in the city next to crosswalks.

Hieftje notes that Ann Arbor has the highest hotel occupancy rate in the state.

9:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Hampton Inn planned project.

9:55 p.m. Resolution to divest from fossil fuel companies. This council resolution is based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013. The energy commission recommended that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years.

The resolution defines a “fossil fuel company” to be any of the top 100 coal companies or top 100 gas and oil extraction companies. The top three coal companies on the list are: Severstal JSC; Anglo American PLC; and BHP Billiton. The top three gas and oil companies on the list are: Lukoil Holdings; Exxon Mobil Corp.; and BP PLC.

The basic consideration of the resolution is the importance of the role that greenhouse gas emissions play in global warming. The resolution cites the city of Ann Arbor’s Climate Action Plan, which has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2025 and 90% by 2050. The resolution warns that fossil fuel companies have enough fossil fuel reserves that, if burned, would release about 2,795 gigatons of CO2. That’s five times the amount that can be released without causing more than 2°C global warming, according to the resolution.

9:58 p.m. Hieftje says that as a member of the energy commission, he could say that the issue had been thoroughly reviewed and researched. Briere refers to Jeff Hayner’s public commentary, which indicated that there could be a financial impact. Have there been any other examples of divestment? Briere asks.

City administrator Steve Powers indicates that the last time it came up was in connection with South Africa. So it was a long time ago. Briere asks Nancy Walker, executive director of the retirement system, to come to the podium. Walker says there would be some financial implications.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council vote to urge the city’s retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies has failed on a 5-4 vote, falling short of the six-vote majority it needed. Voting against it were Kunselman, Teall, Anglin and Petersen. Lumm and Higgins are absent.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to encourage community solar development. This council resolution also stems from an energy commission recommendation – that the council direct city staff to work with DTE to develop a “community solar” pilot program, which would allow people to invest in a solar energy system, even if the energy that’s generated would be located off-site from their own electric meter.

The goal is to create a program that would assist the work of the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association (GLREA), which has a grant to work statewide, investigating the feasibility of and constraints facing this collective approach to alternative energy generation. As an example of this approach, the resolution cites the Cherryland Electric Cooperative in Traverse City. The council’s resolution asks that details of a pilot program be ready for consideration by the Michigan Public Service Commission by March 31, 2014.

The goal of community solar is to allow people who don’t own the property where they live, or whose own property is shaded or poorly oriented for solar energy production, to support the production of solar energy.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct staff to work with DTE to develop a community solar pilot program.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to approve the purchase of development rights: Sheldon and Wolf property. This resolution would add land to the city’s greenbelt program, which is funded by a voter-approved millage. The 20-acre property is located in Webster Township. It’s further described in the staff memo accompanying the resolution as located on Zeeb Road, next to active farmland and other property that has already been protected by the city’s greenbelt program.

The purchase price, after deducting a $6,500 landowner donation, is $47,500. Webster Township is contributing $2,000 and Cherry Republic is contributing another $2,300, leaving the city’s share of the purchase price at $43,200. Due diligence, closing costs and a contribution to the endowment brings the city’s total contribution to $82,067.

The Sheldon and Wolf property is indicated in red. The green highlighted area denotes area already protected as a part of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. The heavy green line is the boundary encompassing eligible properties. This is the northwest corner of the boundary area.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the acquisition of development rights on the Sheldon and Wolf property.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to approve participation agreement with Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation. This resolution would authorize the city to participate in the acquisition of two pieces of land owned by DF (Domino’s Farms) Land Development LLC. The appraised value of the land is $322,000, of which the city would contribute up to $32,200. The lead agency on the deal is the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, which voted to approve the purchase of the two parcels at its Aug. 13, 2013 meeting. And the city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended the city’s participation at its July 11, 2013 meeting.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the city’s participation in the acquisition of the Domino’s Farms land.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to approve Suntel Services agreement. The agreement would be for three years for telecommunications maintenance and support at an annual cost of $189,491. The memo accompanying the resolution describes the telecom systems covered by the agreement as “mission critical.” That includes the five phone servers, which process all incoming and outgoing city phone calls. It’s the same system shared by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority – so the AAATA will be billed $7,238 annually for its share of the contract.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Suntel agreement.

10:04 p.m. Resolution to award purchase orders for utility infrastructure components. The two purchase orders would go to ETNA Supply ($167,883) and HD Supply ($163,913). According to the staff memo, the kind of parts included are “valves, brass saddles, various sizes of replacement pipe, fire hydrants, hydrant repair parts, service line connectors, main line connectors and accessories required to repair and maintain the water delivery system.”

10:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase orders for utility system parts.

10:05 p.m. Confirmation of appointments. The council was originally going to be asked to confirm four nominations made at the council’s previous meeting on Aug. 19, 2013: Leigh Greden’s reappointment to the Ann Arbor housing commission; Al McWilliams’ appointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; Devon Akmon’s appointment to fill a vacancy on the public art commission; and Logan Casey to fill a vacancy on the human rights commission.

However, the list was updated around 2:30 p.m. today, omitting Greden’s name. The outcome of a possible vote on Greden’s confirmation was dubious. Both Greden’s and McWilliams’ nominations had come forward from mayor John Hieftje with some wrinkles. On April 1, Nickolas Buonodono had been nominated to replace Leigh Greden on the Ann Arbor housing commission (AAHC) board, after Greden had reached the end of a term. Buonodono is an attorney, and member of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party executive committee. However, that nomination was not on the council’s April 15 meeting agenda for confirmation.

According to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall, who spoke to The Chronicle in a telephone interview in mid-April, Greden was going to seek reappointment for a second term if he could accommodate his schedule to the meeting times. So Greden’s nomination on Aug. 19 appeared to indicate that scheduling issues had been resolved. The housing commission is poised to undergo a major transition to a project-based voucher system, which the council authorized at its June 3, 2013 meeting, on a unanimous vote. An argument for Greden’s continued service on the board could have been made based on the importance of continuity among board members familiar with the intricacies of the transition.

Before McWilliams was nominated at the council’s Aug. 19 meeting, his name had appeared on an early version of the list of nominees for the council’s Aug. 8 meeting. The final version of the list for that meeting, however, did not include his name. McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Akmon is an Ann Arbor resident and the new director of the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn. Casey is a graduate student at the University of Michigan.

10:07 p.m. Hieftje says that there are some openings on the DDA. He asks for the council’s support on tonight’s nomination. He wanted to find someone representing the Main Street business district and the entrepreneurial community.

10:13 p.m. Kailaspathy is speaking to McWilliams’ nomination. She’d asked for a list of those who’d applied for the appointment to the DDA. She’d been told that the person in charge of the list was on vacation but the list would be provided next week.

The second issue, she continues, is that McWilliams’ company is a vendor for the AAATA. The DDA grants money to the AAATA, she says, calling that a conflict of interest.

Hieftje says that his assistant is in fact out of town, and he had not had time to “rustle up those files.” Hieftje says that the process is that the mayor makes nominations. He’d wanted to nominate McWilliams after reviewing the applications on file. Hieftje noted that there is another seat open on the DDA board and that he’d be looking forward to bringing a nomination to the council’s next meeting.

Briere reports that she’s asked the city attorney about the conflict-of-interest question. It’s less clear that there’s actually a conflict, Briere says. She asks city attorney Stephen Postema to comment on the question. Postema essentially indicates that he doesn’t think there’s an inherent conflict, but if an issue arose that could be dealt with when it came up.

10:18 p.m. Postema stresses that if there are two public entities involved, it’s not considered to be a conflict under the statute. Petersen says that even though the state doesn’t define it as a conflict, the council has rules on the question. She doesn’t think the state law is stringent enough. She ventures that McWilliams would need to recuse himself quite frequently, possibly including votes on the DDA budget.

Postema stressed again that the state statue is not as stringent as many people would like it to be. Postema says Petersen might perceive a conflict but that he’s looking at it as a matter of state law.

Taylor argues that there’s no conflict here at all. He gives employees of the University of Michigan on the council as an example. Using the same standard would require the recusal of councilmembers on any UM-related matter, Taylor says. If there’s an actual conflict on a particular occasion, then it’s well established that someone can simply stand down for a particular vote, Taylor continues.

