The initial approval to changes to the supplemental regulations for a PUD (planned unit development) came at the city council’s Sept. 3, 2013 meeting. 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 businesses are located on a 1.44-acre site.

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 for a revision at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

The council will need to vote again at a subsequent meeting, after a public hearing, to give the changes final approval.

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

The council’s agenda for Thursday includes a relatively uncontroversial downtown development project. It’s also dominated by several items that relate to the way people move around inside the city. Some other agenda items relate to land outside the city.

Four different items appear on the council’s agenda related to developer Tom Fitzsimmons’ Kerrytown Place project – an 18-unit townhouse development proposed for the site of the former Greek Orthodox church on North Main Street. Nestled between Main Street on the west and Fourth Avenue on the east, the project is divided into two pieces – the Main Street frontage and Fourth Avenue frontage. Each piece of the project includes a rezoning request and a site plan proposal – and each of those constitutes an agenda item unto itself. The rezoning requested is from PUD (planned unit development) to D2 (downtown interface).

Three items relate to a piece of infrastructure closely associated with people walking as a way to get around town – sidewalks. Two resolutions involve the acceptance by the city of easements for sidewalks – one as part of a mid-block cut-through for The Varsity, a residential high-rise downtown, and the other in connection with a Safe Routes to School project near Clague Middle School on the city’s northwest side. Another sidewalk on the agenda with a school-related theme is a request for the council to approve a $10,000 design budget for about 160 feet of new sidewalk near King Elementary School, which would allow for a mid-block crosswalk to be moved to a four-way stop intersection.

More people might be able to get around the downtown and University of Michigan campus area by bicycle – if the council approves the use of $150,000 from the alternative transportation fund as requested on Thursday’s agenda. The money would provide the local match on a $600,000 federal grant obtained by the Clean Energy Coalition to establish a bike-sharing program through B-Cycle.

Getting around inside the city this fall will include the annual wrinkles due to University of Michigan move-in – and those traffic control measures are included in the council’s consent agenda. New this year will be additional traffic controls around Michigan Stadium on football game days – including the closure of Main Street between Pauline and Stadium Blvd. for a period starting three hours before kickoff until the end of the game. At its Thursday meeting, the council will be asked to give approval of the football game day traffic controls.

In matters outside the city, the council will be asked to authorize the receipt of $202,370 from the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) to help the city purchase of development rights on land in Lodi Township, southwest of the city. That federal grant comes in connection with the city’s greenbelt program. The council will also be asked to confirm the nomination of John Ramsburgh to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Also on the council’s agenda is the extension of a contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator through the end of the year – to handle projects in the works at locations the Kingsley rain garden, East Stadium bridges, and Argo Cascades.

Added to the agenda late, on Tuesday, is a resolution that calls upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law as well as to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating the sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. The agenda item comes in response to public commentary after the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case was handed down in mid-July.

Details of other meeting agenda items are 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. Councilmembers who’ve arrived in council chambers so far are Stephen Kunselman, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, and Marcia Higgins.

7:08 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. All councilmembers are present.

7:08 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.]

Six people are signed up tonight for public commentary reserved time. Of those, three are described on the agenda as speaking on the bike share agenda item – which asks the council to approve a $150,000 expenditure from the city’s alternative transportation fund in support of a bike share initiative in downtown and the University of Michigan campus area. Speakers signed up to speak on the bike share item are listed on the agenda as Lucia Heinold, Jeff Hayner, and Lefiest Galimore. Heinold and Galimore, however, will be speaking on the resolution calling for a repeal of Michigan’s “stand your ground” law. Others who are signed up to speak on the “stand your ground” item include Mozhgan Savabieasfahni and Blaine Coleman. The sixth person signed up to speak is Meghan Clark – on the topic of surveillance and privacy.

7:12 p.m. Lefiest Galimore is now holding forth. He quotes the pledge of allegiance: “And justice for all.” He asks the council to support the repeal of “stand your ground” law. His remarks get applause from the roughly two dozen people standing in support of his remarks.

7:15 p.m. Jeff Hayner is speaking in support of the bike sharing program. He describes his participation in the first attempt at a bike sharing program several years ago, where bikes were simply provided for free, which he describes as “not turning out so well.” He argues for the bike share funding support based on the amount of grant funds that it will leverage. He allows that it doesn’t serve the outlying neighborhoods, but argues that the University of Michigan is also bearing the lion’s share of the costs. He calculates the city’s cost at about $300 per bike per year.

7:21 p.m. Blaine Coleman characterizes “stand your ground” laws as hunting licenses for black people. They should not have to appear before a city council and ask: “Please don’t shoot us,” Coleman says. He calls for the council in the future to pass a resolution calling for $1 trillion of support for the city of Detroit.

Savabieasfahni offers her perspective on racism in America. She characterizes Trayvon Martin’s death as a lynching on the streets of America. The laws of this country don’t protect people of color, she says. She describes a protest during the art fairs by University of Michigan students during which they chanted, “Racism killed Trayvon,” and many white observers responded, “No, it didn’t.” She says we’d do well do look inside ourselves and see how our laws promote racism and to change those laws.

7:24 p.m. Meghan Clark describes how a sophisticated surveillance system can be constructed for about $60. Surveillance technology is here, she says. Privacy means having input into what happens to your personal information. She’s disappointed that the council rejected the video privacy ordinance. She encourages the council to pursue the suggestion that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had made to at least develop policy guidelines.

7:26 p.m. Lucia Heinold is now speaking in favor of the resolution on “stand your ground.” The evidence is that these laws are enforced in a disparate way, she said, with people of color convicted disproportionately.

7:27 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.

7:28 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reports on the North Main Huron River task force. The due date of July 31 won’t be met for the final report she says. She conveys an apology from the task force. She expects it will be completed by the end of August. Briere announces a meeting of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee next Tuesday.

7:32 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) calls attention to a survey on disabilities. Margie Teall (Ward 4) gives an update from the Ann Arbor housing commission. The weatherization at Hikone is done. The window replacements for tenants are done at Baker Commons, Teall reports. A non-smoking policy will be implemented at all the housing commission properties. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) announces an effort by a church to make the city aware of some of their concerns. City administrator Steve Powers had attended, Anglin says.

7:33 p.m. Powers reminds the public of the groundbreaking for the skatepark at noon tomorrow, at Veterans Memorial Park. Argo Cascades usage is dramatically up in July compared to July last year, Powers reports.

7:33 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. Four of the five hearings tonight relate to the Kerrytown Place project being proposed by developer Tom Fitzsimmons for the location on North Main Street where the former Greek Orthodox church stood. The project is divided into two parts – the Main Street frontage and the Fourth Avenue frontage. Each part includes a request for rezoning – from PUD (planned unit development) to D2 (downtown interface) – and a separate site plan. For each rezoning request and for each site plan, a separate public hearing is held. The council gave initial approval to the requests at its July 1, 2013 meeting.

The other public hearing is on a change to the ordinance governing the employee retirement system – to reflect some recently negotiated changes to the contracts with two of the police unions.

7:34 p.m. No one speaks at the public hearing on the retirement ordinance. Thomas Partridge is not in attendance tonight.

7:35 p.m. No one speaks at any of the Kerrytown Place public hearings.

7:35 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. Tonight’s consent agenda includes five items, three of which relate to street closings:

• A purchase order not to exceed $85,000 with SEHI Computers for replacement of computers. The amount is to cover 60 desktops and 20 laptops for a proposed cost of $75,648. The $85,000 figure includes a contingency of 12% ($9,351).
• A $32,977 professional services agreement for testing of the road materials for the Packard Street resurfacing project (from Anderson to Kimberly). Construction is scheduled for fall 2013, from August through October.
• Resolution approving a street closure on South University Avenue between Washtenaw and Forest, for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats” – an event sponsored by The Landmark Building. The event is Friday, Sept. 6, 2013.
• Resolution approving changes to traffic patterns and parking in connection with University of Michigan student move-in – from Aug. 28-30. This is an annual approval.
• Resolution approving closure of South Main Street between Huron and Liberty, and Washington Street between South Ashley and the alley on East Washington toward South Fourth Avenue – for “Dancing in the Streets.” The closure lasts from noon to 7:30 p.m. on Sunday, Sept. 1, 2013.

7:45 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Briere asks for separate consideration of the Beats, Eats and Cleats street closures and the Dancing in the Streets items. Briere says that she’s concerned that this street closure will be taking place on the evening before a football game. Mayor John Hieftje shares her concern.

Police chief John Seto said he wasn’t aware of a general policy, saying that they’re considered on a case-by-case basis. He noted that it’s the night before the UM-Notre Dame football game. He allowed he had some concerns, after weighing the things he knows against the things that he doesn’t know. Petersen wonders if World of Beer will be serving beer. Hieftje says he doesn’t see much difference between having a beer tent and serving alcohol at a bar. He reiterates that he has some concerns.

Kunselman asks if there’d be a difference in the police presence, if the event takes place. Seto says the sponsor of the event intends to provide private security. Kunselman asks about a comparison to Mud Bowl. Seto indicates that’s a morning event and there’s historically no street closures associated with that event. Kunselman inquires about a “pep rally.” He said that he can’t support it.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) says she appreciates everyone’s comments. She asks what “inflatable boxing” is. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith is fielding questions. He’s not certain what inflatable boxing is. Teall says she also won’t support this street closing.

7:47 p.m. Teall is continuing to argue against the street closure based on the liability it seems to introduce. Hieftje ventures that a Tuesday night would be better. Teall allows that a different time would be better.

7:47 p.m. Outcome: The street closing for Beats, Eats, and Cleats is unanimously denied by the council.

7:49 p.m. Outcome: The Dancing in the Streets street closure is approved. The consent agenda is now dispatched.

7:49 p.m. Retirement ordinance. The council is being asked to give final approval of a change to the ordinance governing the city employees retirement system to reflect changes negotiated with two of the police unions – the police service specialists and the command officers. The staff memo accompanying the ordinance change characterizes the changes as related to “new hires, rehires and transfers between City service units before, on or after July 1, 2013 as well as grammatical corrections where appropriate.” The council gave initial approval to the ordinance change at its July 15 meeting.

7:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to give final approval of the changes to the ordinance on the city employee retirement system.

7:49 p.m. Kerrytown Place rezoning. Final approval for two rezoning requests in connection with Kerrytown Place appear on the council’s agenda. The council gave initial approval to the requests at its July 1, 2013 meeting. The two parts of the project – one fronting Main Street and the other Fourth Avenue – are treated separately for the purposes of the rezoning request. In both cases, the requested rezoning is from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district). The 18-unit townhouse development that developer Tom Fitzsimmons is planning to build is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved at the request of a different owner. The city planning commission gave a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting.

3D rendering from site plan submitted for Kerrytown Place – the view from Main Street.

On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth Avenue. The corresponding site plans for each part of the project have corresponding items later on the agenda.

7:50 p.m. Briere calls it an appropriate scale for the neighborhood. She encourages support for the downzoning.

7:53 p.m. Briere reiterates that it’s considered a “downzoning.” Kunselman says he’ll support it. He asks planning manager Wendy Rampson how much it’s costing the petitioner to go through the process. She looks at Tom Fitzsimmons and ventures that it might be $20,000. She’s going to look it up for him.

7:54 p.m. Briere says it’s another opportunity to approve a site plan that’s completely supported by the people who live in the area.

7:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the rezoning for the Kerrytown Place project as well as the site plans.

7:55 p.m. Appointment to the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC): John Ramsburgh. This item was postponed from the council’s July 15 meeting, which is customary for appointments to GAC. It’s one of the few boards or commissions whose members are nominated by the city council not the mayor. The usual two-step process associated with appointments – nomination at one council meeting followed by confirmation at the subsequent meeting – is mirrored for GAC appointments by postponing action on a resolution appointing a representative until the following meeting.

Ramsburgh is a development officer with the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts. He also is the son of Ellen Ramsburgh, a long-time member of the Ann Arbor historic district commission, and its former chair. He is filling a position previously held by Dan Ezekiel, who was term limited.

7:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to appoint John Ramsburgh to GAC. Appointments to GAC are for three years.

7:55 p.m. Resolution on Michigan’s “stand your ground” law. This is a resolution added to the agenda on Tuesday, which calls upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law as well to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. [.pdf of Self Defense Act 309 of 2006] [Firearms and Ammunition Act 319 of 1990]

The resolution cites an “outpouring of local voices calling for the repeal of Michigan’s Stand Your Ground Law,” that were heard following the mid-July verdict in the Trayvon Martin case. That included public commentary at the council’s July 15, 2013 meeting as well as subsequent public demonstrations.

8:00 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) thanks Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) for his hard work getting the resolution ready. She references the public commentary at the previous council meeting. She says she knows what criticism people face when a national issue is brought to the city council. She reads aloud written remarks. Part of her remarks includes the statement that we don’t live in a post-racial society. She characterizes “stand your ground laws” as being used as a license to kill.

Briere thanks Kailasapathy and Warpehoski. She describes herself as someone who’s “not big on guns.” The idea that guns could be used in the way that a “stand your ground” law allows had not occurred to her.

8:06 p.m. Warpehoski thanks Kailasapathy and Briere. The more he’d looked into “stand your ground” laws, the more disturbed he was. Such laws do not reduce property crime rates, he says. He characterizes the burden on prosecutors in connection with such laws as unreasonably high.

Hieftje thanks the sponsors of the resolution for their work. He supports the second resolved clause on gun laws. Higgins says she’ll be consistent as she has been for 14 years in opposing this kind of resolution. She says it’s a much more powerful message for individuals to send the message. She doesn’t know that everyone in the city feels the same way about the resolution.

Kunselman will support it, but says that there’s a lot more going on in the world than we realize. He talks about the number of concealed weapons permits that are being processed by the county clerk’s office. He’s thought about getting a concealed weapons permit just sitting at the council table, but stresses that he has not done so.

8:10 p.m. Petersen acknowledges Higgins point of view, but says the resolved clause about gun laws moved her. She calls it a public safety issue. Teall says she appreciates everyone’s work on the resolution and says it’s the kind of issue that had prompted her to get involved in politics 13 years ago. She expresses skepticism that it would have any effect.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciates Higgins’ point of view. She says the council needs to be cautious about venturing down this path – sending messages on issues that the council was not elected to address. However, she felt differently about this one. She agrees with Petersen that it speaks to the issue of public safety. She says that local control over firearms is a good thing. So she was comfortable sending this message to the state legislature.

8:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to pass the resolution calling on the “stand your ground” law, with dissent from Higgins.

8:11 p.m. Acceptance of $202,370 from the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP). The award of FRPP money is in the context of the city’s greenbelt program, supported by a 0.5 mill tax approved by voters to acquire development rights on land to preserve open space.

At its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting, the council had approved an application to the FRPP for the purchase of development rights on two properties in Lodi Township – the 78-acre Donald Drake Farm on Waters Road in Lodi Township, and for a 90-acre property owned by Carol Schumacher on Pleasant Lake Road in Lodi Township. The city of Ann Arbor was notified recently that for the two properties, a total of $202,370 in matching dollars had been approved to fund the purchase of development rights – $50,960 for the Drake property and $151,410 for the Schumacher land.

The council is being asked tonight to authorize the receipt of the federal matching funds. Here’s a map of the properties currently protected through the greenbelt program (smaller green areas) in the context of the greenbelt boundary (larger squarish region). Lodi Township covers the southwest corner of the greenbelt boundary area.

