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

It’s possible that the council might be briefed at the meeting on proposals received by the Oct. 18 deadline for the purchase of the city-owned parcel on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues (the former Y lot), but that’s not yet clear. The property had been listed for $4.2 million.

Many of the Oct. 21 items already on the agenda can be divided into three main categories: transportation, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and the city’s energy commission.

The council held a work session about transportation on Oct. 14, 2013. Transportation-related items on the Oct. 21 agenda include a resolution that would admit Ypsilanti Township as a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The specific question to be considered is a revision to the AAATA’s articles of incorporation – which would also expand the number of board members from nine to 10.

A second transportation-related agenda item is a city-led initiative to develop a new train station, with the location to be determined. The existing location, as well as one on Fuller Road near the University of Michigan medical campus, would be among the possibilities. On the council’s agenda is a contract with URS Corp. to conduct an environmental review that would include public engagement, site selection and conceptual design. The council’s authorization would be $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000, with the rest covered by a federal grant that has already been awarded by the Federal Rail Authority.

To the extent that pedestrian infrastructure is also part of the city’s transportation system, a transportation-related pair of items would alter the definition of “sidewalk” to include cross-lot walkways. Affected by the change, for example, would be walkways that connect streets with parks or school property. The change would allow for use of sidewalk repair millage funds to repair cross-lot walkways, without triggering the winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners.

Finally, the city council will be asked to approve an annual resolution related to wintertime transportation – the purchase of ice control salt for city streets.

Related to the Ann Arbor DDA are three items: (1) reconsideration of the appointment of Al McWilliams to the board of that authority – likely to be confirmed on a re-vote, if reconsideration is approved; (2) final consideration of a change to the city ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF (tax increment financing) capture – likely to be postponed yet again; and (3) a budget allocation of $280,000 to cover costs associated with replacement of downtown ornamental, pedestrian-scale light poles. The DDA is contributing $300,000 to the cost of the $580,000 project. Some councilmembers think the DDA should pay for the full amount, so the eight-vote majority required for the budget amendment might not be achieved.

The specific size of the majority vote required could also be a factor in one of two agenda items related to the city’s energy commission – the re-appointment of Wayne Appleyard to the commission. The confirmation will need a seven-vote majority under the city charter, because he’s not a city resident. The other energy-related item is an energy commission-recommended resolution – which was previously rejected, reconsidered and postponed by the city council. The resolution would call upon the city’s employee retirement board to divest from fossil fuel companies.

This article includes a more detailed preview of each of these agenda items. More details on other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings Monday evening on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article below the preview material. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

Transportation

Three transportation-related issues appear on the agenda.

Transportation: Ypsilanti Township Membership in AAATA

The council will be asked to approve revised articles of incorporation for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, so that Ypsilanti Township is admitted as a member of the authority. The board would be expanded from nine to 10 members, with the additional member to be appointed by Ypsilanti Township. At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board already approved the membership of Ypsilanti Township. That action was contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

Ypsilanti Township is now a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, pending consideration by the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils. (Green indicates the geographic area included by the AAATA.)

An earlier expansion in membership was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The name of the authority was also changed at that time to add the word “area” – making it the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. [Amendment 3 of the AAATA articles of incorporation]

The expansion of the AAATA’s geographic footprint to include some jurisdictions geographically close to the city of Ann Arbor – and with whom the AAATA has historically had purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) – sets the stage for a possible request of voters in the expanded geographic area. That request would be to approve additional transportation funding to pay for increased service frequencies and times.

The AAATA could place a millage request on the ballot in May 2014, probably at the level of 0.7 mills, to support a 5-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed. A schedule of public meetings to introduce that plan runs through mid-November. A decision to place a millage on the ballot would first need AAATA board approval – a question that has not yet appeared before the board.

Transportation: Ann Arbor Station

Appearing on the Oct. 21 agenda is a contract with URS Corp. Inc. (URS) to carry out an environmental review of the Ann Arbor Station project. This rail station project relates most immediately to the prospect that Amtrak will be offering improved inter-city service on the Chicago-Detroit Amtrak line.

Amtrak train arrival in Ann Arbor. (Chronicle file photo from September 2013)

An improved intercity rail station also has implications for the way that a different type of service – commuter rail service between Ann Arbor and Detroit – might be created and offered in the future. The total budgeted for the Ann Arbor Station contract on the Oct. 21 agenda – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – is $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. A transfer of $550,000 to the city’s major grant fund was approved a year ago by the city council at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting for the total project budget.

The federal grant that will cover 80% of the project cost, up to $2.8 million for the federal share, had been accepted by the council at its June 4, 2012 meeting. So for the contract on the Oct. 21 agenda, the city’s share works out to approximately $165,000 with the Federal Rail Authority covering the remaining $660,000.

The funding approved by the city council a year ago came after the city learned that previous expenditures – which were made in connection with the now demised Fuller Road Station project – would not be considered as eligible local matching funds under the federal grant. Fuller Road Station had been a joint venture with the University of Michigan, and called for UM to build a parking structure on the same site as the proposed rail station at a location on Fuller Road.

The preliminary work that URS would do under the contract on the Oct. 21 agenda does not presuppose a preferred location for a new passenger rail station. The existing Amtrak station on Depot Street would be among the alternatives considered, in addition to the location identified for the Fuller Road Station, which is on city-owned land between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive adjacent to the UM medical center. The Fuller Park land is designated by the city in planning documents as parkland, and is zoned as public land. A 2009 appraisal commissioned by the city put the value of the land at $4.25 million.

Transportation: Sidewalks

The ordinance change in front of the council for final approval on Oct. 21 would revise the definition of “sidewalk” so that cross-lot walkways could be repaired using sidewalk repair millage funds, but not trigger the ordinary winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners. Cross-lot walkways include those that connect streets to parks or school property, or connect two parallel streets.

At the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting, councilmembers were set to give final approval of a different version of the ordinance revision, which would have still placed the responsibility of sidewalk shoveling in the winter on owners of property adjacent to cross-lot walkways. But the council took a different approach after hearing objections from the owners of adjoining property.

A companion resolution later on the agenda completes the necessary council action to allow the definitional change to have an actual impact: The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use.  So the companion resolution accepts 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

This cross-lot path was described by John Ohanian at the city council’s July 1, 2013 meeting as one that he’d become responsible for shoveling if the city adopted the change in the definition of sidewalk.

This is the path – looking east from Frederick and Middleton into Greenbrier Park – that abuts Ohanian’s property.

Transportation: Ice Control Salt

The request to be considered by the council is for the purchase of bulk salt, for ice control, and seasonal back-up supplies to be sourced from the Detroit Salt Company for $245,143 (2,800 tons of “early fill” at $34.50 a ton and 4,100 tons of “seasonal backup” at $36.23 a ton).

Winter use of ice control salt on roadways by the city of Ann Arbor (in tons). Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle. This year the council is being asked to authorize the purchase of a total of 6,900 tons of ice control salt.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

Three items on the Oct. 21 agenda relate to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Ann Arbor DDA: Al McWilliams

The item on the council’s Oct. 21 agenda is a reconsideration of the council’s vote that appointed Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That original vote was taken on Sept. 16, and resulted in a 6-5 tally in favor.

Al McWilliams attended the Oct. 2, 2013 meeting of the DDA board and voted on the one agenda item. This photo is from Chronicle coverage of that meeting.

The Sept. 16 vote came after mayor John Hieftje stated during deliberations on Sept. 3 – as McWilliams’ confirmation that night appeared to have insufficient support on the short-handed council – that he was withdrawing the nomination.

That gave rise to a technical procedural issue – because Hieftje’s request for confirmation on Sept. 16 appeared to be a fresh nomination. So it should have been subjected to the council’s rule that applies when the vote comes at the same council meeting as the nomination – namely, that the confirmation achieve an eight-vote majority. For detailed analysis of the procedural issue, see “Column: How to Count to 8, Stopping at 6.”

City attorney Stephen Postema was then directed by the council at its Oct. 7 meeting to produce a written opinion on the legal validity of the 6-5 vote, which he subsequently did. Later in the Oct. 7 meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) convinced his council colleagues to re-open the agenda to consider a motion to reconsider the Sept. 16 vote on McWilliams. Warpehoski could do that as someone who voted on the prevailing side.

That motion for reconsideration was immediately postponed until the Oct. 21 meeting. Even if successful, Warpehoski’s motion is unlikely to result in a change of any councilmember’s vote, but would serve to eliminate the procedural question about McWilliams’ appointment. On Oct 21, the first vote to be taken will be on the motion to reconsider. If at least six councilmembers vote to reconsider, then the question of the appointment itself will be in front of the council.

