From left: Councilmembers Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The two had co-sponsored a resolution establishing a task force to study the North Main Street and Huron River corridor. (Photos by the writer.)

In addition to the budget, the council efficiently dispatched with a fairly packed agenda of regular items, which are covered in this part of the meeting report. The item generating the most discussion was a follow-up to action taken at the council’s previous meeting on May 7, to establish a task force to study the North Main Street and Huron River corridor.

That resolution had provided for nine task force members representing different constituencies. At the May 21 meeting, a resolution was brought forward to add three members. A debate unfolded about whether to add a fourth member – from the Ann Arbor public art commission – to the mix. Ultimately that addition was approved narrowly on a 6-5 vote on the 11-member council.

While the North Main task force is meant to develop a vision for future land use in the corridor, the council took action on several current land use items too. Winning easy approval were a site plan for Allen Creek Preschool on Miller Avenue, and a rezoning and site plan for Michigan AAA on South Main Street. The council also quickly approved six routine rezoning requests associated with annexation from a township into the city of Ann Arbor.  And councilmembers gave initial approval to revisions of the planned unit development regulations for a Shell service station on Ann Arbor-Saline and West Eisenhower Parkway.

Associated with these land use items were a total of 10 separate public hearings. However, no one addressed the council during any of those hearings.

The city’s park system made it onto the agenda in a few different ways. First, a consent agenda item was pulled out for separate consideration to highlight the fact that renovations to South University Park were being funded with a $50,000 gift that had been made by a couple – Leslie and Michael Morris – who previously lived next to the park. The council also approved the lease of a 40-space parking lot near Argo Canoe liveries to meet additional demand for river trips that has been generated by construction of the Argo Cascades bypass around the dam.

Related to open space outside the city were the reappointments of two members of the greenbelt advisory commission – Peter Allen and Catherine Riseng. The commission overseas a portion of the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage.

Financial issues considered by the council included initial approval to increase water, sewer and stormwater rates that will together generate an additional $1.7 million in annual revenue. The council also approved a tax abatement for Sakti3, a battery technology company in Ann Arbor that is looking to expand its operation here.

Other items on the agenda included receipt of a federal grant to develop a strategy for improved energy efficiency in rental housing, as well as a grant administered for laptop computers to be used as electronic pollbooks. The computers are used for election record-keeping, not for casting ballots. The council also gave initial approval to an ordinance revision that relieves homeowners of responsibility for maintaining sidewalks adjacent to their property for the duration of the sidewalk-repair millage, which voters approved in November 2011.

North Main Task Force Positions

On the May 21 agenda was an item adding three positions to a task force to study the corridor along North Main Street and the Huron River: a member of the city council, someone from the boating/fishing community of river users, and a representative from the Huron River Citizens Association. During the meeting, an amendment was offered to add a member of the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC) to the task force, too.

When the task force was established at the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting, the membership had included the following: one member of the park advisory commission, one member of the planning commission, one resident representing the Water Hill neighborhood, one resident representing the North Central neighborhood, one resident from the Old Fourth Ward, one resident representing the Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood, two business and property owners from the affected area, and one member of the Huron River Watershed Council.

The task force is charged with delivering a report to the city council more than a year from now – by July 31, 2013 – that describes “a vision to create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increase public access to the river-side amenities of existing parks in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use of MichCon property at Broadway; …”

Earlier than that – by the end of 2012 – the task force is to make recommendations on the use of the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel.

The creation of the task force comes in the context of the city’s application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for funds to demolish two former maintenance yard buildings on the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel. The application has been approved by FEMA, but is pending the update of the city’s All-Hazard plan, which had expired and is being updated. FEMA is willing to help fund the demolition, because the two buildings are located in the floodway. The city council’s eventual acceptance of the FEMA grant will require a deed restriction on development in the floodway portion of the parcel.

North Main Task Force Positions: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who had co-sponsored the initial creation of the task force, led off the discussion by saying that the council had been inundated with requests about the task force, and that had prompted the addition of three more categories.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he felt one segment of the community that should be included is the public art commission. It’s important to make the entrances to the city beautiful, he said, so he wanted a representative from the public art commission on the task force. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Derezinski for that suggestion. She noted that there truly are so many possible voices that could be heard on the task force.

But Briere worried that the task force could become overcrowded. The task force had been given very tight deadlines, she said. She reported that she’d encouraged interested people to attend the task force meetings and participate, even if they can’t vote. She said she lacked clarity on the parameters for public art – whether the money can be used for non-original decorative pieces, for example. So she hesitated to say where the role of the public art commission member could be on a task force that’s more visionary than practical at this point. Adding a representative from the public art commission would move it up to 13 voting members, which pushes the envelope of practicality, she felt.

Derezinski made a formal motion to amend the resolution to add a representative from the public art commission. If Briere was not clear about the parameters for public art, Derezinski said she should attend the commission meetings or read the annual report. To him the idea of making the entrance beautiful “sort of implies art.”

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Smith respected the idea of having art be a part of this, but said there is not necessarily a specific project the task force is meant to study – because their responsibility is much broader than a specific project. Later in the process, she felt, it’d be appropriate to bring in someone from the public art commission. However, she couldn’t support it now.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said there’s a continuing discussion about how to better integrate art into the city. He felt it’s possible that someone from the public art commission could help influence the visioning. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked if there are capital projects known to be a part of the task force effort. Briere responded to Hohnke, saying yes and no. She noted that the city staff will be applying for additional grants for 721 N. Main [from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund and from the Washtenaw County parks and recreation commission]. She felt that counts as capital improvement. However, the task force’s job is to talk about how best to use the site, not to build or approve a capital project. She imagined that capital projects would come out of this – for example, if there’s a tunnel or a bridge built to get across the railroad tracks, that’s a capital improvement.

Derezinski felt that Briere’s answer to Hohnke’s question was a yes. Derezinski contended that the task force had started off by looking at an entrance to the city. When you start to plan your vision, he said, art should be a part of the vision – and entrances to the city are critically important. The art should not be just an add-on. He said he would like Ann Arbor to be known as an art city. The resolution was already adding three additional members, he said, so he wanted to add one more.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that this was a case where she’d defer to the people who brought the resolution on the task force forward – and it appeared that they don’t want to add one more member at this time.

She noted that there are other corridor studies going on – for Washtenaw Avenue and South State Street –and no one from the public art commission is on those committees. She felt that the North Main task force is not yet at a point where it needed a member from the public art commission. She wouldn’t support the amendment, she told Derezinski, but she did support what he was trying to do.

Outcome on the amendment: The council voted 6-5 in support of the amendment to add a member to the task force from the public art commission. Voting for the additional member were Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and mayor John Hieftje.

Mayor John Hieftje told Derezinski that it was now Derezinski’s task to find a member of the public art commission to add. [Derezinski serves on the public art commission. Two day's later, the public art commission met and recommended that Connie Rizzolo Brown be appointed to the task force.]

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that there’d been a desire expressed by the Greenway Conservancy to be part of the task force, too. She worried that a group as large as 13 might be too large to be effective, and that’s why she had not voted for Derezinski’s amendment.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to add the four positions to the North Main/Huron River task force.

The appointment of actual members to the task force has not yet been made. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) indicated that the complete set of names might be expected by the council’s June 4 meeting. Later in the council meeting, Hieftje gave the following names, which will be formally appointed at the June 4 meeting: Darren McKinnon (Water Hill representative); David Santacroce (North Central neighborhood representative); Ray Detter (Old Fourth Ward representative); Tamara Burns (Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood representative); Julie Grand (park advisory commission representative); Erica Briggs (planning commission representative); Paul Ganz and Mike Martin (business & property owners of the affected area representative); Sandi Smith (councilmember); Rita Combest (Huron River/Newport neighborhoods representative); Cynthia Ives (boating/fishing/river users representative). Not yet determined is the representative from the Huron River Watershed Council. And the public art commissioners subsequently recommended Connie Rizzolo Brown to represent the commission.

Allen Creek Preschool Site Plan

The council considered a site plan for the Allen Creek Preschool, located at 2350 Miller Ave.

The site plan had been recommended unanimously for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its April 17, 2012 meeting. The commission also granted a special exception use for the project.

The project entails building a one-story, 929-square-foot addition onto the west end of an existing 3,111-square-foot preschool building, for a new total of 4,040 square feet. The preschool has an agreement with the Korean Methodist Church at 1526 Franklin Street to use eight parking spaces at the church lot. On-street parking is available on Miller Avenue and Franklin Street.

The special exception use is required because the project is located on a site zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district). According to a staff memo, the preschool includes programs for children up to 5 years old, with one or two afternoon enrichment classes serving children up to 8 years old. The programs will have a maximum of 14 students each (with 8 for young children attending with their parents) and one or two staff members teaching the programs. The preschool programs will be held mornings on Mondays through Thursdays, with enrichment classes held in the late afternoons. The number of children at the preschool will increase from 25 to 42, with a maximum of 50 in the future.

In December 2010, the planning commission had previously granted special exception use and recommended site plan approval for a project proposed by the preschool at a different location. That plan had called for demolishing the existing building and constructing a new 1,101-square-foot preschool building in a residentially zoned district at 1515 Franklin St. The preschool subsequently decided to pursue a different project.

The site plan (but not the special exception use) required approval by city council.

Outcome: Without deliberation, the council unanimously approved the Allen Creek Preschool site plan.

Shell Station Rezoning

The council gave initial consideration to a request to revise the zoning regulations associated with the parcel on the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and West Eisenhower Parkway, where a Shell service station is located.

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.

Outcome: Without deliberation, the council gave unanimous initial approval to the Shell station PUD revision. 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.

AAA Site Plan, Rezoning

The council considered final approval of a rezoning request from AAA Michigan and the site plans for two separate parcels that are part of the same project on South Main Street. The council had given initial approval to the rezoning request at its May 7 meeting.

The rezoning request was to change half of a parcel located at 1200 S. Main to the P (parking) zoning designation.

The rezoning to P (parking) is part of a two-parcel site plan proposal – for which the city planning commission provided a positive recommendation at its March 6, 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the commission took two votes on the 1200 S. Main parcel – the site plan and the rezoning proposal. And on both votes, the planning commission split 6-3. For the other, adjacent parcel at 1100 S. Main, the city planning commission voted unanimously to recommend the site plan for approval.

The two parcels, at 1100 and 1200 S. Main, are across from Michigan Stadium. An AAA branch built in the 1950s is located there. The owner wants to build a new branch on a different part of the site, tear down the existing building, and reconfigure parking spaces.

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

The 1100 S. Main site is a surface parking lot, which has 72 spaces and exits onto both Potter and Keech. The owner is requesting to build a one-story, 5,443-square-foot new branch building on the northeast corner of that site, with parking for 21 spaces. A second phase of the project would include an eventual 2,230-square-foot addition to the south side of that building. There are six landmark trees on the site, and the plan would require removal of two that are located along South Main, near Keech. Other trees would be added elsewhere on the site.

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. And to do that, the proposal asked that the northern 123 feet of that parcel – about half of the parcel – be rezoned from O (office) to P (parking), so that parking could become the principal use for that site. A site plan for that parcel is also required.

The owner’s overall plan called for a total of 35 spaces – a reduction from the current parking on the site, which was approved in the mid-1970s but no longer conforms with existing zoning. The 35 spaces would be four more spaces than the 31 maximum number permitted under the O (office) zoning, based on the new building’s square footage in both phases. That’s why the owner requested that a portion of the overall site be rezoned for parking – in the P (parking) district, there is no maximum.

The council’s deliberations were brief. Margie Teall (Ward 4) got confirmation from city planning manager Wendy Rampson that the intent was not to build a parking structure on the site, but rather to have a surface parking lot.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved all three resolutions related to the Michigan AAA site.

South University Park Improvements

On the council’s consent agenda was an item to approve a $43,533 contract with Terra-Firma Landscape Inc. to make improvements to South University Park.

Photo from the June 21, 2011 park advisory commission meeting, when the Morrises announced their gift of $50,000 to rehab South University Park. From left: Michael Morris and Leslie Morris, and Colin Smith, the city's parks and recreation manager.

The work includes removal of trees and shrubs, replacement of the basketball court, removal of the bench and dilapidated kiosk, and installation of three new benches, installation of a new concrete walk that bisects the park, a picnic table, and native flowering trees and shrubs as well as extensive grading to the site.

Consent agenda items are moved and voted on as a group, but can be separated out at the request of any councilmember. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) pulled out this resolution for special consideration to review the list of improvements.

What’s noteworthy, Lumm said, is that they’re being funded by a $50,000 donation from Leslie and Michael Morris, who previously lived by the park and would like to see it improved.

Lumm also highlighted the past service of Leslie Morris on the Ann Arbor city council and the park advisory commission.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract with Terra-Firma Landscape Inc. to make improvements to South University Park.

Supplemental Argo Livery Parking

The council considered a resolution approving a $2,500 lease with Huron River Holdings Inc. to use a parking lot near 416 Longshore Drive on weekends and holidays from May 26, 2012 to Sept. 3, 2012 to supplement parking for patrons at the Argo Canoe Livery. [Combined, the Argo and Gallup canoe liveries in Ann Arbor are the largest in the state of Michigan, according to livery manager Cheryl Saam.] It’s expected that the increased user fees at the livery, especially in connection with increased rentals due to the new Argo Dam bypass – called the Argo Cascades – will offset the cost of the lease.

Council deliberations consisted of Sabra Briere (Ward 1) remarking that she is glad more parking is being secured [the lot offers 40 spaces]. However, she ventured that still more parking in the area would be needed as the city had created additional demand through the construction of the Argo Cascades.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the lease to provide overflow parking.

Greenbelt Commission Reappointments

The council considered approval of the reappointment of Peter Allen and Catherine Riseng to the city’s greenbelt advisory commission. The group is responsible for overseeing a portion of the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage.

The greenbelt advisory commission is one of the few boards and commissions for which the nominations to serve come from the city council as a body, not from the mayor. The item had been on the council’s agenda at its May 7 meeting – but only inadvertently. It had been intended only as a communication item. The council voted to postpone consideration of the reappointment until the May 21 meeting.

The commission’s membership is defined in terms of qualifications in different categories. Allen fills the slot on the commission designated for a real estate developer. Riseng fills a slot designated for a plant or animal biologist. According to her University of Michigan faculty profile, Riseng is an “aquatic ecologist with specific focus on fluvial ecosystems and benthic invertebrate ecology.”

The complete slate of membership positions include the following: two members to serve as representatives of environmental or conservation groups; one member who is an agricultural landowner or operates an agricultural business; one member who is a real estate development professional; one member who is a plant or animal professional; one member who is a plant or animal biologist; three members from the public-at-large; one member of the Ann Arbor city council.

The city council representative to the greenbelt advisory commission is Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5). In re-introducing the reappointments, Hohnke noted that both Allen and Riseng have provided their substantial expertise in service of the commission.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to reappoint Allen and Riseng to the greenbelt advisory commission for three-year terms.

Water, Sewer Rate Increases

The council gave initial consideration to increased rates for drinking water, sanitary sewer and stormwater. According to a staff memo, the increases on an average single-family customer come to 3.21% across three different rate tiers – assuming the same level of consumption as last year. That 3.21% increase works out to $19.40 per year. [.pdf of water, sewer rates]

History of Ann Arbor water rates, showing the introduction of tiered rates. (Image links to Google Chart.)

Because the water and sewer rates are part of a city ordinance, the council will need to vote a second and final time on the rates, after a public hearing.

By way of illustration of the rates, the drinking water rate for the vast majority of residential customers is tiered, based on usage. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is proposed to increase from $1.27 to $1.31. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.64 to $2.74 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.50 to $4.69. For additional amounts more than 45 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $6.50 to $6.78 per unit.

One hundred cubic feet is 748 gallons. So a rate of $1.31 per unit translates to significantly less than a penny a gallon – $0.00175.

Ann Arbor’s tiered rate system was implemented in 2004. Before that, the rate for all usage levels was the same. In 2003, that was $1.97 per unit. In 2004, the lowest tier was dropped to $0.97. This year’s rate for the lowest tier is still less than what the general rate was in 2003.

Council deliberations were brief. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off by saying that Ann Arbor has always had some of the lowest rates compared to other communities. And she noted that those who use the least amount of water pay less.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) felt the council shouldn’t gloss over something that results in generating that much additional revenue. The rate increases are expected to generate $664,834 more for the water fund, $916,577 more for the sanitary sewer fund, and $184,064 for the stormwater fund. But the increases are in the 3-4% range, she said, which she felt is reasonable and she would support the changes. None of the councilmembers take this change lightly, she said. The rates are competitive. The additional revenues are necessary to fund debt service and new capital projects. The increases are not insignificant but are reasonable, she said. Mayor John Hieftje said he appreciated the mention of Ann Arbor’s rates as compared to other municipalities.

Outcome: Councilmembers unanimously voted to give initial approval to the rate increases.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement

The council considered a tax abatement for Sakti3 – a battery technology spinoff from the University of Michigan. Sakti3 is led by UM professor Ann Marie Sastry.

The council had postponed their vote on the tax abatement at the council’s May 7 meeting – at the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who wanted the matter referred first to the council’s budget committee.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the abatement would be on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. According to a memo from city financial staff, the value of the tax incentive to Sakti3 over three years totals $36,000.

Reasons given in the staff memo for the abatement include the need for Sakti3 to expand and add new equipment for the continually changing alternative energy business and the expected addition of five new employees due to the firm’s expansion. The memo concludes that the retention and expansion of such operations is consistent with the economic development goals of the city of Ann Arbor and of Ann Arbor SPARK.

Previously, the council voted on March 21, 2011 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, 2011, the city council approved the establishment of that district.

The city is prohibited by state statute from abating taxes on any more than 5% of the total state equalized value of property in the city. Responding to an emailed query, city of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford wrote to The Chronicle that total SEV for the city for 2012 stands at $5,294,974,640, and the total SEV of abated property in 2012 is $8,935,974. That works out to 0.169% – well under 5%.

At the May 21 meeting, the council moved the item forward on the agenda so it could be considered early in the evening. The brief deliberations consisted of a report from Higgins, who noted that the council’s budget committee had met to discuss the abatement, and had recommended that the request be moved forward to the council for approval. Higgins chairs the budget committee.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Sakti3 tax abatement.

Sustainability Grant

The council considered authorizing receipt of $256,000 to create a community-scale energy strategy to increase energy efficiency improvements in rental housing.

The rationale for the project, according to a staff memo, is to address energy costs that are regressive, because renters often pay more on utilities due to the condition of rental housing stock. That is, higher energy costs affect poorer renters more. The grant will be used to develop a strategy to address inefficiencies in rental housing and thereby increase the affordability of rental housing stock.

The money was awarded to the city as part of a larger $3 million grant given last year to Washtenaw County through the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Community Challenge Planning Grant (CCPG). According to the city staff memo, the goal of the Washtenaw County grant is “to expand existing affordable and energy efficient housing options and connect them to job centers and healthy food through an enhanced multi-modal transportation corridor.”

The corridor in question is Washtenaw Avenue, between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

The $256,000 will be used by Ann Arbor for a rental housing energy efficiency project that is planned to last through December of 2014. Of the $256,000, $210,000 is budgeted for labor to hire a project manager and $46,000 is budgeted for marketing and outreach.

Matching funds totaling $370,000 have been pledged: $50,000 from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality grant supporting Michigan Green Communities; $60,000 from the Home Depot Foundation Sustainability Framework; and $260,000 from the city’s PACE/A2energy.org energy efficiency financing and community outreach efforts.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the receipt of the grant.

Electronic Pollbooks for All Ann Arbor Precincts

The council considered approval of a $32,850 grant from the state of Michigan, funded through the Help America Vote Act, to pay for 48 laptop computers and the peripheral devices needed to use the equipment as electronic pollbooks (EPBs).

The electronic pollbooks do not change the way voters cast their ballots; Ann Arbor voters will continue to use paper ballots. The electronic pollbooks are expected to make record-keeping at the precinct locations on election day more efficient and to reduce waiting time for voters.

The city had already accepted eight laptops and accessories, which were deployed at eight polling places for the May 8, 2012 election. That pilot program went smoothly, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution.

An added incentive to the city to participate in the state’s EPB program is that the state will fund 50% of the cost of the maintenance agreements for Ann Arbor’s voting tabulators – if EPBs are implemented in all 48 of the city’s precincts by the Nov. 6, 2012 election. For previous Chronicle coverage of the pilot deployment, see “New Technology for Tech Bond Election.”

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the state grant for electronic pollbooks.

Annexation Rezonings

The council considered final approval for six separate rezoning requests associated with annexation into the city of Ann Arbor from Scio Township. The zoning change in all cases is from the township to a residential category. The requests had received initial approval at the council’s April 16 meeting.

Five of the properties were annexed into the city on Oct. 3, 2011 – in connection with the expansion of a well-prohibition zone due to 1,4 dioxane groundwater contamination caused by the Pall Corp.’s Wagner Road facility, formerly owned by Gelman Sciences. Those five properties are: 305 Pinewood St.; 3225 Dexter Rd.; 427 Barber Ave.; 545 Allison Dr.; and 3249 Dexter Rd.