Ann Arbor greenbelt properties. Data from the city of Ann Arbor mapped by The Chronicle on Aug. 3, 2013 with geocommons.com

8:14 p.m. Lumm confirms that the issue will come back before the council when all the funding sources are identified. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, notes that in the past, Lodi Township has contributed to the acquisition of development rights. Lumm says she looks forward to possible participation from Lodi.

8:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to authorize the receipt of the federal farmland protection money.

8:14 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess.

8:23 p.m. The council has returned from recess.

8:23 p.m. Road closures for 2013 UM football games. Unlike the university student move-in traffic changes, which the council approved as part of its consent agenda, this is the first year that the council has been asked to approve street closings around the football stadium on game days.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, it’s part of an effort to increase safety by creating a vehicle-free zone around the stadium, and involves a cooperative effort with the University of Michigan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the city of Ann Arbor police department. The traffic controls would be in place for the period starting three hours before a game until the end of the game.

Traffic controls include the following: E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets would be closed. Access to Greene Street from E. Hoover to E. Keech streets would be limited to parking permit holders. The westbound lane on E. Stadium Blvd. turning right onto S. Main Street (just south of the Michigan Stadium) would be closed. And S. Main Street would be closed from Stadium Blvd. to Pauline.

UM football game day street closures with detour route (purple).

8:28 p.m. Police chief John Seto gives the background on the issue. He describes it as a request that came from the University of Michigan public safety department. Seto describes how he had requested some modifications before he was comfortable with the request. He describes a community meeting on July 24 and says that many comments and suggestions had been received. Modifications had been proposed. One modification he describes proposing was that southbound lanes of Main Street would be open until one hour before the game start.

8:32 p.m. Higgins says she hasn’t seen the modified proposal. The resolution doesn’t include the modifications. Higgins says she attended the community meeting. She says the city does a great job getting people going south, but not west. Higgins won’t support the street closing. This was brought up at the time that the university renovated the stadium, and UM had decided to build out as close to the street as possible, Higgins said. She wasn’t opposed to closing the right-turn lane on Stadium Blvd. She says she’ll respect her constituents. As an argument against the proposal, she notes that the exact game start times aren’t necessarily known months in advance. She thanks Seto for coming to the meeting. But she says that there should have been a meeting held earlier than two weeks before the council needed to vote.

8:38 p.m. Briere has questions for UM representatives. Ann Arbor is not unique in hosting football games. Do other cities do that? Ohio State University and University of Wisconsin close streets, the UM DPS officer explains. Seto gives more details on game day operations in other cities. Briere confirms that those street closures are due to security concerns.

Kailasapathy asks how closing the street helps to prevent terrorism. Seto says it’s part of what can be done as a “reasonable” approach. A Homeland Security official describes how blast modeling of a small truck laden with explosives could do considerable damage. The recommended street closures were based on that blast modeling, he explains. Kailasapathy ventures that the same truck could come at the end of the game. Why is there a higher threat before the game? she asks. DPS officer explains that just before the game is when the heaviest pedestrian traffic occurs and when the most people are inside the stadium.

8:45 p.m. Seto explains that the idea is to open things up in order to dissipate the crowd as quickly as possible. For some games, he says, the crowd starts to leave early. Petersen wonders why it’s taken three years to implement the recommendations. Higgins points out that East Stadium bridges were closed at the time. Lumm says it’s significant that few complaints were received when street closures were implemented for a nighttime Notre Dame game in 2011.

8:54 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventures that the main threat that is supposed to be mitigated is a potential truck bomb. Seto indicates that that is part of the motivation. Taylor inquires about the possible one-hour/three-hour mix of lane closures. Seto explains the balance between asset protection and the interest in getting the crowd to dissipate. The representative from Homeland Security explains that this plan meets the national standards for security for major sporting events.

Anglin asks who pays for the extra measures. The DPS officer explains that the UM athletic department pays. Anglin asks how much the city contributes to the provision of security for football games.

8:57 p.m. Higgins is responding to Anglin’s question by explaining that signs and signals are now paid for by the university. Higgins asks who owns the barricades. The DPS officer explains that the university owns the barricades. They can be moved by two people.

9:07 p.m. Seto recalls how difficult it was to determine the end of the 2011 Notre Dame game, which included overtime periods. He describes the logistical tactics that were used. Higgins has more questions. She says there were many issues associated with the 2011 street closures, that perhaps Seto wasn’t aware of. She stresses that after the first three games the residents want a review of how well things are working. Seto assures Higgins that will be done.

Higgins asks what will happen if it turns out that the logistics aren’t working out. She ventures that the resolution should be modified to reflect that.

Briere asks public services area administrator Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She asks about increased traffic flow in neighborhood streets, citing the possibility of increased deterioration of streets due to added traffic. Hupy indicates that would be minimal compared to the amount of traffic volume over the entire life of the street. Hupy says that the concern is about diminished traffic, which could have a negative impact on the lawn parking that residents enjoy.

9:07 p.m. Lumm now wants to move to amend the resolution to make the closure of the SB lane on South Main restricted to just one hour before the game start.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The amendment passes unanimously.

9:14 p.m. Warpehoski says he lived in Washington D.C. on 9/11. Many people had mourned the increased “locked down” status. Now, however, he weighs the question of “What if I’m wrong?”

Kunselman follows up on the issue of reimbursement by UM for the signs and signals work. Hupy says that when the city has billed the UM, they have been paid. Kunselman says as everyone knows, he works at the university. [Kunselman is a Planet Blue energy conservation liaison.] He calls it a public safety issue. He recalls being able to sneak in through a hole in the fence. It’s a changing world and we have to accommodate the change, Kunselman says. He’ll support the resolution.

9:14 p.m. Briere wants to review the procedures soon enough to take action at the Oct. 7 council meeting. Higgins says that she wants to add a resolved clause that following the first three football games, the AAPD will meet with the neighborhood and bring recommendations to the Oct. 7 meeting. Briere says she’ll support that.

9:22 p.m. Lumm asks Seto to come to the podium. Seto says what’s being asked is doable. He can hear concerns and make suggestions, he said, but there will be certain things he can’t fix. Hieftje asks Seto how easily things could be changed in the middle of the season. Seto expresses confidence that AAPD could be flexible. He gives the Ann Arbor marathon as an example of that. He describes how AAPD often modifies its logistical operations on the fly. Hieftje expressed some concern that the barriers might be taken down too soon. Seto describes the balance that is to be struck.

9:22 p.m. Petersen says that according to her at-home fact checker, three overtimes were not required in the Notre Dame game in 2011 as Seto had said. Instead, it was a play late in the fourth quarter.

The council is “running out the clock” while Higgins crafts amendment language that would require a report to the council at its Oct. 7 meeting.

Outcome: The amendment to include an Oct. 7 report is unanimously approved.

9:25 p.m. Teall says she can’t support the resolution. Petersen calls it common sense. She can think of 114,000 good reasons to support this resolution. She sees it as a public safety issue. The council has now been discussing this for an hour.

9:28 p.m. Lumm is now holding forth. She appreciates the modification of the closure of SB Main to be just one hour before the game start. Higgins responds to comments by Lumm and Petersen about meeting national standards for security. She says that UM needs to think about meeting those standards as it builds out its campus. She somewhat wistfully says that in the future that will be the rest of the council’s problem – an apparent reference to her loss in Tuesday’s primary election.

9:30 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the street closures around the Michigan football stadium on game days. Dissent came from Briere, Teall, Higgins, and Kailasapathy.

9:30 p.m. Bike share program: $150,000. The council is being asked to approve a $150,000 expenditure from the alternative transportation fund in support of an initiative spearheaded by the University of Michigan and the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) to establish a bike share program on the university campus and in an area west of campus in downtown Ann Arbor. The selected vendor is B-Cycle.

In a bike share program, users get access to bicycles parked at a station by swiping their credit card or membership card. Users can then return the bicycle to another station location near their destination.

Potential specific and general bike share station locations in Ann Arbor. The program would include 12-14 bike share stations with an anticipated total of 120-140 bicycles. The contract to provide the service was won by B-Cycle.

The city’s $150,000 would provide the necessary local match for a $600,000 Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant that the CEC has received. The CMAQ funds have to be spent on capital (bikes and stations). Operations will be supported in the first three years of the program by UM at a level of $200,000 annually for a total of $600,000.

9:34 p.m. Petersen leads off by saying that she has mixed feelings. She says she’s disappointed that there’s not a communications plan for safety in the city’s parks – she’d like more signs on mixed-use paths. She doesn’t feel like the city has the safety infrastructure to support a bike share program. Her vote, she says, will be “not yet.”

Hieftje says that the plan was never to put bike lanes on every downtown street, because the traffic moves slow enough in some places that bicycles can keep up with cars. Briere agrees with Petersen. Signage is great, but she doesn’t think that signage replaces “people paying attention.” Briere is encouraged that UM is a strong financial supporter. She says it’s not about commuting but rather about moving from State and Liberty to the corner of Huron and Main (the Washtenaw County building).

9:41 p.m. Kunselman recalls the bike share program that Jeff Hayner had described during public commentary. They were painted green and were made available, and they disappeared to the far reaches of the city, never to return to the downtown, Kunselman said. He describes the number of abandoned bikes downtown and on the campus that clutter the streets. He says that the bike share program might help to “clean up our streets.”

Kunselman talks about the carrying capacity of the environment. He’s concerned about the fact that the money is coming from the alternative transportation fund, and might be taking away from other needs. Transportation program manager Eli Cooper describes the intended use of the fund as making improvements as well as maintaining non-motorized infrastructures. Kunselman asks for examples of maintenance activities. Cooper says that if anything were to be deferred, then it would be a half-mile of bike lane including signs. That would be postponed for about a year, he said.

Kunselman clarifies that this is “seed money.” That’s right, Cooper said. It’s for capital needs. The UM is contributing operating money. CEC is working on sponsorship revenue and handling fare revenue. Cooper sketches a vision of private cooperation.

Kunselman asks about clutter on downtown sidewalks. He wants to know if the specific locations will require council approval. Cooper indicates that the right-of-way permitting program is authorized by the council, but the individual locations wouldn’t need approval.

9:48 p.m. Cooper responds to Petersen’s concern about adequate signs in the park system. Lumm reports about mishaps in the parks – pedestrians being “slammed into” by bicyclists. She feels that bicyclists are more inclined to commute by bicycle paths. She brings up bells. Hupy says he has a bell on his bike and he’s one of those people who commutes through parks.

Lumm says that obviously a lot of effort has gone into the bike share initiative. She appreciates the responses about the impact of the program on the alternative transportation program. She says it’s appropriate to Ann Arbor. But she’s now expressing skepticism, saying that the city doesn’t prioritize its transportation programs. She objects to the fact that there’s not a long-term plan for the operating expenses – saying that UM’s commitment ends after three years. Still, she says she’ll support the resolution.

9:53 p.m. Warpehoski asks Cooper about the CMAQ grant deadline. Cooper says that there’s a deadline at the end of the federal fiscal year – Sept. 30.

Briere ventures that the council will hear that some of the bicycle lanes are in bad shape. What’s being done to maintain bike lanes? Cooper says he annually does a visual inspection of the entire system. An inventory of the bike lane inspections is available online, he says – it’s part of the city’s Bicycling in A2 website. He describes the citizens request system for repairing potholes.

9:57 p.m. Petersen asks how long it will take before signs will show up in the parks. City administrator Steve Powers indicates he can provide an answer tomorrow. Petersen asks how to get a specific piece of educational literature about what every motorist should know about bike lanes. Cooper lists off various locations where it’s available and ways it’s distributed.

Higgins says she doesn’t think the city has done a good job of educating cyclists. She describes bicyclists who go through red lights. She described encountering a cyclist who was using proper hand signals and discovered that it was Chuck Warpehoski. She oftentimes sees cyclists go up on the sidewalk and use the crosswalk. She expresses concern that the city would be suddenly adding a lot of additional cyclists. “I don’t think we’re there, yet,” Higgins says. Cooper says that the bike share program is another point of contact for additional education.

10:06 p.m. Higgins says that handing someone a pamphlet doesn’t educate them about what they need to do. She thinks users of the bike share system should have to pass a test. Petersen says she’s not concerned about educating cyclists, because they know their risks. Petersen says she’s concerned about education of motorists.

Anglin says he thinks it’s a good program. Matt Sandstrom from the CEC is fielding questions. Anglin asks if helmets are required. That’s a tricky question, Sandstrom says. He points out that helmets are not the law in Michigan. Education about helmets can be placed on kiosks, he said. CEC would be pro-helmet, Sandstrom says.

Anglin asks if most of the users are anticipated to be younger. Not necessarily, Sandstrom says. Kunselman picks up the idea of education. He says that education needs to be taking place in school. He asks if anyone remembers the rule about bicycles needing to give an audible signal before overtaking a pedestrian. This isn’t about education, but rather about bike sharing, he says. It’ll be the first in the state, he says. He points out that pedestrians don’t follow the rules of the road, either.

10:09 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the $150,000 allocation over two years to support the bike sharing program. Dissent came from Petersen and Higgins.

10:09 p.m. Waldenwood sidewalk design budget: $10,000 The council is being asked to approve a design budget for a sidewalk to fill in a gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward to connect to the path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School.

In its form, the resolution is similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council has been asked to approve in recent months. [For example, the council has approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013 meeting, a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

However, the sidewalk gap near King School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009. For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the segment of sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King School crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair – but not new construction – can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage. In the case of the Waldenwood sidewalk, it’s located to the rear of the residential properties – and the city does not typically special assess properties to finance sidewalks to the rear of a property.

10:17 p.m. Petersen says she’s happy to see this come to the council. It has been debated since 2009, she says. Petersen says that the AAPS safety committee minutes from that era don’t indicate clearly that the group endorsed moving the crosswalk from mid-block to the four-way stop. City traffic engineer Pat Cawley is recalling the specific meeting for Petersen.

Kailasapathy asks public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium. She asks if the project comes to a halt if the property owners object. Hupy says that if the council approves the resolution, then the city staff would meet with the community and then come back for the second resolution in the special assessment process. Kailasapathy confirms that it’s a council decision, not one determined by the adjoining property owners. Hupy indicates there are three chances to kill the project along the way. Kunselman confirms that the property owner can’t kill the project.

10:20 p.m. Lumm thanks staff for their work. She asks how residents will be notified for the next step. Hupy says that they’d be mailed a meeting notice. He ventures that there could be more than one meeting. Lumm noted that it would have made sense to undertake the sidewalk construction when Waldenwood was recently repaved. She indicated that she was glad that this is going through a formal process.

10:26 p.m. Briere asks for the approximate timeline for the project. Hupy says he can’t speak to exact details. It’s a relatively simple project from an engineering and design perspective. The time-consuming part for this project would be the public engagement portion of the project. He ventures that it could come back to the council in late winter or spring of 2014.

Briere ventures that the sidewalk could be constructed by the start of school in the fall of 2014. Hupy allows that might be possible. Petersen said she thought that the property owners wouldn’t be special assessed because it’s on their rear lot lines. Hupy says that Petersen has picked up on the fact that there’s likely not anything that will be assess-able in the project.

10:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the design budget for the Waldenwood sidewalk. It needed an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council, because the council’s action altered the city’s budget.

