That additional change to their bylaws came as AAATA board members reviewed their rules and revised them to reflect the addition of two new member jurisdictions in addition to the city of Ann Arbor: the city of Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township. It was last year, under separate processes, that the two Ypsilanti jurisdictions were admitted into the AAATA. The authority also changed its name at the time to include the word “area.” [.pdf of AAATA bylaws changes]

Action on the bylaws came at the AAATA board’s Feb. 20, 2014 meeting.

The bylaws changes included some straightforward consequences of the increase from seven to 10 board members, such as: changing the definition of a quorum from four to six members; and raising the majority approval threshold from four to six members – for items like adopting a labor contract or approving a financial transaction in excess of 5% of the annual budget.

A change that was independent of the board size was also made for some other voting items: relaxing the requirement from “a majority of the Board duly appointed and confirmed” to “a majority vote of board members present.” That means some types of resolutions could win approval with support from as few as four board members at a meeting.

In a separate board action, before the bylaws change was approved at the Feb. 20 meeting, the board passed a resolution to waive a condition in the bylaws that requires written notice be given to board members two weeks before a vote on a bylaws change. The resolution was prompted by additional amendments that had been made within the two-week window. One of the bylaws changes made on Feb. 20 was to relax the requirement of notice to just one week in advance of a vote.

This brief was filed from the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library at 343 S. Fifth Ave., where the AAATA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

It appears that the most likely outcome for this year is that those salaries will remain level for the next two years.

The LOCC meeting took place at 2:30 p.m. in the third floor conference room of the Ann Arbor city hall. Eunice Burns and Roger Hewitt are the only two members of the seven-member commission who are appointed and serving, and they both attended the meeting. Burns is a former city councilmember and a former member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA) board. Hewitt currently serves on the DDA board. The DDA connection is coincidental.

Assistant city attorney Mary Fales attended the Dec. 16 meeting as well, and after taking a roll call, declared that a quorum, which consists of four members, had not been achieved. So Burns and Hewitt voted immediately to adjourn the meeting. The total time for the meeting was about 2 minutes –  28 minutes less than the half hour Burns remarked she’d put on her parking meter.

Fales told Burns and Hewitt at the meeting that when the file of applications for the LOCC was reviewed, no eligible applications were identified.

Hewitt asked Fales to apprise him, the chair of the commission, if additional members are appointed before the end of the year, which would allow the commission to meet and achieve a quorum. Those appointments would need to be made at the city council’s meeting later today (Dec. 16, 2013), the last regular meeting of the council scheduled for this year. That appears somewhat unlikely.

The seven-member LOCC is supposed to meet every odd-numbered year and make a salary determination for the next two years. The commission is not allowed to meet in an even-numbered year. The LOCC’s determination takes effect unless rejected by the city council. If the determination is rejected, then the salaries remain the same as they were.

Before the LOCC meeting, Fales told The Chronicle that she assumed the salaries would stay the same if the LOCC made no determination. The statute and ordinance make explicit that if the city council rejects the LOCC determination, then the salaries remain unchanged.

However, neither the state enabling statute nor the city’s ordinance (based that statute) appear to give any explicit guidance about what is supposed to happen if no determination is made by the LOCC in a given year. The Ann Arbor LOCC makes salary determinations for just two years at a time. So the determination made by the LOCC two years ago was only for 2012 and 2013. The Ann Arbor city charter stipulates that councilmembers serve without pay – but the procedure to set salaries through an LOCC supersedes the city charter.

The fact that Ann Arbor’s LOCC has an inadequate number of members has been known for some time. At the 2011 meeting of the Ann Arbor’s LOCC, commissioners talked about the three vacancies at that time. In the interim, the terms of Bill Lockwood and Martha Darling, who were appointed and serving in 2011 – have expired. The appointments of Burns and Hewitt will expire in October of 2014, so 2013 year will be their last year of active service unless they are reappointed. [For more detailed Chronicle coverage of the issue, see: "Column: What Do We Pay Ann Arbor's Mayor?"]

This brief was filed from the conference room on the third floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

Ann Arbor police department mug shots. Please note: When it comes to counting police officers or DDA board members, six of one is not half a dozen of the other. (“Art” by The Chronicle)

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has been leading the effort by the council to have an impact on the DDA – first by proposing ordinance amendments, then by bringing forward a proposal during the council’s FY 2014 budget deliberations on May 20 – to reallocate DDA funds toward housing. More on that later.