Ann Arbor DDA: DDA TIF Ordinance

An ordinance revision to Chapter 7 that’s in front of the council for final approval on Oct. 21 would clarify the existing language of the ordinance, which regulates the DDA’s TIF capture. The clarification would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction on TIF revenue that’s already expressed in the ordinance language. This ordinance revision was first considered by the council in February of this year. It received initial approval in April and has been in front of the council several times since then, but always postponed. Another postponement is likely on Oct 21.

A joint committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has been meeting, most recently on Oct. 16, and appear headed toward an alternative that would enact a “cap” on DDA TIF revenue – that could be set at a high enough level that it might not have a substantive impact on actual TIF revenue. When that alternative is finalized, it would be brought forward as a substitute proposal. But based on the Oct. 16 committee meeting, that won’t be ready for the Oct. 21 council meeting.

Ann Arbor DDA: Main Street Light Poles

The city council will be asked to approve $280,000 to be spent replacing 81 light poles in downtown Ann Arbor. The light poles will be purchased from Spring City Electrical Manufacturing at a cost of $173,307, with additional costs for installation and labor bringing the total to $280,000.

Downtown Ann Arbor Main Street light pole on the northeast corner of Main & William. Photograph is from the city of Ann Arbor, taken in April 2012.

The expenditure would amount to the city’s portion of a $580,000 project to replace 81 light poles – with the other portion of the cost borne by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The $280,000 for the city’s share still needs to be allocated from the general fund to the field operation unit’s FY 2014 street lighting budget. As a budget amendment, the resolution needs eight votes under the city charter. It might not achieve that number, because of the ongoing political wrangling between the Ann Arbor DDA and the city council.

By way of additional background, in April 2013 when the council gave initial approval of the change to the city ordinance that regulates the DDA’s TIF capture, an argument against that move was that it would leave the DDA without sufficient revenue to pay for the roughly $580,000 cost of replacing the decorative light poles, which are described by some as an iconic feature of Main Street.

Replacement was characterized as an urgent public safety issue, because the bases of some of the poles are rusting. Various statements were made about the number of light poles that had failed, but responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle earlier this year, city of Ann Arbor staff indicated that in early 2012 two of the light poles fell – due to a structural failure at the base of the poles caused by rust. After inspection of all the poles, two additional light poles were deemed to be in immediate risk of falling and were also replaced. As a part of the council’s FY 2014 budget deliberations, the council altered the DDA’s budget and directed the DDA to allocate $300,000 toward the replacement of the Main Street light poles.

The council’s specific action on May 20, 2013 was to alter the DDA’s budget by recognizing additional TIF revenues of more than $568,000, and shifting $300,000 of that revenue from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund. The council’s budget resolution also recommended that the DDA spend $300,000 of its TIF fund on the Main Street light pole replacement. Earlier this year, in response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that the city council was expected to be asked to act on the matter either at its July 15 or Aug. 8 meeting. But the issue was not placed before the council until Oct. 21.

City Energy Commission

Two items on the Oct. 21 agenda relate to the city’s energy commission.

City Energy Commission: Appleyard Appointment

On the agenda as of Friday, Oct. 18 was just one appointment – that of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission.

Wayne Appleyard at an April 2010 joint meeting of the city’s energy, environmental and planning commissions. Next to Appleyard is Bonnie Bona, who at that time chaired the planning commission. (Chronicle file photo.)

Appleyard’s nomination was put forward at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting, but his confirmation was not requested at the council’s following meeting on Oct. 7. Even though the nomination was not put forward at the Oct. 7 meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) registered his concerns about the nomination of a non-city resident.

So the confirmation request is pending clarification of some concerns that Anglin and other councilmembers have raised about Appleyard’s status as a non-city resident and his long tenure on the commission – since 2002.

As a non-city resident, Appleyard’s confirmation needs seven votes, which it would likely not have received on Oct. 7 given the short-handed council that night. [Only eight out of 11 councilmembers attended.]

The seven-vote majority, instead of the typical six, is required by the city charter for non-city residents: [emphasis added]:

Section 12.2. Except as otherwise provided in this charter, a person is eligible to hold a City office if the person has been a registered elector of the City, or of territory annexed to the City or both, and, in the case of a Council Member, a resident of the ward from which elected, for at least one year immediately preceding election or appointment. This requirement may be waived as to appointive officers by resolution concurred in by not less than seven members of the Council.

Appleyard lives in Grass Lake, Mich. With respect to Appleyard’s long tenure, a city charter requirement on city boards and commissions has been analyzed as not applicable to the city’s energy commission. The charter requirement limits continuous service on some kinds of boards and commissions to six years, after which a three-year lapse is required:

Boards and Commissions SECTION 5.17.
(a) The Council may create citizen boards for each of the following departments: Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Public Works, Utilities Department, Department of Parks and Recreation, and Department of Building and Safety Engineering. It may, in addition, create such a board for any department established pursuant to this charter. The Council shall prescribe the number of persons on each such board, the terms of office, the method of appointment of members, the board officers and the method of their selection, and provisions concerning the holding of regular and special meetings. No person serving on such board continuously for six years shall be eligible to reappointment, until the lapse of three years. …

The city energy commission was established in 1985 by a council resolution to “oversee City policies and regulations in areas of energy efficiency concerns and make periodic public reports and recommendations to the City Council.” So it’s not analyzed as corresponding to any particular city department. Under special qualifications, the online Legistar description states: “wide spread representation; interest in energy.” Terms of appointment for energy commissioners are three years.

When Appleyard was up for reappointment in 2010, no objections were raised. On that occasion, mayor John Hieftje separated out Appleyard’s confirmation for a separate vote to ensure it was clear that he’d specifically received adequate support from the council, despite not being a city resident.

Appleyard is principal with Sunstructures Architects, with a focus in renewable energy and sustainable architecture. Appleyard designed the house of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

City Energy Commission: Fossil Fuel Divestment

A resolution on divestment from fossil fuel companies is back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013, the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until Oct. 21.

It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013. The resolution recommended that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. The resolution defines a “fossil fuel company” to be any of the top 100 coal companies or top 100 gas and oil extraction companies.

The top three coal companies on the list are: Severstal JSC; Anglo American PLC; and BHP Billiton. The top three gas and oil companies on the list are: Lukoil Holdings; Exxon Mobil Corp.; and BP PLC. The basic consideration of the resolution is the importance of the role that greenhouse gas emissions play in global warming.

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

Nancy Walker, executive director of the city’s employee retirement system, has reviewed for the council at its meetings the implications of fossil fuel divestment on the retirement fund. Walker had told the council that moving to separately managed accounts from the system’s preferred strategy – of using co-mingled funds, mutual funds, and particularly indexed funds – would cost 30-40 basis points more in fees, independent of any difference in the return on investment.

Live updates from the meeting will appear starting here a few minutes before the scheduled meeting start time of 7 p.m.

6:42 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers has arrived. Responding to a Chronicle query, he indicates that bids on the old Y lot will not be reported out or discussed tonight – because Colliers is still analyzing the responses.

6:49 p.m. Several attendees are here for the Diwali proclamation. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is wearing a sari for the occasion.

7:07 p.m. Thomas Partridge is using the time before the meeting to quiz Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) about the DDA ordinance. And we’re off.

7:08 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) is absent. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is absent for roll call, but he’s here. Higgins’ absence will have implications for vote tallies.

7:12 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wants the McWilliams reconsideration moved up on the agenda, right after the mayor’s communications. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) points out that Higgins is absent and that one condition on the reconsideration was that all councilmembers be present for the reconsideration. Mayor John Hieftje says Higgins is on her way. Warpehoski ventures that he could re-open the agenda in case Higgins has not arrived when the council considers the item.

7:14 p.m. City administrator communications. City administrator Steve Powers reports on a “feel-good” story – 400 trick-or-treaters during the city’s trick-or-treating on the Huron River. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl introduces some guests from Thailand and China who have been visiting Ann Arbor.

7:14 p.m. Proclamations. The proclamation on the agenda tonight is for Diwali – a five-day Hindu festival, the “festival of lights.” It declares Nov. 3, 2013, as Diwali in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

7:23 p.m. Speakers are in turn explaining the religious and cultural significance of Diwali.

7:23 p.m. Higgins has just arrived.

7:25 p.m. Buddhism is now being explained. Previous speakers explained Jainism and Sikhism.