10:27 p.m. Public art administrator contract extension: $18,500. The council is being asked to appropriate funds to pay for public art administrator Aaron Seagraves’ contract through the end of 2013. The amendment brings his total compensation for the period from June 11, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2013 to $48,900. The specific projects mentioned in the resolution, which require administrative work, are the Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and the East Stadium Blvd. bridges.

10:29 p.m. Briere says she can imagine people asking why the city has a public art administrator, if the city doesn’t have a Percent for Art program. There’s the old business of Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and Stadium bridges. There’s also a need to address the new business of integrating the new public art program into the capital improvements program.

10:32 p.m. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy explains to Briere that the reason that the contract extension goes through the end of the year is to allow for a bridge between the old Percent for Art program and the new program.

Kailasapathy notes that an issue had come up when she and Lumm had attempted a budget amendment to refund the money for public art to the funds of origin. She says she really has a problem with the resolution, so she won’t support it.

10:35 p.m. Lumm also says she has a problem with the resolution. She says that she’s tried at every point to discontinue the public art program. Instead of returning the $800,000 in unspent funds, the council had decided to maintain a public art “slush fund,” she says. She doesn’t think that the council should continue to “throw good money after bad.” She won’t support the continued spending on Percent for Art projects.

10:42 p.m. Higgins asks why $18,500 is being appropriated for compensation, but $20,500 is the amount in the resolution. Hupy describes miscellaneous supplies as accounting for the $2,000. Hupy points out that the information was provided in answers to the council’s caucus questions.

Petersen says she’ll support the resolution – because she wants the area around the Dreiseitl sculpture to become ADA compliant. Kailasapathy asks why a public art administrator would be handling ADA compliance. City administrator Steve Powers says that hasn’t been decided yet.

Anglin calculates that the public art administrator is being paid only $20/hour. He calls that a bargain. Kunselman says he’ll support it, because it’s a small amount. But he cautions that he might not vote to support spending the money on the remaining Percent for Art projects in the pipeline. He says the pressure is on the public art commission to bring forward a high quality piece of art. He said he could say right now that he’s not going to vote to spend money on “anything that’s hanging from a light pole.” That’s a reference to the recommended project for the East Stadium bridges location, proposed by artist Catherine Widgery and recommended by a task force.

10:47 p.m. Briere asks what would happen if the council voted not to spend the money on the East Stadium bridges location. Would the money revert to the public art fund? City administrator Steve Powers says that’s for the council to decide. The council could say, “Try again,” he says. Briere points out that the council would still need to amend the city’s public art ordinance in order to return public art funds to their funds of origin.

Hieftje supports the resolution, saying that it’s necessary to have administrative support for the art program. Teall reiterates that point, that a successful art program requires an administrator. Teall says that residents do see the value of public art, and having an administrator is vital.

10:48 p.m. Taylor says that there was a common understanding, if not unanimous, that a transition would need to be funded. He calls for honoring the effort that’s gone into this.

10:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract extension for the public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, over dissent from Lumm and Kailasapathy.

10:48 p.m. Easement: AATA water main. The council is being asked to accept an easement from the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority for a water main – related to the bus garage expansion at the AAATA’s headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Hwy.

10:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the easement for the water main.

10:49 p.m. Easement: sidewalk at 2760 Nixon. The council is being asked to accept an easement from property owners Byron Bunker and Amy Bunker for construction of a sidewalk related to the Safe Routes to School initiative for Clague Middle School.

10:49 p.m. Lumm offers a brief statement of support, noting that it’s a part of the Safe Routes to School program for Clague Middle School.

10:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the sidewalk easement from the Bunkers.

10:50 p.m. Easement: sidewalk at 425 E. Washington (The Varsity). The council is being asked to accept a sidewalk easement on the east side of The Varsity building, which will connect Huron Street with Washington Street. It’s part of the development agreement.

10:50 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the sidewalk easement from The Varsity.

10:51 p.m. Appointments. The council was asked to confirm mayoral nominations made at the previous council meeting on July 15: Sue Perry to the Elizabeth Dean Fund committee; and Evan Nichols to the zoning board of appeals.

10:51 p.m. Nominations. Highlights from nominations for boards and commissions added on Aug. 6 include Rishi Narayan to replace Leah Gunn on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Narayan is founder and managing member of Underground Printing, which offers screenprinting of apparel in more than a dozen cities nationwide. Narayan made the Crain’s Detroit Business “Twenty in their 20s” list in 2010 as a 28-year-old.

Jack Bernard is being nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. When the AAATA articles of incorporation were changed recently to add the city of Ypsilanti as a member, the board was expanded from seven to nine members. One of the two additional seats is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. Gillian Ream was appointed to that spot. Bernard’s appointment would fill the additional slot appointed by the city of Ann Arbor. Bernard is a lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns. Given the nature of wrangling over Eric Mahler’s recent appointment to the AAATA board, Bernard’s chairship of that group could be a key qualification. Some councilmembers objected to Mahler’s appointment, arguing that someone who could represent the disability community should be appointed instead.

10:51 p.m. Originally slated on the agenda to replace Newcombe Clark on the board of the Ann Arbor DDA was Al McWilliams. However, the most-recently updated version of the agenda does not include his name. Al McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Originally slated for nomination to serve on the public art commission was Jeff Hayner. But the most-recently updated version of the nomination list did not include his name. He has filed petitions to run for the Ward 1 city council seat. The Ward 1 city council ballot for November will include incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere, and independents Hayner and Jaclyn Vresics.

10:51 p.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:52 p.m. No one speaks.

10:52 p.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into closed session under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act to discuss pending litigation.

11:08 p.m. The council has emerged from its closed session.

11:08 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.

The city planning commission had given its recommendation to approve the change at its Aug. 21, 2012 meeting. Six major changes were proposed: (1) adding parking or flexible space for special events as permitted uses in the ground floor of a proposed three-story mixed-use building, on the site’s northeast corner; (2) increasing the use of potential restaurant space within the site from 7,000 square feet to 14,224 square feet; (3) eliminating requirements for a free-standing restaurant that had previously been planned; (4) increasing the maximum number of parking spaces from 275 to 290; (5) reducing the minimum number of bicycle storage spaces from 70 to 64; and (6) adding the following language to the facade section: “ground level facades of Building A if used as interior parking shall include architectural columns, a minimum 3-foot height masonry screen wall, and louvers or grills to screen views to parking while permitting natural ventilation.”

In addition, the city recently discovered that the bank building was built one foot from the west property line, although the approved site plan and supplemental regulations required a two-foot setback. To resolve this, the owner proposed an amendment of the PUD supplemental regulations, according to a staff memo. The memo also indicates that the owner has been making contributions to the city’s affordable housing fund, rather than providing affordable housing within the complex. The final payment is due at the end of this year. [For background on a current policy discussion on the affordable housing trust fund, see "City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy."]

This isn’t the first time that changes have been requested for the site. In 2009, developers also asked to amend the original PUD agreement. Rather than build a restaurant, they asked for permission to turn that part of the site into a temporary parking lot, adding 26 additional parking spaces and 11 spots for motorcycles. The planning commission didn’t act on that request until its Feb. 18, 2010 meeting. Although all five commissioners at that meeting voted to approve the request, the action required six votes to pass, so it failed for lack of votes. However, the request was forwarded to the city council, which ultimately granted approval at its April 19, 2010 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]

The site plan was a revision to the nonprofit’s planned unit development (PUD), which will allow for a 12,646-square-foot addition to the back of the existing 16,977-square-foot building.

That building houses the nonprofit’s administrative offices, storage warehouse, and training space. The plan also will add 22 parking spaces to the site, and includes an expansion of produce-washing stations, used to clean vegetables grown at gardens on the site. The Carrot Way site is located on the north side of Ann Arbor off of Dhu Varren Road, east of Pontiac Trail.

According to a staff memo, the changes include a separate administrative land transfer request to shift a shared lot line between the site and a parcel of vacant land to the southeast – both owned by Food Gatherers. The lot line will be moved about 70 feet south, adding 0.43 acres to site where the Food Gatherers’ facility is located. The larger lot size is necessary so that the building addition will conform to the permitted floor-area ratio (FAR). FAR – a measure of density – is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.

The site plan conforms with the existing PUD zoning, so the one approval by the council at the Oct. 1 meeting was sufficient. Changes to zoning require two readings before the council.

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 city planning commission gave its recommendation to approve the change at its Aug. 21, 2012 meeting.

The current request proposes six major changes: (1) adding parking or flexible space for special events as permitted uses in the ground floor of a proposed three-story mixed-use building, on the site’s northeast corner; (2) increasing the use of potential restaurant space within the site from 7,000 square feet to 14,224 square feet; (3) eliminating requirements for a free-standing restaurant that had previously been planned; (4) increasing the maximum number of parking spaces from 275 to 290; (5) reducing the minimum number of bicycle storage spaces from 70 to 64; and (6) adding the following language to the facade section: “ground level facades of Building A if used as interior parking shall include architectural columns, a minimum 3-foot height masonry screen wall, and louvers or grills to screen views to parking while permitting natural ventilation.”

In addition, the city recently discovered that the bank building was built one foot from the west property line, although the approved site plan and supplemental regulations required a two-foot setback. To resolve this, the owner proposed an amendment of the PUD supplemental regulations, according to a staff memo. The memo also indicates that the owner has been making contributions to the city’s affordable housing fund, rather than providing affordable housing within the complex. The final payment is due at the end of this year. [For background on a current policy discussion on the affordable housing trust fund, see "City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy"]

This isn’t the first time that changes have been requested for the site. In 2009, developers also asked to amend the original PUD agreement. Rather than build a restaurant, they asked for permission to turn that part of the site into a temporary parking lot, adding 26 additional parking spaces and 11 spots for motorcycles. The planning commission didn’t act on that request until its Feb. 18, 2010 meeting. Although all five commissioners at that meeting voted to approve the request, the action required six votes to pass, so it failed for lack of votes. However, the request was forwarded to the city council, which ultimately granted approval at its April 19, 2010 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]

A section of a partially complete mural at Allmendinger Park, funded through Ann Arbor’s existing Percent for Art program. (Photos by the writer.)

The public art millage would be levied at a rate of 0.1 mill, which would raise around $450,000 from Ann Arbor taxpayers annually. Passage of the public art millage would, according to the corresponding charter amendment, suspend the city’s public art funding mechanism embedded in the Percent for Art ordinance – but only for the duration of the four-year millage.

A selling point of the millage, compared to the current Percent for Art program, is that millage money could be used more flexibly than money set aside under the Percent for Art program. The Percent for Art ordinance requires that 1% of all city capital projects be set aside for art. But this funding mechanism carries with it a legal requirement that art paid for through the program be in some sense “monumental” art that is permanent. Performance art or temporary installations would not qualify under the current program.

Even though a millage offers more flexibility, leaders in the arts community are concerned about a possible perception that it would be completely flexible – which led the council to change the ballot language and charter amendment from “public art” to “art in public places.”

A proposal from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to begin the process of revising the Percent for Art ordinance in advance of the millage vote got little traction from the council. Lumm indicated that she wanted to offer voters a clear choice – that unless the millage were approved, public funding for art would disappear. But her resolution was voted down, with additional support only from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

The majority of councilmembers felt that such a move was “premature.” Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he was open to a scenario in which the millage passed, the tax was levied for four years (which would generate roughly $1.8 million in money that could be spent flexibly), but then was not offered to voters for renewal after four years, which would mean an automatic reversion to the current Percent for Art program.

In other business, the council declined to take action on two pieces of land at opposite ends of the downtown – 414 N. Main St. (site of the old St. Nicholas Church), and 350 S. Fifth Ave. (the former YMCA lot). The council rejected a proposal to begin the rezoning process for the St. Nicholas Church property – in advance of a public auction of the land starting Sept. 6. The council also declined to support a directive to the city administrator to prepare for disposition of the old Y lot, citing an ongoing planning process for the area of downtown Ann Arbor that includes the city-owned parcel. That process – Connecting William Street – is being led by the Ann Arbor DDA under direction from the city council.

The council transacted a mixed bag of other business, including approval of a collaborative effort with Washtenaw County to handle towing. The council also approved the final grant contract necessary for completing an environmental study in connection with a runway extension at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

The council rejected a proposal from Comcast for a new franchise agreement, opting instead to allow the current arrangement to stay in place at least through the end of its term in 2017.

The meeting ended around midnight with jostling among councilmembers on the issue of mayoral appointments. Prompting the discussion was the reappointment of Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to the board of the Ann Arbor DDA. Kunselman and Lumm voted against the reappointment, objecting to Smith’s dual service on the city council and the DDA board. Smith was originally appointed to the board before her election to the council in 2008 and is not seeking re-election this term. Other councilmembers defended Smith’s selection.

Less controversial was the appointment of Michael Benson to the taxicab board. That body had been unable to meet because it had only two voting members out of five, and could not achieve a quorum. If all three members show up now, that body can hold its meeting.

Public Art Millage

The Aug. 20 council agenda included a resolution to place a public art millage on the Nov. 6 ballot for Ann Arbor voters. A second related resolution dealt with the existing Percent for Art program.

Public Art Millage: Background

The possibility of placing a ballot question in front of voters this November had first been revealed at the council’s Aug. 9, 2012 meeting, when Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) added the item to the agenda at the start of that meeting. The millage that voters will be asked to approve will be levied at a rate of 0.1 mills, which will generate around $450,000 annually. For the owner of a house worth $200,000 the tax will cost around $10 a year.

Approval by voters on Nov. 6 would mean that the funding mechanism already provided by Ann Arbor’s Percent for Art ordinance would be suspended for a period of four years – the duration of the millage. That program, in place since 2007, requires that 1% of all city capital projects be set aside for public art, up to a limit of $250,000 per capital project.

The source of funding – city capital projects – has legal implications, requiring that the funded artwork be “monumental” or permanent-type works. The public art funds from a millage would not necessarily be restricted to such permanent art, as the current Percent for Art funds are. The additional flexibility afforded by a millage-based public art program might include the ability to fund performance art, for example.

The arts community and others voiced several concerns about placing the item on the Nov. 6 ballot. Those concerns include a lack of clarity for voters about how yes or no votes would impact public funding for art, the short timeframe during which a millage campaign could be mounted, and the fact that Ann Arbor voters will already be asked to vote for two other millages on the Nov. 6 ballot. Those two millages are: (1) a renewal of a 1.1 mill tax to pay for park capital improvements and maintenance; and (2) a library millage to support construction of a new downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library – expected to cost 0.56 mills in its first of 30 years, but averaging 0.47 mills.

As altered slightly by the council on Aug. 20, the ballot question reads:

Shall the Charter be amended to limit sources of funding for art in public places and to authorize a new tax of up to one-tenth (0.10) of a mill for 2013 through 2016 to fund art in public places, which 0.10 mill will raise in the first year of levy the estimated revenue of $459,273?