Next week’s June 3 city council meeting would have marked the start of a three-month DDA-free period on the council’s agenda. However, Ward 2 councilmembers Jane Lumm and Sally Petersen, joined by Sumi Kailasapathy from Ward 1, have now placed a resolution on that meeting’s agenda calling on the DDA to allocate money for three additional police officers dedicated to patrolling the downtown area.

For Lumm, this might appear to be a course reversal. Earlier this spring she argued that funding for police officers should be found within the regular city budgeting process. She argued that police officers should be paid for with city general fund dollars – because the city is responsible for public safety. Specifically, she argued that the city should not be looking to the DDA to pay for police.

Yet it’s not actually a course reversal for Lumm. If you follow the city council and the DDA closely, her position now – calling on the DDA to fund police – makes perfectly logical sense, if “logical sense” means “political sense.”

The fact that this reversal makes perfect political sense is not an indictment of Lumm specifically, but rather of the entire 11-member council. They’ve managed as a group to forget what they accomplished together at their retreat in December 2012.

At that retreat, the council achieved a consensus that the city’s achievement of success for the public safety area would not be measured by the number of sworn officers. Instead they agreed that success would be based by actual crime stats, perceptions of safety by residents, and an objective measurement of the time that officers can spend on proactive policing. Yet the council’s debate on May 20 reverted to the familiar past habit of measuring safety success by counting sworn officers.

To the credit of the June 3 resolution’s sponsors, their proposal at least claims that adding police officers downtown would contribute to the perception of increased safety – a nod to the council’s retreat consensus. But I can imagine arguments both ways about whether that claim is true.

The council’s general distraction from its budget retreat consensus might be linked to the energy spent on the DDA. So what has stoked that interest? The fuel for this political fire is the perverse interpretation the DDA has given to Chapter 7 of the city code, which regulates the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) revenue. The DDA contends that the revenue constraint that’s articulated in Chapter 7 isn’t really a constraint. The DDA further contends that the $470,000 it returned to other taxing jurisdictions in 2011 was paid back “erroneously.” Kunselman’s ordinance amendments would exclude the DDA’s interpretation.

Throughout the council’s months-long debate about the DDA, the DDA board and staff have enthusiastically participated in city council politics. They’ve done so in a way that has not added much value to the city of Ann Arbor, except in the form of political drama.

In this column I’ll lay out the DDA’s role in the most recent political play that was performed at the council’s May 20 meeting.

Setting the Stage

By way of background, this year’s council focus on the DDA began on Feb. 4, when Ward 3 councilmember Stephen Kunselman announced he’d be sponsoring an amendment to the local ordinance governing the DDA. A month later, on March 4, the council had the item on its agenda. After postponing it several times, the council eventually gave the measure initial approval. But at its May 6, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council decided to postpone final consideration of that ordinance revision until Sept. 3 – after the Aug. 6 city council primary election.

However, that postponement did not keep the DDA off the city council’s agenda for the regular meeting that followed – on May 20, 2013. That’s when the council debated the FY 2014 budget. During the budget debate, a proposed change to the DDA’s budget occupied more of the council’s time than any other budget amendment. To be clear, it is the statutory role of the city council to approve the DDA’s budget. It’s not so clear that the DDA should occupy so much of the council’s time on budget night.

At that May 20 meeting, Kunselman offered an amendment to transfer money from the DDA’s TIF (tax increment finance) fund to the DDA’s housing fund. It was ultimately approved – as a kind of compromise with a competing DDA budget amendment that mayor John Hieftje had hoped to bring forward. The transfer amount agreed upon by the council was $300,000 – compared to the $500,000 Kunselman had originally wanted to transfer.

The political backdrop for this includes the fact that Kunselman faces a challenge in the August Democratic primary from Julie Grand, who currently serves on the city’s park advisory commission. She also lives on the same block of Brooklyn Avenue as Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who’s been one of the council’s leading defenders of the DDA. Taylor was elected to the council in 2008, over then-incumbent Kunselman. But Kunselman returned to the council the following year when he received more votes than Leigh Greden.