7:27 p.m. We’re now receiving a chanted blessing. The blessing earns applause from the audience.

7:29 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Four people are signed up to speak on the topic of the contract with URS for the environmental review for the Ann Arbor Station project: Rita Mitchell, Nancy Shiffler, Clark Charnetski, and Jeff Hayner. One of the two alternate speaker slots is also filled with a speaker who wants to address the council on the topic of the URS contract – Drew Waller. [More background above on Ann Arbor Station].

Four people are also signed up to talk about the addition of Ypsilanti Township to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority: Martha Valadez, Matt Vanauker, Marko Arizankoski, and Abishek Thiagaraj. Alternate speaker Emmanuel Jones is also signed up to talk about adding Ypsilanti Township to the AAATA. [More background on Ypsilanti Township membership in AAATA]

Ann Arbor energy commissioner Mike Shriberg is signed up to speak in support of the resolution urging the employee retirement system to divest from fossil fuels companies. This resolution is back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013 the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until tonight. It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommending that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. [More background on fossil fuel divestment]

Tom Partridge is signed up to speak in favor of his Ward 5 city council write-in candidacy.

7:36 p.m. Tom Partridge introduces himself as an advocate for all members of the community, including the middle class. He’s here as a candidate for city council and asks voters in Ward 5 to write in his name when they vote. He calls for the ending of homelessness, more access to affordable transportation, and health care. He recalls the demonstration several years ago at city hall by the KKK, which he says mayor John Hieftje authorized. [Hieftje was not mayor at the time.] Partridge complains that the planned redesign of the city’s website doesn’t go far enough.

7:40 p.m. Rita Mitchell says the community has not yet agreed on whether the city should take responsibility for a new train station. She pegs the total amount of money invested in study of a site at $1.7 million. She questions whether URS can be an objective consultant given some work done in connection with previous Fuller Station and the connector study. Mitchell questions the amount of funding in the contract just for the public engagement process, which she thinks is too much, compared to the amount for the environmental assessment per se.

7:42 p.m. Martha Valadez is transit organizer for the Ecology Center and Partners for Transit. She says access to public transportation is crucial for her personally and for her community. She supports the urban core transit program. She supports the membership of Ypsilanti Township in the AAATA. It will give the township a chance to participate in future funding requests, not just participation in governance, she says.

7:44 p.m. Matt Vanauker introduces himself as a Ward 5 resident and high school classmate of Kunselman. He’s surprised that the council didn’t support the countywide initiative last year. He can’t imagine a reason why Ypsilanti Township would not be included as a member in the AAATA. He relies on public transportation to accomplish basic life functions, like grocery shopping and medical appointments.

7:46 p.m. Nancy Shiffler is chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She thinks the public involvement component is a strength of the proposal. She’s looking forward to a well-publicized schedule. She cautions against self-selected participants in online surveys. Task 4 of the contract, she says, is problematic, because it could result in a categorical exclusion for an FRA requirement with respect to parkland – and exclusion that would come too early in the process.

7:49 p.m. Mike Shriberg is an energy commission member. He’s spoken to the council twice previously. He’s conveying some of the information in this document: [Divestment: Response from Energy Commission] He asks that the council not be fixated on the question of fees. He asks the council to focus on what can be done now – by focusing on the investments that are not in indexed funds.

7:53 p.m. Clark Charnetski recalls the 30-year history of the study of different sites of a new rail station. That was the era when the Amtrak station was still located within the building where the Gandy Dancer restaurant is currently located. He invites the council to think about rail transportation from the passenger’s point of view. He notes a number of assumptions that were in place 30 years ago that have not proven to be correct. He says that even with current levels of ridership, an improvement to the station is needed. Responding to the idea that the current location could be used to improve the station, he says that the study will examine that option.

7:56 p.m. Abishek Thiagaraj is a junior at UM in biomedical engineering, volunteering with Partners for Transit. He sees transit as a priority. The student perspective is that they’re grateful for the current service AAATA provides. He talks about the need to improve transportation services to off-campus locations. He talks about the ability to integrate students more completely into the community through public transportation.

7:59 p.m. Jeff Hayner is running for Ward 1 city council as an independent. He’s just come from the PTO launch council. He draws an analogy to the trust we have in educators and elected representatives. He thinks community engagement is the key – in improving schools as well as in local government. He calls the redesign of the city webpages that’s on the agenda tonight long overdue. He’s glad to see it – one of the tabs will be “Democracy in Ann Arbor.” He disagrees with Tom Partridge that it’s difficult to get to the website. On the train station contract, he says the public engagement component is very heavy, but wonders if that will be used to shape public opinion or to listen to it.

8:01 p.m. Drew Waller works at Michigan Theater. He’s excited about the prospect of Al McWilliams being appointed to the DDA. [A single hiss comes from the audience.] We should focus on what McWilliams can do for the community, he says.

8:01 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

8:04 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says she’s been meeting with constituents about a city ethics policy. She’s not sure there’s appetite for it, but is preparing a resolution for the next meeting to instruct the city attorney to provide training for public officials on Act 196 of 1973 and to the city administrator to provide information on the city’s website. She announces the re-launch of a customer satisfaction survey she conducted previously. The Huron High School tennis team has won a championship, that she’s reporting tonight at the council table.

8:12 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expresses his appreciation for city administrator Steve Powers’ work. He’s seen Powers show up to community meetings, he says.

8:12 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) give a shout-out to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission for a national level recognition. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) echoes Anglin’s remarks about Powers. She refers to a meeting on the Dhu Varren, Green, Nixon intersection as an example of his work. “Our taxes are well-invested,” said one resident, according to Lumm.

8:12 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) mentions an Oct. 30 meeting on a public improvement project in Springbrook subdivision, near his neighborhood. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) thanks Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) for bringing forward the Diwali proclamation. He also announces that he’s working with staff on an outdoor smoking ordinance that would mirror the county ordinance. He’s looking to empower the city administrator to designate some areas of parkland as non-smoking areas. He says at least playgrounds should be non-smoking. He’ll be asking the park advisory commission for input, as well.

He announces that he and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) are working on a framework to establish a pedestrian safety citizens advisory committee. He thinks the committee would be seated at the second council meeting in November. The effort is not designed to determine or preempt the outcome of the effort to repeal the pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

8:16 p.m. Briere follows up on Warpehoski’s remarks by saying they want first to identify the broad categories of people or groups who might serve on such a pedestrian safety committee.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) announces that he’s working with Teall on a resolution asking that the University of Michigan decommission the large billboard outside Michigan football stadium on Stadium Boulevard. If it won’t be decommissioned, he says, the resolution will ask that the university operate the billboard only just before large events. Taylor also alerts the council to the recommendations of the park advisory commission‘s subcommittee on downtown parks. That will be on the next meeting’s agenda for formal acceptance, he says.

8:17 p.m. Nominations. Being nominated to fill the remaining vacancy on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board – due to the resignation of Nader Nassif – is Cyndi Clark, owner of Lily Grace. The business is described on its website as a luxury cosmetics boutique in downtown Ann Arbor.

To fill a vacancy left by Leigh Greden on the Ann Arbor housing commission board, Tim Colenback is being nominated tonight. Greden’s nomination had been made, but was never put forward for a confirmation vote. Colenback also serves on the city’s housing and human services advisory board. Colenback has told Hieftje that he can’t serve on both bodies.

A replacement for Julie Grand on the park advisory commission is being nominated tonight – David Santacroce. He’s a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and chaired the North Main Huron River corridor task force, which worked for a year and delivered its report recently to the council on recommendations to the corridor. Grand finished her term on PAC, completing her maximum two terms of service at PAC’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.

Amy Shepherd is being nominated to serve on the city’s commission on disability issues. On the energy commission, Shoshannah Lenski is nominated to replace Mike Delaney, and Mike Shriberg is being nominated for reappointment.

8:17 p.m. Appointments. On the agenda as of Friday, Oct. 18 was just one appointment – that of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission. Appleyard’s nomination was put forward at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting, but his confirmation was not requested at the council’s following meeting on Oct. 7 – pending clarification of some concerns that councilmembers have raised about Appleyard’s status as a non-city resident and his long tenure on the commission, since 2002. [More background on Appleyard appointment]

8:21 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje begins by saying he can’t imagine anyone who’s more knowledgeable or qualified to serve on the energy commission.