Annexation into the city allows the properties to connect to city of Ann Arbor water services. Pall has paid all petition filing fees as well as the connection and improvement charges for water and sanitary sewer service that are related to the annexations. The zoning for which the city council gave final approval is for R1C. [Google map of well prohibition zones and property locations] [.jpg of map with well prohibition zones and property locations]

A sixth parcel for which the council considered final rezoning approval – also due to annexation, but not related to the well-prohibition zone – is located at 1575 Alexandra Blvd. The parcel was rezoned from the township to R1A zoning.

No one spoke at any of the individual public hearings on any of the rezoning resolutions. The council did not deliberate on any of the parcels.

Outcome: On separate votes, the council unanimously approved the six rezoning resolutions.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance

The council gave initial consideration to a revision of the city’s sidewalk repair ordinance – in light of the voter-approved sidewalk repair millage, passed in November 2011. The basic idea is that for the period of the authorized millage – through fiscal year 2016 (which ends June 30, 2017) property owners will not be responsible for repairs to sidewalks abutting the property on which they pay taxes.

There are various wrinkles and contingencies in the revised ordinance for properties located within the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax increment finance (TIF) district.

Ann Arbor voters authorized an additional 0.125 mill to be levied as part of the street repair millage, which was also renewed at that November 2011 election for 2.0 mills, for a total of 2.125 mills.

As part of the resolution passed by the city council to place the sidewalk millage question on the November 2011 ballot, the council directed the city attorney and other staff to provide the ordinance revision for the council’s consideration on or before Dec. 1, 2011. There was no comment at the council table about why the revision came to the council nearly half a year after the date specified.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the ordinance, and described the rationale for the part that deals with the DDA district. He said that because the DDA captures a certain amount of millage monies, the DDA was taking responsibility for repair of sidewalks in the DDA district. But on further reflection, the DDA had insufficient experience with the inspection and repair program, so DDA staff had worked with the city on a plan to have the city perform the repairs and have the DDA fund those repairs with a portion of the millage.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the sidewalk repair ordinance. As with all ordinance revisions, the council will need to vote a second time at a subsequent meeting, following a public hearing, in order for the ordinance to take effect.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: R4C/R2A Report

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) alerted his colleagues to the fact that a report from the advisory committee that studied the R4C/R2A zoning areas of the city has been referred to the planning commission’s ordinance review committee. The report is available on the planning commission website, he said. He noted that there are a lot of different views on it. [Derezinski is the city council's representative to the planning commission. For a detailed overview of the R4C/R2A report, see Chronicle coverage of the May 8, 2012 planning commission working session.]

Comm/Comm: Human Rights

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for everyone needing vital services. He told the council he is on the Democratic primary ballot for Michigan house of representatives, District 53. [The seat is currently held by Democrat Jeff Irwin.] Partridge said he was there to advance the cause of human rights and disability rights. He called for full funding of housing and human services in Ann Arbor. He called on the council to take an integrated approach, instead of a segregationist approach, and to do away with the old-boy network, and backroom decision making.

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Nanci Gerler updated the council on DTE smart meter installation. She reported that the Ypsilanti Township board had voted to enact a moratorium – because the board felt an opt-out provision was necessary. She told the council that citizens as well as representatives for DTE had spoken. She wanted the council to take action and let DTE know there’s a large number of people who will be affected by smart meter installation.

Helen Slomovits introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor. The benefits and safety of the devices are being misrepresented by utility companies, she contended. She urged the council to enact a moratorium on smart meter installation. The devices allow for time-of-day billing. She contended the devices don’t save energy or save customers money. In fact, she contended, they cause electric bills to go higher. She also contended that the meters are an invasion of privacy, because they collect more information than necessary. The utility companies also misrepresent the amount of RF radiation the meters give off. The data transmissions might be few per day, but because the devices are part of a mesh network there are about 10,000 transmissions a day to keep the network going, she said.

Responding later to the public commentary on smart meters, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that smart meters are on the agenda for the next environmental commission meeting. Mayor John Hieftje remarked that most communities aren’t fortunate enough to have an environmental commission.

Comm/Comm: Energy Farms

Kermit Schlansker spoke to the council about the challenges to achieving sustainable living. He described the inherent geometric advantages to bigger buildings – a better surface-area-to-volume ratio. He described a range of different energy systems, including solar systems, windmills, bio-digesters, and thermal reservoirs.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, June 4, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [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 council had postponed their vote on the tax abatement at the council’s May 7 meeting – at the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who wanted the matter referred first to the council’s budget committee.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the abatement would be on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. According to a memo from city financial staff, the value of the tax incentive to Sakti3 over three years totals $36,000.

Reasons given in the staff memo for the abatement include the need for Sakti3 to expand and add new equipment for the continually changing alternative energy business and the expected addition of five new employees due to the firm’s expansion. The memo concludes that the retention and expansion of such operations is consistent with the economic development goals of the city of Ann Arbor and of Ann Arbor SPARK.

Previously, the council voted on March 21, 2011 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, 2011, the city council approved the establishment of that district.

The city is prohibited by state statute from abating taxes on any more than 5% of the total state equalized value of property in the city. Responding to an emailed query, city of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford wrote to The Chronicle that total SEV for the city for 2012 stands at $5,294,974,640, and the total SEV of abated property in 2012 is $8,935,974. That works out to 0.169% – well under 5%.

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]

Left to right: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) are asking to be recognized to speak as Jane Lumm (Ward 2) gives her views on public art. (Photos by the writer.)

Public art was featured in two specific agenda items. One was a presentation of the annual public art plan given by Wiltrud Simbuerger, a member of the city’s public art commission. The council gave the presentation a basically positive reception.

But the second agenda item required a vote – on a $150,000 piece of art proposed by Ed Carpenter, to be hung in the lobby of the new Justice Center. The city’s public art commission had selected Carpenter from responses to a request for proposals. A vote on the artwork, a piece called “Radius,” had been postponed from the council’s April 2, 2012 meeting over concerns about public access to the Justice Center lobby, where the sculpture will be hung.

A nearly one-hour debate unfolded about the Carpenter piece, with the specific artwork serving as a kind of proxy for a rehash of previous council debates on the city’s Percent for Art ordinance. The ordinance requires that all city capital improvement projects include 1% for public art, up to a cap of $250,000 per capital project. For capital projects that aren’t suitable to have public art incorporated into them, the 1% is “pooled” for use in some other public art – which must be related to the purpose of the funding source. For example, the fountain outside the new Justice Center, designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl, is funded with money pooled from 1% of some sanitary sewer projects, drinking water projects, and stormwater management projects.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed an amendment that would have canceled Carpenter’s project and appropriated the art project funds to invest instead in the city hall building. That amendment failed, but piqued mayor John Hieftje into announcing that he’d be sponsoring a future resolution to take $50,000 from public art funds, and deposit that amount into the general fund. That move is susceptible to the same critique made by several councilmembers as well as the assistant city attorney against Lumm’s amendment: The public art ordinance prohibits transfer from public art funds to other funds. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stated that he would be content for the council simply to violate that ordinance. Carpenter’s sculpture eventually was approved over the dissent of Kunselman and Lumm.

Besides public art, the council approved the city’s portion of the State/Ellsworth traffic roundabout project, which includes an improvement for a water main connection – to pipe water from a well on the property of Ann Arbor’s municipal airport to the city’s water treatment plant. The airport also made it onto the agenda in the form of a resolution that settled outstanding legal issues surrounding the construction of hangars on the property.

Prompting extended discussion by the council was a resolution that invalidates sidewalk occupancy permits for vendors in a specific area around Main Street between Huron and William, whenever Main Street is closed down for special events.

The council delayed action on a tax abatement for the battery technology company Sakti3, pending review by the city council’s budget committee. And the council authorized another five-year extension of its contract with Waste Management to haul the city’s trash to a landfill.

The council also heard its usual range of public commentary. The public hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget enjoyed light participation. The council will vote on that budget, and any amendments, at its May 21 meeting.

Public Art

The council had two public art-related items on its agenda: a presentation of the art commission’s annual plan, and the approval of a $150,000 sculpture for the new Justice Center. Submission by the public art commission of an annual plan to the city council is a requirement of the city’s public art ordinance.

From the ordinance:

The oversight body shall … by April 1 of each year, submit to City Council a plan detailing potential projects and desirable goals to be pursued in the next fiscal year; …

Public Art: Annual Plan

The council received a presentation on the public art commission’s annual plan from Wiltrud Simbuerger, a member of the commission.

The city’s public art commission had discussed the public art plan for FY 2013 at its March 28, 2012 meeting. The plan describes projects that AAPAC intends to work on between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. [.pdf of FY 2013 annual public art plan].

1. Develop a master plan for 2013-2016 that will create community engagement and expedite work of the commission.
2. Advance the following projects that are underway, meeting all deadlines. All the projects have task force oversight, approved budgets, and are in various stages of completion. The projects are: (1) installation of Ed Carpenter’s “Radius” sculpture in the lobby of the Justice Center by November 2012 ($150,000); (2) a mural in Allmendinger Park by Mary Thiefels, to be completed by September 2012 ($12,000); (3) two additional murals by August 2013 ($40,000); (4) artwork for a rain garden at Kingsley and First by August 2013 ($27,000); (5) artwork for the East Stadium bridges by the fall of 2014 ($400,000); and (6) installation of artwork in the Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out project by the spring of 2013 (budget TBD). That project involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks.
3. By June 2012, identify and prioritize new projects for FY 2013, allocating existing funds using agreed-upon criteria of type, location, and community involvement. The criteria will be defined during the master planning process.
4. By Aug. 1, develop and begin to implement an effective communications plan about the uses and value of public art and the operation of the commission.
5. Collaborate with commissions, organizations, and agencies to accomplish public art projects.

The first objective – developing a master plan – included details on its purpose. The intent of the master plan is to: (1) guide AAPAC’s efforts to include public art throughout the city, involve community groups and create substantial visibility for public art as an integral part of community life and a city asset; (2) train commissioners and task force members with the goal of increased community knowledge, engagement and advocacy for public art; and (3) better integrate the public art administrator with every city department with the goal of increasing public art in the city.

Simbuerger concluded her presentation by thanking Aaron Seagraves, who provides staff support to the city’s public art commission as the city’s public art administrator.

Public Art: Annual Plan – Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about the public art budget and request for proposals that’s connected to the East Stadium bridges project – $400,000. Simbuerger clarified that the 2014 date in the annual plan was not the date that the RFP would be issued, but rather the date of anticipated completion for the public art associated with the bridge project. The RFP is currently under review by the city attorney’s office, Simbuerger explained.

Lumm said the reason she was asking about it is that a lot of people see architecture as art. The Broadway bridges are like that, she ventured. She said she’d been told that the East Stadium bridges can’t be that nice, because there’s not enough money. She wondered if art could be incorporated into the bridge design.

Simbuerger indicated that the bridge design is done, so there’s some room for flexibility on only a few things, like railings or sidewalks. The art commission can’t influence the basic design of the bridge anymore, she said. Art could be added to the bridge, she said, and there’s also a park next to the bridge as well as a fence that leads up to the bridge along Stadium Boulevard – which could potentially serve as locations for public art.

Lumm concluded her remarks by commending the planned mural project at Allmendinger Park, for involving the community. The project, by local artist Mary Thiefels, will incorporate found objects into a mosaic on the pillars of the park’s bathroom building.

Later in the meeting, Lumm cited those earlier remarks she’d made – to argue against mayor John Hieftje’s contention that she was attacking public art. That discussion centered around the second public art-related agenda item – approval of a $150,000 piece of art for the lobby of the new Justice Center. The Justice Center is also known as the police-courts building. The overall construction project for the new building, which connected city hall with the new Justice Center, is also known as the municipal center building project.

Justice Center Art: Background – Building

The proposed public art project would be located in the lobby of the new municipal building called the Justice Center – on the northeast corner of Huron Street and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The Justice Center houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department.

The sculpture is called “Radius” by Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon. Previously council had postponed approval of public art funds for Carpenter’s project at its April 2, 2012 meeting.

A rendering of Ed Carpenter’s proposed “Radius” sculpture in the southwest corner of Ann Arbor’s Justice Center lobby. This image was revised from earlier drawings by the artist to include more glass, at the request of a selection task force. (Links to larger image)

Because it houses the district court, the building features airport-style security measures at the entrance, and visitors must surrender electronic devices like cameras and cellphones to be locked in cubicles during their visit to the building. Concern about accessibility by the public to the public art was the subject of councilmember deliberations that led to the postponement on April 2.

The council expressed interest in using the delay to explore the possibility of moving the security screening to a point well past the entrance in the interior of the building. The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion at the April 2 as well as at the May 7 meeting.

At the May 7 meeting, before the council began its deliberations on the Justice Center lobby art, city administrator Steve Powers indicated to the council that the question of public access to the lobby and art had been reviewed by city staff. He suggested that he was prepared to go into detail on that issue, or that the information could be reviewed by the city council’s building committee. He noted there are some details on use of the building by the police department that have an impact on its 24/7 accessibility. Powers also said that staff had some answers about the visibility of the art itself from the exterior of the building. The visibility of the art and the accessibility to the building, he said, are two separate issues. He noted that moving the security checkpoint would have a budgetary impact.

At its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor public art commission had unanimously recommended selecting Carpenter for the $150,000 project. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists.

Carpenter plans to create a hanging sculpture of dichroic glass, aluminum, stainless steel and lighting, including LED spot and flood lighting. Among the reasons for recommending Radius, the task force cited the sculpture’s metaphor: That the activities in the Justice Center have a “rippling” effect throughout the community, which echoes the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl that’s located in the plaza outside the building.

Ann Arbor’s public art funds come from the application of the city’s Percent for Art ordinance, which requires that 1% of all capital projects (up to a limit of $250,000 per capital project) be set aside for public art.

Justice Center Art: Background – Ordinance

There was confusion on the part of councilmembers about how the public art ordinance actually works and where the money for Carpenter’s sculpture had originated. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was convinced that the source of funds for the Dreiseitl fountain – located outside, on the side of the building facing Huron – was the same as the source of funds for the interior piece. Kunselman pointed to the metaphor of the “rippling” effect that Carpenter’s sculpture was supposed to mirror, which was similar to the “water theme” that is supposed to justify the expenditure of sewer, stormwater and drinking water funds on the project. He also pointed to the original interior art pieces commissioned from Dreiseitl, which were planned to tie thematically to the fountain with lit blue spheres. [Those pieces were proposed but not authorized to be created, because of budgetary concerns.]

By way of background, the ordinance describes two ways that pieces of public art can be funded. They can be funded as pieces of art that are integrated into or stand on the site of some capital improvement project. The budget of all such projects must include 1% for public art.

But not every capital improvement project lends itself easily to the integration of public art or even a piece of art that can stand on the site of the capital improvement project. It’s also possible that the size of a capital improvement project would not generate adequate funds to contemplate funding a piece of art. In those cases, the 1% of the project’s budget is “pooled” together, and can be spent on a piece of art that is “related to the purposes of that fund [which paid for the capital improvement project].”

From the ordinance:

1:834. Inclusion of public art as part of a capital improvement project …
…
(3) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project financed from a City fund other than the City’s general fund shall be accounted for within that fund and may be used as part of that capital improvement project for the creation, purchase, production or other acquisition of art incorporated as a part of the capital improvement project, including art located on the site where the project is located.

(4) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project financed from a City fund other than the City’s general fund may instead be pooled in a separate public art fund within that fund. Public art funds that are held within a city fund other than the general fund shall be expended only on projects that are related to the purposes of that fund.

(5) Funds in pooled public art funds may be used for the creation, purchase, production or other acquisition of art for display in public spaces or facilities; for extraordinary maintenance, repair or refurbishment, including structural reconstruction, and for relocation, alteration and removal of public art.

The funding strategy for the Carpenter sculpture contrasts with that of the Dreiseitl fountain, which used “pooled” funds. The fountain had an initial budget created from pooled funds from other capital improvement projects – projects that were paid for out of drinking water ($210,000), sanitary sewer ($510,000) and stormwater ($30,000) funds.

In contrast, the Carpenter sculpture is funded from the Justice Center (aka police-courts or municipal center) building fund. The amount initially available for public art from that project was $250,000. One percent of the project budget would have been more than $250,000, but the ordinance caps the total public art allocation from any project at $250,000.

That building fund stemmed from various sources. At the council’s Nov. 21, 2011 meeting, then-public services area administrator Sue McCormick said that ordinarily, city staff would not go back and trace how much of that $250,000 could be attributed to various sources. However, because they’d been asked to do that by councilmembers, McCormick said that of the $250,000, around $50,000 could be “associated” with the general fund.

That $50,000 was a number batted back and forth by councilmembers at their May 7 meeting – it’s the amount that mayor John Hieftje said at the meeting that he wants to take out of public art and put back into the general fund. He said he wanted to settle that issue once and for all.

Hieftje’s proposal came in response to a gambit by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to amend the resolution on the Carpenter sculpture – to cancel the project and to put the public art money into city hall building renovations. Either proposal would founder on the language of the public art ordinance, a portion of which assistant city attorney Mary Fales wound up reading aloud, in an apparent attempt to ground the council’s discussion in the options that are legally available. From the section that Fales read aloud:

1:835. Disbursement of public art funds.
…
(3) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project or that are part of a pooled public art fund may be not be transferred to any other fund, encumbered or utilized for any purpose except the purposes specifically set forth in this chapter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he did not believe it is necessary for the council to follow its own ordinances. Ordinances are there for the staff to follow, he suggested, not for the council.

Justice Center Art: Initial Council Deliberations

Major John Hieftje opened the council deliberations by saying he’d be happy to vote for approval of the piece of art that evening, leaving the issue of access to the lobby for future resolution.

City administrator Steve Powers. Behind him is a poster for the getDowntown Commuter Challenge, which runs through the month of May.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that her concern, dating back to a few weeks ago, was not about the art, but rather the use of the lobby space in the Justice Center. She’d talked with city administrator Steve Powers about the issue. She said she was not opposed to voting for the artwork; however, she was concerned about the possibility that the council’s building committee came back with a recommendation to change significantly the use of the lobby space. Will that piece of art still be the right piece of art for that location? She said she had every intention of asking that a council building committee be re-appointed.

Higgins asked interim public services area administrator Craig Hupy about possible changes to the use of the lobby space – to use more of the floor area in a utilitarian way. Hupy indicated that the piece of art is suspended from the ceiling, so it’s well above the floor space. His concern would be with the lighting of the piece. Public art administrator Aaron Seagraves explained that there’s internal lighting as a part of the artwork itself.

Higgins asked if the building committee determines that the proposed location in the lobby would not be the best place for the sculpture, is there another spot in the building where it could be installed? Seagraves indicated that for a suspended piece, that corner of the lobby is the best, or the only location, because there’s a drywall recess there – the rest is a plaster ceiling. It’s also the most visible corner, he said. He suggested it would be an option for the public art commission to fund an additional piece of art for the Justice Center.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that the piece of art has been designed to be viewed from outside the building. She noted that the location of the art is dependent on its size, so she asked if there’s a basic diameter for the sculpture. From the center to its farthest point, Seagraves said, the piece is 37 feet. Briere followed up by asking if the piece is “circular.” Yes, said Seagraves. Based on some ensuing confusion, it was clear that Briere intended the question to include the symmetric properties of “circular,” not just the rounded qualities.

Briere ventured that the piece was 74 feet across – no, said Seagraves, more like around 50 feet, because it’s not symmetric. [It's not clear if the participants in the exchange appreciated the irony of the name of the piece – "Radius."] Briere wanted to know if it would fit into the city hall building [which is adjacent to the Justice Center.] Hupy indicated that it wouldn’t be a matter of just moving the artwork over to another building – the suspension points would need to be adapted. Briere ventured that the piece of art had been designed specifically for the proposed location, a sentiment with which Hupy agreed.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said her initial concern had not been about the piece of art itself or where it is located. Rather, her concern was about the intended use of the Justice Center lobby and the ability of the public to see the art from inside the building. That had been the reason she’d asked for the postponement of the issue, she noted. Smith wondered if reappointment of the building committee would be needed or if city staff would be prepared to answer those questions about use and access.

Powers noted that there is currently 24/7 access to the Justice Center lobby. After hours, people can be buzzed in by the police department. Staff has looked at options of downsizing the footprint of the security checkpoint and relocating it. However, there are budgetary and space challenges, he said. There are four or five different options than can be provided to the city council or to a building committee of the council, Powers said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves on the public art commission, indicated that the piece of art that’s been chosen, the work by Carpenter, is intended to hang in that specific spot. He felt it’s a beautiful use of the building.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she couldn’t imagine people needing to be buzzed in to see the art. She said she wanted to see renderings of the sculpture as viewed from outside the building. Based on what other councilmembers had said, she thought it didn’t sound like the council was heading toward postponing again. She said she’d be fine with appointing a building committee.