10:24 p.m. Kunselman asks if the other nominations can be separated out. Hieftje proposes voting on confirmations of Akmon and Casey.

10:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm Akmon to the public art commission and Casey to the human rights commission.

10:30 p.m. Kunselman says he appreciates the issue being raised of the appearance of conflict, even if there’s not a legal conflict. He asserts that he has the prerogative to vote as he likes. So Kunselman is interested in a candidate who might be able to accept some reform. He doesn’t think that McWilliams, as a DDA supporter, will be open-minded with respect to following city ordinances. So Kunselman says he will vote against the appointment of McWilliams.

Hieftje asks Kunselman if he’s met with McWilliams. No, Kunselman says, but he’s read McWilliams’ public statements.

Briere says she has not met with McWilliams, but she’d talked with Maura Thomson, director of the Main Street Area Association, who was very enthusiastic about McWilliams being appointed. Briere is now talking about the issue of perceived conflict of interest. Briere says she’s heard that she could have a conflict due to her spousal relationship. She’d heard that she’d had a conflict when she worked for a nonprofit that received city funding. If the council gets interested in the question of whether someone is even just “dimly friendly” with someone, then that will shrink the pool of those who are eligible to serve, Briere says.

10:38 p.m. Briere says that there were two former mayors who were UM faculty. She was surprised that people are considering this kind of thing to be a conflict. If a councilmember feels a nominee falls short of the mark, then they should be voted against based on the merits, she said.

Taylor adds that if one of the goals is to have people who are involved in local business to be involved in civic life, then this level of relationship can’t be a prohibitive factor. The council’s conversation tonight is already doing damage to the possibility that others will want to step forward, he said.

Warpehoski says there are three questions: qualifications, perspective, and conflict. He’s not upset that the council is discussing any of them. Warpehoski says that he’s met McWilliams only once. He says McWilliams has a sharp mind. So Warpehoski says McWilliams is qualified. Warpehoski isn’t sure of the perspective, except what Kunselman has reported. On the question of conflict, Warpehoski says that McWilliams should not vote on contracts that his company would serve. He doesn’t think there would be that many votes that fit that description. He thinks that the question of conflict is still a fair one to ask.

10:44 p.m. Teall says that she’s supportive of McWilliams’ nomination. Responding to Kunselman’s point about McWilliams’ attitude towards the DDA, Teall says that it’s natural that someone who wants to serve on the DDA would be supportive of the DDA. Kailasapathy is skeptical that there would be only a few votes that McWilliams would need to refrain from. She says she thinks there’s a direct conflict of interest.

Hieftje asks for the ability to withdraw the nomination, so that some of the issues that have been raised can be explored.

10:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has not voted on McWilliams’ nomination because Hieftje has withdrawn it. The council’s vote looked like it would have risked failing on a 5-4 vote with Kunselman, Petersen, Kailasapathy, and Anglin possibly voting against it.

10:47 p.m. Council communications. Hieftje says that an October work session will include representatives from the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA).

Kunselman says he’ll be bringing forward a resolution that rescinds the memorandum of understanding between the city and the University of Michigan in connection with the Fuller Road Station.

10:47 p.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:55 p.m. Kai Petainen thanks the council for the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane resolution. But he calls it insulting that some councilmembers weren’t aware of the issue, asking them where they’ve been. He compliments the city for its disclosure of the raw sewage spill recently. He says it doesn’t make sense to divest from an entire sector of the economy – a reference to the fossil fuel divestment resolution.

Thomas Partridge calls on the council to be aware of the need for greater public participation. He complains that there’s been scant information on a recent murder of a UM student.

10:55 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

A sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chambers gives instructions for post-meeting clean-up.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Highlights of the proposed rules changes include adding public commentary to council work sessions. But on the original proposal, 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. During the July 15 meeting, the council agreed to keep the public speaking time at three minutes.

The council then displayed a clear lack of consensus on how to deal with other proposed changes. Prompting a great deal of discussion was a “frequent flyer” rule that would prevent people from signing up for reserved time at the start of a meeting two meetings in a row.

Also scrutinized was a change to the total time that each councilmember can speak on an item of debate. The proposal was to reduce that time 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.

Changes that appeared to have some consensus included one that 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. The new rules would also explicitly prohibit the use of mobile devices for texting or phoning at the council table.

For previous Chronicle coverage on these proposed changes, see “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.”

The council had postponed a vote from its previous meeting, on July 1, 2013, due to the absence of Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – who were described by council rules committee chair Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) as wanting to take part in the conversation. The council had also postponed the item at its June 17, 2013 meeting.

The rules committee is supposed to meet to consider the range of input provided during the July 15 meeting and possibly bring back new recommendations to the Sept. 3 meeting.

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]

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.

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.”

The council had also postponed a vote from its previous meeting on the rules 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]

Ann Arbor public art commissioner John Kotarski at AAPAC's July 25, 2012 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

At Kotarski’s suggestion, commissioners considered three items related to AAPAC meetings: (1) adding a second opportunity for public commentary; (2) changing its meeting times; and (3) alternating the locations of its meetings. Kotarski also raised the possibility of recording the proceedings to be broadcast on Community Television Network (CTN).

The additional public commentary – offering speakers a second three-minute slot at the end of each meeting – was ultimately approved. Less enthusiasm was expressed for pushing back meeting times to later in the day. AAPAC meetings currently start at 4:30 p.m. on the fourth Wednesday of each month, and are held in the basement conference room at city hall. Kotarski proposed moving the meetings to different locations throughout the city, such as schools or other public sites, to make it easier for more people to attend. Commissioners had reservations about that idea too, nor was there much support voiced for a suggestion to record the meetings for broadcast by CTN. Kotarski plans to bring a specific proposal on these items to an upcoming meeting.

Another proposal by Kotarski – to include support for local sourcing as part of AAPAC’s strategic plan – was rejected by other commissioners. Some commissioners felt the idea didn’t fit into a strategic plan, because it was not an action item. Others questioned whether local sourcing of art projects was within AAPAC’s purview, because the commission doesn’t have authority over the city’s purchasing policies. They’ve also been advised that they can’t put geographic constraints on their selection of artists, and felt this would apply to sourcing, too.

Ultimately a four-year strategic plan was approved without Kotarski’s revision. The plan’s goals, in summary form, are: (1) increasing the number of public art pieces throughout the city; (2) diversifying the public engagement and participation in selecting public art; (3) increasing the public’s support and appreciation for public art through PR efforts; and (5) pursuing private funding for public art. More detailed objectives are provided for each of the goals.

Kotarski also was unsuccessful in convincing other commissioners to support an endorsement policy for non-city-funded art projects. AAPAC passed a resolution stating that the commission would not make endorsements – and Kotarski cast the lone dissenting vote. In a separate item, Kotarski joined his colleagues in a unanimous vote to establish an SOQ (statement of qualifications) process that creates an artist registry/database. The intent is to streamline the selection of artists for future projects.

During the July 25 meeting, commissioners were updated on several ongoing projects, including a follow-up on concerns raised last month about the Dreiseitl installation in front of city hall, artwork at a planned rain garden at Kingsley & First, and the status of security checkpoints allowing access to a hanging sculpture in the Justice Center lobby.

There were no updates for some projects because those projects are still being reviewed by the city attorney’s office. Several commissioners expressed frustration at the length of time these reviews are taking. One commissioner wondered what tools AAPAC can use to influence the process, perhaps by appealing to another level within the city administration. AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin agreed to draft a letter on the issue, and to discuss it with city councilmember Tony Derezinski, who serves on the commission but has not attended its June or July monthly meetings.

Action was deferred on proposed projects for public art at two locations: (1) a plaza next to the Forest Avenue parking structure near South University; and (2) a future roundabout at Ellsworth and South State. Commissioners wanted more time to visit those sites. They also debated whether to postpone action until task forces are formed to represent four quadrants of the city – it’s part of a new approach they’re planning to take to help guide the selection of projects and ensure that all parts of the city are represented.