The corresponding charter language would be [emphasis added]:

Funds for Public Art
SECTION 8.24. In addition to any other amount which the City is authorized to raise by general tax upon the real and personal property by this Charter or any other provision of law, the City shall, in 2013 through 2016, annually levy a tax of up to one-tenth (0.10) of a mill on all taxable real and personal property situated within the City for the purpose of providing funds for art in public places, including but not limited to the permanent and temporary acquisition, maintenance and repair of works of art for display in or on public structures or sites and/or as part of or adjacent to public streets and sidewalks, and performance art on city streets, sidewalks or sites. Except for funds previously raised, set aside, allocated or otherwise designated to be used for public art, including such funds in the July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 fiscal year budget, and except for funds that are received by grant, gift, bequest or other donation to the City for public art, for the duration of this millage, the City shall not raise, set aside or designate funds for public art in any other manner. This millage also shall not preclude the grant, gift, bequest or other donation to the City of works of art.

A separate resolution concerning the existing Percent for Art program was also on the council’s agenda. It was meant, according to its sponsor Jane Lumm (Ward 2), to provide clarity to voters about what their vote on a public art millage would mean for the future funding of public art. Lumm’s resolution directed city staff to prepare an ordinance revision to the Percent for Art program, with the idea of repealing the current funding program before the millage vote. The idea is that voters would understand clearly that unless the public art millage is approved, no public funding for art would remain.

Public Art Millage: Public Commentary

Eight people spoke on the topic during public commentary.

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Democrat from the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County – an advocate for public transportation and access to health care, including free health care for middle class and low-income people to be provided by the University of Michigan hospital. It’s important to take a universal and integrated approach to funding public art and affordable housing and truly affordable transportation. On the subject of public art, he said, in a city known for its prominent educational institutions – like the University of Michigan, Eastern Michigan University and Concordia University – we need to have public art education instead of extraordinary amounts spent on public art.

Russ Collins introduced himself as the executive director of the Michigan Theater. He followed Dennis Brewer (owner of Brewer’s Towing) during the public commentary, who was there to object to the council’s resolution on public towing. Collins got a laugh when he said, “When I was in college, that was the guy who towed my car!” Settling in to the topic of public art, Collins began by thanking councilmembers for serving on the council, calling it a thankless job. He told them they had at least one deeply appreciative citizen. He grew up in Ann Arbor and had long admired what the city council has done to keep the city vital. He thanked Christopher Taylor for bringing the subject into a public discussion. Collins said he’s always happy when residents talk about the arts. He wanted to make clear to everybody that it’s not a broad-based public arts funding program – but rather, it’s a narrow program for art in public places. He suggested that people refer to it as an “art in public places millage.”

A lot of people will think that the millage could benefit the Michigan Theater, or the University Musical Society, or other cultural institutions like the Hands On Museum, Collins said. Such organizations would not get funding through such a millage, he contended, saying that they could in fact be damaged by that assumption – because when governmental funding comes, sometimes the private sector reduces its funding. So it’s important, Collins said, to be clear that the millage would be for “art in public places.”

Collins reported that his colleague Ken Fischer, president of the University Musical Society, is actually quite opposed to the millage for that reason. Collins told the council that he felt the Percent for Art is a good way to fund this type of program – art in public places funded with public money. A lot of communities support that approach and make it work, Collins said, and it could be made to work in Ann Arbor too. If the council chooses to put this on the ballot as a millage, Collins said, it’s very important to the Michigan Theater and every institution that doesn’t provide art in public places, that the millage is very narrow.

Meg Crawley told the council that she’d never spoken to them before but she was there to advocate for public funding for public art – because she thinks it’s important. She’s lived in Ann Arbor for 40 years. She’s the neighborhood representative for a mural project at Allmendinger Park, she said, which would be completed in the next few weeks. The mural is being constructed by Ann Arbor artist Mary Thiefels, and she’s including artifacts from the community in her mural. Crawley has volunteered to help by collecting the items and logging them into a spreadsheet. Over 50 families had participated, she said. The process has brought home to her how much the community treasures art and its connection to parks.

Allmendinger Park is showcased each fall when the University of Michigan football fans park in the neighborhood. The art project will draw people to it, and show them the true heart of Ann Arbor. The project has had an energizing effect on the neighborhood, she said. It’ll be free for anyone who wants to see it, she noted. The mural would facilitate pride in our community. She asked the council to find any way they can to keep public funding for art in the future.

Margaret Parker told the council she’d served on the Ann Arbor public art commission for many years. She helped bring about the Percent for Art program. She reviewed the program since its existence over the last five years. She told the council that three works had been completed, with 12 more on the way. [The Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall and a metal tree sculpture in West Park are completed, but it's unclear what third work Parker was referring to that's been funded by the program. Artists are working on two other projects that were approved earlier this year, but aren't yet complete: A glass hanging sculpture in the Justice Center lobby, and the Allmendinger Park mural.]

Parker noted that the Percent for Art program works with one part-time administrator and a revolving band of nine volunteers who serve on the commission. Before the program, there was no permanent art being made in the city, she said.

If the council wants to change the funding mechanism, Parker said, it’s important to be sure to use what we’ve learned over the last five years: how to work with city departments; how to connect with the long-term city planning system; how to use the city information and communication technology; how to work with the art administrator; how to keep the city council informed; and how to keep public informed. She allowed that the public art commission might not be successful at all those things, but one thing is sure, she contended: Before the Percent for Art program, no one knew how public art was done. It’s true that the Percent for Art funding mechanism is complex, and can be restrictive. But learning how to work with the city was by far the hardest part of the start-up, she said.

She invited people to stand in front of the mosaic wall on Washington Street, or the Plymouth Road water tower or the new city hall, and then to shut their eyes, and to imagine the scene without any art. She asked them to then open their eyes and to contemplate whether those scenes were better with or without art.

Marsha Chamberlin addressed the council as chair of Ann Arbor’s public art commission (AAPAC). She said that one thing the group does not want is for funding for art to disappear. The resolution as proposed gives more flexibility in the implementation of the public art program, she said, and gives some real opportunity for “rapid innovation,” which she felt would be a positive thing for Ann Arbor citizens.

Marsha Chamberlin, chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, sat in the audience before the Aug. 20 city council meeting started. Chamberlin also serves as president of the nonprofit Ann Arbor Art Center.

The funding for public art – art performed or temporarily installed in public places – will expand what AAPAC can do as a commission, Chamberlin said. When the Dreiseitl sculpture was dedicated, she said, the international quality of the city was talked about – the thousands and thousands of visitors who come to Ann Arbor. Public art is part of what makes the city a great place and lends a quality of life that she wanted to make sure is sustained in the city. At the end of September, she said, the mural in Allmendinger Park – which Meg Crawley had described – will be celebrated. It will be another great example of a completed piece, she said. She invited the council to join that celebration and to celebrate another victory for the city of Ann Arbor.

Debra Polich introduced herself as a resident, a 30-year arts administration veteran, and director of the Arts Alliance. The alliance advocates for the creative sector of Washtenaw County, she said. The alliance facilitates the Cultural Leaders Forum, which monthly brings together leaders from Ann Arbor’s largest cultural institutions. Over the last 10 days, more than 50 of them have expressed their opinion about the millage. Almost all of them are supportive of the concept, but greatly concerned about the timing. Based on surveys, Ann Arbor places a high value on arts and culture. Public funding approved in a millage would reflect the high value that residents put on arts and cultural offerings – in a way that public funding for parks and libraries and transportation reflect the high value that residents place on those services.

Polich told the council that experienced advisors had suggested to the arts alliance that in order to do any arts millage properly, it would take 12-18 months of due diligence. It might be expedited to a minimum of six months, she said. [It's roughly a three-month span from the time that Christopher Taylor first unveiled the proposal publicly (Aug. 9) until the Nov. 6 vote.] That time can be used to engage the community, and build consensus. Work should include polling the community, and if favorable, setting the millage at the right level, she said.

The advisors to the Arts Alliance had also recommended talking to community leaders, in order to expose support and opposition. The Arts Alliance absolutely supports the public funding of art, Polich said, and appreciates Taylor’s millage proposal. But as appreciative as the Arts Alliance is of the suggestion, she added, the short timeframe is of concern. She called Jane Lumm’s resolution that would lead to the elimination of Percent for Art funding prior to a millage equally premature. The alliance recommends not approving either proposal now. Instead, she said, she would ask that the Arts Alliance, the public art commission and others work together to improve the functioning of the Percent for Art program.

John Kotarski introduced himself as a member of the public art commission. He supported placing the millage on the ballot on Nov. 6. He said he’d served on the commission just since January 2012, but that he could already say that the restrictions imposed by the current funding arrangement have been a major roadblock to funding the types of projects that are near and dear to Ann Arbor. Delaying the millage vote would confuse voters, he cautioned. A millage-funded program would make the program stronger and more accountable.

Kotarski said that those who fear that the millage won’t pass are underestimating the leadership ability of councilmembers. If every councilmember wants the millage to pass, he contended, then it will pass.

Kotarski then stressed the symbolic value of art. He related a story of how Dolly Madison had elected to save a portrait of George Washington instead of her personal belongings back in 1814, when the British army was approaching Washington D.C. The British had planned to burn the portrait in London. He told councilmembers that Dolly Madison would be proud of them, “even though she was a Republican.”

John Carver told the council he was there to support the Percent for Art ordinance. He’s involved with several groups of private entrepreneurial types, who are trying to do some things that could make Ann Arbor more vital and interesting. The Percent for Art had gotten the ball rolling, he contended. There’s a group that is trying to bring more live music to Ann Arbor, patterned after a program in Austin, Texas. Another group is trying to enhance the architectural lighting in the theater district – and they’ve had meetings with representatives of McKinley Inc. and the Michigan Theater. Carver also told the council that he’s involved in a group called the Wolfpack on the RiverUp! project. That project involves upgrading amenities along the Huron River – and Carver reported that the Superior Portage is completed. Gallup Pond and Island Park will also be a part of the project. He stressed that the effort involved only private funds.

He told the council that he owns the building downtown at 500 E. Liberty, which he said is in the theater district. He had commissioned an artist to do a sculpture on the building. It would be called the Spirit of Ann Arbor and would be created by the artist Charles McGee, a World War II veteran.

Public Art Millage: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority with Russ Collins, led off the city council deliberations with an amendment that took a suggestion made by Collins during public commentary: to change “public art” to “art in public places” throughout the ballot question and charter amendment. She wanted to make sure that people did not mistakenly think that passage of the millage meant that they no longer needed to make their membership payments to The Ark or the Michigan Theater or other similar organizations.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) greeted meeting attendees, assuring them that she was certain the council would definitely take the action of approving the minutes of the previous meeting.

Smith’s wardmate Sabra Briere floated the idea that the change be considered “friendly” and could be adopted without a vote. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was himself amenable to the idea, but worried that the language of the existing proposal had already been reviewed by the state attorney general on a preliminary basis. City attorney Stephen Postema ventured that he did not think the attorney general would have a problem with the change. So the “friendly” amendment was adopted.

Taylor noted that the purpose of offering the resolution at the council’s previous meeting was to initiate public conversation. That mission has been accomplished, he declared. The public art commission has met [in a special session on Aug. 15, due to the unexpected nature of Taylor's proposal] and other arts groups have met and discussed the issue. Taylor said he’d received a tremendous amount of feedback.

It’s clear that Ann Arbor really values art in public places, he contended, and they see it as something that warrants government support. In his view, a millage is the best way for that government support to be realized, so he’s eager to have that question put to voters. Those in the arts community have questioned whether it’s an opportune time for the millage, and he shares that concern. There are a number of particularities about why this is not the best time for a millage. He is not yet convinced, so he’s eager to hear what his colleagues think. He then ticked through the specific concerns: whether it’s the proper cycle; the lack of polling; the inchoate nature of funding; high costs of promotional materials; potential for misunderstanding as to scope.

Many of those things are true, Taylor admitted, but he was not sure they pushed him over the edge. He felt that the benefits and detriments are a “gut check” for people. He stated that “we all want it to succeed,” and stated that he is confident it will succeed in any election – so he’s not certain it wouldn’t be best to ask the most people about it. [This was an allusion to the fact that it falls in a presidential election cycle.] He felt that Ann Arbor at its core is a community that will support art in public places.

However, he stated that he was “still up in the air” and was eager to hear the thoughts of his colleagues.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he had “jumped on this” as soon as Taylor had initiated it. [He asked to have his name added as a sponsor.] He ventured that everyone knows he’s been very vocal in criticizing the existing funding mechanism. The community has been debating the funding ordinance, and no other community in Michigan has adopted the same kind of ordinance. That indicated to him that no other city is willing to stick its neck out and take money out of utilities and special millages to pay for art in public places. “A millage is the only way to go,” Kunselman said. He appreciated the comments from people in the arts community who were hesitant to see the millage placed on this November’s ballot.

But he felt that in a presidential election, it would get out the greatest number of voters – many of whom are just going to love art, regardless of whether they’re paying for it. And that could tip the balance in getting the millage passed. Kunselman claimed that the library board is moving forward with a millage without waiting to do a big review of community sentiment. Kunselman implied that the library’s millage would pass because everybody likes books and that Ann Arbor is a well-read community. [In fact, the Ann Arbor District Library has undertaken a systematic effort to measure community sentiment. That effort has included a scientific survey of voters, the results of which were released four months ago. The AADL subsequently conducted public forums on their plan to construct a new building, before the board voted to put the bond proposal on the ballot. An informal campaign committee started its work several months ago.]

Kunselman looked at art as being something that needs to get out in front of the most voters, in order to give it a chance of passing.

From left: Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) chats with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Ann Arbor art commission chair Marsha Chamberlin after the vote to put a public art millage on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Kunselman liked the idea that it will “unchain the restrictions” so that not just monumental art but also cultural arts can be supported. He said he came from a cultural arts family – pointing out that he’d at one time worked as a projectionist at Michigan Theater.

Responding to the short timeframe for mounting a millage campaign, Smith noted that she’d twice been involved in bringing forward a proposal to roll back the Percent for Art program to a half percent. That was not because she’s not a fan of art, she said. On both occasions, in a very short period of time, the arts community and the broader community had come out and convinced her that’s reducing the percentage to a half percent is not the way to go. So she was not concerned about the arts community not having that kind of energy when it comes to voting in November. She felt that “we’re a passionate and creative bunch and recognize a good thing.” She said she’s looking forward to living in a city that has parks and a new library when a lot of cities are still struggling. In contrast, Ann Arbor is not just moving forward, but rather “surging” forward. Now is as good a time as any to do it, and she would do her part to make sure people know that they should vote yes on the millage.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) distinguished between the politics and substance of the issue. The substance has been discussed frequently, and frequently it’s been upheld, he said. The community has supported the Percent for Art ordinance, even with its imperfections, he contended. The millage proposal is better, he said, because it eliminates some of those restrictions associated with the Percent for Art program. It’s a pleasure to agree with Kunselman on something, Derezinski said. On the issue of the timing, he said “we don’t live in an ideal world.” He felt it was important to go ahead and put in on the ballot. He thinks the community support is there, and he would vote to put it on the ballot right away.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he’s always supported the Percent for Art program. He’s had problems with how it was funded, he allowed. But he thanked the members of the public art commission for their service. He said that this change to a millage-based proposal would allow performance art on city streets and sidewalks. He felt that a millage would be a fair way to approach it – given that it was for a relatively short period and could be evaluated at the end of four years.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated that based on what she was hearing at that point, it didn’t sound like the council was inclined to postpone. She reviewed the various concerns that had been aired at a cultural leaders forum held by the Arts Alliance earlier that day – a gathering that she, Derezinski, Taylor and Hieftje had attended. She noted that there were basic questions – about the amount of the millage, for example. She lamented the fact that Taylor’s proposal does not offer residents a clear choice about whether to use public money to pay for art. She felt there should be a clear choice. She indicated she would support placing the question on the ballot, based on her commitment to offer voters a clear choice – with her subsequent proposal to prepare to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism prior to the millage.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) allowed that she’d been more of a critic of the Percent for Art program than a supporter. But unlike Kunselman, she did not oppose it on the grounds that it involves capital improvement dollars. She thinks that the program has started out with a lot of money and with no guidance about how to spend that money. Based on her own observations at AAPAC meetings, it continues to be a struggle to spend the money. She said the amount Ann Arbor sets aside is inordinately large – based on conversations she’s had with art administrators in other cities.