Lumm then introduced an amendment to the resolution by saying, “We’ll get this out of the way, I’m sure, but I’d like to make an option here for council to consider.”

Justice Center Art: Lumm’s Amendment

Lumm gave as background to her amendment her understanding of the city hall (Larcom building) renovation project. The bathrooms in the basement and the first floor had been upgraded as part of the municipal center project, she said. But there was no money in the building fund budget for bathroom renovations on other floors. So those renovations would be funded out of general fund money over two years, through the facilities budget in the public services unit.

Lumm noted that the council had approved the first phase of the upgrade to bathrooms on other floors at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting – at a cost of $93,438. Another $165,000 is needed for that project in 2013, she said. The community has been told that no general fund dollars were used on the municipal center, Lumm contended, so she proposed that the public art project be canceled. The $150,000 budget for that public art would, according to her amendment, go back into the municipal center building fund. The bathroom would then be funded out of the building fund.

Higgins said she did not consider those upgrades to be a continuation of the municipal center building project. The bathrooms that were renovated in conjunction with the municipal center renovation were done because of the installation of the new elevator, she said. The renovations now being done in addition are standard upgrades, she said, like those that would be done in any other facility. She appreciated the idea of canceling the art project, but would not support the amendment.

Briere asked under what circumstances the council can cancel a project and reallocate the dollars. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales clarified the funds from a canceled art project have to be reallocated to another art project.

Kunselman, Briere, Hupy and Lumm then engaged in a conversation about the original source of funds for the artwork. Seagraves told them that the Justice Center lobby sculpture by Ed Carpenter didn’t come from pooled funds, but rather from the municipal center building fund.

Hieftje stated that not all the funds generated for public art from the municipal center building fund [a total of $250,000] are general fund monies. He allowed that hypothetically, $50,000 of that $250,000 may have originated as general fund money. Hupy noted that the funds for the Justice Center came from a multitude of funding sources beyond just the general fund – that would have to be analyzed to identify the specific contributions.

The city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, essentially agreed with Higgins’ earlier description of the bathroom renovations as not part of the scope of the municipal center building project. There’s been a lot of deferred maintenance on the building, he said. One of the expectations is that there’d be a higher level of regular maintenance needed.

Kunselman wanted to revisit the issue of the theme of Carpenter’s sculpture – to which fund’s purpose was the art’s theme related? Seagraves reiterated that it wasn’t funded with “pooled funds,” so there’s no requirement that it be related in theme to some specific fund’s purpose. It was funded out of public art money generated by the center’s building fund.

Based on some remarks by Crawford, Hieftje said he’d be interested in a resolution to take $50,000 and put it into the general fund – to resolve the question of whether general fund money was used for public art.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) tried to achieve some clarity on the question of what the legal, possible uses of the sculpture’s budget would be if the project were canceled. He ventured that even if the sculpture were voted down, the money would be required to be spent on public art. So he concluded that the whole notion of monies going back and being applied for a different purpose would be tantamount to overturning the Percent for Art ordinance.

Given that the money could not be spent on something other than art, Hohnke asked Lumm what the point would be of canceling the sculpture for the Justice Center lobby. Lumm indicated that the point was so that the money would not need to be spent on a piece of art. Hohnke responded by saying that as long as the Percent for Art ordinance is on the books, what Lumm is saying simply isn’t true.

Crawford confirmed that once money goes into a specific fund, it’s not just a normal budget action – once the money gets into that fund, it has to be used for that purpose.

Derezinski equated the conversation around the table to a debate on the approval of the allocation of funds under the Percent for Art ordinance. The council had already had this debate, he said, and the people who were opposed to cutting funds for the program lost. He characterized what was going on at the table that night as an attempt slowly to kill off the Percent for Art program. [The council last debated revisions to the public art ordinance at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting, which resulted in some revisions, but not a reduction of the specific percentage from 1% to 0.5%.]

Briere responded to Lumm’s amendment by saying that it could be reduced to three questions: (1) Should the sculpture be canceled? (2) Can money allocated to the public art program be allocated to a different capital improvement project? (3) Does either of those reflect support for public art? With respect to the first question, Briere said that if the council voted the project down, that would cancel it. With respect to the second question, she felt that it wasn’t legal to reallocate the public art money in the way Lumm wanted to.

Smith added a fourth issue, which was an attempt to revisit the decision to build the Justice Center: “I gotta say, it’s there and it’s operating!” Reflecting on the Larcom building’s age, and the need to renovate bathrooms, she ventured that at 49 years of age things start to break that need to be fixed.

Higgins noted that the money that’s been budgeted has to be used on public art, even if the project is canceled. She thought the city has spent enough money on art at the Justice Center location – given the Dreiseitl sculpture. She suggested some other location in the city could be found.

Kunselman agreed that too much money had been spent on art at the Justice Center and repeated his belief that the Justice Center lobby sculpture budget had drawn on water funds, given the allusion to the “rippling effect” the sculpture was supposed to have. He observed that bathrooms also have a theme of water.

Kunselman then stated that although the public art ordinance is an ordinance, the council did not need to follow its own ordinance.

Hieftje picked up on Derezinski’s earlier point, by stating that it would be a more honest approach to attack public art directly instead of the way that Lumm was proceeding. The council had twice before had that direct debate, he said.

Hohnke added that if the council wanted to cancel the project, as Lumm’s amendment stated, then the council could just vote the project down.

Outcome on the amendment: Lumm’s amendment canceling the project and reallocating the money to renovate bathrooms failed, with support only from Lumm and Kunselman.

Justice Center Art: More Deliberations

Lumm responded to Hieftje’s characterization of her lack of support for the specific project as an attack on the public art program. She felt that was “an outlandish claim.” She pointed out that earlier in the meeting, she’d asked questions regarding the East Stadium bridges project about incorporating art into that project and had praised the Allmendinger mural project. She allowed that she’d voted in the past to reduce the percentage allocation in the public art ordinance. But her opposition to the project was not based on opposition to the public art program, she said, but rather based on how much the city is spending on the Justice Center building. She expressed her disappointment that the artist who was selected was from out-of-state.

Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying it wasn’t a vote against the project that he was calling an attack on the public art program, but rather Lumm’s attempt to reallocate the public art money to a different purpose.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had opposed the construction of the Justice Center. But he noted that the proposed piece of art was different from the history of that building. He stated that as long as the Percent for Art ordinance exists, councilmembers should support public art. He described how someone could get access to the lobby after hours by getting buzzed in by police. He said the issue of better access could be pursued in the future and it’s important to do that. Given the amount of money that had been spent on art on the site, it’s important to figure out a way to draw the public in to view the art, he said.

Kunselman was not inclined to accept the idea that because the council had previously discussed the issue of the public art ordinance, the council could not or should not continue to discuss it. “We’re always going to be talking about this.” People could say it’s been discussed and voted on and that the majority rules and that councilmembers need to move on – but he cautioned against that. “Every council is different and there will be new councilmembers and this discussion will carry on for years until a methodology of funding public art is done that can be universally embraced.” He mentioned the possibility of a millage just for public art, or the removal of restricted funds from the public art program.

Kunselman indicated he would not support the project. Among the reasons he gave were horizontal bands of etched glass on the windows that won’t allow people to see it from outside, he contended.

Smith said she’d support the art project, but wanted to see the issue of the security checkpoint addressed as well.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) rearranges a chair before the May 7 meeting started.

Briere said that for her, the issue is whether the lobby can be casually available for a group of visitors who don’t want to go through the security checkpoint, emptying their pockets and taking off their shoes. Part of the reason that’s unclear is that there’s a cost factor involved, she said. She feared that the council would approve the art project, only to discover that the council is not also willing to fund the cost of making the art accessible.

Briere was not willing to let go of the concept that the lobby to the Justice Center should be available to the public. For that reason, she hoped to have the cost information available before the council votes on the fiscal year 2013 budget – a vote that will be taken on May 21. She said she is not against this piece of art, and she believes it can only be observed well from inside the building.

Hieftje indicated he’d support the piece of art, but also said work needed to be done on opening up the lobby of the Justice Center to make it more accessible. He mentioned three different receptions that have been held in the lobby without the security checkpoints.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the artwork. But he wanted to address the issue of the “ownership” of the building. He said it’s been suggested that it’s only a limited few who benefit from the building – that it’s city workers and councilmembers around the table who benefit from changes to city hall. He disputed that wholeheartedly. He said it’s obviously core public space that is important to the city – of government, courts and police. It’s also the place people come to do a wide variety of business for various purposes, he said.

Outcome: The sculpture “Radius” by Ed Carpenter was approved by the council over dissent from Lumm and Kunselman.

State/Ellsworth Roundabout

The council considered an agreement between the city of Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw County road commission for a $2.52 million roundabout project at State and Ellsworth.

Roundabout design for State and Ellsworth. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf)

The current design calls for a roundabout that is 150 feet in diameter. All four approaches to the roundabout have two lanes entering and two lanes exiting, except for the northern approach from South State, which will include a third lane. The planned design features include non-motorized paths that connect with the existing sidewalk system and new on-road bike lanes. Underground electrical conduit will be installed for the possible future addition of advanced pedestrian-activated crossing signals (HAWK) or rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB). [.pdf of State/Ellsworth roundabout layout]

Of the total $2.52 million project cost, $2.17 million is for the intersection improvements per se, and the remaining $350,000 is for a city water main improvement. That will replace a 20-inch water main, which serves to pipe untreated water from the Steere Farms wells on the Ann Arbor municipal airport property to the city’s water treatment plant.

The city of Ann Arbor is paying for the water main portion of the project as well as contributing $135,000 to the intersection improvement. The remaining cost is paid by the road commission ($135,000), Costco ($500,000) and a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant ($1.4 million). Costco is building a store near the intersection that’s expected to open this summer.

State/Ellsworth Roundabout: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked that the item be pulled out of the council’s consent agenda, saying it’s a big deal and a big change. [Consent agenda items are voted together all in one go. The consent agenda includes those items considered to be routine, with contracts under $100,000. It's not clear how the roundabout qualified for inclusion under the consent agenda. In any case, an item must be pulled out of the consent agenda for separate consideration if any councilmember requests it.]

Lumm asked Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management at the city, to review the background, which he did. He noted that State and Ellsworth is a very busy intersection.

By way of background, the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) website provides a database of traffic counts for various intersections. For example, data available from that database shows that the northern leg of the intersection of State and Ellsworth was studied in November 2009 and showed a total two-way, 24-hour count of 26,733 on the north segment of State out of the intersection. That compared with a two-way count of 17,566 on the south segment of State, measured about seven months later. To get an idea of whether those counts are a lot or a little, here’s how that stacks up with counts from another intersection that many drivers would likely consider “busy” – Main and Stadium. The most recent counts available from WATS date from over a decade ago, in 1999 – 23,957 for two-way traffic on the north segment of Stadium out of that intersection.

Pirooz described the Washtenaw County road commission as having taken the lead on the project. He highlighted the jurisdictional issue – the fact that two legs of the intersection are locate in the city and two of them in Pittsfield Township. The two legs in the city are the State Street section north from the intersection and the Ellsworth section east of the intersection.

The city’s share of the intersection work, Pirooz said, is estimated to be $135,000. The plans are completed, he said, and a public meeting was held a few months ago. As usual, Pirooz said, some forum attendees were excited and others had reservations. [For Chronicle coverage of that public forum, see the March 6, 2012 planning commission meeting report.]

Lumm ventured that the forum was well-attended. She wondered about the inclusion of provisions for non-motorized infrastructure, wiring for pedestrian activated crossing beacons. She allowed that Pirooz is the expert, but she had difficulty understanding how it’d be safer for pedestrians and drivers. The idea of a roundabout is that traffic is expected to flow continuously – but motorists might be expected to stop for pedestrians. She asked for an explanation if that’s typical.

Pirooz explained that the roundabout is designed so there’s adequate distance between cars. He said that statistics of roundabouts show an improvement, measured by accident rates. He cited the new roundabout at Nixon and Huron Parkway as an example, noting there’d been concerns similar to Lumm’s that had been discussed before that roundabout was constructed. Pirooz explained that vehicles entering a roundabout are simply forced to slow down – you can’t go through a roundabout at 45 mph. He concluded that roundabouts are safer than standard signalized intersections.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) added his personal observations, saying that he’d worked with Pirooz when some roundabouts in Ward 2 were first proposed – Nixon and Huron Parkway, and Geddes and Earhart. Derezinski said a lot of people who opposed the roundabouts came to believe in them. The traffic through Geddes and Earhart now flows through beautifully, he said. It really is “a win,” he said, and there’d been a couple of requests for more roundabouts.

Pirooz commented that one of the new roundabouts is right at the entrance to Concordia University, and the school was concerned before construction about pedestrians on campus crossing the street to get to an athletic field. But the university is very happy with the roundabout, Pirooz reported, and feels that pedestrians are now safer.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she appreciated the use of roundabouts and noted that everyone had likely driven through them. But the Ward 2 roundabouts have a different environment than the State and Ellsworth location, she contended. There’s a lot of truck traffic that goes through the State and Ellsworth intersection, she said. The proposed roundabout design is 150 feet in diameter. She wanted to know if that design took into account the size of the trucks that go through the intersection, noting there are many major corporations located south of Ellsworth on State.

Pirooz responded to Higgins by starting to describe the alternative to a roundabout, which would be to add more lanes. Higgins interrupted Pirooz, telling him she was not asking for more lanes, but rather was just making sure that the entrances to the roundabout can accommodate trucks. Trucks add another dimension to the traffic challenge, she said, and there’s a tremendous amount of truck traffic that goes through the intersection. Higgins told Pirooz she just wanted him to tell her he’d look at that issue. Pirooz replied, “We have and we will,” and Higgins indicated that was all she needed.

Pirooz indicated that he would expect trucks to be in the right lane as they navigated the roundabout. The roundabout is designed with the understanding there’s a large amount of truck traffic on the roads, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution on the State and Ellsworth roundabout.

Ann Arbor Airport Hanger Project

The council considered two change orders totaling $46,238 to resolve all remaining issues related to a lawsuit that CMA Design/Build Inc. had filed against the city in connection with the construction of hangars at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

The original contract was approved by the city council on May 5, 2008 for $2.39 million, of which $1.101 million was for the local share. Because CMA failed to complete the project, Ann Arbor terminated the contract and CMA’s bonding company, North American Specialty Insurance Co., finished up the work. CMA filed suit against the city; and one of CMA’s subcontractors filed suit against CMA. Claims by CMA involved costs it incurred due to stop work orders issued by Pittsfield Township (where the airport is located) over jurisdictional questions between the city and the township.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the airport hangar change orders.

Landfill Contract

The council considered approval of the third five-year agreement since 2002 with Waste Management of Michigan – to dispose of the city’s trash in the Woodland Meadows landfill in Wayne, Michigan. For years 11 through 15 of the contract (2013 through 2017) the rates are as follows: $12.99/ton; $13.28/ton; $13.57/ton; $13.87/ton; and $14.18/ton. The increases reflect a 2.3% escalator. Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city of Ann Arbor solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie explained that those rates don’t include the additional transfer charge of $12.12 a ton, paid to ReCommunity, which operates the city’s materials recover facility (MRF) and transfer station.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city disposes of 62,000 tons of trash in the Woodland Meadows landfill per year. The city’s street sweepings and seasonal wastewater treatment sludge are also disposed there.

In 2002, the city council first approved the five-year contract, and then approved a five-year extension in 2007.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract with Waste Management.

Sidewalk Permits

The council considered a resolution that, beginning June 1, 2012, invalidates sidewalk occupancy permits and solicitor/licenses for a specific area of the downtown on occasions when Main Street is closed for special events between William and Huron streets. The special events include, but aren’t limited to, the Taste of Ann Arbor, Rolling Sculpture Car Show, the Children’s Holiday Parade, Green Fair, and FestiFools.

The area where sidewalk permits will be invalidated is the interior of the rectangle defined by Huron Street on the north, Fourth Street on the east, William Street on the south, and Ashley Street on the west. [.pdf of the area where sidewalk permits will be invalidated]

The resolution doesn’t apply to businesses that have been issued permits for permanent locations.

Council deliberations were driven by a request from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to amend the resolution. She did not want to allow the resolution to prevent the city from granting permits for use of the Palio parking lot at Main and William or the parking structure at Fourth and William. In the context of the Connecting William Street planning project, being managed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Smith did not want to tie the city’s hands on uses for the two lots.

Mayor John Hieftje wondered what kind of uses Smith had in mind. [Both Hieftje and Smith also serve on the DDA board.] Both areas Smith had identified are within the geographic scope of the Connecting William Street project. People had talked about ways to use the Palio lot as open space. Non-parking activity on the lots might “leak out” into the sidewalk, she said. She just wanted to leave options open for the city.

From left: Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association, talks with councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association, was asked to the podium to clarify. She described such a resolution as being on a “wish list” for the MSAA for a long time. She stressed that it would invalidate sidewalk permits only when the streets are closed – for specific events. Further, she said, it applies to sidewalk and peddler permits. For activity on the Palio lot or in the Fourth and William parking structure, she ventured that approval could be obtained from the DDA, but there’d be no sidewalk permit or peddler permit involved.

Asked by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) if Smith’s amendment impeded her, Thompson indicated she was mostly confused by it. When 7,000 people visit Main Street for Taste of Ann Arbor, she said, the more control over management she has in that area, the safer it is. The resolution is looking out for businesses that are open 365 days a year. She described how undesirable it would be for the owner of a bookstore, which contributes dues to the MSAA to help put on a special event, to have to watch a sidewalk peddler selling books in front of their bookstore.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if the DDA proposed some non-parking use of a public parking lot, whether the city council would have something to say about that. He was not sure that the DDA’s contract with the city, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, allows for that.

Smith indicated that she wasn’t at all opposed to the resolution. She was just trying to protect the city’s right to do something that it hasn’t thought about yet. She ventured that the DDA has no evil plans to take over the downtown for special events.

Derezinski suggested that the DDA and MSAA get along pretty well and the two organizations could work out things informally if they needed to.

Outcome on amendment: Smith’s amendment got support only from Smith.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the concept behind the resolution is to encourage people to frequent the businesses that are there year round, not just for an event. So she said she supported the resolution – because it might make a difference in how people spend their time and money when they go downtown for an event.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution invalidating sidewalk permits when Main Street is closed.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement

After a public hearing held at the May 7 meeting, the city council considered a tax abatement for Sakti3 – a battery technology spinoff from the University of Michigan. Sakti3 is led by UM professor Ann Marie Sastry.

A conversation during a May 7 council meeting recess, from left to right: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), city administrator Steve Powers, Ann Marie Sastry of Sakti3, and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the abatement would be on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. According to a memo from city financial staff, the value of the tax incentive to Sakti3 over three years totals $36,000. The council had voted to set the public hearing on the tax abatement at its previous meeting, on April 16, 2012.

Reasons given in the staff memo for the abatement include the need for Sakti3 to expand and add new equipment for the continually changing alternative energy business and the expected addition of five new employees due to the firm’s expansion. The memo concludes that the retention and expansion of such operations is consistent with the economic development goals of the city of Ann Arbor and of Ann Arbor SPARK, the local economic development agency.

Previously, the council voted on March 21, 2011 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, 2011, the city council approved the establishment of that district.

The city is prohibited by state statute from abating taxes on any more than 5% of the total state equalized value of property in the city. Responding to an emailed query, city of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford wrote to The Chronicle that total SEV for the city for 2012 stands at $5,294,974,640, and the total SEV of abated property in 2012 is $8,935,974. That works out to 0.169% – well under 5%.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge asked that mayor John Hieftje ensure that there’s an introduction to every public hearing by having a councilmember or the city administrator explain the substance of the resolution, before asking people to come forward to speak about it. Partridge asked Hieftje if he would do that with the Sakti3 resolution. When Hieftje did not respond, Partridge told him that Hieftje’s silence spoke for itself. Hieftje then told Partridge that the city attorney had informed Hieftje that Partridge needed to stay on the topic of the public hearing. At that Partridge said he was then ready to speak specifically to the requested tax abatement. Partridge said that Sakti3 and other companies need to justify their request, and he opposed the resolution – unless the company agrees to terminate the exemption when it can find finances on its own. He also warned that we should be cautious about battery manufacturing, due to the toxic chemicals that are used.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who chairs the council’s budget committee, asked that the tax abatement request be postponed, until it could be reviewed by the budget committee.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) stressed that there would be an expedited meeting of the council’s budget committee [on Wednesday, May 16 at 5:30 p.m.]. Sakti3 had developed a whole new technology, he said, and was quite worthy as a candidate for a tax abatement. He noted that representatives of the company had been present earlier in the meeting. He said he’d like to show Sakti3 the council’s ability to act quickly.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciated Higgins’ request to postpone. Lumm said an analysis had been provided to her on the impact of the abatement, and the city of Ann Arbor actually does very little of this. She felt postponing was fine.

Outcome: The council postponed the tax abatement for Sakti3 until its May 21 meeting.