The commission is likely to get more advance notice of possible projects, as Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – will now be attending meetings of the capital improvements plan (CIP) team. The CIP is relevant to the art commission because funding for the Percent for Art program comes from the city’s capital projects –  with 1% of each capital project, up to a cap of $250,000 per project, being set aside for public art. The CIP also indicates which major projects are on the horizon that might incorporate public art. By identifying such projects, AAPAC can start planning the public art component as early as possible, as part of the project’s design, rather than as an add-on.

Dreiseitl Follow-up

At AAPAC’s June 2012 meeting, commissioners had discussed the status of the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall – in particular, the issue of why it’s been dry for long periods. The discussion had stemmed from a written update by public art administrator Aaron Seagraves. The update explained why the water feature had malfunctioned and had noted that the water flow was intended to mimic the rainfall in the area. This information about the water sculpture reflecting the rain cycle was new to many commissioners – including some who had been serving on AAPAC when the project was approved. One of AAPAC’s newest commissioners, John Kotarski, advocated for a follow-up about how the project had evolved.

The June discussion had concluded with commissioners agreeing to send questions to the Dreiseitl project team. At the July 25 meeting, Seagraves provided another written report with answers about the sculpture. Among other things, the report included an email exchange between Dreiseitl and Ken Clein, a project manager with Quinn Evans Architects who oversaw the Dreiseitl installation. [.pdf of full report]

One of the questions that commissioners had posed related to Dreiseitl’s original intent for the work – did he intend for there to be periods when the water didn’t flow? The following is extracted from the email exchange between Clein and Dreiseitl on that issue:

July 12, 2012 email excerpt from Ken Clein to Herbert Dreiseitl:

“There seems to be some confusion regarding your intention for the water supply. Currently only filtered rainwater is used and many have been surprised when it has run dry due to lack of rain this year. The City would like a brief statement from you regarding your intentions for the water supply to set the record straight. Apparently they had the impression that it would run all season (which with normal rain fall would probably be true). The City may ask us to devise a source of potable water as a back-up. If you have any misgivings about this, please express those as well.”

July 12, 2012 from Dreiseitl to Clein: 

“I think if there is no rain it is OK for me to use potable water. It is even more relevant to celebrate the beauty of water in a sensitive way just in dry weather conditions.”

That response resulted in a follow-up email from Clein later that day:

“To me there is something poetic about letting the sculpture reflect the natural cycles, but I too understand that the City and residents would like to see the water running all summer. Your original concept for the sculpture was to rely on the rain. Is that correct?”

Dreiseitl’s response:

“yes you are right we were thinking the sculpture is reflecting the seasons. Rainy days – water on the sculpture. No water for a long time – no water in the system.”

At the July 25 meeting, Marsha Chamberlin said she felt the responses to AAPAC’s questions – responses that also included comments from former AAPAC chair Margaret Parker and Matt Kulhanek, the city’s fleet and facilities manager – had answered the questions thoughtfully and completely.

Chamberlin indicated it was interesting that the people involved early in the project did not envision that the sculpture would have water flowing the entire time. [The Chronicle's attended all AAPAC meetings during the selection of Dreiseitl for this project, and covered Dreiseitl's presentation to city council and the public prior to the council's approval. In reviewing Chronicle coverage of those early discussions, a seasonal aspect that was highlighted related to the water flow during wintertime – when it was anticipated that the water feature would not operate because of freezing temperatures.]

Kotarski had several questions and comments related to the written report. He noted that Clein referred to AAPAC meetings, which are open to the public, as the means for getting public input on the Dreiseitl project. Though there is opportunity for public participation at these meetings, Kotarski said, that doesn’t translate into involvement. He thought AAPAC should try harder to engage the public.

Kotarski also suggested doing this kind of debriefing after every project. He was disappointed that only three of the 16 people who were directly involved in the Dreiseitl project had responded to AAPAC’s questions.

He then turned his comments to the functioning of the “water fountain.” At that, Theresa Reid corrected him, saying it’s a sculpture, not a fountain. Calling it a fountain is a misnomer, she said.

Kotarski expressed concern that it hadn’t been built as Dreiseitl had designed it. He contended that it appeared the sculpture did not capture water from the roofs of the Justice Center and city hall. Seagraves clarified that the rainwater from the roofs of city hall and the adjacent Justice Center is collected into two tanks, which can hold a total of 2,300 gallons of water. Water from those tanks is used for the Dreiseitl work. A separate cistern also collects water from the roofs. [Seagraves also initially referred to the work as a fountain, and was corrected by Malverne Winborne.]

Kotarski said he’d gone out and looked at the site, and it’s not clear to him how the water from the roofs flows into the underground tanks. He wondered how that could be verified.

Sabra Briere, a Ward 1 city councilmember who was attending the meeting, volunteered to explain. She stated that spouts from the police/courts building – which she noted was called the Justice Center, but said she preferred not to use that name – direct water into a holding tank on the west side of the site. Spouts on city hall direct water into a tank under the front plaza. That’s how the water is collected for use in the Dreiseitl piece, she said.

Connie Brown suggested that Seagraves invite an architect or someone else familiar with the project to attend an AAPAC meeting and explain how it works, so that commissioners aren’t speculating.

Commissioners also briefly discussed the text for a proposed sign to be located next to the Dreiseitl piece, which explains how it works in relation to the building and rain garden. [.pdf of text for the sign] There was general agreement that the text provided a good explanation.

Bob Miller returned to Kotarski’s suggestion about regular debriefings. He wondered if Seagraves could put together a debriefing survey for each project. Winborne urged the commission to keep it simple – he warned against “analysis paralysis” and suggested using the same questions that had been asked of the Dreiseitl piece. Other commissioners concurred. Those questions are:

• Who were the major decision-makers on this project?
• What went well with the process? Conversely, what were the lessons learned? (from the key stakeholders’ perspectives)
• What was the role of the commission on this project?
• How was public input folded into this project?

In addition, one set of questions was asked that was specific to the Dreiseitl project: Did the design take into account periods of little or no rain? If not, then what steps are being taking to address this issue?

Outcome: This was not a voting item, but commissioners directed Seagraves to invite someone from the Dreiseitl project to a future AAPAC meeting to explain how the sculpture relates to the site’s stormwater management.

Strategic Plan

The commission discussed a four-year strategic plan, which identifies several major goals to pursue through 2016. AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin had drafted the plan based on previous commission discussions – including a February 2012 retreat. Each goal was fleshed out with more detailed objectives. [.pdf of draft strategic plan]

Although commissioners discussed and edited the document during the July 25 meeting, no substantive changes were made. These are the draft goals, which were modified slightly during the meeting:

• Ann Arbor will substantially increase the number of public works of art throughout the city through the annual assignment of funds and an expedited project development and artist selection process.
• AAPAC will diversify public engagement and participation in the selection of Public Art by establishing a standing task force in each of the city quadrants to recommend public art projects therein. (Quadrants will be based on the “land use areas” from the City of Ann Arbor’s Master Plan, Land Use Element, 2009)
• AAPAC will increase the public understanding, appreciation and support of public art through consistent public relations efforts.
• Pursue private funding for public art.

Another goal from the draft – to develop an art-on-loan program by fiscal 2015 – was eliminated and instead incorporated as an objective in one of the other goals.

One potential major change was brought up by John Kotarski. He wanted to add a goal related to AAPAC’s commitment to local sourcing. Dreiseitl is an example of that, he said – although Herbert Dreiseitl is German, much of the fabricating and installation work was done locally. It was an important goal, he said, and one that would reflect concerns raised by the community. It supports the goal of building a sustainable local arts community, he said.

Several commissioners expressed concerns about adding that goal to the strategic plan. Malverne Winborne felt it was outside of the commission’s purview. AAPAC projects must adhere to city policies, he said. Cathy Gendron noted that AAPAC had been told they can’t put geographic limitations on the selection of artists – that could apply to other aspects of a project, too.

Wiltrud Simbuerger observed that even if AAPAC doesn’t have authority to make those sourcing decisions, commissioners do have to answer questions from the community. So they need to have an answer ready when someone asks about local sourcing. She supporting including it in a mission statement, saying that AAPAC wants to improve the city’s commitment to local sourcing.

Theresa Reid said that was a good point, but she didn’t think it belonged in AAPAC’s strategic plan – because there’s no action they can take.