8:21 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) says Appleyard is highly qualified, and thanks him for his service. But local government is about local governance, she says. It’s not personal, she says, and she values his service. She thinks that among the 115,000 residents of Ann Arbor, other qualified commissioners could be found. If the energy commission recommends measures that could have an effect on the city’s financial well-being (like the fossil fuel divestment resolution), the recommendations should be made by people who will live with the consequences.

8:24 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) says Appleyard is abundantly qualified. But she’s concerned about the length of his service – as a non-city resident. Reasonable term limits are a good government practice. So Lumm and Kailasapathy won’t support the appointment. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) says that service in the community leads to more service in the community. There needs to be a kind of welcome mat put out to residents. Watching the energy commission, Anglin says, he thinks that residential solar and geothermal initiatives should have received more attention. Going outside the community shouldn’t be necessary, he concludes.

8:30 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says it’s not Appleyard’s fault that there are no term limits. She’s going to support the appointment. She reminds the council that non-city resident Alison Stroud was unanimously approved by the council as an appointee to the city’s commission on disability issues, because of her unique qualifications.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) says he’s delighted to support Appleyard, who exemplifies excellence. Hieftje reiterates that Appleyard has tremendous expertise. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) points out that Appleyard also serves on the environmental commission as the energy commission’s representative. She says he represents a valuable background and voice that would be otherwise unrepresented. She calls his explanations cogent and patient. His style is non-aggressive but firm, she says. She supports his appointment. Hieftje points out that Appleyard is a taxpayer as a business owner.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) recalls his relationship with Appleyard. Appleyard designed Kunselman’s house and Kunselman served on the energy commission back when Kunselman was the planning commission’s representative to that body. He says he’ll support Appleyard’s appointment.

8:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to approve the reappointment of Wayne Appleyard to the city energy commission. Dissenting were Lumm, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

8:31 p.m. Reconsider: Appointment of Al McWilliams to DDA (postponed from Oct. 7). The council’s vote on Al McWilliams’ appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority was taken on Sept. 16, and was approved on a 6-5 vote in favor – but appears to have required eight votes under the council’s rules. That vote resulted in a procedural controversy. Late in the Oct. 7 meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) convinced his council colleagues to re-open the agenda to consider a motion to reconsider the Sept. 16 vote on McWilliams. Warpehoski could do that as someone who voted on the prevailing side. That motion for reconsideration was immediately postponed until tonight’s meeting.

The point of Warpehoski’s motion is unlikely to result in a change of any councilmember’s vote, but would serve to eliminate the procedural question about McWilliams’ appointment. Tonight, the first vote to be taken will be on the motion to reconsider. If at least six councilmembers vote to reconsider, then the question of the appointment itself will be in front of the council. [More background on Al McWilliams appointment]

8:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to reconsider the vote on McWilliams’ appointment. Voting against reconsideration were Hieftje, Taylor and Teall.

8:34 p.m. Anglin reviews the conflict of interest issue. He says that more important than that was the reaction some of the female councilmembers had had to the material on McWilliams’ website. McWilliams might be very talented, but Anglin feels that he erred in his judgment to post some of that material. It was a 6-5 vote, he says, adding that it’s the first time he’s opposed a mayoral nomination.

8:37 p.m. Lumm thanks Warpehoski for his action to reconsider the vote. She says it was honorable. She thanks city attorney Stephen Postema for writing the opinion that the council had requested. She’ll vote against the appointment. It’s not hard to find qualified applicants for the DDA board, she says. She wants someone who has the maturity to serve on the board. It’s an issue of judgment and respect, she says.

Taylor says he’ll support the nomination, noting that the council has received many communications from people who know McWilliams well in a professional context. Business leaders are universal in their support of him, he says.

8:41 p.m. Warpehoski reviews some of the objections: (1) conflict of interest; (2) misogyny; and (3) judgment. He thinks that (1) could be addressed with timely recusal. As far as the misogyny, he felt the material McWilliams had posted was a media critique, not an invitation to “Hey, check out this hottie!” He said he didn’t see any basis for the claim of misogyny. On (3) he echoes Taylor’s remarks.

8:46 p.m. Kunselman thanks Warpehoski for his effort. “The man insulted me,” Kunselman says. And for that reason he’ll be voting against McWilliams. Kunselman says he won’t repeat the insult because it wouldn’t be appropriate decorum. Kunselman says that “third-grade potty humor” is not appropriate for a public official. He cautions that someone else at the table could be the next person that McWilliams insults.

Kailasapathy says we all curse, but cursing with women’s body parts is unacceptable.

8:52 p.m. Teall says that she wishes the council wouldn’t spend time on this agenda item, but will “pipe up as well.” She says that someone who could bring great life to the DDA should be supported.

Petersen says she wasn’t planning on saying anything. The fact that the word “misogyny” is being used indicates that the appointment isn’t appropriate. She recalls her interaction with McWilliams on the phone. She’d told him he’d watered down his message with the images and the language. He’d told her he disagreed and said it was appropriate vernacular. The recommendations the council had received were from people she respected, she said, but they did not know about the conversation she’d had with him. At this point, she’s not ready to appoint him to the DDA. “We need the highest caliber people” on the DDA board, she says.

Lumm thanks Petersen. She says it’s a core demonstration of poor judgment to defame her colleagues in the way that McWilliams did.

8:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has again voted 6-5 to appoint McWilliams to the DDA board.

8:52 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Four public hearings are scheduled. The first is on a change to the definition of sidewalks – the effect of which will allow sidewalk millage repair funds to be used to fix cross-lot walkways, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement.

The second and third hearings are fairly straightforward rezoning issues – one involving an annexation into the city from an adjoining township and the other a rezoning from residential to public land (because the city acquired the land). The fourth public hearing is on site plan for U-Haul on South State Street.

8:53 p.m. PH: Sidewalk ordinance. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:57 p.m. PH: Rezoning of Kocher property. Thomas Partridge says that items like this should have amendments attached requiring accessibility to public transportation and affordable housing.

8:57 p.m. PH: Rezoning of 3875 East Huron River Drive. No one speaks at this public hearing.

9:00 p.m. PH: U-Haul site plan. Thomas Partridge again calls for an amendment requiring access to public transportation on the site. He says the site plan should be referred back to the planning commission.

9:01 p.m. Minutes and consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes just two items. One is a contract with Keystone Media ($26,900) to redesign the basic templates for the city’s website. The other is the acceptance of the board of insurance review minutes from Sept. 19.

9:01 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. No one does tonight.

9:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved the consent agenda.

9:01 p.m. DDA ordinance. The ordinance revision (to Chapter 7) in front of the council for final approval tonight would clarify the existing language of the ordinance. The clarification would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction on TIF (tax increment financing) revenue that’s expressed in the ordinance language. This ordinance revision was first considered by the council in February of this year. A joint committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has been meeting, most recently on Oct. 16, to develop a substitute proposal. But based on the Oct. 16 committee meeting, that won’t be ready for tonight’s meeting. The item is likely to be postponed. [More background on DDA TIF ordinance]

9:03 p.m. Kunselman reports that a joint committee meeting of DDA board members and councilmembers has not yet settled on the details of an alternative approach. Kunselman wants the ordinance postponed again until Nov. 7, so that the council can weigh the current proposal and the alternative that the committee puts forward.

9:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone the DDA ordinance changes until its Nov. 7 meeting. That’s the last council meeting before the new composition of council is seated, following the Nov. 5 election.

9:04 p.m. Sidewalk Ordinance. This ordinance change in front of the council for final approval would revise the definition of “sidewalk” so that cross-lot walkways could be repaired using sidewalk repair millage funds, but not trigger the ordinary winter maintenance requirement on adjacent property owners. The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use; so the companion resolution accepts 34 specific cross-lot walkways for public use. [More background above on cross-lot paths]

9:05 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanks staff for their work.

9:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the change to the sidewalk ordinance.

9:05 p.m. Accept 34 sidewalks for public use. This is the companion resolution to the sidewalk ordinance change. The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use; so the companion resolution accepts 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

9:06 p.m. Lumm thanks staff for being responsive to concerns from specific neighborhoods.

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

9:06 p.m. Zoning: Kocher parcel. This is a typical rezoning after annexation from a township into the city. The 2925 Devonshire parcel is 0.66 acres and will be rezoned to R1A (single-family dwelling district).

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the zoning of the Kocher property.

9:06 p.m. Zoning: 3875 East Huron River Drive. The council is being asked to give final approval of a rezoning request for 3875 E. Huron River Drive from R1A (single-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The council had given initial approval of the rezoning at its Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. The site, which is adjacent to the city’s South Pond park, will be used as parkland.