Street Closing: Monroe

There were several separate resolutions to approve street closings for special events. Mayor John Hieftje said he would lump them all together for one vote, unless someone objected. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wanted separate consideration of a request from the University of Michigan law school to close Monroe Street for its dedication weekend, Sept. 7-8, 2012.

Smith indicated that she did not have an objection to the Monroe Street closing – that was not the reason she was requesting separate consideration. She wanted to highlight the fact that UM would like it closed on a permanent basis. Instead of a permanent closing, she said, she’d prefer to see requests for closing come before the council for specific occasions.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – who’s a UM law school alum and has served as an adjunct professor at the school – responded to Smith by saying he loved part of her sentiment. [Derezinski has worked out of public view to facilitate a permanent granting of the public right-of-way on Monroe Street to the University of Michigan. See Chronicle coverage: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine"] He highlighted the fact that the dedication would be attended by Elena Kagan, justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

During the final opportunity for public commentary at the meeting, Thomas Partridge suggested that when Kagan comes to Ann Arbor for the dedication ceremony, she should take cognizance of the willful disregard for justice here locally, and the total disregard – during an historic recession – of the needs for the most vulnerable, and for working residents who actually keep Ann Arbor operating on a day-to-day basis.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Monroe Street closing, along with all the other street closings on the agenda.

Street Repair: Willard, et al

The council had on its agenda an item to approve a $206,900 contract with the E.T. MacKenzie Company for a project to reconstruct Willard Street, using permeable pavement. It’s a 21-foot wide, 700-foot long street that runs between East University Avenue and South Forest Avenue. The project covers replacement of curb and gutter, sidewalk ramps and installation of a permeable asphalt pavement.

The general topic of street repair was discussed by the council early in the meeting, during communications time.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wondered about Madison Street from Seventh to South Main – when would it be resurfaced? He felt that there could be more deterioration on streets where public buses travel due to vehicle weight. He felt that the buses are an important service, but could also be an annoyance, because of the impact they have on roads.

Back and forth between mayor John Hieftje and Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management, indicated Madison is in very poor condition, so it needs to be rebuilt from scratch – which would take a whole summer. The city is also resurfacing Seventh Street, and Madison is serving as a detour, so it’s a coordination problem, Pirooz said. But Madison is definitely on the list for 2013, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he thought that Madison had been done within the last 10-15 years – why is the city doing it again? Pirooz was not sure when the last time Madison had been reconstructed. He told Kunselman it’s possible it was just resurfaced, not rebuilt. Kunselman wanted the documentation on that. He picked up on Anglin’s comment about buses, by saying it’s also the bigger city trucks that are causing more rapid deterioration. The road along Madison is sloughing downhill, he said. Pirooz pointed out that resurfacing alone doesn’t help the road base.

When the council came to the Willard Street reconstruction, Kunselman questioned city engineer Nick Hutchinson about the cost of permeable pavement compared to regular pavement. Hutchinson indicated that the cost of the asphalt itself is about 1.5 times regular pavement; however, given the complete reconstruction required, the cost of the permeable asphalt as a component made the project more expensive – but not 1.5 times as expensive.

Hutchinson reviewed the number of permeable pavement installations in the city: (1) Easy Street, which has permeable pavers lining the sides; (2) Sylvan Street; (3) an alley in Burns Park; and (4) Willard Street. Kunselman noted that University of Michigan buses run for one block on Willard – how does permeable pavement hold up under heavy weight? Hutchinson said he believes the pavement will hold up very well – it’s designed in a heavy duty way. Kunselman wondered if permeable pavement might last even longer than traditional pavement, because there’s less freeze-thaw. Water drains through the courser material instead of being trapped inside it.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Willard Street permeable pavement project.

FY 2013 Budget Hearing

Mayor John Hieftje introduced the hearing on the city of Ann Arbor’s FY 2013 budget by noting it will be on the council’s agenda at its next meeting, on May 21. According to the city charter, he observed, the budget needs to be approved by the city council by the end of its second meeting of May. [Last year, the second meeting in May was conducted in multiple sessions, stretching until the end of the month.]

Thomas Partridge said that despite Hieftje’s pronouncement that the budget is available on the Internet, he did not see a rush of residents to speak at the public hearing. He called for the budget resolution to be reviewed again by the individual city departments, before it’s put forward for passage at the council’s next meeting. Partridge stated that he is convinced the budget is based on the undemocratic principle of one tax rate for all, that it victimizes senior citizens and lower-income people, and people who need vital public services, which will not be provided by this budget. He called the proposed millage rates “conservative right-wing millage rates.”

Michael Benson introduced himself as a Ward 2 resident. He thanked the council for placing all the documents online.

Stephen Ranzini introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor, who wanted to address the declining quality of fire safety in Ann Arbor in the context of the budget. He began by telling the council a story about his nine-month-old daughter, who was baptized on Sunday, April 29 at St. Mary’s downtown. During the baptism, across the street in a residential high-rise building, there was a fire in the upper story of the building, he said. [According to an AnnArbor.com news report, a publication for which Ranzini writes op-ed pieces, an April 29 fire in the Maynard House – located at 400 Maynard St. – originated in a garbage chute located in the basement. It spread up to the first and second floor sections of the chute, according to the AnnArbor.com report, where firefighters were able to contain the fire. According to the report, firefighters also discovered a small fire on the 11th story, that had resulted from a resident leaving the stove on after hearing the building's fire alarm and evacuating the building.]

Ranzini said that while the firefighters responded in a timely way, they were not able to bring the tower truck or ladder truck to reach upper stories, because the trucks are currently out of repair. As a result, he contended, firefighters and residents were placed in harm’s way.

Ranzini called for the budgeting and hiring of 88 firefighters, not just the 82 in the currently proposed budget – of which only 76 positions are now actually staffed. Commenting on a proposed new station model for the department [which would use three stations instead of the current five], Ranzini cited a poll by AnnArbor.com that indicated overwhelming opposition to the three-station model. Rather than continuing to study that station model, he called on the city council to hire the full complement of firefighters who are budgeted, add six additional firefighters to this year’s budget, and replace or repair the tower truck and the ladder truck.

He described the current staffing levels as an “experiment with public safety” by the mayor.

Ranzini said he knew about the fire on April 29, not because of the fact that he was nearby, but rather because he’d received an anonymous communication from a firefighter. That communication was anonymous, he contended, because the fire chief has ordered firefighters not to talk to the press. Ranzini indicated that the executive director of the ACLU of Michigan has told him that if the city administrator does not correct that situation, a lawsuit might ensue.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Nanci Gerler and Darren Schmidt had also addressed councilmembers on the topic of “smart meters” at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting.

Gerler told the council that five other communities in Michigan have passed resolutions and bans on smart meters and she called on the Ann Arbor city council to do the same. The current installation by DTE Energy is going rapidly, she said, with 30 trucks working six days a week. She contended that DTE is not maintaining a list of opt-out requests. She went on to describe that many residents haven’t received notification or a knock on the door to alert them of the installation of the meters. Installation has occurred over people’s protests, she said. The utility company has accepted no responsibility for people’s health, she said.

Schmidt said he supports a halt to installation of smart meters. He described several patients with a history of symptoms that are hard to get rid of. After stumbling around looking for solutions, he said they found that many of their symptoms could be attributed to electromagnetic fields. While it’s possible get rid of other consumer wireless devices, people can’t get rid of smart meters, he said.

Comm/Comm: Localized Flooding

David Foster told the council he lives in the Lansdowne neighborhood a few houses down from the Fisher family, who’d addressed councilmembers at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting. He described how his own house had received severe water damage during the March 15 storm. He described how there’d been a “river effect” on the streets, rendering them impassable. On the west side of his house, he reported, the water had flowed up over some block and into the basement egress window – a window that is required by the city. His basement had water seven feet deep, he reported. He noted that he’s 5-10 and his son is 4-2 – so the water would have been well over their heads, if they’d been home at the time. And they would have been in the basement, he said, because they’d have been seeking shelter from the tornado. He asked that the council acknowledge that a problem exists. It’s not a question of whether similar events will occur in the future – it’s a question of when, he concluded.

Responding to Foster’s comments, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know if there could be an update on the meetings that Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated had taken place between residents and city staff. Higgins, who represents the ward where this localized flooding is located, told Lumm that staff are still analyzing the situation and that there’s nothing ready to report yet.

Comm/Comm: Advocacy for Most Vulnerable

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Democrat and grandfather and a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County – an advocate for those who can’t attend the meeting, the vulnerable people who are disconnected from the multimillion-dollar projects on the agenda. He called on the council to advance human rights, and public transportation, to give priority to the need to end homelessness and poverty and to provide access to expanded shelters, transitional housing and permanent housing. That should take precedence over talk about art commission projects, he said, which are unnecessary to the cause of human rights.

Comm/Comm: Energy Production

Kermit Schlansker opened by telling the council that every furnace now being sold is obsolete. He observed that heat is a byproduct of making energy, so furnaces could manufacture energy while generating heat. He described the process of “co-manufacturing” heat and energy.

Comm/Comm: Warpehoski’s Ward 5 Candidacy

Henry Herskovitz said that the report that the director of the Interfaith Council on Peace and Justice had entered the race for the Ward 5 seat on city council had come as a shock to members of the former ICPJ Middle East task force. [Herskovitz didn't name the director, but he was referring to Chuck Warpehoski.] Under the leadership of Warpehoski, Herskovitz said, the task force was summarily disbanded by the ICPJ’s board of directors. The task force had voted unanimously in 2006 to support the Palestinian call for boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel. Herskovitz attributed the disbanding of the task force to a few powerful supporters of Israel on the ICPJ board of directors. The task force, Herskovitz continued, had sought to resolve the dispute with outside professional mediation. Herskovitz characterized the board’s action, supported by Warpehoski, as overrunning democratic procedures. Voters in Ward 5 deserve representation by someone who embraces democratic ideals, Herskovitz concluded.

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: Monday, May 21, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [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!

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the abatement would be on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. According to a memo from city financial staff, the value of the tax incentive to Sakti3 over three years totals $36,000. The council had voted to set the public hearing on the tax abatement at its previous meeting, on April 16, 2012.

Reasons given in the staff memo for the abatement include the need for Sakti3 to expand and add new equipment for the continually changing alternative energy business and the expected addition of five new employees due to the firm’s expansion. The memo concludes that the retention and expansion of such operations is consistent with the economic development goals of the city of Ann Arbor and of Ann Arbor SPARK.

Previously, the council voted on March 21, 2011 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, 2011, the city council approved the establishment of that district.

The city is prohibited by state statute from abating taxes on any more than 5% of the total state equalized value of property in the city. Responding to an emailed query, city of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford wrote to The Chronicle that total SEV for the city for 2012 stands at $5,294,974,640, and the total SEV of abated property in 2012 is $8,935,974. That works out to 0.169% – well under 5%.

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]

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Sakti3 is requesting an abatement on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. If approved, it would reduce Sakti3 Inc.’s annual tax bill by $23,200 for each of three years in the recommended abatement period. The new building improvements and personal property investments would generate about $29,500 in property taxes for each year during the abatement period.

Previously, the council voted on March 21, 2011 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, 2011, the city council approved the establishment of the district.

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]

Sakti3 is requesting an abatement on $200,000 of real property improvements (electrical construction work) and $2.2 million of personal property (battery cycling equipment, thermal chambers, machine shop equipment, server system).

If granted, the abatement would reduce Sakti3′s annual tax bill for the new improvements by about $17,000 for each year of the abatement. According to city staff, the new real and personal property investments would generate about $22,500 in property taxes each year.

Previously, the council voted on March 21 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, the city council approved the establishment of the district.

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]

Councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ticks through the list of parcels that would be the focus of a DDA-led development process. (Photos by the writer.)

Councilmembers voted on two major downtown-related agenda items – one affecting the immediate future of an individual parcel, the city-owned Library Lot. The other item involves a process by which the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority would lead the planning of development for multiple downtown parcels, including the Library Lot.

The council voted, over dissent from two of its members, to end the RFP process for the Library Lot and to reject a draft letter of intent they’d discussed at a March 14 work session, which would have called for the city to work with Valiant Partners to craft a development agreement for construction of a conference center and hotel on the lot. The Ann Arbor DDA is currently building a roughly 640-space underground parking garage on that parcel.

Based on a separate resolution passed by the council, the future use of the Library Lot could emerge from a process to be led by the DDA. The council required lengthy deliberations before narrowly approving an amendment that reduced the area of focus for the DDA-led process. The amendment limited the area to the square bounded by Ashley, Division, Liberty and William streets, which would include the Library Lot on South Fifth Avenue, the Kline Lot on Ashley, the old YMCA Lot at Fifth and William, and the Palio Lot at Main and William.

The resolution on the DDA-led process is part of a broader ongoing negotiation between the city and the DDA, related to the contract under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system. That contract is being renegotiated, and since January, the city has not budged from its position that the DDA should pay the city a percentage-of-gross parking revenue of 16% in the contract’s first two years and 17.5% in years thereafter. It appears that the DDA board is gradually conceding to the city’s bargaining position. That will become clearer at the DDA board meeting on Wednesday, April 6.

The city’s negotiating position is based in part on the idea that the DDA is, as mayor John Hieftje has described it, “an arm of the city.” Hieftje’s view of the DDA as part of the city was further accentuated on Monday, when he announced at the end of the council’s meeting that he would be inviting the DDA to move its offices into newly-renovated space in the city hall building. The DDA currently leases space about a block south of city hall.

Also a part of Monday’s downtown-themed meeting was initial approval the council gave to a revision to the city’s ordinance on panhandling. That ordinance revision – which added some areas where panhandling is prohibited – will require a second reading and a public hearing in front of the council before it can be enacted.

An additional part of the downtown discussion came at the start of the council’s meeting, with a presentation on work being done to plan and study the 415 W. Washington parcel for future use as a center for artists and as a greenway park.

In non-downtown business, the council accepted a series of easements that will set the stage for TIGER II grant funds – already awarded by the federal government – to be formally obligated to the city. At stake is $13.1 million, which is currently still part of a continuing resolution for the federal budget. But that continuing resolution expires April 8, so the council was acting with some urgency.

The council also gave necessary approvals for a bus pullout to be constructed on Washtenaw Avenue, and authorized emergency purchase orders for furniture. And the council heard a presentation from Andrew Brix, the city’s energy programs manager, about efforts to increase the percentage of renewable energy that the city uses.

Library Lot RFP Termination

At its Monday meeting, the council considered a resolution to formally end the review process for proposals that had been received in response to a request for proposals (RFP) that the city issued in 2009 for use of the city-owned Library Lot.

A letter of intent (LOI) had been presented in draft form at a March 14, 2011 council work session, which would have called for the city to work with Valiant Partners over a four-month period to draft a development agreement for construction of a conference center and hotel at the South Fifth Avenue Library Lot site. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority is currently constructing a roughly 640-space underground parking garage on the parcel.

The RFP review committee, which was charged with evaluating the proposals, had selected the Valiant Partners conference center and hotel proposal as the preferred one out of six responses to the city’s RFP. The name “Valiant” is an allusion to the University of Michigan fight song, which includes the line, “Hail to the victors, valiant.” The partners include prominent UM alums Fritz Seyferth and Bruce Zenkel. [Previous Chronicle coverage "Library Lot from Top to Bottom"]

Added on Friday, April 1 to the Ann Arbor city council’s April 4 agenda, the resolution to end the Library Lot RFP process was sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and councilmembers Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1). At Monday’s meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked that his name be added as a co-sponsor of the resolution.

Library Lot RFP Termination: Public Commentary

Alan Haber opened by saying, “It’s nice to be here again.” He said that he was again there to address the council on the topic of the community commons – a proposal he’d supported as a use for the Library Lot. He also told them that he was again disgruntled.

Haber objected to the fact that the council was contemplating termination of the RFP process, when the process had generated a proposal for a community commons that he said never received a fair hearing.

Sign held by an audience member in support of rejecting the Library Lot conference center proposal.

[Haber had worked with a group that submitted the proposal for a commons as one of six responses the city received to its RFP for use of the lot. The commons proposal was presented publicly, along with the other five proposals, and eliminated early on by the RFP review committee. It was then reinstated for consideration by the request of the city council, then eliminated a second time.]

Haber told the council they should take a look at the proposal. He suggested that the council was simply embarrassed by the flawed process and was now throwing everything out. He allowed that the council was tired of seeing him, and that the DDA was tired of seeing him – still, he wanted to know why the council didn’t want to look at the proposal.

Peter Zetlin offered his support for the idea of terminating the RFP process. He criticized a “resolved” clause in the resolution that he said made the financial return to the city primary and the beneficial use secondary. He asked the council to consider the larger body of analysis that concludes that public space creates significant economic vitality. He suggested eliminating or amending the resolved clause.

Odile Hugonot-Haber tried to address concerns she’d heard from people who say they don’t understand the idea of a “commons.” She talked about growing up in France, getting woken up by the clanging of cowbells as the cows went off to a common pasture. She also spoke of heating the raw milk to kill microbes, using the pasteurization technique developed by Louis Pasteur, not far from where she grew up. The field where the cows grazed was a commons, she said, as was the knowledge used to make milk safer to drink.

Thomas Partridge looped the idea of a community commons into his remarks when he asked the council what Christ would advise – protect the most vulnerable of Michigan’s citizens by providing access to affordable housing and transportation, or follow the proposal of Gov. Rick Snyder. That’s the kind of question, he suggested, that would be discussed in a community commons, if the mayor were to wave a magic wand to bring one about.

Ali Ramlawi introduced himself as a Ward 5 resident and the owner of Jerusalem Garden. He ticked through a number of complaints about the DDA, citing attitudes and actions towards him that he characterized as indifferent, borderline illegal, and dangerous. He cited specifically the sinkhole that had opened up behind his restaurant two weeks ago. [Ramlawi's business is located next to the Library Lot where the underground parking garage is currently under construction. Due to a breach in the earth retention system some 30 feet below grade, a sinkhole opened up just behind the building that houses his restaurant. Other Chronicle coverage: "Library Lot from Top to Bottom"]

Ramlawi noted that Fifth Avenue had been closed for seven months now and that he had been deprived of the quiet enjoyment of the land where his business is located without compensation or consideration. He complained about the road congestion and the dirt and dust from the construction. Running his business, he said, has been a hardship due to interruptions in trash collection, recycling collection and electric service. All he’d received, he said, was a string of Christmas lights, some parking validation stamps, and a sign on the construction detour signs indicating he was still open for business.

In winding up his remarks, Ramlawi said that Jerusalem Garden is a part of what makes Ann Arbor Ann Arbor: “I don’t want to be another city.” He called on the city council to “keep Ann Arbor organic” and “let it grow on its own.”

Lou Glorie congratulated the councilmembers who’d sponsored the resolution to reject the letter of intent, saying the proposal was “dead on arrival.” She called on the council also to issue a “do not resuscitate” order. She said the main problem from the beginning was a lack of public process. The conference center proposal had a small group of boosters who supported it, she said, but it had no community support. She said she wanted to see public process made a part of the resolution. She figured it would take as long as a year for the community to weigh in before another RFP could be issued.

Jean King told the council that she wanted to talk to them about openness of the process for deciding the use of the Library Lot. She told them the process had not been open, and that the council had not been open to Alan Haber’s proposal. Echoing the same sentiment expressed by Peter Zetlin, King said that instead of measuring proposals in dollars, the council should weigh proposals in terms of the benefit to the city.

Library Lot RFP Termination: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) led off deliberations by saying he was pleased to be a part of sponsoring the resolution. He characterized the process has having “borne a fruit we’re not interested in consuming.” He characterized the resolution as a way to “call the question” on Valiant’s proposal – an allusion to the parliamentary move “calling the question,” which ends debate by a deliberative body. He stressed that this does not reflect poorly on Valiant.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicates he'd like to speak.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) noted that the RFP process had begun in response to the fact that with construction of the underground garage commencing, there had been an opportunity to alter the design of the underground garage to change the location of support columns – if a design were proposed that required that relocation. She said the whole financial world had shifted at the time when the city issued the RFP. The overall economic climate, she said, made it the worst possible time. As a result, she continued, the responses from proposers were along the lines of people just seeing what they could get.

Smith cautioned that stopping the process now should not preclude starting up a new process soon. She indicated some concern about the word “robust” modifying “public process” in one of the “resolved” clauses that sketched a path forward for determining how the Library Lot should be used.

Smith said “robust” is ambiguous. She pointed to the history of various city planning initiatives, starting with the Calthorpe study in 2005, through the A2D2 process and the adoption of the new Downtown Plan as part of A2D2 – this process included a vast amount of public input. She proposed an amendment to remove the word “robust.”

Taylor responded to Smith’s concern about the word “robust” by saying it was simply aspirational, not contractual language. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) read aloud a statement that essentially supported the idea that the process should involve a lot of public input, based on the fact that it’s public land.