Kunselman is also a political rival of mayor John Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board. Kunselman has stated that if Hieftje seeks re-election in 2014, then Kunselman will run to oppose Hieftje.

The sparring between Kunselman and Hieftje can be overt, with Hieftje writing to Kunselman in an email sent during the second week of May: “I understand your need to automatically oppose anything I may be in favor of …” And on May 20, Kunselman told Hieftje during the council’s meeting, “Of course, you’re not going to support anything that I bring to the table.”

Budget Amendment & DDA Special Meeting

The fact that Kunselman proposed his DDA budget amendment on May 20 was not a surprise – because he’d announced at the council’s May 6 meeting that he’d be doing that.

Three days later, on May 9, the DDA board called a special meeting – scheduled for May 13. According to the posting, the meeting was for the “purpose of discussing budget priorities and any other business that the members deem necessary.”

The DDA board had already adopted its FY 2014 and FY 2015 budgets – an action that took place at its Feb. 6, 2013 meeting.

So when the special meeting was announced, I expected there was an interest among DDA board members in using the special meeting to modify the DDA’s adopted budget. If the board took action to modify its budget – at least in the spirit of Kunselman’s planned amendment, if not in the same dollar figure – that might have blunted the effect of Kunselman’s amendment.

The argument against Kunselman’s budget amendment would have gone something like this: The DDA already transferred $X from its TIF fund into its housing fund at a special meeting of its board held on May 13 – so why are we quibbling about the difference between X and $500,000?

As it turned out, the special meeting of the DDA board on May 13 did not result in the transaction of any business. No resolutions were considered. No votes were taken. The 12-member DDA board did not even achieve a quorum of seven members. I marked the following six board members present for the May 13 special meeting: Leah Gunn, Joan Lowenstein, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt and Newcombe Clark. That’s the same as the DDA staff’s tally of attendance.

An Accounting of Events

Yet during deliberations on May 20, John Hieftje described the gathering on May 13 as a having achieved a quorum. He also described “DDA action” taken on May 13.

In fairness to Hieftje, he had to rely on information from others – because he was absent from the meeting. But he also had no political interest in questioning or confirming the accuracy of the information.

What was Hieftje’s political interest? He certainly didn’t adduce the May 13 DDA gathering as a random point of recent history. He adduced it in support of his own DDA budget amendment, which was meant to compete with Kunselman’s. Hieftje took the occasion during the meeting to point out that his own proposed amendment was based on the DDA’s May 13 “action.” For example, the dollar amount to be transferred to the DDA housing fund in Hieftje’s proposed budget amendment was $100,000. That’s the amount that the DDA had purportedly resolved on May 13 to transfer from its TIF fund to its housing fund.

So how would anyone get the idea that the DDA board had – through a vote or some kind of other consensus of a quorum of its members – taken some action, or passed a resolution to update its previously adopted budget?

The part about a quorum is likely attributable, I think, to an inadvertent miscounting of board members by DDA board chair Leah Gunn. She sent an email to city councilmembers stating that seven members had attended the May 13 meeting. With six members plus staff sitting at the table, it’s the kind of miscount that anyone could make.

Except for the miscount, Gunn’s email does not, on my reading, try to portray the meeting as more than what it was – an informal meeting where no action was taken. From Gunn’s email:

The DDA had an informal meeting last Monday to discuss the allocations to the budget considering the added TIF that will be received in the next fiscal year. Although no formal action has been taken, the attached memo describes the consensus reached by the seven members present.

However, if the phrase in Gunn’s email were read contrastively as “no formal action” had been taken, the ordinary rules of contrastive stress would open the door for Hieftje’s description. So during deliberations on May 20, he could refer to some “DDA action,” presumably an informal one. I have no idea what it means for a public body to take informal action. But grammatically, at least, it works.

Gunn’s email refers to an attached memo. It’s the attached memo, written by DDA executive director Susan Pollay, that I think actually misrepresents what happened on May 13. The subject line indicates a “budget update” when no updating of the DDA’s budget was undertaken at the meeting.