After further debate, Kotarski conceded that ”I think I’ve beat the horse totally dead. Thank you all for your indulgence.” There was no change made to the strategic plan regarding local sourcing.

Chamberlin agreed to work on a final version that incorporates changes suggested during Wednesday’s meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to accept the strategic plan through 2016.

Meeting-Related Logistics

Commissioners considered three items related to its meetings: (1) adding a second opportunity for public commentary; (2) changing its meeting times; and (3) alternating the locations of its meetings. Also raised was the possibility of recording the proceedings to be broadcast on Community Television Network (CTN).

AAPAC meetings are currently held in the basement conference room at city hall, starting at 4:30 p.m. on the fourth Wednesday of each month. They are not recorded by CTN.

Meeting-Related Logistics: Public Commentary

An action item on the agenda asked commissioners to add a second three-minute public commentary slot at the end of its meetings. Previously, members of the public could formally address AAPAC only at the beginning of each meeting.

The issue of adding another public commentary slot was raised at AAPAC’s June 27, 2012 meeting by commissioner John Kotarski. The intent would be for people to have the opportunity to give feedback before a decision by AAPAC, then provide feedback after that decision is made, he said. Before AAPAC made a decision about public commentary, the commission last month directed Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to research the public commentary practices of other city of Ann Arbor commissions and boards. The majority of those entities include two slots for public commentary. Most of them limit speaking turns to three minutes per speaker.

Bob Miller noted that before he was appointed to AAPAC, he attended several of the commission’s meetings and had wanted more opportunities to participate during those meetings.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to add a second public commentary slot to their monthly meetings.

At Wednesday’s meeting, one person – Thomas Partridge – spoke during public commentary. He urged commissioners to advocate for art projects that emphasize political, social and justice-oriented themes, as well as artwork that has an obvious connection to people.

Meeting-Related Logistics: Time, Location, CTN

Kotarski also proposed changing both the time and location of AAPAC’s monthly meetings. When he had spoken to people at the recent art fairs Townie Party, one concern he’d heard was that people didn’t feel that AAPAC is accessible. One difficulty was the meeting time – it’s difficult for many people to attend meetings in the late afternoon. He had subsequently reviewed the meeting times for other city boards and commissions, and noted that many of them start after 5 p.m. A later meeting time would make it easier for more people to attend AAPAC meetings, Kotarski said – especially people who work until 5 p.m.

He also wanted to move the meetings to different locations throughout the city, such as schools or other public sites. It ties into AAPAC’s decision to take a quadrant approach to selecting public art locations. By meeting in each of the quadrants, rather than city hall, it will give commissioners a better feel for different parts of the city, Kotarski said, and make it easier for people in those quadrants to participate in AAPAC’s meetings.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Bob Miller.

Wiltrud Simbuerger wondered if meeting elsewhere would be possible. She noted that in the past, AAPAC had been told that it needed to meet in a city-owned location. [When The Chronicle began covering AAPAC in 2008, the meetings were held in the conference room of JJR, a private business. One of the commissioners at the time worked there. Later, the meetings were moved to a City Center office that the city leased, and then were moved to the city hall following its recent renovation.]

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that there’s a designated list of meeting places that are acceptable for the city’s boards and commissions. He later clarified for The Chronicle that those locations include city-owned facilities, the Washtenaw County administration building, the Ann Arbor District Library and public schools.

Bob Miller said he agreed about the meeting time, but had reservations about changing the location. If they start moving the meetings, then the complaint will be that it’s hard to know where they’re meeting. He thought that sticking to one place is best, and city hall is where people expect to find groups like AAPAC.

Theresa Reid had the opposite view. She liked the idea of different locations, but didn’t feel she could meet at a later time. She has children and a job that requires work at night. She also noted that their meetings typically run until 7 p.m., and they’ve just added a new slot for public commentary at the end of the meeting.

Kotarski then proposed recording the meetings for Community Television Network (CTN), as another way to make AAPAC’s work more accessible. The idea generally did not appear to be enthusiastically received, although Miller supported it.

Reid noted that AAPAC planned to set up task forces for each quadrant. She felt those task forces would do much of the outreach work to address Kotarski’s concerns about accessibility. Kotarski replied that the commission could take baby steps, but he wants to move them in the direction of becoming more accessible.

Miller thought the suggestions needed more thought. Kotarski offered to come up with some specific options and present those at the August meeting.

Outcome: This was a non-voting item. Kotarski is expected to make a more formal proposal at AAPAC’s August meeting.

AAPAC Endorsements

The possibility of an endorsement policy had been on AAPAC’s June 2012 agenda, but was tabled so that commissioners could have more time to think it through. The issue had initially been raised at AAPAC’s April 25, 2012 meeting, when Dave Konkle and Tim Jones had asked the commission to consider endorsing a large Whirlydoodle installation they hope to build. Jones had invented the devices as miniature wind generators, with LED lights that vary in color depending on wind speed.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, had prepared a report for AAPAC’s July 25 meeting, outlining possible advantages and disadvantages to an endorsement policy. Advantages included publicly encouraging other public art projects and expanding the influence of AAPAC. That approach would increase awareness of public art in the city. An endorsement policy also would fit under the city’s public art ordinance requirements to promote awareness and initiate public/private networking.

Downsides cited in Seagraves’ report include the fact that not endorsing a public art project could be to the detriment of that project. Creating criteria for an endorsement policy would be a distraction from AAPAC’s primary responsibilities, and the ordinance is unclear about the issue of endorsements.

Ann Arbor public art commissioner Connie Rizzolo Brown.

On July 25, Theresa Reid began the discussion by immediately making a motion – to pass a resolution stating that AAPAC would not make endorsements of other non-city art projects. She said she’d been totally persuaded by the downsides that Seagraves had cited.

Some commissioners objected to the word “endorsement.” Connie Brown preferred something less formal, saying she would support encouraging or sharing information about other art projects, but not endorsing them. Cathy Gendron noted that endorsements boil down to a subjective judgment.

John Kotarski argued strongly for developing an endorsement policy. He said such a policy would speak to four of the nine AAPAC duties outlined in the public art ordinance. [.pdf of public art ordinance] It would promote art in the community. It recognizes the fact that AAPAC has the power to persuade, he said, and would incentivize non-city projects. He noted that the reason AAPAC had been approached for an endorsement was because the commission is relevant. “If we weren’t relevant, they wouldn’t care what we did,” he said, referring to Jones and Konkle.

Reid noted that there are other ways to publicize non-city projects, including AAPAC’s website. Gendron also pointed to AAPAC’s Facebook page, and noted that not all commissioners take advantage of that or even have Facebook accounts.

Kotarski countered that by not making endorsements, AAPAC’s ability to function as a major public voice in the community is diminished.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, commissioners approved a resolution stating that AAPAC would not make endorsements. John Kotarski dissented.

Administrator’s Report

In his monthly written report, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – covered several topics and gave updates on projects. This section focuses on administrative issues that were raised in his report.

Administrator’s Report: Legal Staff Delays

There were no updates for some projects because those projects are being reviewed by the city attorney’s office. Several commissioners expressed frustration at the length of time these reviews are taking.

Wiltrud Simbuerger wondered how long it will take for the East Stadium bridges project to move forward – will the RFP (request for proposals) be in legal review for a year? She wondered what tools AAPAC can use to influence the process, perhaps by appealing to another level within the city administration.

In addition to the East Stadium bridges RFP, other projects being reviewed by the city attorney’s staff include a statement of qualifications (SOQ) to develop a pool of muralists, and an SOQ for an art project at Argo Cascades. Bob Miller also noted that he hadn’t received a response on questions he’d posed to legal staff about an art-on-loan program he’s developing.

Theresa Reid said the delays make AAPAC look bad. Miller indicated that Abigail Elias – the assistant city attorney handling these projects – had been expected to attend AAPAC’s July meeting. Why hadn’t she come?

Seagraves said Elias had other commitments and wasn’t able to attend, but she might come to the commission’s August meeting. He had talked with her and reported that Elias told him these projects are at the top of her list. Simbuerger replied: ”How often has she said this?”

Cathy Gendron observed that AAPAC had the same issue for the Fuller Road Station RFP, although that art component was ultimately halted after the University of Michigan withdrew from the proposed parking structure and transit center.