Mayor John Hieftje said he wouldn’t support the amendment, saying that one of the resolution’s co-sponsors, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who could not attend the meeting that night, had been in agreement with the resolution’s language.

Outcome on “robust” amendment: The council rejected the amendment, which drew support only from Smith and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

In continuing the council discussion on the unamended resolution, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that they’d heard from many of the speakers and sign wavers in attendance that they would have preferred a different procedure. She said the council had reached a novel conclusion – that as a council, they’d recognized a need to say they were not satisfied with the result of the process. She said it was a sad moment. She noted that Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) had said a year ago it was time to hit the reset button and that Smith had said two years ago that the whole area of the site needed to be master-planned.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

For his part, Hohnke said he was not a fan of the city taking on financial risk – he would be supporting the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he would support the resolution. He allowed that everyone knew of his disdain for RFP processes. He did have some concern about the last “resolved” clause, which stipulates that the future use of the Library Lot will be one that results in property taxes being paid. He worried that this might preclude public buildings that might be built as part of a public-public partnership involving the Ann Arbor District Library or perhaps the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

Derezinski indicated that he was only in slight disagreement with Smith. Given the number of significant decisions in front of the council – the budget, city-DDA relations, medical marijuana regulation – Derezinski wanted to postpone the issue and let things cool down. He expressed concern about the message that the council’s action would be sending to the outside world.

In arguing for a postponement, Derezinski said the process had yielded a lot of questions to which no answers had yet been given. He pointed to questions raised at the council’s March 14 working session, such as: Could the financial arrangement with Valiant Partners be arranged as an outright sale? He characterized a decision against Valiant’s conference center proposal that night as premature.

Derezinski spoke of the way that people mouth wonderful things about the inevitability of change and the need for growth, but when an actual project comes, people don’t necessarily act.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) read aloud prepared comments that focused on the failure of the council to see the RFP process through to the end. Valiant Partners, she said, has been left out of the process to date. Valiant had not been given a chance to respond to the questions that had been raised.

Teall said Valiant was more than willing to work with the council, and that there has to be room for negotiation. Valiant had not been given a chance, she said, to modify its proposal. She said it was true that Valiant was free to come back and offer cash for the air rights, and she hoped they would, saying they are a great team. Teall said Valiant has the best interests of the city at heart – financial and cultural. She said if people did not believe her, they could ask Josie Parker, director of the Ann Arbor District Library. Valiant had worked to integrate their proposal with the library, she said.

Taylor responded to Teall and Derezinski by saying he disagreed with them, though their sentiments were heartfelt, earnest and reasonable. He allowed that the early termination to the process did raise the question of the message it would send to the outside world. The city’s devotion to growth, said Taylor, is in the $5 million investment in the lot [the cost of the foundations for the underground garage, which will allow it to support a substantial structure on top]. He said he was committed to the final “resolved” clause [stipulating the financial benefit for future uses of the lot]. It was not a matter of closing all doors, he said, but rather only this one.

As a counterpoint to the objections based on early termination of the process, Taylor pointed out that continuing a process that has little hope of success would amount to leading someone on.

Sabra Briere and Sandi Smith, Ward 1 colleagues on the Ann Arbor city council, chat with the audience before the April 4 meeting.

Smith acknowledged Teall and Derezinski’s comments, saying she appreciated the dialogue. She allowed that passing the resolution would not allow the process to go all the way to the end, and that there had been no opportunity for a counter offer by Valiant. However, she said it’s a strong negotiating point to say, No, you’re not anywhere near what we’re talking about. She indicated dissatisfaction with Valiant’s willingness to put something in writing that put the city in a subordinate position, no matter how ambiguous the city’s RFP might have been. She characterized it as Valiant testing the waters to see how desperate the city is.

Briere immediately echoed Smith’s point about how it was a problem to put the city in a subordinate position – the city needs to be paid first, ahead of any other bank or loan payments, she said.

Teall complained that she believed the negotiations with Valiant could be flexible and that Valiant was in the process of changing its position even last week.

Hieftje said he respected Teall and Derezinski’s point of view. He noted that the conceptual sketch that had been associated with the proposal was unlikely to have ever been built, because of changing circumstances. He assured everyone that there was never any danger of the city accepting risk. For him, the questions reduced to whether he had confidence that the concept would work – he did not. Given that the University of Michigan was not willing to sign on to use the facility, he didn’t think it would be financially successful.

He then touched on several general points that seemed intended to support the final “resolved” clause and to reduce expectations that the parcel would now become a community commons. He spoke of adequate parking as providing a powerful economic development tool. He described how downtown development authorities were created to give downtown areas an advantage. He reiterated Taylor’s point about the $5 million investment in additional foundation strength being built into the underground parking garage to support a structure on top.

There are other parcels, Hieftje said, for people who would like to establish a community commons. The proposed greenway park portion of the city-owned 415 W. Washington parcel was one possibility, he said. In any case, the commons did not need to be located on the most valuable piece of real estate in the city. He cautioned that the city already included 2,100 acres of parkland and that adding a greenway park to it would require finding a way to pay for it. He also noted that the Ann Arbor District Library did not want to see a large commons located next to it.

Derezinski wondered what would happens next – would signs appear with slogans like “No Conference Center,” no matter what shape it was? He wondered what would happen with the proposed Fuller Road Station – would the city back off from its vision there? “Are we always going to back down from our vision?” he asked.

Teall, Anglin and Hieftje each took another speaking turn, touching on their previous positions.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) weighed in, echoing the complaints by Teall and Derezinski about the early termination reflecting a problem with the process. Higgins focused on more technical issues. For her part, she felt the council should be taking action on some recommendation from the RFP review committee. She noted that during the March 14 work session, the council did not have a current draft of the letter of intent. That part of the process was disappointing, she said – she felt like the work session had produced a mish-mash of information.

However, Higgins said she felt there was not a prayer that the proposal would pass, if it came in front of the council. The final “resolved” clause gave her hope, she said. The council needs to be clearer in its process going forward, she said, especially on the point of when the council will insert itself into the process.

Smith responded to Derezinski’s point about the amount of work currently in front of the council, saying she felt another related factor is the imminent departure of Roger Fraser as city administrator, who’s leaving at the end of April. There would be no one to take ownership of the project to carry it forward, she feared, though she allowed that an interim administrator could do that. However, with any interim, she cautioned, there tends to be some kind of void.

Briere wrapped up the deliberations by saying that she’d teased Smith in an aside about using the word “dialogue” when the word they needed was “discussion.” The council should have a discussion to identify exactly the process for finding a use for the Library Lot. That evening was not the time for that discussion, she said, but she is looking forward to taking part in it.

Outcome: The council voted to reject Valiant’s letter of intent and to end the RFP process for the Library Lot, with dissent from Derezinski and Teall.

The final “resolved” clause, which was often cited by councilmembers and public commenters, read:

RESOLVED, That future planning and proposals for this site shall recognize that this is a valuable, one of a kind parcel, and that whatever future project is contemplated for this site shall compensate the city with fair market value and a positive financial return, contribute to the tax base by paying property taxes, add vitality and density to Downtown and provide appropriate open space for public use.

DDA-Led Plan for Downtown Parcels

Before the council was a resolution that would establish a process to develop alternate uses for city-owned downtown surface parking lots, to be led by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The council had considered but postponed the resolution at its March 7, 2011 meeting, and before that at its Jan. 18, 2011 meeting. At the March 7 meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had complained that no revisions had been made to the resolution to accommodate objections made at the Jan. 18 meeting. [.pdf of the unamended resolution with the parcel-by-parcel plan] At that meeting, objections to the proposal included “resolved” clauses in the resolution that would (1) require placement of items on the city council’s agenda; and (2) under some circumstances require the city to reimburse the DDA for its expenses.

At its Jan. 5 board meeting, the Ann Arbor DDA board had approved a resolution urging passage of the council resolution, which had been circulated as early as the city council’s Dec. 20, 2010 meeting, when Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had attached a copy of the draft resolution to the council’s meeting agenda, and alerted his council colleagues to it at that meeting.

DDA-Led Plan: Council Deliberations – Dissent

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) began deliberations by offering amendments to the resolution that among other things added additional language about public process: ”Solicit robust public input and conduct public meetings to determine residents’ parcel-level downtown vision.”

Taylor also added clarifying language that would require the DDA to account for its direct costs – those costs would have to be reported along the way, in order to potentially have them reimbursed. Those amendments were undertaken as revisions to the resolution at the start of deliberations.

Taylor said the process would respect the desire for public input and would task the DDA with being the workhorse for the process, but would not grant control to the DDA to create the vision for the downtown. At various times in the process, the DDA would come in front of the council to check in.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) addressed a number of specific questions to Taylor. For example, she wanted to know how tasking the DDA with this job would differ from hiring a consultant, like Calthorpe.

Taylor responded by stressing that this new endeavor was not meant to be redundant with prior efforts like the Calthorpe study. He allowed that using the DDA in the way described by the resolution is similar to hiring a consultant, but that it would tap the DDA’s energy and enthusiasm and understanding of what makes Ann Arbor work. It’s akin to consulting, he said, but it would be a consultancy among friends. The DDA would be better suited to the task, he said, than a private consultant.

Briere wanted to know why the city’s own planning staff could not undertake the work. Taylor indicated that the volume of work would exceed the city’s planning staff capacity.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) has served with Taylor on the “mutually beneficial” committee that has discussed the parcel-by-parcel plan with DDA board members over the last several months. Later in the council discussion he noted that the parcel-by-parcel process would not supplant the city’s planning staff, but rather would integrate it into the process.

Hohnke also emphasized that the city would not be ceding any authority to the DDA – the process would be a part of the mutually beneficial relationship.

Briere wanted to know if the DDA would be making any decisions. No, Taylor said, the DDA would make proposals, which would then be decided on by the city council.

Briere wanted to know if there would be any expense to the city. Taylor indicated that the work would be free to the city. The only case in which the city would wind up paying any costs would be in the event that a proposal was advanced to the final stage and was rejected by the city council for some reason other than that the project did not meet zoning code.

Briere posed a question that led to considerable back and forth between Taylor and Sandi Smith (Ward 1): What does the label “parcel-by-parcel” actually denote? Taylor portrayed the idea of the process as more like settling on a vision for all the parcels of downtown before prioritizing specific parcels for implementation of development. Smith offered a portrayal that seemed to allow for identifying first a specific area of the downtown to focus on, which could then proceed to development of specific parcels within that area – without necessarily master planning all the parcels within the downtown area.

[At a January 2011 DDA board partnerships committee meeting, Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city of Ann Arbor, had led board members in a conversation about the midtown character district – part of the A2D2 zoning regulations – as a way to make more concrete for board members what the parcel-by-parcel process might be like.]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) worried that the process would not be sufficiently public, and asked what the information distribution system would be like.

Taylor indicated that all of the parcels that would be part of the process were identified on a map attached to the resolution. He stressed that without some measure of consensus from the community on a proposal, the process would go nowhere. He said he anticipated “quieter times” with respect to public reaction, not because they’d be quelling dissent, but because there would be a consensus on whatever came forward. He adduced the example of Zaragon II, which recently won approval without opposition, as the kind of process that might be hoped for. That mostly residential building is under construction at the corner of William and Thompson.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) objected to the Zaragon II example, saying that the project met the new A2D2 zoning requirements, which made it somewhat different from city-owned property.

Higgins went on to state that she still had a problem with the idea that the DDA would be considering all of the city-owned downtown parcels. She noted that while it’s DDA money that would be spent, it’s still taxpayer money. She felt it was an irreverent use of taxpayer money, and she’d heard nothing to sway her to support the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) added a voice of dissent, saying that he, too, thought the proposal was too far-reaching. He didn’t feel like the DDA has the expertise to undertake the work – they’d simply be hiring a consultant. He suggested focusing just on the old Y Lot (at Fifth and William) and the Library Lot. He noted that the city faces a balloon payment on the Y Lot of $3.5 million. Those two properties are pressing issues, he said. He asked who at the DDA would be the project manager.

Taylor indicated that he didn’t understand Kunselman’s question. Kunselman clarified that when a project is reviewed by the city planning staff, it’s typically assigned to a specific staff member who takes responsibility for it.

Smith, who also serves on the DDA board, told Kunselman that the board’s partnerships committee would monitor the project. The partnerships committee, she told him, included two councilmembers, and regularly interacts with other government entities like the Ann Arbor District Library and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

Kunselman said he could support the resolution if it were restricted only to the Library Lot and the old Y Lot.

DDA-Led Plan: Council Deliberations – Amendment/Consensus

Observing the clear dissent from Kunselman and Higgins, and possibly factoring in opposition from Briere and Anglin, Hieftje then indicated that he’d like to have a greater consensus and not pass the proposal on a mere six-vote majority. He seemed to float the idea of a postponement. Teall and Smith both indicated they wanted to see the proposal go forward that evening.

Smith then offered an amendment that added a resolved clause reducing the area subject to the process. The amendment reduced the area from the DDA district to a rectangle bounded by Ashley, Division, Liberty and William streets.

Light pink areas are all city-owned land. The red outline area is the DDA tax district. The green rectangle is the smaller area of focus proposed by Smith – bounded by Ashley, Division, Liberty and William streets. (Image links to higher resolution image. Map data is available on the city's website at a2gov.org/data)

Taylor was straightforward in stating his opposition to the amendment, starting with “I will absolutely not support this.” He noted that the proposal was the product of a great deal of conversation and that the DDA was very interested in applying a comprehensive view of all parcels in the downtown.

Hohnke also said he would not support the reduced area, but said he appreciated the effort to get a larger council consensus. He told Smith that she herself had been part of the conversation leading to the proposal that includes the entire downtown. He cautioned against trying to amend the proposal on the fly and said that the change would not be viewed as mutually beneficial by the DDA. It was too complex a task to be accomplished on the fly, Hohnke said.

Higgins bristled at the suggestion that the council should accept the proposal as it was, just because the city council and DDA committees had spent a long time discussing it already. She observed, “last time I checked,” a city council meeting is an opportunity for city councilmembers to add input.

Higgins observed that there are only four surface lots on the map that are not already built out – the Kline Lot, Palio Lot, Library Lot and the old Y Lot.

Later, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that he would be inclined to defer to the members of the mutually beneficial committee who were doing the negotiations with the DDA.

Hieftje noted that Kunselman was trying to express a priority of where to focus and he thought that was reasonable.

Briere noted that the council had heard a presentation about 415 W. Washington earlier that evening, which was included on the map of properties associated with the parcel-by-parcel resolution. She suggested that what was needed was a way to politely modify the focus – not change the absolute priorities, but rather to change the focus.

Smith argued for her own amendment by saying that even the reduced area would be a huge undertaking, a big bite to chew off, she said. She didn’t think the DDA would be offended if the council said to prioritize the smaller area.

Taylor came back with the idea that the value of the parcel-by-parcel plan is its consideration of the downtown area as a whole. So reducing the area to the small rectangle does the process a deep disservice, he said. He offered an amendment to Smith’s amendment that essentially softened it to say that the city council believed the reduced rectangle likely represented the first opportunities for development. Smith was willing to accept the amendment, but Kunselman, who had seconded her motion, was not.

With his proposed amendment to the amendment not accepted as friendly, Taylor eventually insisted that it be put to a vote.

Outcome on Taylor’s amendment to Smith’s amendment: Taylor’s amendment nearly succeeded, resulting in a 5-5 split. Voting for it were: Hohnke, Smith, Derezinski, Taylor, and Teall. Voting against it were: Anglin, Hieftje, Briere, Kunselman and Higgins. Rapundalo was absent.

Returning to the deliberations on Smith’s amendment that would restrict the parameters of the process to focus on a reduced rectangle of the downtown, Hohnke said he felt it was oxymoronic to speak of “master planning” a subset of properties.

Smith countered by saying it allows the DDA to focus on a smaller area with the most opportunity.

Outcome on Smith’s amendment: The reduced area of focus to the rectangle bounded by Ashley, Division, Liberty and William streets was approved with support from Hieftje, Smith, Briere, Kunselman, Teall and Higgins. Dissenting were Hohnke, Anglin, Derezinski and Taylor.

In final deliberations after the amendment was approved, Hieftje noted that the council was giving away the process but not the decision-making authority.

Kunselman reiterated his view that the old Y Lot needs to be put up for sale one way or another. He was resistant to the idea that the city council should be trying to do economic development work – it should be left to organizations like Ann Arbor SPARK. He also observed that the Library Lot, the Kline Lot and the Palio Lot had been surface parking lots all his life.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the DDA-led development process as amended to focus on the rectangle bounded by Ashley, Division, Liberty and William streets.

DDA-City Mutually Beneficial Negotiations

During deliberations on the DDA parcel-by-parcel proposal, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) described the process as part of the mutually beneficial relationship between the city and the DDA. He noted that the city was asking the DDA to step up during tough economic times by making a financial contribution to the city, and the parcel-by-parcel plan was another way they’d identified where the DDA could contribute in a mutually beneficial way.

During his communications time, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reported out on the financial contribution the DDA is making. Specifically, he gave an update on the progress of negotiations between the city and the DDA on the parking contract under which the DDA operates the city’s public parking system.

[At a Monday, March 28 morning meeting of the two so-called "mutually beneficial" committees, the city council's team asked their DDA counterparts to convey a request to the full DDA board to reconsider the board's previous consensus, reached at a full-board retreat. That consensus, as part of renegotiating a parking agreement with the city, was that the DDA would pay the city a percentage-of-gross parking revenues – 14% in the first two years of a future contract, and 15% in years thereafter. The city's position since January has been that the DDA should pay the city 16% of gross parking revenues in the first two years of the contract and 17.5% in years thereafter.

At a Wednesday, March 30 DDA committee meeting, attended by 10 of 12 DDA board members, they reconsidered the city's request and reached a consensus that they could live with 16% in the first two years, and for remaining years as well. That is, they came to agreement on the first two years of the contract, but a 1.5% difference persists for remaining years. That translates to $270,000, based on roughly $18 million in revenues projected for fiscal year 2014, which would be the third year of the contract.]

At Monday’s council meeting, Taylor reported that on the morning of April 4, the two mutually beneficial committees had met again, and that city councilmembers had asked the DDA committee to take back to the full board a request to reconsider their flat 16% position and to think about increasing the figure to 17.5% in the third year and years thereafter. Taylor reported that the request would be taken back to the full board, which meets on Wednesday, April 6. Taylor had indicated some possibility that the increased percentage would need to be coupled with an increase from the length of the contract term to 15 years. [The city has floated the possibility of a contract as short as seven years, but in recent talks the term seemed to have settled on 10 years.]

Taylor indicated that they were looking forward to reaching an agreement in short order, which can then be incorporated into city administrator Roger Fraser’s proposed budget. Fraser will formally present the fiscal year 2012 budget at the council’s April 19 meeting.

415 W. Washington Update

The council received a presentation with an update about planning work that’s being done by a group tasked with working on an “innovative process of community collaboration to explore a greenway park and arts center” at 415 W. Washington. The parcel at 415 W. Washington, located across from the YMCA, is currently used as a surface parking lot.

The group was called on by a Feb. 1, 2010 city council resolution to provide a progress report on their work at the council’s first meeting in February 2011. [Chronicle coverage of the Feb. 1, 2010 council meeting: "Council Restarts 415 W. Washington Process"] The report at Monday’s meeting was in response to that resolution.

The Greenway Arts Committee includes: John Hieftje, Carsten Hohnke, Margie Teall, Christine Schopieray (the mayor’s administrative assistant) on behalf of the city council; Joe O’Neal and Jonathan Bulkley for the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy; and Tamara Real, Susan Froelich and David Esau for The Arts Alliance.

David Esau of the Arts Alliance gave the presentation for the group.

Highlights of the work included a report out on focus groups conducted with artists. The committee also had made site visits to The Russell in Detroit, the Park Trades Center in Kalamazoo, and the Box Factory in St. Joseph.

The committee had secured a donation that had allowed a grant writer to be hired, who’d help submit applications for several grants, but none had yet been won, Esau reported. He said the next step would be to raise $100,000 for additional studies on the old buildings located at the site, which are protected by the Old West Side historic district.

DDA Invited to Move

During his communications period at the conclusion of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje announced that he and councilmember Sandi Smith (Ward 1) would be presenting the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority with an invitation to move its offices into newly renovated space on the lower level of city hall. Hieftje and Smith also serve on the DDA board.

That invitation will be made at the DDA’s Wednesday, April 6 board meeting. The DDA is contemplating signing a lease renewal for its existing space at 150 S. Fifth Ave., where the DDA currently pays $26 per square foot for 3,189 square feet of office space. Under terms of the new lease, the DDA would pay $16.75 per square foot in the first year of a 5-year deal, for a total of $53,415. After the first year, the amount would increase to $17.25, $18, $18.75 and $19.50 per square foot.

The DDA’s current arrangement with Weinmann Block LLC, which owns the building, ends on June 30, 2011.

Panhandling Law Tweak Gets Initial OK

The council considered a first reading of an amendment to the city’s code on disorderly conduct – the part dealing with solicitation, which is more commonly known as panhandling. To be enacted, the ordinance revision will need a second vote by the council and a public hearing.