And the body of the memo indicates formal action in at least three places, when no action was actually taken:

• “At its Monday morning meeting the DDA board members resolved that …”
• “The board members authorized me to …”
• “On Monday, the DDA members resolved to set aside $75,000 …”

Even if a quorum of members had been present, then based on my own attendance at the May 13 gathering, no action was taken by those assembled. It would perhaps be fair to say that among the six board members gathered, a general consensus, along the lines described by Pollay’s memo, was apparent during the casual conversation.

Pollay was present at the May 20 council meeting and was asked to the podium to respond to questions. She was present when Hieftje characterized the May 13 DDA gathering as having achieved a quorum, and she was there when he referred to the DDA board action. She had an opportunity to correct the statements made about the May 13 meeting.

So I inquired with Pollay by email about her memo’s characterization of the May 13 gathering – given that no quorum had been achieved on that occasion. Her response was to cite an email she’d received from board member Bob Guenzel saying that he couldn’t attend the meeting, but expressing his thoughts on the budget. From Pollay’s email:

Bob Guenzel wasn’t able to attend, but had shared ideas with me via email, and I let everyone know what these ideas were so they could be included as part of the discussion and ultimately weighed before they came to some kind of consensus. Bob’s interests were to direct additional funding to housing and to funding some kind of economic development study in partnership with SPARK. 6 board members were present for the discussion, but 7 provided input into the list of priorities.

Even given this additional context, I don’t think it’s remotely reasonable to represent the gathering of DDA board members on May 13 as having resolved anything or authorized anything.

Pollay’s justification for her memo’s portrayal of the meeting appears to be based in part on the idea that the seventh board member necessary to achieve a quorum was somehow actually in attendance – by dint of the email he sent prior to the meeting.

That’s just not how you count attendance at a meeting of a public body.

As it turned out, the DDA’s non-meeting of May 13 was not sufficient as a political prop on May 20 to allow Hieftje’s proposed budget amendment to win the day. I’m curious to see how the DDA will be used as a prop in the council’s June 3 discussion of downtown police funding.

Counting Police Officers

If the Ann Arbor city council wants to abandon its consensus success statements on public safety, and return instead to the familiar routine of counting police officers, then by all means let’s get the DDA involved, as proposed in the council’s June 3 resolution.

If the DDA is involved, perhaps we could adapt the DDA’s quorum-counting approach to police staffing levels. We could count officers as on patrol even if they don’t report for duty.

But, of course, we would still insist that such officers at least send an email to their shift commander, sharing their thoughts on how to fight crime.

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!

Ann Arbor planning commissioners and staff talk to high school students in city council chambers on Feb. 23. From left: Wendy Woods, Bonnie Bona, city planner Alexis DiLeo, and Kirk Westphal. (Photos by the writer.)

Five of the nine commissioners are needed for a quorum to conduct business, and only four attended. In addition to those four, about 10 people showed up for the two main action items on the agenda, and several high school students were attending as part of a class assignment.

After waiting about 30 minutes, vice chair Kirk Westphal and Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, conferred and decided to hear public commentary. One person spoke. John Chamberlain, an attorney representing the Automobile Club of Michigan, came to the podium only to say that he and his team would return for the commission’s next meeting, on March 6.

The club wants to tear down its existing AAA branch near Michigan Stadium and build a new one, and was requesting approval for a site plan. The other main action item on Thursday’s agenda was site plan approval to build a new Noodles restaurant on West Stadium Boulevard, at the location of the former Sze-Chuan West. Both projects will be considered at the planning commission’s March 6 meeting.

Robert’s Rules, Commission Bylaws

Regular planning commission meetings are typically held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month. This past week, the meeting was shifted from Tuesday to Thursday, accommodating a city council meeting that had been bumped from Monday to Tuesday because of the Feb. 20 Presidents Day holiday.

The planning commission is governed by its own set of bylaws, which were revised and adopted last year. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws] The bylaws refer explicitly the requirement of a quorum:

Section VII Meetings
…
Section 10. A quorum shall consist of five (5) members of the Commission. An affirmative vote of five (5) members is required for the Commission to act on any matter, except six (6) votes shall be required to go into closed session or to act on plans, policy statements, granting of special exception uses, recommendations to City Council, and petitions described in Article IX of these bylaws. The right to vote is limited to members of the Commission actually present at the time the vote is taken at a lawfully called meeting.