Aerial view of 3875 E. Huron River Drive.

The property was acquired by the city in 2010, but a “life estate” was in place until earlier this year, according to a staff memo. The two-acre site – located on the north side of E. Huron River Drive and west of west of Thorn Oaks Drive – includes a single-family home. The land overlooks South Pond. City assessor records show that the property was previously owned by the Elizabeth Kaufman and Wes Vivian trust.

9:07 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) calls it a generous gift.

9:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the zoning of the 3875 East Huron property.

9:09 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess. The next item up on the agenda is the Ypsilanti Township membership in the AAATA. Township clerk Karen Lovejoy Rowe and supervisor Brenda Stumbo were here previously, but it appears they have departed from the meeting.

9:20 p.m. And we’re back.

9:20 p.m. Admit Ypsilanti Township to AAATA. The council is being asked to approve revised articles of incorporation for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, so that Ypsilanti Township is admitted as a member of the authority. The board would be expanded from nine to 10 members. [More background on Ypsilanti Township membership in AAATA]

9:21 p.m. Brenda Stumbo is actually still here.

9:25 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) says it’s been over a year since he was out opposing the countywide initiative. But he’d told Stumbo at the time that he’d do whatever he could as a city councilmember to get Ypsilanti Township into the authority. He’ll support Ypsilanti Township as a member, he says, but it’s important to understand what the significance is. It’s a matter of governance, not of finances. However, if there are questions that still need to be answered, he’d be content to wait. Putting Ypsilanti Township at the table will bind the community together better, he says.

9:25 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) says she thinks it’s a bit premature to vote on it tonight, given that AAATA has just now started its public engagement campaign on the 5-year plan. She floats the idea of postponing until the second meeting in November. [That will be after the new composition of the council is seated, post-election.]

9:29 p.m. Michael Ford, CEO of the AAATA, is now at the podium. He notes that Ypsilanti Township leadership is here. [Both Stumbo and Lovejoy Rowe are still here.] Ford says that all that’s being asked is for Ypsilanti Township to be admitted as a member.

Stumbo says township residents support this move. She recalls her long career in public service in the township, joking that she started when she was 12. It’s a long-term financial commitment. Currently the route the township pays for is $340,000 annually, she says. It’s imperative that the township have transportation. “We need to lift people up,” she says, and the way to do that is to provide transportation. It will help with congestion in Ann Arbor. She’s proud to be there tonight and says that the township board supports the move.

9:32 p.m. Kailasapathy confirms with Ford that Ypsilanti Township currently has a purchase-of-service agreement (POSA). She said that although meetings were held in the township about this, she’s supposed to represent Ann Arbor. She characterizes this timetable as rushing it. Just because concerns weren’t raised when Ypsilanti city was added doesn’t mean that she can’t raise concerns now.

Ford responds by saying that it’s not being rushed, and that the AAATA had followed the Ann Arbor city council’s direction to work with the urban core to develop service, the financial structure, and governance.

9:33 p.m. Kailasapathy counters by saying that it’s not required that Ypsilanti Township be handled the same way as Ypsilanti city.

9:37 p.m. Petersen says that it just so happens that the 5-year service plan meetings are being scheduled over the next few weeks. Petersen said her understanding was that it would be a give-and-take exchange. The meetings are already set up. And her constituents have asked that the meetings be used to hear what everybody has to say. That would slide the schedule forward only four weeks, she says, until the middle of November.

Teall says that just because the meetings happen to be planned, they shouldn’t be used to divert the focus. She says the process has been exhaustive. It’s been years, she said. Ford notes that he’s met with individual councilmembers and it’s not a surprise. He points out that five of the councilmembers have participated in the urban core discussions.

9:42 p.m. Ford says that some of the questions posed by the councilmembers were received by the AAATA at noon today. Lumm says some of them weren’t answered. Ford and Lumm engaged in spirited back-and-forth. Lumm takes the position that admitting Ypsilanti Township into the AAATA is not a stand-alone decision.

Ford reviews the point of the 5-year service plan meetings – to go over the service improvements. Lumm says she’s trying to weigh the cost-benefit of a possible 0.7 mill tax. It’s difficult to assess it without more information. Hieftje says he doesn’t see how the funding mechanism affects the decision tonight. Admitting Ypsilanti Township is something that should have happened 30 years ago. Anyone who was paying attention to transportation issues would have known this was coming, he says. Any funding decision would need to be approved by voters. Ann Arbor needs to work with communities around it, to realize its great promise as a city, Hieftje says.

9:46 p.m. Briere says the question is to allow Ypsilanti Township a seat at the table. Briere asks Stumbo what she sees as a benefit to membership. Stumbo talks about the Washtenaw connection, and the long-term commitment as benefits. Instead of a year-to-year POSA agreement, there would be a longer-term agreement. She says she’s trying not to take it personally, but she can’t understand why the council wouldn’t vote to allow Ypsilanti Township to join the AAATA.

9:49 p.m. Briere asks Ford if residents will be presented with a menu of improvements and their costs so that residents can choose what services they’d like. Ford described it as a very engaged process that would include adjustments based on what people say at the engagement meetings. Briere asks when the dollar amounts will be broken down for each element of the service improvement plan. Ford says that about a month after the meetings are concluded, those exact costs will be available.

9:53 p.m. Kunselman reiterates that he’s committed to Ypsilanti Township having a seat at the table. That seat at the table does nothing to change the financing, he says. The city of Ann Arbor will still have eight out of 10 seats, which can control the board. He says that transportation services would only be “given away” to Ypsilanti Township if Ann Arbor’s own representatives on the AAATA board approved it. A discussion about the finances isn’t the one the council should be having right now. That’s possibly even a year away, he says. [That means Kunselman is thinking a May 2014 millage vote is probably too soon.]

Kunselman said he’d been against the countywide transportation authority initiative based on the board composition [8 out of 15 board seats on that now-demised proposal]. He didn’t think the council needed to worry about board control. It’s just approving a seat at the table so the township can have a voice, he says.

9:56 p.m. Warpehoski starts by saying that he was wrong earlier – when the council had decided to “bail” on the countywide proposal, he’d been angry and allowed that he might have said some things about Kunselman that might have been insulting. He now took it very seriously when Kunselman says that Ypsilanti Township should have a seat on the table. It’s important to be a good regional partner, Warpehoski says.

On the finances, Warpehoski says it’s a chicken-and-egg problem. To get a solid financial foundation, you need a solid governance structure, he said. The step of finalizing governance needs to be taken before establishing the funding and service plan.

10:00 p.m. Warpehoski asks under the various permutations of Ypsilanti Township being in or out, or whether the millage passes or not: Is there any threat to Ann Arbor services? No, says Ford. What’s the mechanism for funding Ypsilanti Township service as a member of AAATA if the millage doesn’t pass? Stumbo says it’d be paid for out of the township general fund. Ford explains that a similar arrangement to the one the city of Ypsilanti had recently made would also be made with the township.

10:03 p.m. Taylor says it’s a pretty simple process. After the countywide transportation initiative was turned down, the council had said to the AATA: Go away and come back with an urban core plan. Now the question is whether the council meant what the council said back then. Taylor is now ticking through the general benefits of public transportation – congestion reduction and economic development.

Kailasapathy is asking Stumbo and Ford questions. She wants a copy of the MOU (memorandum of understanding) for the township. Ford says that the MOU will follow the membership. Kailasapathy wants it now. She references Taylor’s comments about the urban core – saying that the council had not given the AAATA a blank check.

10:06 p.m. Anglin calls Ford one of the most patient people he knows. He says the strong minority has asked for something specific, a strong minority that could put the AAATA over the top someday. Some councilmembers are asking for more time to answer questions of their constituents. Ann Arbor residents have paid the millage for many years, so if some councilmembers want some more time, they should be listened to.

Ford says that everyone is hung up on the idea of the millage. The AAATA had done what the council had asked it to do and that’s what this is about, Ford said.

10:10 p.m. Higgins says that the discussion is about whether the board should be expanded, and that’s what residents want to weigh in on. People get very concerned without giving them a chance to provide input. On the question of expanding the board, people should have a chance to weigh in on that, she says – during the meetings the AAATA has scheduled over the next few weeks. Higgins is not against having residents have a say.

Ford says that this is the same process used with the city of Ypsilanti. Higgins shuts down Ford saying, “I didn’t ask you a question.” Higgins moves for postponement.