The revised ordinance prohibits panhandling in one generally-defined additional location (in or within 12 feet of a public alley) and one specific location (within 12 feet of the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library.) [.pdf of revisions to existing ordinance as they were drafted at the start of the April 4, 2011 meeting]

The proposal to revise the law grew out of a street outreach task force, which was appointed at the council’s Sept. 20, 2010 meeting and charged with developing cost-effective recommendations for addressing the issue of downtown panhandling and the needs of those who panhandle. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Task Force Consults Panhandlers"]

At the council’s March 21, 2011 meeting, the council received a report from two members of the task force – Maggie Ladd, executive director of the South University Area Association, and Charles Coleman, a project coordinator with Dawn Farm. A recommendation contained in the report included revising the city’s ordinance on solicitation to prohibit panhandling in additional locations. [.pdf of street outreach task force report]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who chaired the task force, introduced the ordinance change, saying she hoped that the council would not need to discuss it too much, as it was the first reading.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wondered about a specific point that had been a part of the task force’s recommendations – though not a part of the ordinance change. It had to do with the mayor’s downtown marketing task force as the agent for implementing some of the educational steps – providing people with information about alternatives to giving money to panhandlers. Smith wondered if it was a role that the marketing task force was willing to take on. Mayor John Hieftje indicated that it was.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had a question about some phrasing in the existing language of the ordinance, which was not proposed to be changed: ” … from a person who is a person who is in any vehicle on the street.” She suggested it was redundant and should read ” … from a person who is in any vehicle on the street.” [The awkwardness could have arisen in the original due to a parallel with a different part of the ordinance "... a person who is a patron at any outdoor cafe or restaurant."]

Hieftje indicated he appreciated the rapid work of the task force.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give its initial approval to a revision to the city’s panhandling ordinance.

East Stadium Bridges Project

Before the council were four items related to its East Stadium bridges replacement project: a road right-of-way easement from the University of Michigan for $563,400; two utilities easements from UM totaling $426,650; and an unrecorded water utilities easement.

The city was able to get TIGER II federal funds formally “obligated” for that first right-of-way phase of the project – city council held a special meeting on March 16, 2011 to sign the necessary agreement.

Mayor John Hieftje signs documents related to East Stadium bridges easements. Standing next to him is assistant city attorney Mary Fales.

The approval of the easements at the April 4 meeting will allow the city to proceed with getting an additional $13.1 million of TIGER II grant funds obligated that have already been awarded for the second phase of the bridge replacement project. A continuing federal budget resolution passed by the U.S. Congress – which would preserve the TIGER II funding – expires on April 8. Previous proposals by House Republicans have included cuts that would have eliminated the TIGER II funding.

The council is acting with some urgency to get the funds obligated before the program is eliminated – if, in fact, it is eliminated.

The urgency was reflected in the fact that the council took a brief recess immediately after the easements were accepted, in order for mayor John Hieftje to sign the documents that needed to be forwarded to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the four easements related to the East Stadium bridges reconstruction.

Washtenaw Bus Pullout

The council was asked to approve the award of a construction contract worth $159,107 to Fonson Inc. The company will build a bus pullout as part of a bus transfer center on eastbound Washtenaw Avenue, east of Pittsfield Boulevard.

In a related item, also before the council was authorization for the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority for the city to manage construction of the bus pullout – the project will be paid for with federal stimulus funds provided to the AATA. The AATA board authorized its side of the MOU at a special meeting held on April 1.

The bus pullout is part of a larger project – a transfer center on the south side of Washtenaw Avenue at Pittsfield Boulevard, opposite Arborland mall – which will include a “super shelter.” For now, only a center on the south side is being contemplated, because topographical and right-of-way issues pose challenges on the north side.

Construction on the bus pullout is to begin later in April and be completed by June of this year.

The need for a transfer center at that Washtenaw Avenue location, of which the bus pullout is a part, stems from the termination in July 2009 of a previous arrangement with Arborland shopping center, which provided for a bus stop and transfer center in the Arborland parking lot.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved both items related to the Washtenaw Avenue bus pullout.

Furniture Purchases

Before the council were two emergency purchase orders for used furniture, but for different reasons.

The first purchase order was for $32,291 worth of used furniture – office cubicles and work stations – to be purchased from Steven C. Proehl Office Interiors. The furniture will go in the first and sixth floors of the city hall building, which are currently being renovated.

A staff memo describing the purchase order refers to a lease expiring for a Southfield, Mich. business, which has resulted in the availability of furniture at one-quarter to one-third the cost of furniture on the regular used furniture market. The emergency purchase order is being requested to take advantage of the savings. Reportedly, one consequence of the used furniture acquisition is that the old chairs around the council table will be replaced.

The second purchase order was a supplement to one that the council had authorized at its Dec. 6, 2010 meeting, for $39,000 worth of furniture for the 15th District Court, housed in the city’s new municipal center. The court had anticipated being able to use furniture it already owned in some areas of the new facility, but an on-site inspection showed that it was not usable as anticipated. The resolution passed by the council at its April 4 meeting increased the purchase order by $17,240, to $56,240.

During brief council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked city administrator Roger Fraser to review the background to the emergency nature of the purchase orders. In elaborating a bit on the information provided in the staff memos, Fraser said that once the furniture had been moved into the new court facility, it was apparent that it would not be usable, without using something like a chainsaw to modify it.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve both emergency purchase orders.

Sakti3 Industrial Development District

At its previous meeting on March 21, 2011 , the council set a public hearing on the establishment of an industrial development district (IDD), which could lead to tax abatements for Sakti3. The company is a University of Michigan spin-off focused on advanced battery technology, headed by Ann Marie Sastry. The IDD would be established for just under an acre of land, located at 1490 Eisenhower Place. Sakti3 is reportedly considering an investment of $2.4 million in new equipment and hopes to hire five additional people.

At Monday’s meeting the public hearing was held – no one spoke.

Outcome: The council voted without comment to establish the IDD, which now allows for Sakti3 to apply for the tax abatements.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: City Administrator Search

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who is chairing the city administrator search committee, reminded councilmembers that they’d been asked for input on a job description to be used in the job posting. The target for completing that work is April 8, Higgins said.

Comm/Comm: Oxbridge Area Student Safety

Katie Rosenberg and Stephanie Hamel addressed the council, representing the University of Michigan Student Safety Commission. Rosenberg said that as president of the Panhellenic Association, she saw how safety is an issue that’s consistently discussed. She told the council that the Oxbridge neighborhood – an area east of Washtenaw Avenue, between Angell Elementary School and Berkshire Road – is packed with different kinds of student housing. In December 2010 and January 2011, two armed robberies had taken place in the neighborhood, which had involved four students.

The steps that Rosenberg said had been taken in response to the incidents included: creating the student safety commission, holding a safety forum attended by UM Dept. of Public Safety officials, and allocating some funding by a Greek Community committee to install some lights.

Hamel reminded the council how in 2008, when concerns were raised about safety in the Packard Street area, the city had responded by selecting that neighborhood as a pilot area for converting standard streetlights to LED lights – 58 conventional streetlights had been converted to the brighter, more reliable technology. She asked the council to extend the concept to the Oxbridge neighborhood.

Hamel said that the students wanted to partner with the city council on the issue, by beginning a conversation about how to make that student neighborhood safer and brighter.

During his communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that he served on the council’s student relations committee and had attended the safety forum that Rosenberg had mentioned. As the father of two 17-year-old twin girls, Kunselman said he could vouch for the fact that the safety concerns were legitimate. He said he was looking forward to helping out.

Comm/Comm: Reminder of MLK

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reminded her colleagues that on the same day as the council meeting, April 4, in 1968 Martin Luther King had died. During a recess in the meeting, Briere told The Chronicle that on that day in 1968, she’d attended a speech given by Bobby Kennedy in Indianapolis, in the wake of the news about King’s assassination.

Comm/Comm: Energy Challenge Update

The council received an update on the city’s energy planning from Andrew Brix, the city’s energy programs manager. That included a report on results from a February energy challenge. The goal of the February program was for households to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5%. According to the city, the average Ann Arbor household has an annual carbon footprint of 40,700 pounds of CO2 per year, which translates to a reduction goal of 170 pounds of CO2 per month.

Around 130 people signed up for the challenge. Based on the online reporting tool provided on the website created for the challenge, participants reduced their carbon footprint by an average of 5.4% in February 2011, resulting in a total reduction of 250,441 pounds of CO2.

Brix’s presentation mentioned the February challenge just briefly, taking a broader look at the city’s energy policy, which includes a goal established in 2006 of 30% renewable energy. Mayor John Hieftje had initially set a goal of 20% in 2005. Brix reported that the goal of 20% had been met, though he allowed that they rounded up from 19.8%. The city achieves its renewable energy percentage through landfill gas capture, two hydroelectric dams and a green fleets program. They’re still working on meeting the 30% goal, which came from Ann Arbor’s energy commission.

Brix also noted that the city itself accounts for only 3% of all the energy used in Ann Arbor, so their efforts will also target households.

Comm/Comm: City of ONE

At the council’s April 4, 2011 meeting, a mayoral proclamation was issued, declaring Ann Arbor a “city of ONE.” ONE is an international group that works against extreme poverty and preventable disease by advocating for better development policies and trade reform. ONE’s board of directors includes Bono, lead singer of the band U2.

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana

Chuck Ream addressed the council about the zoning and licensing regulations that will be coming for final consideration at the council’s April 19 meeting. He complained that the legal department is “sticking a dagger” in the ordinance. He said that Michigan has a crystal clear law that a lot of people hate, but 79% of Ann Arborites had voted for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act written just the way it is. He complained that the city attorney is trying to inject inspection and searches into the city’s ordinances.

Ream called on the council to separate dispensaries from cultivation facilities. Dispensaries should be included in the ordinance, he said, but cultivation facilities should not.

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

Absent: Stephen Rapundalo.

Next council meeting: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

Susan Pollay, left, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, with councilmembers Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4, sitting) before the start of the March 21 council meeting. Pollay was distributing copies of the downtown street outreach task force report. (Photos by the writer.)

The council has now been formally considering the new licensing ordinance for three months. The ordinance will next come before the council at its Tuesday, April 19 meeting for final approval. Also on April 19, the council will take a final vote on a zoning ordinance that would apply to medical marijuana businesses. The moratorium on use of property in the city for medical marijuana businesses – originally enacted on Aug. 5, 2010 to last for 120 days, but subsequently extended – was extended again at Monday’s meeting through June 30, 2011. [.pdf of medical marijuana licensing ordinance as amended on March 21, 2011]

In a lower-profile but logistically significant move, the council voted to move its second meeting of April from Monday to Tuesday, April 19, because sundown on that Monday marks the start of the week-long Passover celebration in the Jewish tradition.

Other business conducted by the council included: (1) approving a recommendation for non-renewal of a liquor license for the Fifth Quarter; (2) authorizing transfer of $90,000 to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to improve a public plaza near the Forest Street parking structure; (3) setting a public hearing to establish an industrial development district that could lead to tax abatements for the firm Sakti3; (4) authorizing a letter of support for a Washtenaw County grant application to the state for acquisition of a natural area; and (5) authorizing the city’s own application to the state for grants to support park improvement projects and a new skatepark.

Council deliberations on the park improvement grant applications resulted in the prioritization of a grant to support construction of the skatepark over one to support improvements to the Gallup park canoe livery. The city hopes both grants will be approved by the state.

The council also heard a presentation on a plan for the Millers Creek area, and later in its meeting adopted the plan. It could eventually lead to establishing the creekshed formally as a “drain,” in the sense that the county water resources commissioner (formerly the drain commissioner) uses the term. That designation will increase the area’s eligibility for various funding mechanisms to pay for projects there.

The council heard a presentation from its street outreach task force, summarizing its work over the last six months. That work includes a proposed revision to the city’s panhandling ordinance, which the council will begin considering at its April 4 meeting.

The council also passed a resolution establishing a search committee for a new city administrator. The committee will bring a recommendation to the council at its April 19 meeting on an interim administrator, who will assume responsibilities when current city administrator Roger Fraser departs at the end of April.

The city’s IT director, Dan Rainey, was on hand to receive a Digital Cities award recognizing the city’s efforts to improve services through digital technology. Fraser mentioned during his communications time that the council’s meetings are now being streamed live over the Internet: CTN Channel 16 Live.

Medical Marijuana Licensing

At its March 21 meeting, the council considered a set of licensing requirements for medical marijuana businesses. All new ordinances require an initial approval, plus a final vote by the city council after a formal public hearing. The council had first considered the licensing scheme at its Dec. 6, 2010 meeting. Councilmembers undertook several amendments to the licensing proposal at three of its meetings over the last three months: on Jan. 3, Feb. 7 and March 7.

Dennis Hayes, who has addressed nearly every meeting of the city council when it has discussed medical marijuana, and councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

At its Oct. 18, 2010 meeting, the council gave initial approval to a set of zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses, but it has not yet given its final approval to those regulations. The council’s strategy is to bring licensing and zoning forward at the same time for a final vote. The context for development of zoning regulations was set at the council’s Aug. 5, 2010 meeting, when councilmembers voted to impose a moratorium on the use of property in the city for medical marijuana dispensaries or cultivation facilities, and directed its planning commission to develop zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses. Subsequently, the city attorney’s office also began working on a licensing system.

The moratorium on using additional facilities in the city as medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities – first enacted on Aug. 5, 2010 and subsequently extended – was extended a second time by the council at its Jan. 18 meeting to go through March 31, 2011.

During the course of Monday’s deliberations, mayor John Hieftje elicited from the city attorney’s office an estimate that there are 15 marijuana dispensaries currently operating in the city, plus three dispensaries that are operating in areas that would be prohibited, if the city’s zoning ordinance is given final approval.

Medical Marijuana Licensing: Public Commentary

Gersh Avery reported to the council that a lot of people come to him asking for help – cancer patients who are in stage four, typically. They ask him to make an extract of cannabis that can be used as chemotherapy. In Michigan, there have been 15-20 skin cancer cases cured, he said. He stressed that this is not palliative care, but curative. This kind of cancer research is taking place in other states and other countries, so he wanted to know why it was not taking place in Ann Arbor. A research laboratory to test these materials, he said, needs to be protected, not persecuted. Ann Arbor should be made a center of medical advancement, he said.

Rory Gould told councilmembers he had moved to Ann Arbor from New York 10 years ago, because he wanted to raise his children in a place where they would not be on top of each other, where people are nice to one another, where they’d be exposed to cultural diversity, and have access to high quality education. He thanked the council for their hard work on the ordinance – it’s an example of the spirit of tolerance Ann Arbor is famous for, he said.

Still, he cautioned that there are some remaining concerns. Requiring permanent record-keeping of growers might put good people in danger, he said, and could put a damper on supply. He also expressed concern about the number of dispensary licenses. Most of the existing dispensaries are very well run, he said, but a license might fall into the wrong hands. He said there are some places that are not well run that have no handicapped access and don’t supply locally-grown cannabis. He suggested that licenses also be made transferable on approval of the city council.

Dennis Hayes observed that it’s a now familiar cast of characters who have been speaking and he thanked the council for the work they’ve done. He noted that there are some councilmembers who are spending an extraordinary amount of time to get it right. The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act is helping people get access to high quality medicine, he said. There are still some restrictions, however, that he feels are not helpful to patients. One of those restrictions is that the applications require disclosure of a substantial amount of information about the ownership of the entity – which could be burdensome for dispensaries organized as collectives.

Chuck Ream thanked the council for the opportunity to address them. He said he’d met with Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and the mayor the previous Friday about the issue of documenting the source of the product. He agreed with the intent of the ordinance – we should know where the product comes from in the event of a health emergency. He suggested language that would allow relevant local, county, or state health officials to take action. He suggested that records be kept for 30 days – there’s no reason to keep them for longer than that. He called the need for a cultivation license “pernicious,” because it attempts to restrict the right of people to grow marijuana. About the ordinance requirement that cultivation facilities need a license, he called on the council to “get it out of there,” or everyone who’s currently growing in Ann Arbor will file suit.

Medical Marijuana Licensing: Council Deliberations

The council undertook a series of additional amendments to the ordinance.

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on Code Section

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) began with an amendment to move the proposed licensing code out of Title VI of the city code, which is designated “Food and Health,” and to move it to Title VII, “Businesses and Trades.” The move entailed a new chapter number – it was proposed that it be changed from Chapter 71 to Chapter 95. The amendment also changed the name of the chapter by striking the word “business.”

At council’s March 7 meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had complained to city attorney Stephen Postema that the new chapter was not included in an existing chapter on business licenses – which is also in Title VII. The proposed amendment could be seen as a partial accommodation to Higgins’ concern. The introduction as amended reads:

That a new Chapter 95 be added to Title VII of the Code of the City of Ann Arbor to read as follows:

CHAPTER 95. MEDICAL MARIJUANA LICENSES FOR CULTIVATION FACILITIES AND DISPENSARIES

Postema indicated that he had no problem with the change.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the amendment changing the code section and title.

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on License Eligibility

An amendment was proposed to make the ordinance consistent with a different amendment made at the council’s previous meeting – it disqualified people based on a felony conviction only if the felony was for a controlled substance offense. Previously, section 6:415 (2) had disqualified a person based on any felony conviction. As amended, it reads:

6:415. License Required, Number of Licenses Available, Eligibility. …
(2) A cultivation facility or dispensary shall not be eligible for a license if any person required under this chapter to be named on the application has ever been convicted of a felony involving controlled substances as defined under the Michigan public health code, MCL 333.1101, et seq, the federal law, or the law of any other state.

Outcome: The council approved the amendment restricting disqualification just to controlled substance felony convictions, with dissent from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on Board Activity

An additional amendment to 6:415 added the phrase “taking into consideration recommendations from staff” to the way the licensing board would make its recommendations:

6:415. License Required, Number of Licenses Available, Eligibility.
…
(7) … The Board will annually review and recommend the licensing criteria, the number of licenses authorized, the license fee structure taking into consideration recommendations from staff, …

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the amendment without comment.

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on Home Occupations

At the request of Sandi Smith (Ward 1), the following amendment was added to allow for the possibility of voluntary registration with the city by home occupation businesses – which the ordinance does not require to be licensed:

6:415. License Required, Number of Licenses Available, Eligibility.
…
(9) Medical marijuana home occupations do not require licenses but may register with the City by providing the address of the home occupation and the registry number on the caregiver registry identification card or that the MDCH issued to the caregiver who is delivering the marijuana, or some other form of identification.

Smith indicated that the idea is to allow the opportunity to have clarity, in the event that someone gave a tip to the police about suspected illegal activity at a location and that there could be a police raid. She wasn’t sure if anyone would take advantage of that opportunity to voluntarily register with the city to avoid the police storming in. She said she didn’t see any harm.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) suggested that “registry identification card” be supplemented with “some other form of identification.” [The Chronicle understood this to have been accepted as a friendly amendment, but the city clerk's records do not include it as part of the amendment.]

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wondered if this kind of thing was something usually found in an ordinance or rather was simply a service the city is providing. Postema said it wasn’t usual but said it was also appropriate. The police could have their own program based on a council resolution, he said.

Outcome: The council approved the amendment on a roll call vote, with dissent from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on Titling

The next amendment simply made the subsections of 6:417 parallel by giving them each a title:

6:417. Application Requirements for New Annual License or Renewal of Existing License; License Requirements for New License and for Renewed License
(1) Application Acceptance. …
(2) Application Requirements. …
(3) License Requirements. …

Outcome: The council approved the titling of the subsections.

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on Signage

Originally proposed at the previous council meeting, but inadvertently amended out of the proposed amendment, was language specifying the size of letters on the required signage:

(3) License Requirements. A new license shall not be issued to a dispensary or cultivation facility until the applicant for the license complies with all of the following requirements:
…
(d) The applicant has installed a sign in a location visible to all persons who enter the premises, which contains the following statement in letters that shall be no less than one inch high: …

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wanted to strike the hyphen included in the phrase “one-inch” that appeared in the amendment as offered. Postema indicated that it was not a legal issue, and the hypen was dropped.

Outcome: The council approved the requirement on lettering size for the signs.