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin offered to draft a letter about the situation and talk to Tony Derezinski, the Ward 2 city councilmember who also serves on AAPAC – although he didn’t attend the June or July meetings.

Administrator’s Report: CIP

Seagraves reported that he’ll now be attending meetings of the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) team. The CIP is a list of major capital projects planned by the city – those that are funded as well as those for which funding hasn’t yet been identified. The city code requires that the CIP be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon.

The CIP is relevant to the art commission because funding for the Percent for Art program comes from the city’s capital projects – 1% of each capital project, up to a cap of $250,000 per project, is set aside for public art. The CIP also indicates what major projects are on the horizon that might incorporate public art. By identifying such projects, AAPAC can start planning the public art component as early as possible, as part of the project’s design, rather than as an add-on.

Seagraves asked for direction in prioritizing capital projects that might incorporate public art. He suggested that AAPAC’s strategic plan could be used in that regard, to prioritize projects and locations. That could be done in the fall and winter, for AAPAC to consider including in its annual plan, which must be presented to the city council by April 1.

Commissioners discussed how to coordinate this information with a new approach they’re planning to take – forming task forces for four quadrants of the city, to help guide the selection of projects and ensure that all parts of the city are represented.

Seagraves also noted that a line item for public art could be included in the CIP. He said he’s also discussed the possibility of using the CIP evaluation criteria as a way to help select projects or locations. [For background on the CIP process and evaluation metrics, see Chronicle coverage: "Planning Commission Approves Capital Plan." More information is also on the city's CIP website.]

John Kotarski asked if Seagraves was recommending this approach. Marsha Chamberlin, the commission’s chair, noted that AAPAC has tried to develop a ratings document in the past, most recently in an effort spearheaded by Malverne Winborne, who serves as vice chair. She said that she and Winborne would work with Seagraves to develop a proposal for AAPAC to consider.

Administrator’s Report: CIP – FY 2013 Budget

Seagraves also presented a list of anticipated revenues for the Percent for Art program in fiscal 2013, which began on July 1, 2012. Based on planned capital projects, new Percent for Art funding in FY 2013 will total $320,837. That includes funding from the following sources: water fund ($55,797); stormwater fund ($20,608); street millage ($112,700); sewer fund ($93,610); parks millage ($11,647); and administration ($26,475).

The $320,837 in FY 2013 revenues is in addition to current funds in the Percent for Art program. At AAPAC’s June 2012 meeting, a written budget report indicated that the Percent for Art program had $1,367,148 in available funds through the end of FY 2012. Of that, $851,233 has been earmarked by AAPAC for future projects, including artwork for East Stadium bridges ($400,000), Argo Cascades ($150,000); and the Justice Center ($147,468).

Project Updates

In addition to items reported elsewhere in this article, two project updates received attention during AAPAC’s July 25 meeting: (1) the Kingsley rain garden, and (2) security in the Justice Center lobby, where a sculpture commissioned by the city will be located.

Project Updates: Kingsley Rain Garden

In November 2011, AAPAC had approved an art project as part of a rain garden that the city is building at the corner of Kingsley and First. The previous month – at AAPAC’s Oct. 26 meeting – Patrick Judd of Conservation Design Forum (CDF) and Jerry Hancock, Ann Arbor’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, had talked to commissioners about possible public art in the rain garden.

The city bought 215 and 219 W. Kingsley – land that’s located in a floodplain. A boarded-up house is located on the corner lot; the adjacent lot is vacant. The city received a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to demolish the house and stabilize the site.

From left: Jerry Hancock, Ann Arbor’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator; Patrick Judd of Conservation Design Forum; and Aaron Seagraves, the city's public art administrator. They met with residents on July 26 at the site of a future Kingsley & First rain garden. Hancock is showing FEMA maps that indicate a change in floodplain boundaries.

The city has awarded CDF the contract for the project, which will include building a rain garden on the site. CDF was also involved in the new municipal center project and the Dreiseitl sculpture.

The overall project cost is about $280,000 – and the city will pay for 25% of that, or about $70,000, with the rest funded by FEMA. Because the city’s portion will come from the city’s stormwater fund, the public art component can use pooled Percent for Art funds captured from stormwater projects. A balance of about $27,000 is available in stormwater Percent for Art funds. AAPAC approved the use that amount, with the final budget to be recommended by the project’s task force.

On July 25, Aaron Seagraves showed commissioners a four-question survey he’d developed to solicit public input on the project. [.pdf of rain garden survey] He said he planned to distribute the surveys at a July 26 public meeting about the rain garden project.

At that July 26 event, Hancock, Judd and Seagraves met with about a dozen residents at the First & Kingsley site to review plans for the property. The house will be demolished as soon as the relevant permit is received. Beal Construction has the contract for that work. Demolition will likely take place in early August, according to Beal’s Jim Mason, who attended the July 26 forum.

Hancock said that after the house is gone, the site will initially be regraded to leave a slight depression – about 6-12 inches over a large portion of the site – that will allow it to collect stormwater during heavy rains. This will be only an initial step until the rain garden is completed, which will likely take place in the spring. Judd said the area will include a path and bench, and “engineered soil” through which water will slowly drain. The intent is to eliminate flashing, he said – the sudden flooding caused by heavy rains.

Regarding the public art portion of the project, Seagraves said the intent is to integrate it into the overall rain garden design, ensuring that it won’t interfere with the stormwater management. Two artists from METAL, a nearby design and fabrication shop, will be among those helping select the artist, and a request for proposals (RFP) will be issued later this year.

Project Updates: Kingsley Rain Garden – Commission Discussion

At AAPAC’s July 25 meeting, John Kotarski said he’d been reading online comments on an AnnArbor.com article that was based on the city’s press release about the planned July 26 Kingsley & First public forum. Among other things, people were complaining about how they couldn’t reach the art commissioners, he said. He felt that Seagraves or commissioners should monitor those comments, and he encouraged Seagraves to respond to factual misrepresentations.

Other commissioners felt that people will inevitably complain, and that there are already ways that AAPAC can be reached – contact information is on the commission’s website and Facebook page. Kotarski felt that commissioners should be aware of the comments, and that Seagraves should take the initiative to respond so that AAPAC can have a voice in the online discussion. The fact that there are constraints on the selection of artists – but that AAPAC supports local sourcing – should be explained, he said. The commission shouldn’t pick a fight, he added, but they have a narrative that’s not being articulated.

Theresa Reid felt that Kotarski’s concerns were valid, but that individual commissioners should respond or alert Seagraves as necessary. There is contact information available for commissioners, she noted, and the situation is already being addressed. When Kotarski pressed for more discussion of a local sourcing policy, Marsha Chamberlin noted that given their full agenda, it was a discussion that should be deferred to a future meeting.

Project Updates: Justice Center

In his written report, Aaron Seagraves had noted that Ed Carpenter, the artist selected for the sculpture in the lobby of the Justice Center, is working with engineers to develop a design that would allow for ceiling access, needed for maintenance. [The $150,000 sculpture, called Radius, will be suspended from the ceiling in the southwest corner of the building's lobby.] The artist expects to have a completed working plan to share in August or September, according to Seagraves’ report.

At the July 25 meeting, John Kotarski asked what the status was for possible changes in the lobby’s security checkpoint. Seagraves replied that it wasn’t in AAPAC’s purview, so he didn’t have an update on it.

Sabra Briere, a Ward 1 city councilmember who was attending the meeting, reported that she and other councilmembers – Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – had met with city staff recently to discuss the issue. She said mayor John Hieftje has firmly stated his preference to move the checkpoint closer to the elevators, which are located at the opposite end of the building. [The checkpoint now is located at the building's public entrance, off of the Huron Street plaza adjacent to city hall.]

There’s a general acknowledgement that the artwork would be better viewed from inside the lobby, she said, and there are councilmembers who would like to use the lobby for receptions and gatherings. It’s an attractive place, she said. But the question of how to handle the security checkpoint is different from the public art piece, Briere noted. When the council approved the artwork, they asked city staff to look into the cost of possibly moving the checkpoint. No decision on that has been reached.