Briere said her issue is the definition of capital improvements. She viewed the ballot proposal with favor. She felt that the inherent restrictions in the existing Percent for Art program have been more onerous than effective. The fact that the amount to be generated by the millage is more than the money already being set aside bothers her. If the commission is given more dollars to spend, it’ll be difficult to balance all the demand – but at least the commission will have the ability to spend some of it on things other than monumental art.

She’s not concerned about the short timeframe of the next two months, saying that the conversation has been going on for the last five years. Respondents to her informal poll over the weekend were as likely to say they support the current Percent for Art program as they were to say they oppose all dollars going to a millage. If councilmembers are going to do this, she said, they have sell it. They have to be confident as they communicate to the public that the council is not trying to hedge its bets too much. That is, if the public goes ahead with the millage, it means that the council needs to re-examine the Percent for Art program and change the way it reads on the books.

Public Art Millage: Council Deliberations – Amendment

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked for some confirmation about the impact of the millage passage: If the millage passes, then the funding specified in the city’s Percent for Art ordinance would be suspended. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias pointed Hohnke to the language of the charter amendment, which prohibits using city funds from any other means than the millage for the duration of the four-year period.

Left to right: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) chats with Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) during a recess in the meeting. In the foreground is Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Hohnke offered a different perspective. He contended it was his experience that the majority of people in Ward 5 and throughout the city think that “Percent for Art is great!” He claimed that it’s been solidly supported by a vast majority of constituents, when revisions have come before the council. He thinks that additional funding for arts that addresses constraints of the Percent for Art program is a great thing. He appreciated the effort to find a way to support other types of art. His view is that the folks in the city would support both. He is a little concerned that people want to see the funding mechanism replaced. He then proposed an amendment to the ballot proposal that would eliminate the part that suspends the Percent for Art funding for the duration of the millage.

Hohnke thinks both funding mechanisms should be available, and he’s concerned about constraining future councils. If the public wants to pass this millage, then the council could also modify the Percent for Art ordinance at the council table. He felt there are two separate questions: Percent for Art funding, and millage funding for a set of art that is less constrained by the current program. It’s not just different funding mechanisms, Hohnke said. The Percent for Art program involves the way the city impacts the built environment. When we choose, as a community, to make capital expenditures, we’re saying that we want art to be a part of how we’re impacting our built environment, he said. He felt that’s important and that it has been effective in many communities around the country.

Briere called Hohnke’s idea “an interesting approach.” Her perception is that it’s been difficult to spend the money that’s already been allocated. She ventured that if both propositions went forward, the public art commission would suddenly have $860,000 to spend, which is quite a lot – especially because it’s not been easy to deal with half that amount. So Briere asked Hohnke if that’s what he intended.

Hohnke confirmed that was his intent, and allowed that she’d made a good point. He called the challenge one of process. And he contended that process challenges are not beyond our means to address, because we have energetic, smart people working on it.

Derezinski feared that Hohnke’s proposal “might very well kill it.” Given the short timeframe, you have to be careful about how to sell it, and be careful not to ask for too much, he said. He couldn’t go along with Hohnke’s idea.

Smith respected Hohnke’s feeling behind the amendment. But she’d rather vote down the proposal and come back with more tightly crafted language and wait for next ballot than to pursue Hohnke’s amendment. She felt that it risked losing it all.

Anglin was not in favor of the amendment, and indicated he was inclined to see how well the millage proposal worked out.

Kunselman said he couldn’t support Hohnke’s amendment, but picked up on a reference Hohnke had made to Percent for Art-type programs outside the state of Michigan. He felt that in Michigan, the Percent for Art approach doesn’t have a legal basis. Kunselman pointed out that the council had voted down directing the city attorney to produce an opinion. Kunselman felt a lawsuit could strike down the city’s ordinance.

Hohnke allowed that he could not give a specific example of another city in Michigan that had a Percent for Art program. But he argued that other Michigan cities also don’t fund human services in the same way that Ann Arbor does. Hohnke doesn’t see any problem with Ann Arbor “taking leadership.” Despite Kunselman’s concerns about a lawsuit, Hohnke pointed out that no lawsuit had yet been filed. He claimed that the city council had an assurance from the city attorney that the city’s Percent for Art program is a perfectly appropriate way to fund public art.

Mayor John Hieftje said he wouldn’t support Hohnke’s amendment, but appreciated how zealous Hohnke was.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) also said she wouldn’t support it. She felt it would be hard to sell. She echoed Briere’s concerns about the sheer amount of money that would be involved. She described being lost in Philadelphia recently, which has a Percent for Art program. She described a long stretch of blight, but then in the downtown you see some nice pieces of art, she said. She referred to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [the implication being that basic needs like food, water and shelter should be satisfied before higher needs, like self-actualization.] She responded to the several claims around the table that the Percent for Art program is solidly supported, but noted that residents have not had a chance to vote on it.

Outcome on Hohnke’s amendment: Hohnke was the only voice of support. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) appeared only inadvertently to vote for it.

Public Art Millage: Council Deliberations – Finale

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d support putting the proposal on the ballot. He was happy it’ll have widespread support. He felt that it’s rightly a four-year millage. Next time around, the council would be able to reduce the amount of the millage or add more to the amount that is put before voters. Hieftje made a standard economic development argument for public art, saying that having public art in your city creates excitement and that excitement can cause people to want to be in the place and make people think that this is a great place to be.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated he’d support the proposal, despite the failure of his amendment.

With respect to “performance art,” Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked if the Ann Arbor Summer Festival could be supported by the millage. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias indicated that “performance art” is a well-known term of art in the arts community. She said it’s pretty flexible, but excludes something like a theater performance. A performance at a venue like a theater isn’t performance art. She was not able to say whether something like a performance in an outdoor setting like the Summer Festival would be performance art or not.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to place a public art millage on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Public Art Millage: Beginning Ordinance Repeal?

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) pitched her proposal later in the meeting. It would direct the city’s legal staff to prepare of a repeal to the existing funding mechanism of the Percent for Art program. She related to her council colleagues how she’d told the meeting of cultural leaders earlier in the day, that she would withdraw the proposal, if the millage proposal were postponed [as president of the Arts Alliance, Deb Polich, had asked the council to do]. Lumm said the ordinance has been controversial from the beginning, and she felt the time to reexamine it is now – by asking voters the fundamental question of whether they support public funding of art, rather than simply which method.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The approach of asking voters to support a millage, with the existing program as a default, says to voters: We’re going to use public funds for art regardless, but we’d sure like your input about what method. She felt that it’s important to ask the basic question of whether citizens support public funding of art. By repealing the existing Percent for Art ordinance before the November election, voters would get that clear choice. She said she trusts the voters, regardless of the outcome. She did not want to set up a “have your cake and eat it, too” situation where voters are given a Hobson’s Choice.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said the first time she read through Lumm’s resolution, she got out her virtual red pen because she wanted to cross out various “whereas” clauses, saying that they were “unnecessarily inflammatory” about a program that is just finding its legs and “demeaning” to volunteers on the public art commission who’ve spent a significant amount of time of this program. She called the “whereas” clauses “judgmental” with respect to the commission’s progress.

Smith felt the choice offered to voters will be clear in that there will be no funds other than this millage available for funding public art. [If the millage passes, it will be the only source of funding; but if the millage fails, the Percent for Art program will continue as before.] Smith felt it’s a yes or no question that is delivered to the voters. She said she’s received such overwhelming support for arts in Ann Arbor that she feels, “People know exactly what they want, and they want art.”

Rather than trying to revise the “whereas” clauses, she said she’d simply opt to reject it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the resolution, noting it just directs staff to prepare a resolution to change an ordinance – something for the council to digest at a later meeting. He doesn’t want to terminate the entire ordinance, but rather some of the funding mechanisms for it. The charter millage language only suspends the funding mechanism, but doesn’t resolve it. He ventured that the council would be dancing around the issue for a time – until we get greater community consensus about funding of public art. He also wants to see language prepared in case the millage does fail. The resolution would get the council to start thinking.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) respected the idea of the proposed resolution and the intent that councilmembers Lumm and Kunselman brought to it. If the Percent for Art funding mechanism is repealed, then if the millage were to fail, there would be no public funding for art. Even though the council had reviewed the possibility of reducing the funding for the existing Percent for Art program on several occasions before, she noted that no one had ever proposed to eliminate it altogether. Briere said that if the council weren’t putting a millage on the ballot, she would not even flirt with the idea of Lumm’s resolution. She’s happy to wait, she said, and see where we are after the millage vote. The idea of being prepared for the millage to be defeated and the need to address the Percent for Art program is one she thinks is worth remembering. But she didn’t think she could support this resolution.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) agreed with Smith, saying that some of the language demeans some of the people who’ve worked hard on the public art commission. He said that as a member of the public art commission, he’s seen how the members have worked. It’s not necessary to try to demean the efforts of those who’ve been trying to work through the operational details of a new program, he said. He felt that it should be “toned down.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) viewed Lumm’s resolution as supportive of the millage. He didn’t read it as negative, but rather as going through the pitfalls of the current program, which the public art commission itself has brought to the council. The resolution simply says that the city is going to put aside what they’ve used before.

Responding to the characterization by Smith and Derezinski of the “whereas” clauses as demeaning to the members of the art commission, Lumm simply read the clauses aloud:

Whereas, In November of 2007, City Council approved an amendment to the City Charter creating the “percent for art” program that funds public art through the allocation of funds from capital improvement projects;

Whereas, Allocating funds to the “percent for art” program results in reduced funding for much-needed capital infrastructure improvements and many Ann Arbor residents believe the allocation of capital project funds to public art represents an inappropriate and unrelated use of dollars raised through tax millages and water and sewer system funds that they believe should be fully dedicated to their primary streets, parks, water/sewer, and solid waste purposes;

Whereas, Voters were never provided the opportunity to have their voices heard on either the “percent for art” program specifically or more importantly, on the fundamental question of whether public art should be supported by public/taxpayer funding, regardless of its form;

Whereas, It is expected that City Council will place on the November ballot a proposal to amend the city charter to authorize a new, four-year millage of 0.10 mill to fund public art which if approved by voters, suspends the “percent for art” program funding only for the duration of the millage (the “percent for art” program funding would be re-instated if the millage were not renewed). If not passed by the voters, the “percent for art” program and funding continue in their present form;

Whereas, To truly enfranchise residents, voters should be offered a clear, yes/no choice on public funding for public art rather than an either/or choice of the mechanism used to fund public art;

Whereas, City Council action to repeal the funding provisions of the current “percent for art” program prior to the November ballot question would offer voters a clear, simple “yes/no” choice – an affirmative vote results in public funding for public art, a negative vote does not;

Whereas, A July 1, 2013 effective date for repeal of the “percent for art” program maintains the funding commitments for public art previously made to the program;

By way of additional background, it’s likely that Smith and Derezinski were not reacting specifically to the “whereas” clauses, which are difficult to see as demeaning to the public art commission. Instead, they were likely reacting to the memo attached to the resolution, which refers to “The slow launch of the program, accumulated, unused surpluses at a challenging fiscal time for the city, and projects not universally accepted” – statements that might be seen as laying blame on the public art commission.

Lumm rounded out her remarks by ticking through the various interpretations that yes and no votes for the millage might have. She reported that other councilmembers at the meeting earlier in the day with cultural arts leaders had acknowledged that voter sentiment would be difficult to read.

Left to right: Sandi Smith (Ward 1) tells Sabra Briere (Ward 1) how many minutes Jane Lumm had been speaking – five. Councilmembers are supposed to be limited to two speaking turns on any given question, the first of which has a limit of five minutes and the second three minutes.

Lumm’s turn ended when Smith raised a point of order – that Lumm had exceeded the time limit on her speaking turn.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) came back to the issue of the “whereas” clauses, saying he felt the clauses make bold assertions that he claimed are only weakly supported. As an example, he gave ” … many Ann Arbor residents believe the allocation of capital project funds to public art represents an inappropriate and unrelated use of dollars.” He dismissed that assertion by saying, “Many Ann Arbor residents believe yada yada yada. Many Ann Arbor residents believe a whole bunch of things and you can insert whatever you want.” He contended that the evidence is to the contrary. In the repeated conversations the council has had, he continued, the council had heard overwhelming support for the public art program. So he felt the statement was not an accurate reflection of the facts.

Hohnke then took up the statement in the “whereas” clauses that “Voters were never provided the opportunity to have their voices heard …” Hohnke ventured that what that statement meant was that voters had not had a chance to vote directly on the issue, and he admitted that was true. But he claimed that it’s inappropriate to say that their voices haven’t been heard. It had been thoroughly debated when the ordinance was enacted, he contended, and people’s voices were heard. The Arts Alliance was very rigorous in seeking out the opinions of councilmembers and making them widely known, he said, so that people had a clear understanding of where their councilmembers stood on the Percent for Art program.

Ultimately, though, Hohnke felt that the resolution was unnecessary. He noted that councilmembers can simply ask staff to prepare a resolution. He claimed that the controversy that Lumm and Kunselman talk about surrounding the program is one that they and a small number of folks are manufacturing. There are significant and honest questions about the funding mechanism, he said, not the existence of support for public art.

Public art is something that we don’t want to leave unsupported, Hohnke said.

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d have a hard time supporting the resolution. He described the “preamble” as resembling more a political document than a resolution.

If the millage fails, then it’d be appropriate to review the Percent for Art program, Hieftje said. He felt there’d be plenty of time to do that in November, with three new councilmembers coming on board. It just seems premature to take a look at it now. It might be the case that four years from now the city council says, “Great, the millage gave us a real boost, let’s see what we can do back with Percent for Art.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) introduced some confusion by appearing to indicate that Lumm’s resolution would continue the Percent for Art funding, even if the millage failed. Briere indicated that her expectation would be that Lumm’s resolution was meant to revoke the Percent for Art funding mechanism before hearing from voters.

Kunselman suggested striking all but the final “whereas” clause so that the council would not have to “dicker” about it. Lumm was fine with that.

The deletion of the “whereas” clauses did not change anyone’s mind.

Outcome: The resolution to prepare for the repeal of the Percent for Art funding mechanism failed, with support only from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

St. Nicholas Auction, Rezoning

In front of the council was a resolution to start a process to change the current PUD (planned unit development) zoning on the former St. Nicholas Church property on North Main Street. The land is being put up for public auction on Sept. 6, 2012. The resolution indicated that the proposed new zoning would match the surrounding land, which is D2 (downtown interface).

The property is being offered at auction by the Washtenaw County treasurer at a cost of $365,051, which covers back taxes and demolition costs. Demolition is expected to begin in the coming weeks. [See also Chronicle coverage: "Rezoning Process for North Main Site on Agenda."]