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on Labeling, Record Keeping

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) had developed an alternative to the package labeling requirements that was meant to address concerns about record-keeping and the need of a patient to contact someone about the product they were provided. Record-keeping requirements in subsections 6:419 (5) and 6:419 (10) were also eventually added to the discussion and moved as part of the same amendment, with revisions made along the way. As amended and approved by the council, the material read:

6:419. Conduct of Business at Cultivation Facility or Dispensary.
…
(4) All marijuana delivered to a patient shall be packaged and labeled as provided in this chapter. The label shall include:
(a) a unique alphanumeric identifier for the person to whom it is being delivered;
(b) a unique alphanumeric identifier for the cultivation source of the marijuana;
(c) that the package contains marijuana;
(d) the date of delivery, weight, type of marijuana and dollar amount or other consideration being exchanged in the transaction; and,
(e) a certification that all marijuana in any form contained in the package was cultivated, manufactured, and packaged in the state of Michigan.
(f) the warning that:
THIS PRODUCT IS MANUFACTURED WITHOUT ANY REGULATORY OVERSIGHT FOR HEALTH, SAFETY OR EFFICACY. THERE MAY BE HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OR USE OF THIS PRODUCT. USING THIS PRODUCT MAY CAUSE DROWSINESS. DO NOT DRIVE OR OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY WHILE USING THIS PRODUCT. KEEP THIS PRODUCT OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. THIS PRODUCT MAY NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT OR BY ANY PERSON WHO DOES NOT POSSESS A VALID MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT REGISTRATION CARD.
(g) The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of an authorized representative of the dispensary whom a patient can contact with any questions regarding the product.
(h) The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of at least one governmental or non-profit organization that may be contacted by a patient who has concerns about substance abuse of drugs, including marijuana.
(5) All of the required labeling information, including coded patient and caregiver information shall be maintained and available for inspection at a cultivation facility or dispensary for no less than 180 days one year after dispensing.
…
(10) A cultivation facility or dispensary shall keep records of the caregivers from whom they receive marijuana in any form, and shall make the records available to the City in a health emergency upon request to promote health, safety and welfare, or to otherwise verify compliance with this chapter.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) wanted to know what the rationale was for the alphanumeric coding. Smith explained that it would be a way for dispensaries to create a code to allow tracing of product origin without using the codes provided by the state. If it turned out to be necessary to find someone who grew or delivered some particular product, you’d be able to find them.

Briere indicated that they’d learned that the state would not release any information to the city based on Michigan Dept. of Community Health codes unless it’s related to a criminal investigation, so the previous version of the ordinance would not help in the event of a health emergency.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) wanted to know about the requirement that a “certification” be required that the product originated in Michigan. Briere answered by saying that would have to be figured out – it might wind up just being an assertion.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) expressed some irritation at the timing of some of the information, saying it had come at the “eleventh hour.” He wanted to hear comments from the city attorney on possible effects on the ability of the police to enforce the law. City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that it’s not new that the state won’t give out information related to registry numbers. The issue, he said, is what kind of record-keeping the council wants dispensaries to have. He didn’t have a problem with the changes. But Postema said that it’s more than just a health issue – the state’s statute intends that there be a close relationship between the patient and the product, he said. He then advocated for enabling the licensing board to look at dispensary records in order to ascertain that the product is grown in Michigan.

Briere noted that even if the city had registry card numbers, the state would not confirm that a number is an authentic registry card number.

Derezinski said he was interested not just in the health issue but also the origin of the product. He wanted to make sure the numbering system would allow for the board to verify that the product was being grown in Michigan. He wanted to know if the board would be able to do spot checks or if the process would be driven by complaints. Postema again advocated for the council to require that records be turned over not just in the event of an emergency, but also to verify that the product originated in Michigan.

Smith suggested adding 6:419 (5) to the amendment on the floor at the time.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) wanted to know what the rationale was for maintaining the records only 180 days. Smith indicated that just a few hours earlier, there was a draft that indicated 30 days, but she’d be willing to think about an even longer period.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) worried about having just a single unique identifier – perhaps there should be some way of cross checking. Smith indicated that patients would know what their own unique identifier is – they could give it to someone else if they wanted that person to pick up their medication for them.

As he scanned down the other sections, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered about the idea of site visits – would the licensing board be visiting dispensaries? He said he was leery of having inspections conducted, because it would put city staff in positions they might not want to be in or qualified to handle. He wanted to know what other communities are doing in this regard. Postema indicated that few other communities were trying to enact any ordinances and were instead continuing to “punt,” in some cases by extending moratoria for another two years. Ypsilanti and Ypsilanti Township had developed some legislation, Postema said.

Postema continued by picking up on Smith’s comment about someone picking up another person’s medication for them. There needs to be some additional thought about ensuring that the product goes to a qualified patient, Postema said.

Derezinski indicated he was troubled by questions about when the information on the coding would have to be made available. Briere noted that this was dealt with in subsection (10), and that the council was then discussing just (4) and (5) – would he like (10) to be added to the discussion? Derezinski agreed he wanted it to be added.

At that point, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) suggested including (10) to the same amendment – which deals explicitly with conditions on which the coded information would need to be made available. Taylor made the suggestion that instead of a medical emergency, more general conditions could result in a request to produce records: “… upon request to promote health, safety and welfare, or to otherwise verify compliance with this chapter.”

Rapundalo indicated his support for the additional language. He asked if the 180 days could be extended to a full year – that was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wondered how the record-keeping for labeling information – for example, “that the package contains marijuana” – would be handled. Briere explained the logic was that you would just run off two labels, and put one on the package and stick one in a book.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the labeling and record-keeping amendments as revised during deliberations.

Medical Marijuana Licensing – Amendment on License Renewal

The last amendment introduced was one that dealt with how licenses get renewed.

6:417. Application Requirements for New Annual License or Renewal of Existing License; License Requirements for New License and for Renewed License
…
(8) A license issued under this chapter shall expire one year after the date of issuance. To renew an existing license, the licensee shall submit an application in the same manner as is required to apply for a new license no sooner than ninety (90) days before the expiration date and no later than sixty (60) before the expiration date.

Briere explained that the language had been developed in response to concerns expressed in the community that with an annual license renewal, a dispensary might have to compete with everyone else who wanted a license. She had not been able to come up with language that made clear that existing license holders would not compete for renewal of their license with others who wished to obtain a license for the first time.

Postema said it would not be his expectation that a dispensary with a license would have to compete in that way. Rapundalo noted that it was an important issue, because the city had seen what could happen when an extra liquor license became available a few years ago – it was confusing to determine who might have had a grandfathered-in request. Mayor John Hieftje stressed that the renewal of a license for a dispensary would not be automatic.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) felt that appropriate language to afford first-in-line status could be drafted by the time of the second reading of the ordinance.

Final outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the marijuana licenses. The second and final votes on its medical marijuana business licensing proposal and its medical marijuana zoning ordinance are scheduled for council’s April 19, 2011 meeting. The moratorium on the use of property in the city as a medical marijuana dispensary or a medical marijuana cultivation facility was extended from March 31, 2011 to June 30, 2011.

[.pdf of medical marijuana licensing ordinance as amended on March 21, 2011]

Medical Marijuana Non-Disclosure Policy

Before the council for consideration was a policy on non-disclosure of certain information, like names and birth dates for patients and caregivers, that might be collected in the course of the zoning and licensing process for medical marijuana businesses. The non-disclosure policy had been discussed, but postponed, at the council’s March 7, 2011 meeting.

The resolution had originally been introduced by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) in the context of the council’s current work on zoning and licensing ordinances for medical marijuana businesses – legislation that has not yet been given final approval by the council. [.pdf of original draft resolution]

Because the medical marijuana licensing ordinance that received initial approval that same evening ultimately did not include the collection of any personal information, Briere – who’d sponsored the resolution – indicated she wished to withdraw it.

Outcome: No council action was taken, as the resolution was withdrawn.

Non-Renewal and Renewal of Liquor Licenses

The council considered two resolutions regarding liquor licenses – one for renewal and one for non-renewal. At its previous meeting, the council had authorized the appointment of Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) as a hearing officer to entertain appeals – a move that was made over the objection of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The appointment of Derezinski as a single hearing officer had come as an amendment to the original council resolution that night, which had called for the council’s liquor license review committee to serve as a hearing board.

Since appointment as hearing officer, Derezinski has handled two non-renewal recommendations. The city’s intent to pursue non-renewal of a liquor license for Studio Four – located at 314 S. Fourth Ave. – had been based on non-payment of taxes, but they’d since been paid, Derezinski reported at Monday’s meeting. So that license was now being recommended for renewal.

Derezinski’s finding of facts concerning The Fifth Quarter, however, included more than 89 calls for police service at the establishment between Jan. 1, 2010 and Oct. 25, 2010, and reports of fights among patrons, and between Fifth Quarter staff and their patrons. [The club is located at 210 S. Fifth Ave.] The report included one occasion on which 25 officers from Ann Arbor police department, University of Michigan department of public safety, and the Washtenaw sheriff’s office had monitored crowds exiting the establishment and had needed to arrest several people for disorderly conduct.

Outcome: In separate votes, the council voted unanimously to recommend renewal of Studio Four’s liquor license, over dissent from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and unanimously to recommend non-renewal of The Fifth Quarter’s license.

Applications to MDNRE

Before the council were two items concerning applications to the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNRE) – the city’s own applications, and an application that Washtenaw County is making.

MDNRE City Applications – Skatepark, Canoes, Boats

For two of the MDNRE grants – for improvements to the Gallup livery and park, and for the proposed skatepark at Veteran’s Memorial Park – the city is applying to MDNRE’s Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. For the third grant, the city is applying to MDNRE’s Waterway Grant-in-Aid program to upgrade the boat launches at Gallup and Argo parks.

The city’s park advisory commission recommended approval of the applications at its most recent meeting. ["PAC Supports Grants for Skatepark, Gallup"]

MDRNR City Apps – Skatepark, Canoes, Boats: Council Deliberations

An amendment offered by Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) prioritized the skatepark project over the Gallup renovations – based on the opportunity to leverage $400,000 of matching funds from the county, which will expire unless the skatepark’s construction is under contract by Jan. 1, 2012.

The amendment came after clarification with Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, that just two of the applications are ranked by the city in the application process – those for the skatepark and the Gallup canoe livery. Both are for $300,000 from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. The other grant, to improve boat launches, is from a different source – the Waterway Grant-in-Aid fund.

In the course of deliberations, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted to know if it were possible to apply to the waterway fund for the canoe liveries – which would eliminate the need to rank the skatepark against any other project. Bahl said it was not possible.

Hohnke’s reasoning was that the skatepark grant could ultimately mean the transfer of a $1 million asset from the Friends of the Skatepark to the city. But if it doesn’t happen this year, the matching grant funding – from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission – won’t be available. An application for improvements to the Gallup canoe livery, on the other hand could be applied for next year, reasoned Hohnke.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wanted to know what it would mean to “prioritize” the applications. It’s simply a matter of designating one as the preferred application, explained Bahl. Bahl pointed out that there’s precedent for communities with two applications to have both of them approved.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who serves as one of two ex officio city council representatives to the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) – noted PAC was very interested at its last meeting in seeing the Gallup canoe livery project go forward. They were anticipating those improvements being useful in the context of the increased canoe traffic that may result from construction of the Argo Dam bypass, which is due to start construction this season. He later stressed that PAC had itself not expressed a priority ranking of Gallup canoe liveries versus skatepark.

Taylor wanted to know if prioritization of the skatepark would significantly reduce the chances of receiving the grant to improve canoe liveries – and if so, what the negative impact would be. Bahl responded by saying that it’s not just a matter of increased boat traffic, but also the safety for pedestrians and the boats. The turnaround for taking canoes from Gallup back up to Argo is logistically challenging. There are also accessibility improvements planned as part of the project.

Taylor drew out the fact that the Gallup canoe livery project is a $750,000 project – the city’s share would be $450,000. Taylor summed up his thinking by saying that a $300,000 grant for the livery would give the city roughly half a project, whereas the $300,000 for the skatepark would mean that they are pretty much “all the way home.” Based on that, he was willing to support prioritization of the skatepark.

Mayor John Hieftje said there’d been an unexpected “bonus” of sales of gas and oil leases into the state trust fund, so it had more money in it now than anyone could remember. He said if the council didn’t accept Hohnke’s amendment, it would essentially leave the prioritization to the state.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wanted to know if the canoe livery improvements would be revenue positive – she noted that as far as she understood, the skatepark would not generate revenues. Bahl confirmed that the improvements at the canoe liveries would generate additional revenue – through more boats and more programming.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he’d be supporting the prioritization, pointing to the chance to leverage funds from the county. He said his understanding was that grant applications that had matching support were generally stronger than other applications. Kunselman noted that a lot of money had already been invested in canoeing recently, whereas there’d been no corresponding support for skateboarders – it was their turn.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) indicated that he’d support the amendment, but said it would be a hard choice if it came down to it. He said he didn’t want to dismiss the idea that there’s a need for the canoe livery improvements. For him, the county’s match was the crucial point, and he would be willing to cross his fingers that both projects would receive funding.

Outcome on priority amendment: The council voted to approve the prioritization, over dissent from Sandi Smith (Ward 1).

Outcome on approval of applications: The council voted unanimously to approve the three grant applications.

MDNRE: County Application – Land Acquisition

The city council had received a recommendation from Ann Arbor’s greenbelt advisory commission (GAC) to send a letter of support for an application from Washtenaw County to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. Through its natural areas preservation program, the county hopes to secure funds from the state to help purchase a parcel in Ann Arbor Township now owned by a subsidiary of Domino’s Farms.

At its most recent meeting, GAC had recommended that the city council consider a letter of support, after Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), the council’s representative to GAC, had cautioned against GAC’s sending such a letter before confirming that the county’s application would not dilute the city’s own chances to win grant funding. [Chronicle coverage: "Greenbelt, County Look to Partner on Farms"]

During brief deliberations, Hohnke mentioned his earlier concern about the possibility that the county’s application could dilute the city’s own chances for its grants. But he had clarified with city staff that the source of the grant money comes from two separate state funds – one for parks improvements and one for land acquisition.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the letter of support for Washtenaw County’s grant application.

“Transformer Plaza”

Before the council for consideration was authorization of a transfer of $90,000 from its parks memorials and contributions fund to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

During a council break, Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, shows Sabra Briere her book. (Photo links to close-up of book cover. Kudos to readers who can guess before clicking through what Pollay is reading these days.)

The money will be used by the DDA for the design and construction management of improvements to a plaza near the Forest Street parking structure. Because of the number of DTE Energy transformers that are situated near the plaza, it’s known in some circles as Transformer Plaza.

The $90,000 figure stems from the $50,000 and $40,000 contributions made to the parks fund by the 601 S. Forest and Zaragon I developments, respectively, which are located in the vicinity of the plaza. As part of any site plan review process in the city of Ann Arbor, developers are asked to make a donation of land so that new residents have access to adequate open space. But the city also accepts cash donations in lieu of land contributions.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the residents of the South University area would be pleased – it’d been discussed a lot. Mayor John Hieftje said the project had been in the pipeline a long time.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the transfer of funds.

Millers Creek

Scott Dierks gave a presentation to the council on the background for the Millers Creek improvement plan, which the council was asked to adopt by resolution later in the meeting. Dierks introduced himself as representing the Huron River Watershed Council, as a member and volunteer. He described Millers Creek as one of six creeksheds in the city, covering about 2.5 square miles in the vicinity of Plymouth and Huron Parkway. The creekshed drains to the Huron River.

He traced the origin of the improvement plan back to 1992 as a grassroots effort by Environmental Research Institute of Michigan (ERIM). ERIM had reached out to the HRWC and to the landscape design firm Peter Pollack & Associates. That eventually led to a Pfizer-funded effort in 2003-04, to develop an improvement plan, which made specific recommendations in light of current and future land use in the creekshed. The plan was approved by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Millers Creek watershed improvement plan is still used as an example of good watershed planning by the EPA, and is accessible through the EPA’s website, Dierks said.

He listed off some specific accomplishments that have grown out of the plan: 56 rain barrels installed; 6 rain gardens installed; 2 detention pond retrofits, including Thurston Pond, which help control stormwater runoff on around 36 acres; planting of oak savannah; and 500 feet of bank stabilization along Huron Parkway.

The resolution before the council, Dierks said, formalizes the work that has already been done and would serve three purposes: (1) acknowledge the plan, which will guide development in the Millers Creek watershed; (2) help designate the watershed as a county drain; and (3) continue to facilitate relationships between creek groups, the University of Michigan, the city, and the neighborhood.

During council deliberations, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – in whose ward the creekshed is located – complimented those who’d done the long and hard work on the plan. He noted that he’d served on the action team that had worked on the plan in the earlier part of the decade. The city’s planning commission had approved the plan back in 2006, he said. What had been missing was the formal adoption by the city council. He pointed to the designation of Millers Creek as a county drain as a priority when that opportunity presents itself – the designation as a drain would allow it to be eligible for grant funding, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously adopted the Millers Creek improvement plan.

Sakti3 Development District Hearing Set

The council was asked to vote to set a public hearing on establishing an industrial development district (IDD), which could lead to tax credits for Sakti3.

The company is a University of Michigan spin-off focused on advanced battery technology, headed by Ann Marie Sastry. The IDD would be established for just under an acre of land, located at 1490 Eisenhower Place. Sakti3 is reportedly considering an investment of $2.4 million in new equipment and hopes to hire five additional people.

The hearing will be held at the council’s April 4, 2011 meeting, which starts at 7 p.m. in the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall at 100 N. Fifth Ave. [Previous Chronicle coverage mentioning Sakti3: "No Secret Sakti3 Wants Its Batteries in Cars" and "Lutz Rides Current Motors Potential"]

During brief deliberations, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that Sakti3 is an incredible business, saying that it represents the future and is cutting edge.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to set the hearing on establishing an industrial development district.

City Administrator Hiring Plan

Before the council for consideration was a resolution calling on the mayor to appoint a five-member city council committee, which is to include the mayor, to handle the search process to find a replacement for outgoing city administrator Roger Fraser. Fraser announced his resignation at the council’s Feb. 28, 2011 working session. At the end of April, Fraser will leave the city to become a deputy treasurer for the state of Michigan.

The resolution charged the search committee with providing a recommendation to the council at its April 19 meeting for an interim city administrator. At that meeting, the committee is also expected to present a plan for a selection process to hire a permanent administrator. The plan is to provide for internal as well as external candidates.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) share a laugh before the March 21 meeting.

Mayor John Hieftje led off council deliberations on the resolution by saying it was gracious of Fraser to stay on through the end of April. He thanked mayor pro tem Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) for putting together the resolution. He said he hoped to finish the hiring process before the end of the summer, if not in mid-summer.

Hieftje announced that the following councilmembers would serve on the committee: Sabra Briere (Ward 1); Christopher Taylor (Ward 3); Marcia Higgins (Ward 4); and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2). Higgins will chair the committee. Hieftje indicated that the committee members had not been chosen by seniority, but rather to get a good mix of experience and perspective. He stressed that the committee would only make recommendations and that the whole council would need to approve all the decisions.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked that when the plan is presented to the council, they get a cost impact analysis for various options for doing the search.

Derezinski described himself as bringing “a lot of baggage” to the committee, having been involved in some searches for the superintendent of schools. He also said he’d been through the process when the Eastern Michigan University board of regents had chosen Bill Shelton as president. He described it as a unique dynamic. The two main functions of the city council are to hire and fire the city manager and to approve the city budget, but it’s not often that the council has the opportunity to do it. [The council also hires and fires the city attorney.]

Derezinski said his bias was to seek expertise from professionals who help with searches, like Colin Baenziger & Associates or the Michigan Municipal League [.pdf of Michigan Municipal League executive search services description]. He said there’d need to be full and robust discussion by the whole council as well as the public. He described it as “a balance” between adhering to the requirements of open government and the interest by some candidates in maintaining confidentiality in the early stages of a search.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appoint the search committee.

Schedule Change for Passover

The council considered a resolution to revise its regular meeting schedule for the year by changing its second meeting in April to Tuesday, April 19. The shift was prompted by observation of Passover, the week-long Jewish festival and holy day – its start is celebrated at sundown on Monday, April 18. The council has been holding its meetings recently in the Washtenaw County administration building, due to renovations at city hall. But they are expected to have returned to their chambers on the second floor of city hall for the April 19 meeting, which will begin at 7 p.m.

During deliberations, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned why they are moving the meeting, given that Passover lasts a whole week. Mayor John Hieftje indicated he had no explanation. City administrator Roger Fraser indicated that it was a suggestion from the city staff, based on previous city council practice. He noted that it would affect the planning commission’s meeting as well. [The planning commission typically meets on Tuesdays, but during the week of Passover its meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 21.] Hieftje allowed he was not an expert in this area. He said he was interested “only in taking the correcting action here.” Sabra Briere (Ward 1) provided the insight that the first night of Passover is considered especially important.

Outcome: The council voted to change its calendar due to the Passover holiday, with dissent from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Council OKs Property Transfer to Avalon

Before the council for consideration was a resolution to approve the transfer of property at 1500 Pauline from the Washtenaw Affordable Housing Corp. (WAHC) to Avalon Housing. The council also approved the release of WAHC from all terms of their $700,000 federal HOME loan, $300,000 federal CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) loan and Housing Affordability Agreement.

The nonprofit Avalon is currently managing all of WAHC’s properties as part of a consolidation, described as a “merger,” that began two years ago. At its Feb. 22, 2011 meeting the city council approved a site plan for the 1500 Pauline property, allowing Avalon to construct 32 dwelling units and 39 surface parking spaces. The plan includes demolition of four existing apartment buildings – known as the Parkhurst Apartment complex – containing 48 units.