For more details on options for the security checkpoint, see Chronicle coverage: “Access, Security and Art at Justice Center.”

New Projects: Forest Avenue Plaza, Ellsworth Roundabout

Action on proposals for two new projects had been tabled at AAPAC’s June 2012 meeting – because the commission ran out of time. The proposals are for public art at: (1) Forest Avenue Plaza, next to the Forest Avenue parking structure near South University; and (2) a future roundabout at Ellsworth and South State.

Forest Avenue Plaza, facing west. On the left is the Forest Avenue parking structure. Pizza House is visible at the end of the alley, across Church Street. The plaza abuts the back entrance of Pinball Pete's and the U.S. post office.

Both projects are being proposed by city staff, as part of broader initiatives. The Forest Avenue Plaza proposal was submitted by Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, and Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The city has held two public meetings to seek input on improving the small plaza, and has about $40,000 in funding for the project. The city would like additional public art funding – suggested at between $10,000 to $20,000 – for artwork to be placed in the plaza.

Regarding the second item, the roundabout at State and Ellsworth is a major capital project at one of the busiest intersections south of town, with construction planned for the summer of 2013. There’s some interest from one of the local Rotary clubs in partnering with the city to add public art and landscaping to the roundabout.

At the July 25 meeting, Theresa Reid proposed holding off on these projects until task forces for each city quadrant are formed. Then, those task forces could take over management of the projects. But because the task forces won’t likely be in place until October, some commissioners felt that was too long to wait.

After further discussion, it emerged that several commissioners hadn’t visited the two sites for the proposed projects. Bob Miller suggested waiting until next month to take action, and to allow time for commissioners to make site visits.

Outcome: No formal vote was taken. The items will be addressed again at AAPAC’s August meeting. 

General Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) Process

At last month’s AAPAC meeting, commissioners approved a statement of qualifications (SOQ) that will be issued by the city to create a pool of muralists for future projects. [.pdf of mural SOQ] The objective, as stated in the SOQ, is to “find professional muralists and other artists whose work meets a set of standards and to pre-qualify them for City of Ann Arbor mural projects to be contracted in 2012 to 2014.” [That SOQ is currently being reviewed by the city's legal staff.]

Commissioners were also interested in creating a pool of pre-qualified artists for more general projects. They directed Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to check with the city’s procurement staff to see if this would be possible.

In his written report for the July 25 meeting, Seagraves stated that when releasing an SOQ for a specific project, the city can include a form to be completed that would solicit information about a broader range of the artist’s qualifications. This form could request that applicants give permission to be included in an ongoing pre-qualified pool. The SOQ could be released annually – or at any scheduled period – and there would be no need for an artist to reapply if they granted their permission for continual inclusion in this pre-qualified pool. This could form the basis of an artist registry. Seagraves indicated that he would work with the city’s procurement staff to develop a qualifications form, and would present it to AAPAC for approval.

Marsha Chamberlin said Seagraves had clarified everything in his written report, and she supported the process. After a brief discussion, commissioners voted on the proposal.

Outcome: AAPAC unanimously voted to establish an SOQ process that creates an artist registry/database for projects in the next three years. Seagraves will develop a qualifications form for AAPAC to review.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Cathy Gendron, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Theresa Reid, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Malverne Winborne. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Tony Derezinski.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [Check Chronicle events listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our artful coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The issue of adding another public commentary slot was raised at AAPAC’s June 27, 2012 meeting by commissioner John Kotarski. The intent would be for people to have the opportunity to give before a decision by AAPAC, then provide feedback after that decision is made, he said. Before AAPAC made a decision about public commentary, the commission last month directed Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, to research the public commentary practices of other city of Ann Arbor commissions and boards. The majority of those entities include two slots for public commentary. Most of them limit speaking turns to three minutes per speaker.

At Wednesday’s meeting, one person – Thomas Partridge – spoke during public commentary. He urged commissioners to advocate for art projects that emphasized political, social and justice-oriented themes, as well as artwork that has an obvious connection to people.

The brief was filed from the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., where the AAPAC meeting was held. A more detailed report will follow.

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]

From left: Dan Ezekiel, chair of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission, talks with commissioner Tom Bloomer. (Photos by the writer.)

The land in question, outside the greenbelt boundaries, is owned by The Dexter Area Historical Society. The society is seeking a change to the conservation easement for a parcel that includes the historic Gordon Hall – a change that would allow parking for several hundred vehicles on the land for spectators of Civil War re-enactments that the society intends to hold. Webster Township trustees will ultimately vote on the request, but the township’s land preservation board – which includes Tom Bloomer, who also serves on GAC – has recommended denying it.

Bloomer told GAC commissioners that altering the agreement in this way would set a bad precedent, and call into question the trustworthiness of regional land preservation efforts. Bloomer asked for GAC to weigh in with support for the land preservation board’s position, prior to the trustees’ vote. GAC will likely take up the issue again at its Jan. 5 meeting.

Other action at GAC’s Dec. 14 meeting included passing a resolution of appreciation for Tom Freeman, deputy director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation, who is retiring at the end of the year. GAC chair Dan Ezekiel said Freeman has been “absolutely indispensable” to land preservation efforts in the county, including deals in which Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program has participated.

Ezekiel also presented a letter to the editor that he drafted, in response to misinformation expressed by commenters on AnnArbor.com articles regarding the greenbelt boundary expansion. He plans to send the letter sometime next week, pending feedback from other commissioners. [.pdf of draft letter to the editor]

During Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners also welcomed the newest commissioner, Shannon Brines, to his first meeting of GAC. Brines, who’s active in the local food movement, was appointed by the city council at its Nov. 21 meeting.

Gordon Hall Conservation Easement Request

In addition to serving on Ann Arbor’s GAC, Tom Bloomer serves on the Webster Township farmland and open space preservation board. At Wednesday’s GAC meeting, he reported on a situation that’s arisen in Webster Township, which has implications for Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program.

Webster Township’s land preservation program was created in 2005. One of its first actions was to preserve land that includes the historic Gordon Hall, he said. The Dexter Area Historical Society had purchased the land and Gordon Hall from the University of Michigan about 10 years ago, and subsequently sold the development rights to Scio and Webster townships, through conservation easements to those townships.

Last summer, Bloomer said, the society approached Webster Township with a proposal to hold a Civil War re-enactment on the site. The event didn’t conflict with terms of the conservation easement, he said, but the society also wanted permission for spectator parking – and that did conflict with the easement. The township eventually agreed to a one-year exception to allow parking for several hundred vehicles, with the understanding that an exception wouldn’t be granted again, Bloomer said. It was fortunate that there was no rain during the event, so minimum damage was caused to the land.

However, the historic society now wants to amend the conservation easement so that parking for this kind of event would be allowed, Bloomer told GAC. The township’s farmland and open space preservation board has recommended denying that request, he said. The decision will ultimately be made by the Webster Township board of trustees, but the preservation board is looking for support from other land preservation entities – like GAC – before the township trustees vote.

The decision will impact more than just this piece of land, Bloomer said. It will affect Webster Township’s reputation as a conservator of land, and whether it can be trusted by its partners, including Ann Arbor, to adequately protect land in perpetuity.

Ginny Trocchio said she did some research on the situation, looking at the standards and practices set by the national Land Trust Alliance. The alliance states that conservation easements should be amended only to strengthen the agreements, or if the net effect of the change is neutral. To allow additional activities to take place on the land that would impact conservation values is definitely not a standard practice, she said.

The other concern relates to enforcing conservation easements, Trocchio said. The public tends to view all land preservation programs as a group, she said, so this kind of change would impact the public perception of all regional land preservation efforts, not just Webster Township’s.

Bloomer noted that parking 400 cars on the land doesn’t contribute to conservation values in any way. It sets a bad precedent to make an adjustment for this kind of thing, he said – that’s the position of the township’s land preservation board. He said he didn’t have a specific resolution to propose for GAC to vote on, but he hoped commissioners could reflect on it and perhaps take action at their January meeting.

Dan Ezekiel felt GAC should act quickly, but Laura Rubin indicated that she’d like more information. What do Ann Arbor’s current conservation easements say about parking in general? Her concern was that the greenbelt was intended to support agricultural activities and farms, and that some ventures – like a farm stand – might require parking. She didn’t want to take action that would prevent this kind of activity.