Downtown Ann Arbor zoning designations. Color key: blue, D1 (downtown); green, D2 (downtown interface), red, PUD (planned unit development). Kunselman’s Aug. 20 resolution would direct city staff to begin a process for rezoning The Gallery PUD to D2 (downtown interface), to be consistent with surrounding properties.

The property has an easement on it held by its neighbor to the south, McKinley Inc., for 57 parking spaces, which poses a challenge for future development.

Authorized by the city council in 2006, the PUD zoning was intended to allow construction of The Gallery, an 11-story building (158 feet tall) that would include 224 parking spaces and 123 units of residential housing. Of those units, 18 would have met the definition of affordable housing derived by a formula based on area median incomes. In contrast, the D2 zoning has a height limit of 60 feet.

If the property does not sell at the Sept. 6 auction (which concludes on Sept. 11), the property will be offered again for auction in October. If it does not sell after the second auction, it will revert to the city.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald explained at the Aug. 20 council meeting that in any case it would not be possible to complete the rezoning process before the first or the second auctions – due to the noticing requirement for all the relevant public hearings.

St. Nicholas Auction, Rezoning: Council Deliberations

The sponsor of the resolution, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), reviewed the basic history of the four parcels in question. Because the property is currently in public hands, he felt there was very low risk that the downzoning from PUD to D2 could be analyzed as a “taking.” In his conversations with Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary, who’s technically the current owner, she had indicated to him that she didn’t have a problem with the rezoning.

When The Gallery had come through the pipeline, Kunselman recalled that he’d served on the city planning commission at the time. He reviewed the details of that project, including the easement of 57 parking spaces that is now permanently attached to the land.

The D2 zoning, which was put in place after The Gallery was approved, Kunselman said, is a fair statement of how the character of the Kerrytown neighborhood should move forward. Kunselman felt that the city is going to end up owning the land unwillingly.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald arrives at the meeting.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald to the podium to talk about the timetable for rezoning compared to the planned auction on Sept. 6 and the possible second auction in October. McDonald told the council that the city wouldn’t be able to rezone the property before the first or the second auction, given the amount of public notice that is required: “There is simply not time to do it,” McDonald explained. Briere wanted to know what the effect of the resolution would be on the ability of the county treasurer to sell the land. McDonald said that any answer he gave would be speculation.

McDonald noted that the county treasurer has a view and staff has a view. One of the constraints on the property is the 57 parking spaces that have to be provided to the neighbor. And any project has to incorporate those 57 spaces. So if you don’t have a project of some density, there’d probably be no way to recoup the costs of building it, he ventured. The 57 spaces were built into The Gallery project, he pointed out. He felt there was some belief that if somebody bid at first auction, that might allow the prospect of building The Gallery. But anecdotally, he reported hearing from developers that the numbers just don’t work. There’s also an affordable housing component to the PUD zoning, so 15% of the units would have to be affordable, he pointed out. It’s hard to predict, and everyone has a different view on this, McDonald concluded.

Briere was concerned that some prospective buyer might feel the city had changed the rules by discussing rezoning. So she wanted to hear from McDonald what his interpretation was of the effect of the resolution. McDonald reported that in his conversations with the county treasurer, she’d been very helpful. For the first auction, she felt that keeping the zoning in place would enhance the value of the property. If the council decides to pass the resolution at whatever time, what’s really important is simply that the city gives notice to any buyer that the rezoning process is in place, so that it could be put into someone’s evaluation of the property.

The treasurer is willing to take whatever action and attach it to the due diligence documents for the auction. For example, the easement is already included. If the rezoning process were to begin, then a prospective buyer would have notice of that, if that’s what the council decided to do. It could affect someone’s view of the land’s value, he allowed, but the important thing is to clearly communicate council’s intention and desire.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) characterized the 57 parking spaces as running with the land without regard to the zoning. He wondered if a rezoning, given the 57-parking space easement, would render it functionally un-developable. McDonald didn’t know that he’d say that. It’s a complex easement, he noted. The holder of the easement currently has no cost, and if construction of The Gallery takes place, then that’s when the payment for the parking begins. He said there’s no way to tell what’s going to happen at these auctions. If it doesn’t go at the first auction, there might be more speculative bids at the second auction.

Kunselman observed that the 57 parking spaces would need to be provided, even if city ends up with the land. McDonald confirmed that, but said that the city could choose not to accept the land, in which case, it would go back to the county.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) felt that the timing was off. She wanted to see how the process unfolds at the auction. It’s in the city’s best interest to see someone purchase the land, she said. She did not want to add to the already existing challenge of disposing city-owned land. She felt that “getting out of the way” is the best approach.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) agreed with Smith, and described the resolution as premature.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wondered if the process of rezoning would perhaps give the city additional flexibility. It wasn’t totally clear what Derezinski meant, and McDonald noted that the proposed D2 rezoning was more restrictive. At the end of the day, he said, it depends on whether you want to see something like The Gallery built there or not.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) felt the resolution was a little bit premature at this point.

Outcome: The council voted down Kunselman’s resolution to initiate the rezoning of the North Main Street property.

Old Y Lot (350 S. Fifth Ave.)

The council considered a resolution that directed the city administrator to prepare options for the disposition of the city-owned land at the corner of Fifth and William – 350 S. Fifth Ave., known as the former YMCA lot. The resolution was explicitly worded so that the city administrator was to proceed independently of a planning effort by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority called Connecting William Street. [See also Chronicle coverage: "Planning Group Briefed on William Street Project."]

The resolution would have directed city administrator Steve Powers to evaluate the parcel at 350 S. Fifth for possible public or corporate use. If no such use were found, the resolution directed Powers to report back to the council with a timeline for the disposition of the property – based on state and city laws and policies. That parcel is also known as the Fifth and William parking lot, because it’s currently used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system, or the old Y lot, because it’s the location of the former YMCA building.

Left to right: City CFO Tom Crawford chats with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) during a recess of the Aug. 20 meeting.

The resolution’s sponsor, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), has frequently raised the issue of ongoing interest payments associated with a loan used by the city to purchase the property from the YMCA for $3.5 million in 2003. The council voted in 2008 to extend the five-year loan with the Bank of Ann Arbor for another five years, through the end of 2013. The interest rate is 3.89%. The interest-only payments work out to roughly $140,000 a year.

By 2013, the total interest paid will be around $1.4 million. When it was condemned, the cost of demolishing the old YMCA building and abating asbestos was around $1.5 million. The DDA covered the demolition costs and has covered half the interest payments. So the total amount of Ann Arbor governmental investment in the property is at least $6.4 million.

The Connecting William Street project was undertaken by the DDA based on a directive from the city council, on a unanimous vote, given at its April 4, 2011 meeting. Kunselman voted for that planning effort to take place – but was also vocal at the time, as well as before, about his view that the old Y lot should simply be put up for sale one way or another.

Old Y Lot: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who sponsored the resolution, said it was intended to get the council to start thinking about what to do with the land. It addresses the $3.5 million balloon payment that’s due in December 2013. The interest-only payments will have accumulated to $1.36 million, he noted, which means that the city has $4.86 million in a piece of land that’s not worth it, he said.

Kunselman said he knows that the Connecting William Street process includes the old Y lot, but pointed out that the planning effort is supposed to result in a presentation of a recommendation to the city council in late October. His resolution doesn’t have a timeframe per se, he noted, but just directs the city administrator to provide a timeline for disposition. He pointed out that the city hasn’t sold any land recently, and ventured that not many people on the city council had any idea of what the process for that is: Do we put a notice on the city website, saying “For Sale”? How would we get the best value, he wondered. Given that December 2013 is going to come up pretty quick, he felt that it’s important to start thinking about that now.

Kunselman stated that the city had not had a lot of success with issuing RFPs (requests for proposals) in the past. And this particular property is costing the city a lot of money over time, Kunselman pointed out, while the other surface parking lots within the scope of the Connecting William Street study are not costing the city money.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) called the resolution premature and unnecessary. More than a year remains before the balloon payment is due, she pointed out, and there’s no reason, she felt, that the city would not be able to do another 5-year loan arrangement. She allowed that the city has not done the RFP process well in the past. That’s part of the Connecting William Street mission – to prepare the lots in a way that has full public buy-in and that is economically feasible for sale. It’s a matter of hitting that special target of what the citizens need and will demand out of the sale of public land, and what is actually sustainable and economically feasible to be built.

Smith felt Kunselman’s resolution is unnecessary and sends a clear message that there’s no faith in the Connecting William Street process. She pointed out that half of the interest payments are being borne by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. She also pointed out that the city receives 17% gross revenues from the surface parking spaces now located on the old Y lot [as well as the rest of the public parking system].

By way of background, the Fifth & William parking lot generated $199,839 in revenues in fiscal year 2011. And 17% of that works out to $34,000, which is 25% of the total interest payment on the loan, or half of the city’s share of that payment.

Smith allowed that lumped together, the total cost seems traumatic – and she said she’s not sure she’d have supported the purchase of the land in 2003. But she fully supports the process underway.

Mayor John Hieftje described the group of citizens who are working hard on the Connecting William Street project, who will come back to the council with a report. Yet he appreciated Kunselman’s direction for action. Responding to Kunselman’s contention that the old Y lot is not worth as much as the city has invested in it, Hieftje ventured that if you look at recent comparables – like the property at South University and Forrest – the old Y lot has a lot of value. He acknowledged that the city might well just say here’s the zoning on the property, and just sell it. The city might turn to that approach, he said. His issue right now is the timing of the resolution. He was content to wait, but might support the resolution after the Connecting William Street report came back.

Spotting an opportunity to win Hieftje’s support for the resolution, Kunselman asked him if he was suggesting a postponement until the council’s second meeting in October. Then the council could have both items on the agenda at the same time. Hieftje declined the gambit, by saying he felt it would take time to digest the DDA’s report, and he did not see a reason to postpone it for future consideration. He did respect the concept of just putting a property on the market.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) highlighted the fact that the resolution focuses on the administrator’s recommendation. She felt the intent is quite reasonable. She described it as “kickstarting” the process of thinking about the site. The property has been off the tax rolls for a decade, she noted. Lumm did not feel the resolution presupposes any outcome of the Connecting William Street process, and it’s not about excluding the DDA. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) also expressed his support of the resolution.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) indicated he felt the resolution was premature, so he couldn’t support it.

Smith stressed that the goal of selling the property should not be simply to avoid paying interest on the loan. There’s a larger public policy issue at stake, she said. There’s a “juicier conversation” to be had than one about directing the city administrator – and she’d appreciate people raising the level of the conversation around the table.

Lumm read aloud the resolved clause, saying she thought it was reasonable.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) felt that the council should allow the Connecting William Street process to play out without “shadowing” it. She appreciated Kunselman’s constant concern about the interest payments and the looming balloon payment. But she wanted to be able to dissect the DDA’s proposal without comparing it to the city administrator’s efforts.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that the city council had asked the DDA to take a good long look at the property. And in his view it would be “proper, prudent and polite” to wait for the DDA to conclude its work.

Outcome: The resolution on the old Y lot failed, with support only from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Public Towing

A goal for the city’s financial services unit, which is listed out in the fiscal year 2013 budget book, is collaboration with Washtenaw County to centralize the administration of public towing. Parking on someone’s private property or having as excessive number of parking tickets are examples of this kind of situation.

Left to right: City administrator Steve Powers, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Dennis Brewer, who owns two local towing companies.

Currently, the city contracts with three different companies, in three districts of the city: Brewer’s Towing Inc., Sakstrup’s Towing, and Triangle Towing. But those contracts expire at the end of 2012.

In front of the council was a resolution authorizing the city to contract with Washtenaw County, which will administer the towing under a single contract. The city will share responsibility for various aspects of the towing administration. On the city’s side, the existing manual, paper-based system will be replaced with one that uses CLEMIS (Courts and Law Enforcement Management Information System) and e-impound.

The new approach is also supposed to reduce costs to those who have their cars towed – because outside storage fees of $20/day would no longer be assessed immediately when a vehicle arrives at the storage lot. Instead, the new city/county fee structure would not permit a storage fee to be applied until a vehicle has been stored for at least eight hours. [.pdf of fee schedule]

The city will point to this collaboration with the county as part of the state’s economic vitality incentive program (EVIP), which encourages municipalities to demonstrate efforts at collaboration with each other.

Public Towing: Public Comment

Dennis Brewer told the council that he and his wife own both Brewer’s Towing and Sakstrup’s Towing. He started Brewer’s back in 1963, he said. He’s opposed to the “suggestive language” in the resolution. He questioned how the first 8 hours of storage could be free? He ventured that this would be a real problem for customer relations. What if it turns out to be 8 hours 5 minutes – then people will object to paying, just because they were 5 minutes too late. He predicted it would be a real headache.

When would the clock start ticking, Brewer wondered: When the tow company gets the call? When the tow company arrives on the scene? When the car reaches the storage facility? Brewer also told the council that his company’s computer system is based on calendar days for storage. The storage changes at 12:01 every day. Their current practice is that vehicles must be in storage at least 8 hours before a second day of storage can be charged. He reminded the council that it’s necessary to carry insurance to cover the cars in storage, and that the storage lots need personnel on duty 24/7 to release the vehicles.

Public Towing: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stressed that the primary issue is that it makes things more efficient as the two governmental units cooperate. He encouraged everyone’s support.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked the city CFO Tom Crawford to approach the podium. She called it a good collaborative effort, but noted that it differs from the previous approach in some details. She asked about “custom criteria” that could be applied – involving grace periods and the like. She noted that the council had heard from Brewer about the economic difficulty involved.

Crawford explained that the two objectives were to reduce costs and improve service. The city and county are reducing their administrative fee from $60 to $45 – and the county will be sharing a portion of that $45 with the city. The city and the county also looked to the towing companies to help with those objectives. Some towing companies had a practice of starting the clock for the storage fee as soon as the car hit the lot. And at midnight, no matter what time the car hit the lot, the timer would click to a new day.

Crawford allowed that some of the towing companies never had that custom. [Dennis Brewer, during his public commentary, explained that for his companies, the timer would not click to a new day unless the car had been on the lot for at least eight hours.] What the city wants to do for people who are quickly in and out, is to reduce the cost for those people. That might mean that the costs for those people who don’t pick up their cars within the first eight hours could increase. As it’s currently written, there’d be no fee for the first eight hours, Crawford explained.

Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton was on hand at the Aug. 20 city council meeting to answer questions about the public towing contract.

Lumm expressed concern that the towing companies have been doing this for a number of years – operating under a certain number of assumptions. She saw the attempts to make things more user-friendly as a good thing. She noted that some other councilmembers had questions about towing distance. She asked if the council would be able to weigh in. Crawford explained that the request for proposals (RFP) from the county would be going out soon, and he could take input from them that night. One of the criteria that they’ve received input on is one that measures the distance of a storage facility from the center of the city, defined as the intersection of Main and Huron streets, with additional consideration given to a facility’s location on a mass transportation line.

Kunselman followed up on the question of how to ensure that a storage yard is on a mass transit line – he didn’t suppose the council would see the RFP before it went out. Crawford indicated that Washtenaw County would be issuing the RFP, but councilmembers could certainly see it if they wanted. Kunselman wanted to make sure that the city’s needs are being met with respect to the location of vehicle storage yards.