10:12 p.m. Teall says she’ll oppose postponement. Warpehoski asks Ford what the impact of a postponement would be. Ford says the AAATA has been at this a long time. Treating the township differently from the city of Ypsilanti is a problem, he says. It’s not the first time the AATAA has talked with the council about it, he notes. Ford says it would slow the process down and not send a good message.

10:17 p.m. Hieftje says that Ypsilanti Township has been a “good citizen” for many years. He says he doesn’t understand why the city of Ypsilanti should “breeze through” and then there’d be a pause with the township. Briere picks up on a concern expressed by Teall – that the meetings scheduled for the next few weeks would re-focus from the 5-year service plan to the expansion of the board. Ford says that it would put the AAATA behind on making any improvements to service. Briere asks how many meetings. Thirteen, says Ford, running through Nov. 14.

Briere ventures that Lumm wants dollar amounts attached to each improvement, to be able to choose Chinese-menu style. Briere asks Ford if that information can be assembled in mid-November. Ford says that it’ll take about a month after the meetings conclude.

AAATA legal counsel Jerry Lax has joined Stumbo and Ford at the podium, but he hasn’t spoken yet.

10:27 p.m. Briere ventures that without membership on the board, Ypsilanti Township will continue with its year-to-year POSA. She asks if it will be possible to have productive conversations at the scheduled public meetings without the governance question settled. Lax says Ypsilanti Township is prepared to make the longer-term POSA commitment, if it has a seat at the table. Lax says that if the township did not commit to a longer-term arrangement, the AAATA would still have leverage in the negotiation of the year-to-year POSA.

Lumm disagrees with Ford that it’s inappropriate to treat the city and the township differently – citing the city’s dedicated millage versus the township’s POSA. Lumm says it sets a bad precedent that to be eligible for membership in the AAATA, all you need is a POSA. She wants to see the long-term MOU. [Lax has basically explained earlier that the willingness on Ypsilanti Township's part to enter into the long-term MOU is based on having a seat at the table.]

Lumm says that with so many unanswered questions, she thinks it’s important to postpone. Ford asks to respond. Hieftje says no. Teall makes some remarks and gives Ford the floor. Ford reiterates that the issue before the council is governance – that is, adding Ypsilanti Township to the board. He adds: “The rest is noise.” Petersen says that governance and funding are inextricable linked. Petersen says that based on constituent feedback, the two issues are co-mingled. By delaying now, she says, a millage would have a better chance of passing.

10:31 p.m. Kailasapathy still wants to see the MOU before voting to add Ypsilanti Township as member. Hieftje wants to move to a vote on the postponement. Ypsilanti Township has more to risk, Hieftje says. He says that it should have been done 30 years ago.

Stumbo says that the township doesn’t have a ward system – they’re elected at large. So she understands the conversation around the table. She points to the geography of the township, which surrounds the city of Ypsilanti.

10:33 p.m. Warpehoski says he’d vote for it today or a month from now. Kunselman’s 8-2 odds for the city are pretty good, he says. But he’ll vote for postponement because he wants the final vote to have as much support as possible. He doesn’t want it to pass with a 6-5 vote. He wants a solid majority.

10:36 p.m. Kunselman says he started out saying he had unwavering support for adding Ypsilanti Township, but was open to postponement. He tells Stumbo that he’s still committed to getting it done. He’ll support the postponement. “When we get back here, I look to have everybody here unanimously supporting this,” he says. If it’s not that kind of support, a millage won’t pass. He says he’ll attend the scheduled meetings and make clear why it’s important to add Ypsilanti Township to the board. It’s important to re-build trust, he says. “Government is messy,” Kunselman says. He adds that he had almost been ready to go for the vote tonight, but now felt it was important to take the time to build trust.

10:37 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to postpone the revised articles of incorporation for the AAATA admitting Ypsilanti Township as a member. The item is postponed until the council’s second meeting in November. That’s after the new composition of the council is seated. Dissenting were Hieftje, Taylor and Teall.

10:37 p.m. Recess. We’re again in recess.

10:49 p.m. And we’re back.

10:49 p.m. Fossil fuel divestment resolution. This resolution is back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013, the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until tonight. It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommending that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. [More background on fossil fuel divestment]

10:50 p.m. Hieftje says he hopes the discussion can be brief, because it’s already been discussed a lot.

10:55 p.m. Taylor says that his impression is that the council is eager to express its support for divestment but concerned about interfering with the pension board. An earlier amendment had been made to try to address that tension. He’d be more comfortable with a set of requests to investigate and consider various topics.

Petersen says it makes sense to remove language that has to do with divestment. She would be more inclined to support something that is more proactive about directing investment in clean energy instead of divesting from anything.

Hieftje says that the resolution as it reads doesn’t have any “teeth” that would direct the pension board to do anything. It would send a message, however, that the city wants to align its investment strategy with its sustainability plan. He ventured it could be watered down further by saying, “maybe please could you possibly do something.” But the resolution is already soft enough as it is. He felt the council should give this an up or down vote and ask the energy commission to come up with something else.

10:59 p.m. Kunselman says it does need to be watered down further. He doesn’t want to urge another body to do something over which the council has no control. Some of the other cities that have been referenced as having a similar policy simply had mayoral directives, he says. Kunselman says it should just be very simple. The list of things that are in the resolution aren’t “neighborly,” he says.

Taylor now offers a set of amendments that he says he’s sending around by email and to the clerk.

11:01 p.m. Taylor says that “urges” will be replaced with “requests” throughout. Also the first resolved clause deletes the word “immediately.” Another piece of language from Taylor’s amendments: “… to investigate whether it can reasonably divest …” The phrase “consider ensuring” is used instead of just “ensuring.”

11:02 p.m. Taylor’s amendments are approved, with dissent from Hieftje.

11:09 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support the resolution. Lumm says she supports the elimination of the word “urge” and the substitution of “request.” She doesn’t know what this resolution will accomplish, however. She thanks the retirement board for its work. She points to the fees that would be incurred as a result of withdrawing investments from indexed funds.

Briere says that she can’t match Lumm’s rhetoric when it comes to investments because it’s not in her skill set. She relies on other people to guide her. There’s a concern that the staff of the pension board might not be able to distinguish between looking into things versus implementing something. Taylor’s amendments, she says, are reasonable. They provide guidance without imposing restriction.

11:12 p.m. Teall indicates she’ll support the amended resolution. Petersen says the amendments do water down the resolution, and she doesn’t want to support something that doesn’t have teeth. The council would be asking the pension board to take its eye off the ball for a while. A resolution about investment as opposed to divestment would have teeth, she says.

11:18 p.m. Kunselman wants to make sure that the title of the resolution has “urges” replaced with “requests,” along with the body of the resolution. Kunselman says he’ll support the resolution, but makes some remarks on what he wants the energy commission to focus its efforts on – energy efficiency projects, not investment strategy. Kunselman ventures that some members of the pension board are present.

City administrator Steve Powers gives some brief background, and CFO Tom Crawford takes the podium. The pension board had taken the council’s questions and deliberations seriously, Crawford says. The time it would take the board’s investment committee was a concern, he says. The volunteer board has a professional investment advisor, and the advice has been that there’s no way to very simply address the issue. Hieftje wants to move to a vote.

11:19 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the amended fossil fuel resolution on a 9-2 vote. Dissenting were Petersen and Lumm.

11:21 p.m. Resolution to accept donation of property at 3013 W. Huron River Drive. This resolution accepts and appropriates foundation funds to the parks for upkeep and maintenance of 3013 W. Huron River Drive as parkland.

11:22 p.m. Briere and Teall make remarks in support. Kunselman adds a lighthearted remark about a junior high classmate.

11:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the donation.

11:22 p.m. Resolution recognizing Skyline Athletic Booster Club as a civic nonprofit organization. The purpose of the recognition is for the booster club to obtain a charitable gaming license. The booster club is hosting the Millionaire Party (a poker tournament) on eight occasions: Nov. 1, 2, 3 and 4, as well as Dec. 7, 8, 9 and 10.

11:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recognize the Skyline Athletic Booster Club as a civic nonprofit organization.

11:22 p.m. Site Plan: U-Haul Moving and Storage The city planning commission recommended approving the site plan for the U-Haul expansion at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. The U-Haul business is located at 3655 S. State St., south of the I-94 interchange.

Aerial view of U-Haul site on South State Street, indicated with crosshatches.

The project calls for building a 1,246-square-foot addition to the front of the existing retail building. The expansion includes a new 4,994-square-foot, one-story warehouse and an 11,696-square-foot, one-story self-storage building. Both of the new buildings would be at the rear of the site and not visible from South State Street. The project is estimated to cost $1.2 million.