The new construction would include six new buildings totaling 53,185 square feet. Five of the buildings would include one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments and three-bedroom townhomes. The sixth building would be a community center with a playground. The project won a recommendation from the city’s planning commission at that body’s Jan. 20, 2011 meeting.

Outcome: Without comment, the council voted to approve the transfer.

Street Task Force: “Have a Heart, Give Smart”

The council heard a presentation from its street outreach task force, which the council appointed at its Sept. 20, 2010 meeting and charged with developing cost-effective recommendations for addressing the issue of downtown panhandling and the needs of those who panhandle. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Task Force Consults Panhandlers"]

The report was given by two members of the task force – Maggie Ladd, executive director of the South University Area Association, and Charles Coleman, a project coordinator with Dawn Farm.

Highlights of the report included recommendations that: (1) the city council revise the city’s ordinance on solicitation to prohibit panhandling in additional locations; (2) the police chief increase police attention downtown during the busiest hours of the week; (3) the city’s community standards division increase their interaction with the public; and (4) the mayor’s downtown marketing task force take an expanded role working with residents, merchants and service providers. The task force report describes an educational campaign to advise downtown visitors and University of Michigan students about options they have besides giving money to panhandlers, a campaign with the slogan “Have a Heart, Give Smart.” [.pdf of street outreach task force report]

During her communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), chair of the task force, told her council colleagues that a revision to the city’s ordinance on solicitation would be presented to them for consideration at their April 4, 2011 meeting.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: 415 W. Washington Update Scheduled

Mayor John Hieftje noted that last year, the council had approved a three-way collaboration between the city, the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, and the Arts Alliance to work on a plan for the future of the city-owned lot at 415 W. Washington. He allowed that a report was owed to the council about progress on that project, and there’d be a half hour presentation at the council’s April 4 meeting. [By way of background, the resolution establishing the collaboration specified: "RESOLVED, That a progress report be delivered to City Council at the first meeting in February, 2011." Chronicle coverage: "City Restarts 415 W. Washington Process" ]

Comm/Comm: Increased Public Accessibility for Meetings

During his communications time, city administrator Roger Fraser mentioned that the city council’s meetings would now be available streamed live over the web: CTN Channel 16 Live. Previously, the city has provided access to archived coverage of public meetings through Community Television Network’s video-on-demand service: Ann Arbor Public Meetings Archive. [CTN also provides live broadcasts of the meeting on its cable TV community access channel.] The accomplishment of the live streaming came relatively quickly after Fraser had first mentioned the possibility at the city council’s Feb. 14, 2011 work session on the budget. From Chronicle coverage of that session [emphasis added]:

Community Television Network

Included in the impact sheets was one for CTN, which Fraser indicated was not part of the general fund, but which is also trying to meet reduction targets. The impact sheet indicates an expenditure for a capital investment of $97,431 – to transition to an appropriate digital format. The new format, said Fraser, would allow for live streaming on computers instead of on television.

Comm/Comm: DDA-City

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) gave the council an update on progress of discussions between two committees – one from the city council and another from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – to reach agreement on a new contract under which the DDA would continue to manage the city’s public parking system. The committees have been meeting weekly, he said, and had reached the point of discussing contract language. He said they are making good progress and would be able soon to bring forward a document that could form the basis of a spirited, but fruitful, conversation. [As of the meeting on the morning of March 21, the DDA and the city's committees are still not in agreement on what the percentage of gross parking revenues should be that the DDA pays to the city, or on the specifics about the contract's term. For background on these discussions, see Chronicle coverage: "Parking Money for City Budget Still Unclear"]

Comm/Comm: Labor Report

In January, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), the chair of the council’s labor committee, indicated that he would be using the council communications slot on the agenda to give updates on the status of labor negotiations. Since that time, he has done that on several occasions. On Monday, he announced that he wanted to respond to some statements in an article that had appeared about a week before in a publication called AnnArbor.com.

Rapundalo said he’d already conveyed his responses to the author of that article, but that he would not be commenting on the author’s “vivid prose,” which described Rapundalo’s reaction to a report that he’d been looking at. [From the article's opening line: "It's early on a Friday morning and Ann Arbor City Council Member Stephen Rapundalo is shaking his head, a look of distaste frozen in his eyes."]

Rapundalo began by addressing the reporting of some background material provided in the article, which Rapundalo said portrayed some confusion with respect to the purpose of the state’s Act 312 statute.

Rapundalo stressed that Act 312 had not taken away the right to strike by police and fire personnel provided in exchange for compulsory arbitration. [From the AnnArbor.com article: "When it was put in place in 1969, it was seen as a solution to a problem: By sending disputing parties to arbitration, cities could avoid public safety strikes, and police and fire personnel would be guaranteed an arbitrator would consider their requests."] Instead, Rapundalo pointed out, the Public Employment Relations Act 336 of 1947 already prohibited strikes by public sector employees. He quoted the act: “A public employee shall not strike.”

Later, in 1969, the legislature passed Act 312, which Rapundalo then quoted to show again that the right to strike was already prohibited when Act 312 was passed: “It is the public policy of this state that in public police and fire departments, where the right of employees to strike is by law prohibited, …”

Rapundalo also took issue with any implication from statements reported in the article that the city had not bargained in good faith in prior negotiations. Rapundalo said the city had based its negotiations on the economics of that time, noting that economic conditions had changed, even in a very short time period. Today’s economic reality is different, he said, and the city is now negotiating based on current conditions.

Rapundalo then took issue with statements attributed to a representative of the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association (AAPOA) about reduction in health care benefits. Rapundalo stressed that the city had not asked and was not asking for reductions in health care benefits. Health coverage is not the issue, he stressed, but rather employee contributions to their own health coverage and retirement.

Rapundalo took issue with the statement by AAPOA reported in the article that expressed a willingness of the union to continue their 2009 contract, without any wage increases. If the union thinks that forgoing a wage increase is a fair sacrifice, Rapundalo contended, then they really haven’t been paying attention to what’s been going on around the rest of the state and the country. Other unions have given up longevity bonuses, uniform allowances and retirement plan contribution matches, he said. The “step increases” based on years of service that are a part of the current police contract, together with other features of the contract, will result in a 3.5% increase in costs in FY 2012 compared to the current fiscal year, Rapundalo said – when other groups’ costs are going down.

Rapundalo also disputed a claim by AAPOA that exposure to radon in the city hall building resulted in greater need for health care by its members, and that their health care plans should be left in place. Rapundalo stated that there’d been no demonstrable link between conditions in the building where they’d been previously housed and any increased need for health care. If there were such a link, Rapundalo concluded, it would be covered under a worker’s compensation claim, not under the city’s health care plan.

Comm/Comm: Digital Cities Award

Robert Blake, regional vice president for government and education at AT&T, presented Dan Rainey, the city of Ann Arbor’s IT director, with the 6th place Digital Cities Award for cities in its category for the survey – those with populations from 75,000-124,999.

Though it's not part of his day-to-day responsibilities as head of the city's IT department, Dan Rainey was wrangling cable at the start of the city council meeting. The meeting was held at the Washtenaw County administration building boardroom, where council is meeting temporarily due to renovations at city hall.

The top cities for that category – in order of ranking, including ties – were: Pueblo, Colo.; Olathe, Kan.; Lee’s Summit, Mo.; Roseville, Calif.; High Point, N.C.; Independence, Mo.; Simi Valley, Calif.; Ann Arbor, Mich.; West Palm Beach, Fla.; Arvada, Colo.; Roanoke, Va.; Schaumburg, Ill.; and Berkeley, Calif.

Blake noted that it was the third year in a row that Ann Arbor had been included in the top ten. This year the ranking was especially meaningful, he said, because it was based on a new scoring system that is based on actual results. Among the specific initiatives cited by Blake were: a shared data center with Washtenaw County and adoption of cloud technology; use of in-car digital video in police cars; online water consumption data for consumers; and the city’s use of Facebook and Twitter.

Comm/Comm: Police Incident

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) related how a resident of his ward had called in a report to the police about something and had wound up being cited for a violation, which had caused the person to become very upset. Anglin described how the situation had resolved itself with an apology from the police, and concluded that in this town, you can fight city hall. Anglin portrayed the episode as reflecting positively on the police department.

Comm/Comm: Palestine

Henry Herskovitz addressed the council with two items he said he thinks will help promote peace in Palestine: (1) passing a human rights resolution for the cessation of military aid to Israel; and (2) his group’s forum to be held on March 29 at 7 p.m. at the Mallets Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library. He told the council that they might think it was risky to challenge the local Jewish community, but he gave them an example of a food co-op in Olympia, Wash. that had passed a boycott of Israeli goods, and had become stronger as a result of it.

Herskovitz told the council that he’d joined the Olympia food co-op and and showed them a picture of himself standing in front of the co-op. He told councilmembers that standing for social justice can, in fact, have an impact. He quoted Rosie the Riveter from World War II: “We can do it!” He asked council members to “shed past acrimonies” and to attend the Mallets Creek forum on March 29.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, April 4, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the city council chambers on the second floor of city hall at 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

On the second day of the recent press preview at the 2011 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, a group of Ann Arborites gathered around a sleek-looking, gleaming blue electric scooter and exchanged banter.

Bob Lutz, an investor in Ann Arbor-based Current Electric, plans to take one to the firm's electric scooters on the road when "the snow is off the highway." (Photos by the writer.)

“So, Bob,” says Erik Kauppi, founder and chief engineer of Current Motor, the maker of the scooter. “Are we going to see you tooling around Ann Arbor’s streets on one of these things soon?”

“Bob” is Bob Lutz, the father of the electric Chevy Volt, the sexiest young thing at the auto show – on four wheels, that is. “As soon as the snow is off the highway, I’ll stop by with my checkbook,” Lutz says.

Lutz is now retired from GM, but is far from quitting his advocacy of electric vehicles. He opened up his checkbook last year to Current Motor, becoming an investor in, and adviser to, the company. Just how much did he invest?

“It’s enough to demonstrate a solid interest and small enough so that if this fails I won’t be terribly distressed about it,” Lutz says. “That’s the way I like to invest.” But, he says, the leadership at Current is going about it the right way, so he is confident in their success.

“They know where they’re going and they’re going about it the right way. They don’t have dreams of grandeur like Vetrix did, when they put hundreds of millions of dollars in and then built a huge plant to produce 80,000 a year, and sold 5,000,” Lutz says, referring to a now-infamous and oft-cited blunder of one of Current’s competitors.

Peter Scott, Current’s president, is proud of the way the company bootstrapped itself, armed with just a few hundred thousand dollars from investors. Competitors like Zero or Brammo needed millions of dollars to bring their products to market. Vetrix, Scott says, spent $180 million to get their electric scooter to market. “We did it for under $400,000.”

Part of the reason is that while the Current is assembled in Ann Arbor, none of the parts are manufactured here. They don’t make the plastic or metal. Current develops the electronics and the critical control systems and then they “tie the components together into a better bike.”

Also, “getting to market,” in Current’s case, means about a half-dozen test bikes being driven by initial customers. Current’s first customer was a guy in Atlanta, who tested out the company’s “beta bike.” Based on his input, they made a great deal of engineering improvements over the course of last summer. They’ve delivered a total of six pre-production bikes in Ann Arbor and a couple of other cities.

This strategy of having just a few enthusiasts test drive and review their bikes worked so well, now they’re trying it on a larger scale. At the auto show, the company announced a “test pilot” program. They’re going to lower the price by about $2,000 – placing it in the $4,000-$6,000 range, if customers agree to give them feedback and to tell all their friends about their bikes via social media.

Peter Scott, CEO of Current Motor.

“We want to get the bikes in people’s hands, we want real customers to tell us what is good and bad about the bikes,” Scott says. “We obviously have to bring on more support people, so we are really going to make sure that those are happy and satisfied customers.”

Scott is confident that these “happy and satisfied” customers will spread the word once they get on these bikes. Not only do people “want to be green and want to be seen being green,” he says, but there is something about riding these things that is a transformative experience. He calls the reaction he sees from newbies after a test ride “The Electric Vehicle Grin.”

“They just have a big smile on their face, and they go, ‘It’s so quiet.’ That is the best-selling feature,” Scott says.

The company was formed about two years ago when Ann Arbor’s John Harding bought a Chinese-made electric scooter “and quickly broke it.” So, being a DIY tinkerer, he fixed it himself, then started assembling more, himself, to sell. Harding met Erik Kauppi, the brains behind Current’s control system, and together they set off on a path to build a better bike.

Scott came into the picture later, when Harding and Kauppi asked the business incubator Ann Arbor SPARK to give them a hand in building a business plan.

“But, then, you know, SPARK likes to do these dating things where you work for the company,” Scott says. “You look at them, they look at you, you like each other, then I joined the company full-time a little over a year ago.”

Why? Because, he says, the inventors know what they’re doing, they’re good guys, and “In general, I’m a greenie. … And I love developing new markets that don’t exist.”

And, despite all you read about the future of transportation being electric, the market is still in its infancy. Even electric guru Bob Lutz knows that.

“The whole electrification of cars, the media kind of gives the impression that, well, in two to three years, everything will be electric,” Lutz says. “No, it’s going to be a very gradual transition. Twenty years from now, electric vehicles may account for 15%, max, of total new vehicle sales.”

The transition will be gradual, but even American society will change – perhaps not as quickly as Asians or Europeans – but it will change.

“Twenty or 30 years ago,” Lutz says, “you suggested to somebody that they look at a compact car and they’d say, ‘I’ll be damned if I ever put my family in one of those little tin cans. Give me a Buick Roadmaster, one of those 20-foot monsters.’ And now everybody looks at those and says, ‘I can’t believe I actually drove one of those.’”

Scooter-agnostic Ann Marie Sastry, CEO of the lithium-ion battery startup Sakti 3, which is based in Ann Arbor. She's standing next to a scooter made by Current Electric.

So, meanwhile, back at the auto show, Lutz, Kauppi, Scott and others gathered around the display model, exchanging technical details. Standing next to Lutz is Ann Arbor’s Ann Marie Sastry, a University of Michigan professor and CEO of the lithium-ion battery startup Sakti 3 – another startup that promises to change the world. For now, they discuss the future.

“We’re going to remain battery-agnostic as we develop our scooter,” Kauppi informs the group.

“That’s OK,” Sastry replies. “We’re remaining scooter-agnostic as we develop our battery.”

About the writer: Howard Lovy is a Michigan-based freelance writer who focuses on technology and innovation.

Ann Marie Sastry, CEO and co-founder of Sakti3, at her company's booth at the Detroit auto show. (Photo by the writer.)

But Sastry and her company, Ann Arbor-based Sakti3, is far from “out in the cold.” They are in the auto business for the long haul and do not plan on being relegated to a basement booth forever. Eventually, if all goes well, her company’s battery technology will be powering the cars upstairs on the main show floor’s Electric Avenue.

What is it about the “Eureka moment” in her UM lab that prompted her to help found a company two years ago? What is it that turned the heads and opened the wallets of the Michigan Economic Development Corp. and cleantech venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, who chipped in $2 million out the gate? What exactly is her company’s battery technology?

Here’s her answer: “We’re interested in both materials and manufacturing technologies at Sakti3. So, we’re sort of looking at the intersection of those things.”

She pauses. She grins slightly, then says somewhat apologetically: “Sorry, I know that’s not good enough.”

This is Sastry’s polite way of saying that any further information is proprietary. She will only add that, “We are working on a manufacturing technology, and we think that’s one of the bottlenecks.”

It’s not surprising that she is guarded. The future of the auto industry is electric – at least, so says Michigan’s governor – and the future of electric plug-in vehicles depends on some big technological leaps in battery technology. If you think you have the secret sauce, you’re not going to tell everybody. Eventually, Sastry says, “We’ll all duke it out in the marketplace.”

Technology Transfer: From Academia

That kind of unabashedly capitalistic tough talk would have been practically unheard-of coming from a university professor in eras gone by – when academics were supposed to be in research for purely academic reasons.

David Cole, who heads the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, remembers the ’70s, when it seemed like a dirty little secret for an academic to commercialize a technology he or she developed. In some cases, Cole says, it’s about academic purity. In other cases, it’s jealousy. “Some people work on technologies that can be commercialized, others do not.”

Sastry says the technology developed in her lab could have gone a number of ways, but in the end she chose automotive battery development rather than pure academics.

“When the founders looked at some results we had, some technology we were looking at, they thought, ‘OK we could absolutely write more papers on this subject and go down that road and try to really focus on this as an academic exercise or we could really go down another road, which is to take what we have and see if we can build it in the steps required for commercialization.’ Both things are difficult. They’re just different.”

Sastry is fortunate enough to work in an academic culture where commercialization is not only no longer frowned upon, but actively encouraged – especially by UM President Mary Sue Coleman.

“The culture has totally turned around,” Sastry says, and not just at UM but in academia broadly.

“There is this space between what we do in our laboratories and getting into commercialization that we have to address,” Sastry says, speaking of a disconnect between the basic research done at universities and their transitions into tangible benefits for consumers. “And we have to help address it. It can’t be all just (marketplace) pull. There has to be some (academic) push.”

Sastry credits Coleman for pushing this cultural turnaround at UM. “Our president has been very specific. She believes that we need to enable tech transfer, and has funded more offices and centers to do that.”

But, she says, no matter how much help a company gets, it’s tough out there.

“It’s a high degree of luck, there’s a high degree of naïveté, there’s a high degree of optimism,” Sastry says, of founding a company.

“In our case, we want to put batteries in cars, so we have a lot to learn about cars.”

The university did not push her in the direction of automotive, she says. The University of Michigan has to rely on the “passion and vision of researchers” to determine where things are going to go. The university, as a whole, starts up very diverse types of companies, from nanotech to biotech to energy and materials.

Cole says that most technologies emerging from blue-sky research can go in multiple directions.

Technology Transfer: What Direction?

“I don’t think Sakti3 would see themselves as … a battery manufacturer,” Cole says. For that to happen, it takes extra push – a combination of public and private funding, in Sakti3′s case – to transition from idea to an actual company that makes things. And Sakti3 is still early stage.

“You see, the one thing that is true with intellectual property is that it’s actually fairly inexpensive,” Cole says. “It’s when you go to commercialize it, put in manufacturing capabilities, that it becomes a different story.”

To help move the “story” along in 2008, the MEDC designated Sakti3 as a Michigan Center of Energy Excellence and awarded the firm $3 million to accelerate its efforts to move to a prototype and to partner with the University of Michigan. This was added to an initial $2 million in financing from Khosla Ventures, led by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla. Khosla has his hands in many alternative energy and automotive enterprises, including Fisker Automotive.

“We were really lucky to engage with Khosla Ventures almost as soon as we decided to do a company,” Sastry says. “There’s a real similarity in approach there, which is great.

“Working with KV is incredible because they really know what they’re doing. They really know a lot about building businesses. We think we know something about building batteries, so that’s really good,” Sastry laughs.

It’s a marriage that works out because there is only so much a bunch of academics can do. You need expert venture capitalists to take it to the next level. “In terms of the mechanics of a business, how to raise funds, how you price real estate, these are things that venture capitalists know a lot about,” she says.

Technology Transfer: Timing

So, when will Sakti3′s materials, or manufacturing technology, or process, or combination of all of them – she is still vague on that “proprietary” stuff – actually see the marketplace?

“We’re a few years off yet,” she says.

Five years? 10 years?

“A few years off,” she repeats.

Then Sastry decides to be somewhat more charitable with her information.

“To be very honest, it depends on a lot of things,” Sastry says. “Depends on how fast we run, depends on the dollars that come in, it depends on how successful and, sometimes, how lucky you are in doing the technology. So, there are a lot of variables. You know, starting a business is very risky.”

It also helps that Sakti3 has a development agreement with GM and – with her university hat on – she runs a development center called ABCD (Advanced Battery Coalition for Drivetrains) to help the automaker develop next-generation batteries.

Sakti3 currently employs fewer than 20 people in Ann Arbor, but Sastry expects that number to grow. And it will grow in Ann Arbor.

But what if, say, a Boston-based company eventually wants to buy the business, she is asked.

“It’s a fair question,” Sastry replies. “I mean, what we decided to do is to start a company to advance our technology to get it into vehicles. And so, where we’re at as an entity five or 10 years from now, I hope that we’re kicking out a lot of batteries that are going into really good cars. There’s a lot of steps between now and then.”

So, at this stage of the company’s development, Sakti3′s goals match those of the University of Michigan to commercialize its basic technology and the goals of the state of Michigan to make the state a center for next-generation automotive battery technology and manufacturing.

“The thing that’s nice about our situation is that the government of the region that’s most important to us – where our customers live – is also strongly supportive of what we’re doing,” Sastry says. “How often does that happen?”

Veteran journalist Howard Lovy has focused his writing the last several years on science, technology and business. He was news editor at Small Times, a magazine focusing on nanotechnology and microsystems, when it first launched in Ann Arbor in 2001. His freelance work has appeared in Wired News, Salon.com, X-OLOGY Magazine and The Michigan Messenger. His current research focus includes the future of the auto industry.