Sheriff Jerry Clayton was on hand to explain that some criteria could be added to the evaluation process that relates to being located on a mass transit line. He didn’t see that as an obstacle that can’t be overcome.

Lumm expressed appreciation for the hard work of staff, and said she felt that people who have their cars towed should pay the full cost of the service, but she appreciated efforts to lower the costs. Crawford stressed that the city and the county were working really well on this project.

Outcome: The council unanimously authorized contracting with Washtenaw County for public towing.

Ann Arbor Municipal Airport Study

Ann Arbor’s municipal airport was back on the city council’s Aug. 20 agenda, possibly the last time for a long while to come. That was expected, based on action taken earlier this year in April. The first of two agenda items on Aug. 20 related to the fifth of five different grant contracts for the completion of an environmental assessment (EA) for a possible 800-foot extension of the runway. The $42,500 in the grant consists of $40,375 in federal funds, $1,062 in state funds and a local match of $1,063.

A second airport-related item on the council’s agenda involved the use of those funds in the grant item to study the need to relocate federally owned navigational aids (ODAL lighting system) for the EA.

The city council had initially authorized funding for the first of the grant contracts related to the environmental assessment project at its Feb. 2, 2009 meeting. The assessment began on May 4, 2009. The process appeared to culminate in a public hearing in April 2010. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Airport Study Gets Public Hearing."] In the interim, city councilmembers have removed the runway extension from the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) each year they’ve been asked to give the CIP its annual approval.

However, when the Federal Aviation Administration responded to the EA draft report, that prompted communication between the city of Ann Arbor and the FAA in late 2011. And that back-and-forth has resulted in FAA requests for more work, which is meant to wrap up the environmental assessment.

The most recent previous council action occurred on April 16, 2012, when the council considered several resolutions in connection with the airport, including the fourth EA grant contract.

Ann Arbor Municipal Airport Study: Public Comment

Andrew McGill addressed the council on behalf of a grass roots citizens group – on the topic of the environmental assessment (EA) study for the airport runway extension. If approved, he said, it would bring the total price of the EA to $400,000 – $100,000 more than what the council had been told 3.5 years ago, when it approved the original EA grant. The EA has become a “money pit,” for taxpayers – federal, state and local, he said. Part of the measure would pay the FAA to review the final EA, and his group did not have a problem with that.

What McGill was concerned about was a provision in the grant regarding the navigational aids – or the approach lighting. He contended that this is not just a series in a long series of grants. Part the navigational aids study, he contended, would give the FAA a blank check from the city of Ann Arbor. A condition of that grant contract, he explained, is that Ann Arbor taxpayers must pay to move or replace the runway approach lighting, long into the future. Right now, he said, there’s no federal money for that, and he feared it could cost Ann Arbor taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. That’s different from all the previous airport grants, he told the council.

Ann Arbor Municipal Airport Study: Council Deliberations

In light of McGill’s public commentary, councilmembers had a number of questions for Matt Kulhanek, the Ann Arbor municipal airport manager. They were essentially trying to get an assurance from Kulhanek that their vote for the two items would not expose the city to financial risk.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) gets a briefing from Andrew McGill before the Aug. 20 council meeting.

Their questions drew out several salient points from Kulhanek. He stressed that the city was under no obligation to move the navigational lights. City attorney Stephen Postema added his view that there’s no additional obligation to the city other than what is specified in the grant agreement related to the study.

But Kulhanek did say, in response to a question from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), that with each grant agreement the city approved, came with it an obligation to operate the airport for another 20 years.

Kulhanek explained the relationship between the two items on the agenda. One was a grant agreement. The second was the expenditure of the grant funds received under the first item.

Mayor John Hieftje was keen to get some kind of assurance that this would be the end of the EA grant process.

Responding to a question from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Kulhanek indicated that the federal dollars derived from fees applied by the FAA to airline ticket prices. The local money derived from fuel fees and hanger rentals. He concluded that there were no general taxpayer dollars involved.

Responding to a question from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Kulhanek estimated that there are a total of 75-100 jobs at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

Responding to a question from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Kulhanek estimate there are about 170 aircraft at the airport.

Outcome: On the resolution for the grant contract, the council approved it, with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The resolution to expend the grant funds was also approved, with Briere dropping from the dissenters.

Comcast Franchise Proposal

Comcast asked that the city council approve its application for a franchise within the city. An existing franchise agreement with the cable company runs through 2017.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) explained the implications of the vote on the Comcast franchise application.

It was important that the council act at its Aug. 20 meeting, because Comcast had sent an application dated July 17, which the city and Comcast agreed should count as “submitted” on July 23. And based on a recent ruling in the U.S. District Court on a matter involving the city of Detroit, the city needed to make a decision within 30 days of July 23.

A staff cover memo recommended rejecting the applications. Reasons include the fact that the existing franchise will remain in place through 2017. In addition, Comcast was taking the position that under a new agreement, it no longer had the obligation to allow the city to use parts of the firm’s institutional network that are essential to ensure public health and safety and other public services.

A third reason given for rejecting the application is that the new franchise agreement would grant use of the city right-of-way, and it’s not clear that continued public access to all public, educational, and governmental (PEG) channels would be ensured. And finally, according to the staff memo, Comcast’s application is not consistent with a formal renewal process – because it did not reasonably purport to meet local needs; and the application is not consistent with an informal process that would require the public to have an opportunity to comment.

Comcast Franchise Proposal: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by urging support of the resolution to deny the application. He wanted to make clear that by voting for the resolution, the council would be voting to deny Comcast’s application. He noted that the resolution had the support of the city’s cable commission. He said the resolution would give the city greater bargaining power.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) stressed that voting to deny the application would preserve the city’s CTN (Community Television Network) channels – for the duration of the existing contract, which is 2017. She said those channels are very important in the city’s communication system.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) ventured that there’s a complicated governmental relationship. It’s under the current state act, assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained, that Comcast has submitted its application. She stressed that the city’s contract continues for another five years, according to its term, so the application by Comcast is premature, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to deny Comcast’s franchise application.

Bluffs Nature Area Rezoning

The council was asked to give final approval for the rezoning of two parcels acquired by the city of Ann Arbor to add to the Bluffs Nature Area at 1099 N. Main St., north of Sunset Road. The council had given its initial approval on July 16.

The steep slope of the Bluffs Nature Area as it rises from North Main Street is easy to discern in the two-foot counter topographic map.

The city planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its June 5, 2012 meeting.

A 1.12-acre parcel to the north of the Bluffs – connecting the existing parkland to Huron View Boulevard – is currently zoned O (office), and had been donated to the city by a nursing home near that site.

A 0.57-acre addition to the south connects the existing parkland to Sunset Road and is currently zoned R4C (multiple-family dwelling). It had been purchased by the city from the Elks lodge, using funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage. Both parcels were given approval to be rezoned as PL (public land).

The addition of the parcels will make entrance to the nature area easier. The current entrance off North Main Street is a challenge to pedestrians and cyclists, the road bears heavy traffic, and no sidewalks exist on the west side of the street where the nature area is located.

Bluffs Nature Area Rezoning: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge described himself as a progressive Democrat. He criticized a lack of public access to facilities, buildings and land sites as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He called for using vacant land for affordable housing. He told the council that the rezoning should go back to the planning commission for further review.

Bluffs Nature Area Rezoning: Council Deliberations

During deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said it’s worth noting that Bluffs Nature area is peculiar in its terrain – it would be difficult to build on, which is partly why it’s a park and not a building site. It’s used heavily by people who navigate by foot or bicycle, and that’s part of its charm, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to finalize the rezoning of the parcels being added to the Bluffs Nature Area.

Eden Court Rezoning

Nearly a year ago, at its Sept. 6, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council voted to appropriate $82,500 from its open space and parkland preservation millage to acquire the property at 5 W. Eden Court. The Eden Court property is immediately adjacent to the city’s Bryant Community Center.

At its Aug. 20 meeting, the council was asked to take another step toward conversion of the land to city property – by giving initial approval to zone the property as PL (public land). Because a rezoning is a change to the city’s ordinances, the change will require a second council vote after a public hearing at a future meeting.

The 2011 taxes on the property were estimated at $1,400, which will be eliminated from the city’s tax base. The parcel is expected to be used to expand the community center’s programming services. It could also be used in other ways in support of the city’s parks and recreation system.

During her staff report given to the city planning commission on June 5, 2012, city planner Alexis DiLeo said the property contains a single-family home that will be used by the community center to expand its operations. Eventually, the center would like to renovate the interior and build an addition to connect the two buildings, she said. The center is managed under contract with the nonprofit Community Action Network.

The planning commission had voted unanimously to recommend the rezoning at its June 5 meeting.

Outcome: Without discussion, the city council voted to give initial approval to the Eden Court rezoning.

Appointments: City Boards, Commissions

Nominations and appointments to city boards and commissions come at the end of every council meeting.

Appointments: DDA

Nominated at the previous council meeting for a renewal of their appointments to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority were Roger Hewitt, Keith Orr and Sandi Smith. Smith also serves on the city council, representing Ward 1.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) pulled out Smith’s nomination for a separate vote so that he could vote against it. He felt it’s inappropriate to appoint a city councilmember to the DDA, referring to the situation as having a “double-agent” on the council. He objected to the idea that someone with dual service on the DDA and the council could vote on a contract between the DDA and the city – because they’d get to vote twice. He called the two offices incompatible and said it was unethical for someone to serve in both positions.

By way of background, the question of whether it’s possible to hold simultaneously the office of councilmember and DDA board member is addressed in Michigan’s Act 566 of 1978. At first glance, the state statute appears to rule it out. The kind of incompatibility of office that is not allowed is expressed in the definition of “incompatible office”:

(b) “Incompatible offices” means public offices held by a public official which, when the official is performing the duties of any of the public offices held by the official, results in any of the following with respect to those offices held:
(i) The subordination of 1 public office to another.
(ii) The supervision of 1 public office by another.
(iii) A breach of duty of public office.

A city councilmember “supervises” the office of a DDA board member in the sense that city councilmembers must confirm the appointments of DDA board members. However, there’s an explicit exception in the statute for a DDA [emphasis added]:

(3) Section 2 does not prohibit a public officer or public employee of a city, village, township, school district, community college district, or county from being appointed to and serving as a member of the board of a downtown development authority under 1975 PA 197, MCL 125.1651 to 125.1681;

As for Kunselman’s point about contracts, the state statute on conflict of interest plays out somewhat counterintuitively – explicitly providing an exemption for contracts that are between governmental entities.

This issue arose at a May 5, 2010 DDA board meeting, when Smith and mayor John Hieftje, who also serves on the DDA board, were set to vote on a revision to a contract between the DDA and the city. In analyzing their ability to vote, the DDA’s legal counsel, Jerry Lax, viewed it in terms of Act 317 of 1968 “Contracts of Public Servants with Public Entities.”

The statute prohibits public servants from soliciting contracts with entities by whom they are employed:

(2) Except as provided in section 3, a public servant shall not directly or indirectly solicit any contract between the public entity of which he or she is an officer or employee and any of the following: (a) Him or herself. (b) Any firm, meaning a co-partnership or other unincorporated association, of which he or she is a partner, member, or employee. [...]

However, Lax pointed out that there was a specific exemption for contracts between two public entities [emphasis added]:

15.324 Public servants; contracts excepted; violation as felony. Sec. 4. (1) The prohibitions of section 2 shall not apply to any of the following: (a) Contracts between public entities.

Later at the same May 5, 2010 DDA board meeting, the issue considered by the board was analyzed not as a contract, but as a grant, and Lax asked Hieftje and Smith to recuse themselves from the vote.

At the Aug. 20, 2012 city council meeting, when the council voted on Smith’s reappointment to the DDA, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) joined Kunselman in objecting. However, Lumm went to considerable lengths to stress that her vote was not about Smith individually. She noted she’d had the pleasure of serving on the DDA partnerships committee with Smith and she respected and admired Smith’s work. Her objection was about the philosophy of appointing a councilmember to the DDA board.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that when Smith ran for city council in 2008 for the first time, she was already serving on the DDA board. Smith has chosen not to run for re-election to the city council this year. Her appointment to the DDA board, Briere concluded, is independent of Smith’s position on council.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) ventured that perhaps the council could have a larger discussion at a different time. He described Smith as having been very fair about things, so he supported Smith’s appointment.

Hieftje indicated that he understood the argument that some were making, but felt it’s important to have someone on the DDA board who understands the big picture. He pointed out that Smith has just five more voting sessions as a city councilmember.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that there are sitting city councilmembers on other boards and commissions, like the LDFA, which is a similar authority to the DDA. [The local development finance authority, however, has explicitly in its bylaws an appointment for an Ann Arbor city councilmember, so the two boards are not comparable in the way that Taylor was suggesting.]

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) pointed out that he also serves on the city planning commission as a voting member. [The slot filled by Derezinski is specifically designated for a city councilmember, so when Derezinski leaves office in November, having tallied fewer votes than Sally Petersen in the Aug. 7 Democratic primary, he will no longer be able to serve in that capacity on the planning commission. Derezinski's spot on the public art commission, however, is not a council-designated position, so he'd be able to continue to serve as a public art commissioner.]

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) felt that it’s good in general to have members of the city council as members of a larger board. It was not clear to him why the DDA board is different.

Kunselman pointed out that none of the other positions that people had mentioned would typically engage in contract negations with the city council. The mayor is authorized to sit on the DDA board under the enabling legislation for downtown development authorities, he allowed. But even there, it would be possible for the city administrator to fill that slot instead of the mayor.

Smith, for her part, took the comments from Kunselman with apparent good humor, telling him that if he’d like to change who sits on the DDA board, he should run for mayor.

Outcome: The council voted to reappoint Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to the DDA board, over the dissent of Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Other appointments were approved unanimously, without comment.

Appointments: Taxicab Board

Without discussion, an additional member was added to the Ann Arbor taxicab board – Michael Benson. The addition will allow the body to achieve a quorum of three out of five voting members for its meetings. It has not been able to do that since July 2012, when Tim Hull resigned after taking a job on the west coast.

Benson was added to the board in a one-step confirmation process. Ordinarily, nominations to a board or a commission are first announced at a city council meeting, then confirmed by a council vote at a subsequent meeting.

The taxicab board will now consist of Benson, city councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Tom Oldakowski, Tom Crawford (a non-voting ex officio member, as the city’s CFO) and Bill Clock (a non-voting ex officio member, as representative of the Ann Arbor police department).

The taxicab board is responsible for administering the city’s taxicab board ordinance. [.pdf of taxicab ordinance] Application forms to be appointed to city boards and commissions can be downloaded and returned to the mayor’s office for consideration.

Outcome: Michael Benson was unanimously appointed to the taxicab board.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Pedestrian, Non-Motorized Issue

During the public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Kathy Griswold told the council she was there to address the most important activity for elected officials: the safety of citizens, especially children. She contended that the city was confusing an engineering problem with social policy. There are effective public policies like “share the road” or “complete streets,” but what we need is traffic engineering, she said. She called for the issue to be reviewed by independent engineers with the state. She asked the city attorney to consider the risk that’s being created when the city tells pedestrians that “they rule.” She warned against putting up posters telling children they have the right-of-way as pedestrians. She called that crazy, and called for an independent traffic engineer to evaluate the situation.