Trocchio said she could review the greenbelt easements and report back to GAC. Ezekiel noted that most easements allow for 2% of land to have impervious surfaces, which would be enough for a small amount of parking – sufficient for the kind of activity that Rubin mentioned.

Every easement is unique to each property, Bloomer said. If the historical society had wanted to write into the easement the use of parking for this kind of event, it could have proposed that when the easement was being negotiated, he said. As it is, the easement only allows for agricultural machinery on the property.

Ezekiel noted that this controversy has been percolating for some time. Barry Lonik, a land preservation consultant who works with Webster Township, has been quite concerned, he said. Lonik took the conservation easement to the attorney who does work with the Legacy Land Conservancy for review. The attorney confirmed that the current easement does not allow for parking of this kind.

Rubin said she completely supported enforcing the conservation easement. She just wanted to understand the ramifications, and to ensure that local farms in general would be viable within the constraints of the easements.

Ezekiel reported that he and fellow GAC commissioner Liz Rother had attended last month’s Webster Township board of trustees meeting, where this issue was discussed. It appears there are other options, he said, including the possibility of parking at another site with shuttles to the Gordon Hall land.

Ezekiel noted that Gordon Hall is located outside of the Ann Arbor greenbelt boundaries, so there is no direct stake in this decision. However, Ann Arbor greenbelt program has partnered with Webster Township on several other properties that are within the boundaries, and he’s proud that together they have protected a huge block of contiguous farmland in that township.

Millions of taxpayer dollars have been invested in conservation easements throughout the greenbelt, Ezekiel said, and enforcement of those easements is key. The easements are just pieces of paper – the city doesn’t own the land. Landowners took money in exchange for abiding by terms of the easements, he said, and amending the easement in this way would set a terrible precedent. It’s fine if the amendment would strengthen the easement, or simply clarify the terms, he allowed. But to amend it for another use opens the door to all sorts of requests. “I think we should look very askance at this proposed deviation from this easement,” he said. He suggested that GAC pass a resolution of support for the Webster Township land preservation board’s position, supporting the township in standing firm on all of its conservation easements.

Bloomer said he’d be happy to bring the specific language of the easement to GAC next month, for their review. When Ezekiel asked whether that timeline would work, Bloomer said it would – GAC’s January meeting occurs prior to the township board’s next meeting.

Some people look at a conservation easement as just a contract, Bloomer said, and contracts are often amended if both parties agree. But the issue here relates to setting a precedent, he said, and the risk of “opening a bottomless pit of conflict in the future.”

Bloomer said he would craft a resolution of support for GAC to discuss and vote on at their January meeting.

Letter to the Editor

Dan Ezekiel introduced this agenda item by noting that recent efforts to tweak the greenbelt’s boundaries have raised the program’s profile with the public.

By way of background, at its Sept. 14, 2011 meeting, GAC had recommended that the council approve changes to Chapter 42 of the Ann Arbor city code, expanding the greenbelt boundaries to add a mile to the southwest in Lodi Township, and one mile to the northeast in Salem Township. [.jpg of map by The Chronicle showing original boundaries, a 2007 expansion, and the current expansion.] The changes also allow a parcel of land adjacent to the greenbelt boundary to be eligible for protection, if it is also adjacent to a parcel under the same ownership within the greenbelt boundary. The council gave final approval to the changes at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting.

Shannon Brines, the newest member of Ann Arbor's greenbelt advisory commission.

During the council’s deliberations, Ezekiel said, it seemed that some councilmembers misunderstood elements of the greenbelt program. And many of the comments on articles posted on AnnArbor.com contained misinformation, he said. So as he was sitting through other business at the council meeting, Ezekiel said he decided to draft a letter to the editor setting things straight. [.pdf of draft letter to the editor]

He indicated that he was conflicted about it. Sometimes, it’s best to ignore what people say because if you respond, he said, it dignifies the criticism. On the other hand, if you don’t respond to criticism, some people will think it’s true. Ezekiel said he discussed it with GAC’s executive committee, where the consensus was that he should send the letter as chair of GAC, but first bring it to commissioners for review before sending it. He plans to send it to AnnArbor.com sometime next week, pending feedback from other commissioners.

Tom Bloomer noted that some people seem philosophically opposed to the greenbelt program, while others are merely misinformed. For example, some people seemed to think that the protection of land only lasts 30 years – the duration of the open space and land preservation millage. Noting that land preserved under the greenbelt program is protected in perpetuity, he asked Ginny Trocchio to make sure that information about the program was front-and-center on the greenbelt program’s website.

Trocchio noted that a goal for 2012 is to improve communication with the community about the greenbelt program, which could address these issues.

Ezekiel also commented that recent discussions at city council meetings about the city’s public art program had included the issue of administrative support. [Public art commissioners have contended that the city's Percent for Art program has lacked adequate staff support to carry out the program's goals.] He said it made him appreciative of the work of The Conservation Fund staff.

Recognition for Tom Freeman

Dan Ezekiel noted that commissioners had recently learned that Tom Freeman, deputy director of Washtenaw County parks & recreation, is retiring at the end of the year. Freeman has been “absolutely indispensable” to land preservation efforts in the county, Ezekiel said, adding that when the history of local land preservation is written, Freeman will be one of the names that will shine.

Freeman had last attended a GAC meeting in March, when he gave an update on the county’s natural areas preservation program (NAPP) and its efforts related to farmland protection. In 2010, the county board of commissioners had approved changes to the county’s Natural Areas Ordinance No. 128, which governs NAPP. Those changes enabled the county to buy development rights for farmland – a land preservation strategy also pursued by Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program.

At Wednesday’s GAC meeting, Liz Rother read a resolution of appreciation for Freeman. It stated that NAPP has partnered with Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program on three land preservation projects since 2005: the Fox Science Preserve, Meyer Nature Preserve and Scio Woods Preserve. Freeman has been a champion for county land preservation, and went “above and beyond to make difficult transactions come to fruition.” The resolution recognized Freeman “for his outstanding commitment to land preservation, service to Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and partnership with the City’s Greenbelt Program.”

Outcome: The resolution of appreciation for Tom Freeman passed unanimously.

After the vote, Ezekiel recalled that Freeman had been instrumental in pulling together the complicated land deal for the Fox Science Preserve. Freeman had always been upbeat and encouraging throughout the process, he said, assuring everyone that they’d be able to overcome all hurdles. Freeman’s championing of that project had been hugely significant, Ezekiel said.

Land Acquisition Projects

During her staff report, Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund – which the city contracts to manage the greenbelt program – said she’s been working with local landowners in anticipation of applying for grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, or FRPP. The deadline will likely be in February 2012.

Dan Ezekiel asked whether any of the applications will be for land located within the recently-expanded greenbelt boundaries. Several were, Trocchio replied.

Ezekiel noted that the city council had acted positively on GAC’s recommendation to expand the greenbelt’s boundaries in Lodi and Salem townships, and that he really appreciated the council’s support. Directing his comments to Carsten Hohnke, a GAC commissioner who also serves on city council, Ezekiel noted that the changes were a bit of a “heavy lift” to get approved, but “it’s a little change that I think is going to make a huge difference,” he said.

Land Acquisition Projects: Closed Session

At the end of their meeting, commissioners voted to enter into a closed session to discuss possible land acquisition. When they emerged 45 minutes later, commissioners voted on a resolution recommending that the city apply for an FRPP grant for parcel number 2011-11. [Before appearing on the city council’s agenda, details of these greenbelt acquisitions are not made public – parcels are identified only by their application number.]

Outcome: Commissioner unanimously approved a recommendation to apply for an FRPP grant for parcel 2011-11.

Meeting Date Changes

The topic of monthly meeting times has emerged at several previous GAC meetings. The current date and time – on the second Wednesday of each month at 4:30 p.m. – are difficult for some commissioners to make. By Wednesday’s meeting, schedules had been coordinated and a new regular monthly meeting date was proposed: The first Thursday of the month, at 4:30 p.m.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to change GAC’s monthly meetings to the first Thursday of each month, starting at 4:30 p.m.