Beyond that, the bylaws generally defer to Robert’s Rules of Order – a parliamentary guide that’s the standard set of rules by which public bodies operate. From the commission’s bylaws:

Article XIII Parliamentary Authority
Section 1. The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall guide the Commission; however parliamentary procedure shall be flexible and may be adjusted in the Chair’s discretion to best serve the needs of the Commission. Nevertheless, no parliamentary procedure shall be followed that is inconsistent with these bylaws.

Robert’s Rules states that “in the absence of a quorum, any business transacted is null and void.” There are only four exceptions to that rule: (1) fixing the time to which to adjourn; (2) adjourning; (3) recessing; or (4) taking measures to obtain a quorum.

Pre-Meeting Conversations, 3-Minute Session

As people waited for a fifth commissioner to arrive,  city planning manager Wendy Rampson gave periodic updates on the situation. She also took the opportunity to explain Robert’s Rules to the high school students who were attending as part of a class assignment.

Rampson then invited the four commissioners who had already arrived – Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods – to introduce themselves to the students and talk a bit about their background. Woods in particular capitalized on the opportunity. She described her job as associate director of the Michigan Community Scholars Program at the University of Michigan, and encouraged students to consider attending UM after graduating high school.

At roughly 7:30, Westhphal – the commission’s vice chair – took the chair’s seat at the front of the council chambers. He said he was calling the meeting to attention, not to order, and that anyone who wanted to address the commission could do so. Their comments would be communicated to other commissioners at the March 6 meeting, he said, and people could address the commissioners again at that meeting, if they desired.

Only one person spoke. John Chamberlain, an attorney representing the Automobile Club of Michigan, came to the podium only to say that he and his team would return for the commission’s next meeting, on March 6.

When no one else stepped forward, Westphal apologized, saying he couldn’t remember a previous occasion when the commission had not been able to meet because of the lack of a quorum. [Rampson later told The Chronicle that it has happened before, but not for several years.]

At the Feb. 23 session, Rampson told the gathering that there were apparently “crossed wires” in communicating with the commission’s chair, Eric Mahler, who had been expected to attend the meeting. Rampson noted that the planning staff had recommended postponing one of the two action items – the one concerning the AAA branch on South Main. She indicated that staff had recently received revised plans from the owner, and would present a revised report on that project at the March 6 meeting.

The Feb. 23 session, as recorded by the Community Television Network, lasted 3 minutes and 25 seconds.

AAA Branch

The item that Rampson mentioned related to two parcels – 1100 and 1200 S. Main, across from Michigan Stadium – owned by the Automobile Club of Michigan and containing an AAA branch that was built in the 1950s. The owner wants to build a new branch on a different part of the site, tear down the existing building, and reconfigure parking spaces there.

The two parcels are part of a 1.5-acre site containing four parcels owned by AAA and all zoned O (office). Located on the 1200 S. Main parcel is the one-story branch building with walk-out basement and 36 parking spaces, with exits onto South Main, Berkley and Potter.

John Chamberlain, an attorney representing the Automobile Club of Michigan.

The 1100 S. Main site is a surface parking lot, which has 72 spaces and exits onto Potter and Keech. The owner wants to build a one-story, 5,443-square-foot new branch building on the northeast corner of the site, with parking for 21 spaces. There are six landmark trees on the site, and the plan would require removal of two that are located along South Main, near Keech.

After the new structure is completed, the old building at 1200 S. Main would be torn down and a 14-space parking lot would be put on that parcel. To do that, the parcel would need to be rezoned from O (office) to P (parking), since parking would become the principal use for that site.

In their memo, city planning staff noted that between 16-22 parking spaces would be required for a 5,443-square-foot building. The owner’s plan called for a total of 35 spaces. Even though it would be a reduction from the current parking on the site – which was approved in the mid-1970s – it would be more than would be required for the new building under city code. The owners had indicated that an addition to the new building might be made in the future. If that happens, the extra parking would be necessary.

Planning staff had recommended postponing action on the request, so that the owner could include the possible future addition as part of the site plan, to reflect parking needs better. Revised plans have since been submitted, and the planning staff expects to prepare a revised report by the planning commission’s March 6 meeting.

Noodles Restaurant

A plan for a new Noodles & Co. restaurant at 2161 W. Stadium Blvd. – site of the former Sze-Chuan West, a building adjacent to Bell’s Diner and Stadium Hardware – was also on the Feb. 23 planning commission agenda.