After thanking the council for his appointment to the taxicab board, Michael Benson related what he’d seen while attending a recent academic conference in Munich – bike lanes separated from the right-of-way. It was amazing to see the number of bicycles there, he said. Relating his experience in Ann Arbor – trying to cross Huron Street near the University of Michigan campus – he’d witnessed three near accidents, both as pedestrians and as a driver. He suggested looking into driver education.

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

Absent: Margie Teall.

Next council meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

The original planned unit development (PUD) agreement was approved in early 2006. The site includes a bank, two mixed-use buildings (housing and retail/commercial) and attached garages.

The current request proposes six major changes: (1) allowing the ground floor of a proposed three-story mixed-use building – on the site’s northeast corner – to be used for parking or flexible space for special events; (2) increasing the use of potential restaurant space within the site from 7,000 square feet to 14,224 square feet; (3) eliminating requirements for a free-standing restaurant; (4) increasing the maximum number of parking spaces from 275 to 290; (5) reducing the minimum number of bicycle storage spaces from 70 to 64; and (6) adding the following language to the facade section: “ground level facades of Building A if used as interior parking shall include architectural columns, a minimum 3-foot height masonry screen wall, and louvers or grills to screen views to parking while permitting natural ventilation.”

In addition, the city recently discovered that the bank building was built one foot from the west property line, although the approved site plan and supplemental regulations required a two-foot setback. To resolve this, the owner proposed an amendment of the PUD supplemental regulations, according to a staff memo. The memo also indicates that the owner has been making contributions to the city’s affordable housing fund, rather than providing affordable housing within the complex. The final payment is due at the end of this year.

This isn’t the first time that changes have been requested for the site. In 2009, developers also asked to amend the original PUD agreement. Rather than build a restaurant, they asked for permission to turn that part of the site into a temporary parking lot, adding 26 additional parking spaces and 11 spots for motorcycles. The planning commission didn’t act on that request until its Feb. 18, 2010 meeting. Although all five commissioners at that meeting voted to approve the request, the action required six votes to pass, so it failed for lack of votes. However, the request was forwarded to the city council, which ultimately granted approval at its April 19, 2010 meeting.

The current request will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

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

Former St. Nicholas Church at 414 N. Main in downtown Ann Arbor. It will be offered at public auction on Sept. 6.

And two of those items involve city ownership of land parcels – at opposite edges of downtown Ann Arbor. One of the properties is already owned by the city of  Ann Arbor – the parcel at 350 S. Fifth. Situated on the southern edge of downtown, it’s also known as the Fifth and William parking lot (because it’s currently used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system) or the Old Y Lot (because it’s the location of the former YMCA building).

The resolution would direct the city administrator to evaluate the parcel for possible public or corporate use; and if none is found, to report back to the city council with a timeline for the disposition of the property – based on state and city laws and policies. The resolution, sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), is somewhat unlikely to gain much traction with the council. That’s because it explicitly indicates that the city administrator’s efforts are to be independent of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street planning effort, which includes the 350 S. Fifth parcel.

The Connecting William Street project was undertaken by the DDA based on a directive from the city council, on a unanimous vote, given at its April 4, 2011 meeting. Kunselman voted for that planning effort to take place – but was also vocal at the time, as well as before, about his view that the Old Y lot should simply be put up for sale one way or another.

A second piece of property on the council’s Aug. 20 agenda is located on the northern edge of downtown at 414 N. Main St., near Beakes Street – the site of the old St. Nicholas Church. In 2006, owners of the site received approval for a planned unit development (PUD) zoning designation from the city council. The PUD would allow construction of The Gallery, an 11-story building (158 feet tall) that would include 224 parking spaces and 123 units of residential housing, 18 of which would meet the definition of affordable housing derived by a formula based on area median incomes.

That 414 N. Main property does not belong to the city. But the result of a foreclosure process has put it in the hands of another public entity – the Washtenaw County treasurer’s office. It’s being offered at public auction (on auction.com) starting Sept. 6 through Sept. 11, at a price of $365,051. County treasurer Catherine McClary told The Chronicle in a phone interview that the price includes the demolition costs – and that she’s selected a demolition firm to start the work. Asbestos abatement is already underway, and the demolition itself is expected to begin before the auction, though it will likely not be complete by then, as it will take 15 days.

What would the council’s resolution on the 414 N. Main property actually do? It would start the process to change the PUD zoning to that of the surrounding property, which is D2 (downtown interface) – allowing a maximum building height of 60 feet. The resolution, also sponsored by Kunselman, gives as part of its rationale the fact that the original developer is no longer pursuing the project.

If the property doesn’t sell at the Sept. 6 auction, it will be offered at a second auction. If it doesn’t sell at the second auction, the property would revert to the city. The city could exercise a right of first refusal and acquire the property for the minimum $365,051 bid – but that would require the city to make the purchase for a “public purpose.”

After the jump, we provide a bit more detail on the 414 N. Main property.

The Gallery

On Aug. 10, 2006, the city council approved a planned unit development PUD for construction of The Gallery at 414 N. Main. Had it been built, it would have included construction of two buildings – one 11-story building and another four-story building. [.pdf of PUD supplemental regulations]

The Gallery site plan drawing.

It would have included 123 units of residential housing, with 18 of those meeting the definition of affordable housing derived by a formula, based on area median incomes.

The project also would have included 224 parking spaces, 57 of which would have been provided to the neighbor to the south, McKinley Inc.

McKinley and the developer of The Gallery struck an agreement that provides an easement on the four parcels that make up the property. And that easement guarantees access to 57 parking spaces by McKinley to the site. The easement is attached to the land, not its owner. So even though the owner has changed hands – because it’s owned now by the Washtenaw County treasurer as a result of the foreclosure process – the easement persists, along with its guaranteed 57 parking spaces. That’s an additional challenge for a developer, because those 57 spaces must be constructed – likely in some kind of deck structure – but won’t be available for the tenants of the building.

Four parcels of The Gallery project. Main Street runs north/south on the left side of this photo. The parallel street on the right is Fourth Avenue.

The property’s four parcels include three that front on Main Street, and a fourth one that fronts on Fourth Avenue. Fourth Avenue and Main Street are north-south streets running parallel to each other.

So part of the project site spans the entire block between Main Street and Fourth Avenue. Across Fourth Avenue from the project site, on the avenue’s eastern side, is Kerrytown Market and Shops.

The site plan for The Gallery approved by the city council is still valid – because it has been extended by administrative approval, most recently on Sept. 9, 2011. The property’s current owner, the Washtenaw County treasurer, would not conceivably try to build The Gallery with the currently authorized site plan and its PUD zoning, because the treasurer holds the property for the sole purpose of putting it up for public auction.

Zoning designations. Color key: blue, D1 (downtown); green, D2 (downtown interface), red, PUD (planned unit development). Kunselman’s Aug. 20 resolution would direct city staff to begin a process for rezoning The Gallery PUD to D2 (downtown interface), to be consistent with surrounding properties.

But if nothing changed, the new owner would be entitled to build a project similar to The Gallery. If the zoning were changed to D2 (downtown interface) –  which is the eventual intent of Stephen Kunselman’s resolution – then The Gallery would not be possible. That’s because D2 zoning carries with it a limitation on building height of 60 feet. One of the arguments likely to be heard at the Aug. 20 Ann Arbor city council meeting is that nothing should be changed before the auction, because the PUD zoning and site plan might make the property more valuable.

By way of background, the “market value” of the property is around $2 million, and its “taxable value” is half that. The total tax burden in Ann Arbor, counting all the taxing jurisdictions, is about 45 mills. So a tax rate of about 45 mills on $1 million in taxable value would work out to roughly $45,000 annually.

An inspection of the city’s online property records shows that taxes haven’t been paid since 2007. And that five-year period of non-payment is consistent with McClary’s description of the property owing $255,000 in back taxes.

Forfeit, Foreclosure, Demolition, Auction

In a phone interview, Washtenaw County treasurer Catherine McClary reviewed for The Chronicle how the foreclosure process works. Key is the fact that in Washtenaw County, the treasurer is the foreclosing governmental unit (FGU). In some counties, the state of Michigan is the FGU for the county.

The property was turned over as delinquent on March 1, 2010. A year later, on March 1, 2011, the property was forfeited. The property was foreclosed in February 2012 on a court order from 22nd circuit court judge Donald Shelton. The owner had the opportunity to redeem the property through March 31, 2012, but did not. [.pdf of excerpted Public Act 123 of 1999]

The result of the foreclosure order is that the new owner of the property is the Washtenaw County treasurer. But the sole point of that ownership is to put the property up for public auction. The auctions must be held each year between the third Tuesday in July and the first Tuesday in November.

A property is first put up for auction at a “minimum bid” auction. The minimum bid is defined as the total amount of back taxes owed, plus the cost to bring the property to auction. For McClary, the cost of bringing the 414 N. Main St. property to auction will include the demolition costs. Of the $365,051, approximately $110,000 of that is the cost beyond the taxes – as the taxes on the property were about $255,000, she said.

Screenshot of auction.com Washtenaw County listings for Sept. 6.

Ordinarily, this North Main Street property would have been put up for auction in July, along with other “minimum bid” auctions in Washtenaw County. But McClary said she pushed the city to exercise its right of first refusal – to purchase the property at the “minimum bid” price. And because the city’s decision-making process takes some time, she’d agreed to delay the “minimum bid” auction until Sept. 6.

Other properties in Washtenaw County available for the Sept. 6 auction on auction.com include ones offered at $1,000. Unlike the North Main Street property, these are being offered for a second time, having not sold at the earlier “minimum bid” auction. McClary explained that she’s using $1,000 as the starting price this year.

So if the North Main property doesn’t sell in the Sept. 6 auction, it’ll be offered in October at a starting price of $1,000. But she noted she’d be attaching a $110,000 performance bond to that sale, to ensure that she recovers her demolition costs.

Part of what McClary also expects to get out of a sale price is the cost of a phase one environmental clearance. She pointed out that she’d taken care to ensure – as part of the contract with the company that performed the environmental clearance study – that the new owner of the property could rely on that clearance. Ordinarily, an environmental clearance can only be used by the person who paid for it. Being able to rely on an existing environmental clearance study is a value to the potential buyer.

McClary also sees the demolition of the existing building as adding value for a potential bidder at the auction. But based on her remarks on the phone, the main impetus for her to proceed with the property’s demolition is to eliminate the nuisance and blight that the building has become. She described her regular communication with Ann Arbor police chief John Seto, and the work of a social worker on her staff, who works with Washtenaw County’s PORT (Project Outreach Team) as they interact with the people who try to live on the long-vacant property.

McClary summarized the rationale for proceeding with the demolition: “So whether the city takes the property or whether developer buys the property, we know that the blight and crime is gone off of that site.”

If no one buys the property at either the Sept. 6 auction or (if necessary) the October auction, the property would most likely revert to the city of Ann Arbor.

But another possibility McClary raised was that the property could be put into a land bank. She observed that the Washtenaw County board of commissioners had voted to establish one, but had not taken the step of funding it or getting approval from the state. The Chronicle’s last coverage of this issue was from the Dec. 1, 2010 Washtenaw County board of commissioners meeting:

Conan Smith was nominated to serve on the board of the county land bank authority. The land bank – a mechanism used to help the county deal with foreclosed and blighted properties – has a somewhat convoluted history. The board first authorized it in 2009, but decided to dissolve the land bank earlier this year after they failed to reach consensus on issues of governance and funding.

After further debate spanning several months, the board revived the land bank in September, when they also passed a resolution calling for two commissioners to serve on the land bank’s board. That change requires state approval, which has not yet been authorized. When state approval is given, [board chair Rolland] Sizemore plans to nominate Wes Prater to serve on the land bank authority board, filling the second set allotted to commissioners.

Ann Arbor City Council’s Issues

Kunselman’s resolution would simply direct planning staff to initiate the rezoning process. The council would need to take two future votes – at a first reading and a second reading preceded by a public hearing – in order to rezone the property. The  conversation around Stephen Kunselman’s resolution on the Aug. 20 agenda is likely to center around at least two issues: (1) the timing of a rezoning process; and (2) the appropriateness of a rezoning process, independent of timing.

If the property is to be rezoned, then it would be easier to do that while it’s in the county treasurer’s hands – because the city could count on treasurer Catherine McClary’s full cooperation. She told The Chronicle she’d be happy to request the rezoning of the parcel as the owner of the property, and that the city would “just need to tell me what to write in my letter!” But the timing McClary was talking about was between the auctions – if the property didn’t sell at the first auction. McClary didn’t venture an opinion about starting a process before the auction that would lead to rezoning.

One possible argument against approving Kunselman’s resolution now would be that it’s important to wait until the outcome of the Sept. 6 auction before taking any action. The best chance of the property being sold to a private developer – so the argument would go – is to leave the PUD zoning in place. The 57 parking spaces that must be provided on the parcel for McKinley is one challenge that could conceivably justify allowing a larger development than what D2 zoning would allow. That argument depends on the premise that such a development is desirable and beneficial – or at least that it’s a better alternative to letting the property languish.

Precisely because a developer could purchase the property and build a project similar to The Gallery is a possible argument for rezoning the parcel to D2 – so that such a project could not be built. If that argument is made at the city council table on Aug. 20, then it will likely appeal to the history of the A2D2 downtown rezoning process, which was given final approval by the city council in late 2009. The A2D2 zoning process, so the argument would go, reflects a broad community consensus about what the basic requirement of the downtown interface should look like – and that for the 414 N. Main St. property, that area should conform with D2 zoning and its height limit of 60 feet.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of processes like public auctions – because our coverage isn’t sold to the highest bidder. 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 city planning commission had previously voted unanimously to recommend approval of the zoning changes at its  April 17, 2012 meeting.

Owners of the station are asking for revisions to the site’s planned unit development (PUD), which would allow them to build additions onto the existing 1,000-square-foot convenience store. The new additions would total 4,089 square feet, including 2,189 square feet to the north and east of the store. Their plan also calls for converting the 900-square-foot carwash area into new retail space. The existing access drive to the carwash would be landscaped, and the parking lot would be reconfigured for a new total of 16 spaces.

According to a planning staff memo, the PUD revisions were recommended because they are seen as providing an overall benefit to the city, by: (1) supporting the continued viability of retail options for the surrounding neighborhood; (2) creating job opportunities from this expansion; and (3) controlling the architectural design standards of this building as a gateway into the city.

The initial approval to the PUD rezoning was given at the council’s May 21, 2012 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]

The city planning commission had previously voted unanimously to recommend approval of the zoning changes at its  April 17, 2012 meeting.

Owners of the station are asking for revisions to the site’s planned unit development (PUD), which would allow them to build additions onto the existing 1,000-square-foot convenience store. The new additions would total 4,089 square feet, including 2,189 square feet to the north and east of the store. Their plan also calls for converting the 900-square-foot carwash area into new retail space. The existing access drive to the carwash would be landscaped, and the parking lot would be reconfigured for a new total of 16 spaces.

According to a planning staff memo, the PUD revisions were recommended because they are seen as providing an overall benefit to the city, by: (1) supporting the continued viability of retail options for the surrounding neighborhood; (2) creating job opportunities from this expansion; and (3) controlling the architectural design standards of this building as a gateway into the city.

Because changes to the PUD regulations are a change to the city’s zoning code, hence to the city’s ordinances, the initial approval by the council at its May 21 meeting will need to be followed by a second and final approval after a public hearing at a subsequent 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]