This site is part of the area covered in the South State Street corridor plan, which the planning commission voted to add to the city’s master plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting. That plan calls for office uses at that U-Haul location in the future.

11:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the U-Haul site plan.

11:23 p.m. 81 street light poles for Main Street. The light poles would be purchased from Spring City Electrical Manufacturing at a cost of $173,307, with additional costs for installation and labor bringing the total cost to $280,000. The $280,000 still needs to be allocated from the general fund to the field operation’s unit FY 2014 street lighting budget.

As a budget amendment, the resolution needs eight votes under the city charter. It might not achieve that number, because of the ongoing political wrangling between the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the city council. [More background on Main Street light poles]

11:26 p.m. Briere leads off. She asks Craig Hupy to the podium. He’s the city’s public service area administrator. She wants to know when they were installed and by whom. Hupy says that they were installed by the DDA in the late 1980s, so the poles are not quite 30 years old. They weren’t noticed to be rusting because their decorative base shields the rust from view. He says the bases might have contributed to water not draining away. The new light poles would have a gap between the pole and the base, he explains.

11:31 p.m. Kunselman asks why the appropriation was not included in the budget. Hupy says that at that time, the DDA was proposing to cover the entire cost. Kunselman won’t support this resolution.

Lumm points out that the council’s budget resolution was to spend at least $300,000. She asks DDA executive director Susan Pollay if the DDA had considered making a greater contribution. Pollay reviews the history of the council’s budget resolution. Lumm inquires about the council resolution requesting the DDA to fund downtown police officers. Pollay says the DDA is looking at ambassadors, not police officers. She notes that some DDA board members will be traveling to Grand Rapids to learn more about that city’s ambassador program.

Kailasapathy asks where the $300,000 came from that the DDA had granted to Washtenaw County for its Annex renovation.

11:32 p.m. “C’mon, we knew this was coming,” Warpehoski says. Hieftje says he remembers it the same way as Warpehoski. Petersen asks if there is other money besides general fund money that could be used. No, says Hupy.

11:34 p.m. Kunselman presses Hupy on the question of the appropriation of the funds. The DDA had said that the DDA would step up and cover the expense. It was not in the city’s budget after discussion with the DDA. Kunselman says that the council had not made a commitment to pay for the light poles. The DDA had spent money for other things, like the Washtenaw County Annex building.

11:37 p.m. Taylor says that Kunselman has made a “flat-out misrepresentation” of what had happened. The council had been told that the council would need to spend the general fund money to do it. It was the council’s ill-advised interference with the DDA’s budget earlier in the year that has caused this situation, Taylor says. The council had made the budget adjustments in May, “knowing full well that we’d be on the hook for the balance.” He calls this a “self-inflicted wound.”

11:44 p.m. Briere says she appreciates what Taylor and Kunselman both said. Briere is now telling the council how she explained the difference between the city and the DDA’s budget to a constituent. Briere says that the city council had told the DDA how to spend its money, and the DDA has done that. She was filled with regret that the council had done that. When the DDA said it would step up and make that investment, she’d been relieved.

Petersen asks what the level of risk is for the light poles falling down. What kind of health and safety risk is posed? Hupy says those that were in immediate danger have been removed. If the light poles were not all going to be replaced in the near term, the city would go out and replace a few more poles, he says. Petersen says that she sees the DDA and the city’s budgets as “fungible.” She would like to see the DDA to find the money to complete this project. The DDA would not be funding police, she noted. She didn’t regret giving direction. She says that she thinks the DDA should find the money.

11:48 p.m. Lumm says that the allocation resolution is consistent with the council’s earlier budget resolution, so she’ll support it. Warpehoski asks if the overall cost of replacement changes, if the poles are replaced in stages as compared to doing it all in one phase. Hupy says that labor costs would go up. There would also be a mismatch between the globes.

11:48 p.m. Kailasapathy relates a vignette about a neighborhood where there’s no streetlight and no sidewalk – and a meeting that the city staff and she had attended about it. She had no regrets about changing the DDA’s budget earlier in the year to allocate $300,000 for affordable housing.

11:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected the resolution on a 7-4 vote. It failed because it needed 8 votes to pass on the 11-member council. Voting against the resolution were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Kunselman and Anglin.

11:49 p.m. Ann Arbor Station. The request in front of the council is to approve a contract with URS Corp. Inc. (URS) for the Ann Arbor Station project environmental review. The total budgeted for the Ann Arbor Station contract on tonight’s agenda – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – is $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. A Federal Rail Authority grant awarded to the city will cover the remaining $660,000. [More background on Ann Arbor Station]

11:50 p.m. Kunselman wants city transportation program manager Eli Cooper to clarify how much of the contract would use city funds. Cooper says it’s about $165,000. Kunselman notes that the money has been appropriated and does not presuppose a particular site. He’s going to support the contract.

11:57 p.m. Kailasapathy wants to know who decides the location of the site. Cooper notes that public commenters had pointed out that a third of the contract was for public engagement. The council could participate in the process, he says. Kailasapathy asks if there would be one preferred site at the end. Cooper says that as the sites are winnowed down, the criteria to be used would also be subject to public review and input.

Briere notes that most of the suggested sites are in Ward 1. She confirms that the goal of a previous process was to present the federal government with a preferred site. Cooper indicates that she’s right – it’s a requirement of the NEPA project. The emphasis on the previous project was based on the intermodal character of that facility. How does this proposal differ from that [Fuller Road Station] proposal? Cooper says that one difference is that there’s no initially preferred alternative for the location.

12:00 a.m. Briere asks: What is an environmental assessment? Cooper says it’s an analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative effect of human action. It’s a qualitative descriptor about the impact of a project. That contrasts with an environmental impact statement, which is quantitative.

12:03 a.m. Lumm says she hasn’t heard Cooper say the word “parkland.” Cooper says that any project on parkland would not be eligible for categorical exclusion. If the preferred site were parkland, then it would be subject to Section 4F review, Cooper says. Lumm asks for confirmation that as a part of the process, it would be possible to see the “arc” of the selection process.

12:06 a.m. Cooper says that the public engagement process is not meant to tell people what the plan already is – he’s reacting to concerns expressed during public commentary. Lumm asks who Cooper sees as the stakeholders? Cooper says that will be clearer after the project kickoff. Power Marketing Research will be doing the public engagement. Cooper allows that some of the stakeholders will be the usual suspects. Stakeholders are only one part of the public engagement process, he says. There will be site tours to “walk the ground together,” he says.

12:08 a.m. Cooper notes that the no-build alternative is required to be included in the set of alternatives. The intent is to do this in an open and transparent and participatory process, he says. Lumm tells Cooper some people have zero confidence that the outcome has not been determined to be Fuller Road. She says the existing site is a “sweet spot” in terms of engineering.

12:09 a.m. Thomas Partridge asks, “Does anybody know what time it is?” Briere points out the clock on the wall. It’s 12:08.

12:11 a.m. Kailasapathy asks what she should tell residents who wonder why the city should build a new station for Amtrak. Cooper explains that Amtrak’s focus is on the operations – the trains themselves. It’s a discretionary decision, he allows. The idea is to meet the needs of residents and businesses to provide the kind of transportation facility they’d expect arriving in Ann Arbor.

12:14 a.m. Anglin says he’s happy to see that this project seems different from the previous approach. He says it seems like this process will actually consider alternate locations besides the Fuller Road site. He calls for all the public process meetings to be videotaped. Some of the previous money that’s been spent was “foolishness,” he says. He’ll vote to support this. The public is tired of bad dialogue, he says. Cooper responds by saying they’ll do their best to facilitate good dialogue.

12:16 a.m. Kunselman poses a hypothetical: If the site across the track, owned by Amtrak, is the preferred site, how would that work? Cooper explains that the federal dollars would come from the FRA. If the Amtrak property were the preferred location, there would be MOUs and legal instruments to bind the parties together.

12:17 a.m. Clark Charnetski from the audience explains that Amtrak owns the parking lot. The place where the tracks had been and were removed are now owned by MDOT. Amtrak owns the station, the property on which it sits and the metered parking lot, he says.

12:21 a.m. Lumm says that there’s no guarantee there’ll be federal money for eventual construction of a train station. She says there’s no demonstrated need for a new train station. She’d reviewed the contract for the study. It’s an important study the community cares about, she says. It’s important that there be substantial public engagement. She’s now ticking through the elements of the public engagement process. She says it’s important to consider the existing site or doing nothing at all. Given that those two primary concerns are addressed, she’ll support it, even though she calls it a “tough” decision.