The proposal called for demolishing the existing 4,300-square-foot restaurant and building a new 2,679-square-foot one-story restaurant with a 615-square-foot enclosed patio at the front of the building. The 1.15-acre site is located on the west side of West Stadium, south of Liberty. The project would also reconfigure the existing parking lot and provide additional landscaping.

The site plan approval would be contingent on a land division request that’s currently being considered by the city’s planning staff. The division would separate the restaurant parcel from a larger parcel at 2151 W. Stadium, where the Big M car wash is located.

In their staff memo, planning staff noted that the redevelopment is consistent with the city’s master plan and would improve the aesthetics of the West Stadium corridor. Staff had recommended the project for approval. It will be considered by the commission at its March 6 meeting.

Noodles & Co. operates two other restaurants in Ann Arbor – at 320 S. State, near the University of Michigan campus; and at Arborland on Washtenaw Avenue, on the city’s east side.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Erica Briggs, Tony Derezinski, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, March 6 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. 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 current intent is not to reschedule the meeting, but rather to move this month’s agenda items to the next board meeting, scheduled for March 17. The two items of February business included: (1) an application to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for state funding; and (2) a contract for media services. [.pdf of board meeting packet]

Left to right: AATA board members Jesse Bernstein, Roger Kerson and Anya Dale. The group fell one short of the four needed to constitute a quorum. (Photos by the writer.)

A quorum – the minimum number of board members needed in order to conduct business – consists of four members for the seven-member AATA board.

In attendance were Roger Kerson, Anya Dale – who were both recently appointed to the board – plus board chair Jesse Bernstein. The usually cheerful Bernstein seemed a bit glum, when he announced  that no quorum would be achieved.

Bernstein told the handful of people assembled in the room – members of the public and the AATA staff – that he was “sorry and disappointed” and offered his apologies. He noted that it was the first occasion of a meeting scheduled at the library, and that the CTN staff were on hand to ensure the proceedings were videotaped. “See you next month!” he concluded.

At the board’s Feb. 17, 2010 meeting, the question of a change of venue for the board’s meetings was entertained, but not voted on. At the next month’s March 24, 2010 meeting, the board voted to change the bylaws to specify the downtown library as the new meeting location. The rationale was to provide better accessibility to the board’s deliberations by making use of the library board room’s video taping equipment. The AATA board room is not similarly equipped.

The change to the library location for AATA board meetings was delayed until August while physical accessibility issues were addressed, in connection with the construction of the new underground parking garage along Fifth Avenue. From the  June 23, 2010 board meeting:

During public commentary, Clark Charnetski, who was there to deliver the report from AATA’s local advisory council (LAC), noted that the library had been made more accessible, because the removal of the flower box on the Fifth Avenue side had been completed and there is a new ramp to the William Street side. That should make it a lot easier to get from the A-Ride (para-transit) stop on William Street. People could watch for the mini-bus to arrive. He thanked the AATA for any role that they had in helping that process along. Bernstein said that staff had been diligent. Ford indicated that an intercom system would be installed in the library to aid in alerting riders of the para-transit system when their rides were there.

On Thursday, one of the members of the public who appeared at the scheduled meeting, only to be disappointed, was Carolyn Grawi of the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living. She told The Chronicle that although the new ramp was ADA compliant – its shallow slope did not trigger a requirement for handrails – it was dangerous just the same. The danger arises from the side of the ramp opposite the slope, where there is a step. The step is highlighted with yellow marking, but can be missed, she said. Grawi told The Chronicle that the previous Friday, a woman using a walker had fallen off the edge.

Orange cones have now been placed along the edge of the ramp to help prevent future mishaps.

View looking west from the library's entrance on the east side of Fifth Avenue. The construction barrels are part of the street closing in connection with the construction of the underground parking garage.

The fourth-floor library board room affords a spectacular view of the underground parking structure currently under construction. This view looks east. This is the "dogleg" of the structure that extends to Division Street.

This view is to the north from the library board room.

Present: Jesse Bernstein, Roger Kerson, Anya Dale.

Absent: Charles Griffith, David Nacht, Sue McCormick, Rich Robben.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Sept. 16, 2010 at at 6:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor [confirm date]