Present: Tom Bloomer, Shannon Brines, Dan Ezekiel, Carsten Hohnke, Liz Rother, Laura Rubin. Also: Ginny Trocchio.

Absent: Peter Allen, Mike Garfield, Catherine Riseng.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Jan. 5, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded initiatives like the city’s greenbelt program. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

For regular attendees of Ann Arbor city council meetings, this piece of art is easily recognizable as a "photo-illustration" – there's no "submit comment" button for the public commentary slot on the paper agenda.

I’m fond of using the milestone column as an occasion to highlight some of the work our readers do when they write comments about material we publish.

So I’d like to begin this month’s column with a request: Stop reading the words on this page and fetch yourself a stopwatch.

Now go read some different words – all 972 of them – assembled into a coherent comment by a reader, Richard Murphy, about a recent Chronicle column: Murph’s comment on the purpose of downtown development authorities.

How long did that take you?

Now, go back and read that comment again, but read it aloud this time. Read it the way you would if you had unlimited time to make a maximum impact on a live audience – an audience composed of, say, members of a public body like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

How long did that take?

Now suppose you had to adhere to the Ann Arbor DDA’s four-minute public commentary speaking format. Could you cram Murph’s 972 words into four minutes? Go on, give it a try. How did you do?

Most of you won’t know how you did – because you didn’t play my stupid little game. Some Chronicle readers will simply hope that the few and the proud who actually timed themselves will report back on their reading rates in the comments below.

Other readers will simply trust me when I claim that cramming Murph’s 972 words into four minutes of spoken English is a real challenge. And even if you succeed in converting that text to speech in under four minutes, it might well be incomprehensible to listeners.

I’d like to convince you that Murph’s text is perfectly suited to its native habitat – which is a comment thread in The Ann Arbor Chronicle. As a spoken comment addressing a live audience, however, it would likely not survive in a different, more brutal environment –  a public servant’s memory of a public meeting.

Chronicle Commentary

What we ask of commenters is summed up in The Chronicle’s commenting policy this way:

Be Generous. Be generous with your information and good humor. Be generous with your time and effort. Be generous with your respect.

How does Murph’s comment stack up against that policy? He leads off generously with good humor:

As scintillating as the back-and-forth between Fred and ABC is about which set of population estimates to use for the city, I’d like to return to the topic at hand …

Now, for Fred and ABC to understand that as good humor, as opposed to bitter sarcasm, Fred and ABC need to be somewhat generous in their assessment of Murph’s intentions. But even for a reader not generously inclined to see the opening remarks as playful, I think they’re steered towards that understanding by the quality of the comment itself. This guy Murph is obviously not interested in a potshot scolding of a thread he thinks has gone off into the weeds. Instead, Murph’s commentary teems with information, like a primordial soup of perspective on where downtown development authorities came from in the first place. That’s the part that begins, “To handwave the history a bit …” So Murph was generous with his information.

Was Murph also generous with his time and effort? Yes, I think obviously so. The comment is organized into 10 main paragraphs, each of which is composed of actual sentences, complete with punctuation and correct spelling. The first paragraph alerts the reader to his basic orientation to the topic – he thinks that subsidizing the city of Ann Arbor’s general fund through the parking system is wrong. The following paragraphs, which explain that basic position, cohere in a way that suggests he did not just sit down and type out the first words that popped into his head, and then hit the “submit comment” button.

How about respect? Murph demonstrates respect in at least a couple of ways. First, he shows respect for context and history. The current parking contract negotiations exist in the historical context of why downtown development authorities exist in the first place. He sketches that out for readers in a way that is not condescending or patronizing. In doing that, he also demonstrates respect for public servants who must make their current policy choices in that general historical environment – an environment with state-level issues that put local officials in a situation where they see no choice but to try to game the system. In choosing metaphors, he’s also respectful, keeping things well above the belt: “… it’s irresponsible for the City to stand on their neighbors’ shoulders to keep their own heads above water.”

Comments like Murph’s are not rare in Chronicle threads. His was simply the most recent one I noticed when I perused the comments looking for a parade example to use for this column. Chronicle commenters churn out comments of similar quality on a regular basis. Granted, not all of them are 972 words long. Some are even longer.

But some are shorter. And the value of some of the shorter comments lies in what they ask more than what they say. For example, in a comment on a recent city council meeting report, LiberalNIMBY inquired about the delay in city council approval of the area, height and placement zoning code revisions: “Any specifics as to why council postponed the Area, Height, Placement revisions… again? Plans to invest in the community now are being put off while council dithers.” A later commenter disputed whether any investment opportunities are being currently delayed. But the question LiberalNIMBY asked – Why the delay? – is a fair one, and had an actual answer.

Public Meeting Commentary

What makes for a great online comment, however, does not necessarily make for great commentary at public meetings. It’s worth noting that Ann Arbor’s public meetings include an opportunity for public commentary not necessarily because public officials in Ann Arbor are particularly interested in public participation at their meetings, but rather because it’s the law. Michigan’s Open Meetings Act states that “A person shall be permitted to address a meeting of a public body under rules established and recorded by the public body.”

Who am I to judge the quality of public commentary and the use that public servants make of it? I’ll throw down some credentials. The Chronicle has published 368 reports of public meetings since its founding in September 2008. That means I’ve personally sat through and written, or edited, reports on 368 public meetings – all of which include summaries of public commentary. So when I contend that this legally mandated opportunity could be used more productively than it typically is, that’s 368 meetings worth of experience talking.

There’s a bit of blame to go around. Yes, it’s true, sometimes members of public bodies don’t give the outward appearance that they’re actually listening to what a public speaker is saying. Sometimes that’s because they aren’t actually listening. But during the public comment period, it’s a fair question to ask: How listenable is the commentary?

What makes a public comment listenable? That’s hard to nail down, of course. It’ll certainly vary from body to body and from one member of a body to the next. But it’s a safe bet that Murph’s 972 words crammed into four minutes would not be listenable.

The best advice I’ve ever heard on effective public commentary came from Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board member David Nacht, back when he chaired that body. The advice came in the form of a question that Nacht asked frequent commenter Thomas Partridge as Partridge was holding forth. What Nacht wanted to know from Partridge was this: Are you telling us this to make us aware of something, or are you telling us this so that we will do something?

I think it’s a great question for anyone to contemplate who’s planning to address a public body:

What’s your goal – to make public servants aware of something or to ask them to do something?

If the goal is to make a public body aware of something, then it’s worth asking: Is a speech filling the entire allowable time period the best way to do that? One alternative strategy would be to write out all the information that you’d like to include and send that to the public body – there’s no limitation on length. That communication can be attached to the public body’s meeting agenda and included in the official public record that way.

For example, on the subject of the Huron Hill’s golf course request for proposals, attorney Susan Morrison sent the Ann Arbor city council a letter in advance of the council’s Nov. 15 meeting, with the final paragraph: “Please include this letter as part of the record of proceedings before City Council at its November 15, 2010 meeting.” And the letter was a part of the city clerk’s report of communications for the Nov. 15 meeting.

It’s worth noting that Morrison did not invoke any special attorney superpowers to achieve attachment of her communication to the council’s official set of meeting materials. Any mortal can do that. So when Morrison addressed the council in person at the Nov. 15 meeting, she was not under the same kind of time pressure she would have been otherwise. Although she filled most of the allowable three minutes, hitting the main highlights of her letter, she would have also been free to just say: “Hello, I’m Susan Morrison, I’ve sent you a letter on behalf of the Ann Arbor Parks Preservation Association about the Huron Hills golf RFP and it’s attached to the meeting packet – we’re asking that you reject the Miles of Golf proposal.” Done.

So, on an individual level, I think the quality of a turn at public commentary should not be measured by whether it exhausts the allowable time. I think a better standard is this: Thinking about the public’s time that is claimed by a public commenter, is it used effectively for the public’s benefit?

Even though I think Murph’s comment would be useful for DDA board members to digest, I don’t think it would be an effective use of the public’s time or the board’s time for Murph to try to read aloud his comment in under four minutes – and I’m happy to report that he did not try it at yesterday’s meeting. But I’ve emailed the DDA the link.

About the writer: Dave Askins is editor and co-founder of The Ann Arbor Chronicle.