12:27 a.m. Taylor says that improvement to the train station is deeply important. He points to improvements in Amtrak service and possible commuter service – with railcars having been purchased. It won’t happen tomorrow, but it’s important to plan for the future, he says. He calls the sewer reconstruction done at the Fuller Road site – which was in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) – as something necessary anyway. To suggest that it wasn’t necessary is “flat-out false,” he says.

12:27 a.m. Hieftje picks up on Taylor’s defense of the sewer work. It’s important not to create myths, he says. He says he’s pleased to see planning for a new rail station moving forward, whatever the location. He notes that the governor and MDOT are very interested in commuter rail. It would only be funded through the regional transit authority (RTA), Hieftje says.

12:32 a.m. Briere also adds her comments on the sewer work that was done at the Fuller Road site. She reviews the reasons that she voted to support that work. She says that part of the issue was the fact that the line runs under the river. If a sewer line were under the river, it would be difficult to notice if there were a problem. It was not the case that the only reason for the sewer work was to allow for the foundations of the demised Fuller Road Station to be put in, she says.

12:33 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the URS contract.

12:33 a.m. Purchase of ice control salt ($245,143). The request is for the purchase of bulk salt, for ice control, and seasonal back-up supplies to be purchased from the Detroit Salt Company for $245,143 (2,800 tons of “early fill” at $34.50 a ton, and 4,100 tons of “seasonal backup” at $36.23 a ton).

12:34 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the ice control salt purchase.

12:34 a.m. Fire department mutual aid box alarm system (MABAS) Division. The resolution authorizes the city administrator to enter into the required Act 7 (interlocal) agreements necessary to establish the city of Ann Arbor Fire MABAS Division and appoint Ann Arbor’s fire chief as a representative to the MABAS executive board. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, participation in MABAS would not replace any of the existing mutual aid agreements the city of Ann Arbor has. A MABAS approach to response by multiple jurisdictions defines a standard response package of equipment and personnel, which is automatically dispatched to a fire. That contrasts with the mutual aid approach, in which additional resources can be called if they’re deemed necessary once the initially-responding units have assessed the situation.

12:34 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve participation in MABAS.

12:36 a.m. Council communications. Briere recalls the 1996 visit by the KKK. She was a member of the ACLU team who worked to ensure that the peace was kept. Hieftje had not been mayor on that occasion, she said. She was referring to Thomas Partridge’s public commentary. Lumm says that she was a councilmember at the time and the KKK was definitely not invited to come to Ann Arbor.

12:43 a.m. Lumm says that she’s consulted with the city attorney to bring forward a resolution on term limits to be applied in the city charter.

Warpehoski says that Ypsilanti Township has done a tremendous amount of work. When he counts the votes around the table, he thinks there will be six votes in a month, but wants to work toward unanimity. He says that “relationships are important,” and he fears that by postponing the Ypsilanti Township vote, the council was not perceived by the township leadership as working well with its regional partners. He suggests that councilmembers reach out to the township and give the relationship a personal touch. The relationship was hurt tonight, he says, and he’d been a part of that, so he apologized. Kunselman added his support to Warpehoski’s remarks.

12:45 a.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:45 a.m. Thomas Partridge is holding forth. He complains about the locations where meetings of some boards and commissions are held. He asks the voters of Ward 5 for their support in his effort to win election to the council as a write-in candidate. He complains that the AAATA bus system is not adequate, yet the council is talking about the right location for a train station.

Clark Charnetski recalls how he first arrived in Ann Arbor 53 years ago on the New York Central and got off at what is now the Gandy Dancer. He thanks the council for their vote on the Ann Arbor Station study.

Kai Petainen takes the podium to thank the council for its vote on the Ann Arbor Station study. It’s the public engagement portion of the contract he supports. He says he’ll complain if the preferred location turns out to be Fuller Road Station. In a nod to his Canadian roots, Petainen notes that Winter Classic tickets go on sale soon.

Michael Benson takes the podium on behalf of the graduate student government at the University of Michigan. He announces a forum on the city’s leasing ordinance, on Wednesday, Oct. 30 at 6:30 p.m. in the fourth floor auditorium of the Rackham Building.

12:52 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Mayor John Hieftje. There are 26 more regular city council meetings left in Hieftje’s mayoral tenure. He announced on Oct. 11 that he’s not planning to run for re-election in 2014. In an email sent to The Chronicle, he said the decision was made much earlier: “I made the decision over the summer on a kayak trip on the north east coast of Lake Superior.” (Photos by the writer.)

The confirmation vote that did not take place was on the appointment of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission. Although his nomination had been announced at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting, mayor John Hieftje did not move his name forward for a vote on Oct. 7. Appleyard’s appointment would have required a 7-vote majority under the city charter – because he’s not a city resident. With only eight councilmembers in attendance, his confirmation might not have received seven votes. A recent change to the council’s rules put the routine appointments – which the council approved unanimously – near the start of the meeting.

The confirmation vote that was moved for reconsideration at the end of the Oct. 7 meeting was that of Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Midway through the meeting, the council had voted to direct the city attorney to write an opinion on the legal issues surrounding McWilliams’ appointment, which was made on a 6-5 vote at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting.

Under the council’s rules, McWilliams’ appointment appears to have required an 8-vote majority, because his nomination and confirmation came on the same night. That analysis relies on Hieftje’s statement at the council’s Sept. 3 meeting that on that occasion he was withdrawing McWilliams’ nomination. But because no objection to the apparent violation of the council’s rules was raised on Sept. 3, the city attorney’s opinion will likely just establish that a court challenge to the appointment could not be made.

A portion of the minutes of the council’s Sept. 16 meeting – relating to McWilliams’ appointment – was the topic of considerable back and forth, with approval of the minutes coming only after an amendment had been made to change the way some remarks made by Hieftje had been characterized.

The frustration of councilmembers on the losing side of the Sept. 16 vote was evident during deliberations – reflected in Mike Anglin’s (Ward 5) sole vote of dissent against the resolution directing the city attorney to write an opinion. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) also indicated dissatisfaction that the opinion resolution would not address the public’s interest in due process.

So a few minutes past midnight, after the council’s other business had been dispatched, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) convinced his council colleagues to re-open the agenda for a motion to reconsider the vote on the appointment. Warpehoski had been on the prevailing side of the McWilliams’ confirmation vote. He then moved immediately for postponement until the Oct. 21 meeting and councilmembers supported that motion – so the council will take up the question of reconsideration at that time.

In other business, the council adopted an update to its solid waste plan, but not before amending the plan to remove mention of exploring the possibility of every-other-week trash pickup and pay-as-you-throw options in the future.

The council also considered two items related to hyper-local neighborhood infrastructure issues – cross-lot walkways and traffic calming projects.

Councilmembers gave initial approval to a change in the city’s sidewalk ordinance that would define certain walkways as “sidewalks.” The change will affect cross-lot walkways that connect streets with schools or parks, or streets with other streets. Defining these walkways as  “sidewalks” allows them to be eligible for funds from the sidewalk repair millage, but does not trigger winter maintenance responsibility for adjacent property owners.

The council also approved a budget allocation of $55,000 to fund an additional two traffic calming (speed bump) projects this year. The same resolution directed the funding of three traffic calming projects next year.

Two site plans were approved by the council – one for a Tim Hortons drive-thru on Ann Arbor-Saline road, and another for a Belle Tire on Ellsworth.

A new schedule of liquor license fees was approved by the council. In some cases fees were lowered or eliminated, and in other cases they were raised – to reflect actual city costs in processing. For example, on-premise liquor license annual renewal fees were set at $90, an increase from $50, while fees for new liquor licenses were set at $600, a reduction from $2,500.

The council also approved a grant application to the Rockefeller Foundation for designating Ann Arbor as one of 100 Resilient Cities. While the total amount of funding for the program is identified as $100 million, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, that does not mean that each of the 100 cities would receive $1 million of support if selected.

DDA Appointment: McWilliams

The appointment of Al McWilliams to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board was again the focus of the council at its Oct. 7 meeting. McWilliams had been confirmed to the DDA board on a 6-5 vote taken at the council’s meeting on Sept. 16, 2013.

In one Oct. 7 action, the council considered a resolution to direct the city attorney to draft an opinion on the Sept. 16 confirmation vote and to file it with the city clerk’s office. In another action, taken after midnight, the council voted to re-open the agenda to add a motion to reconsider the Al McWilliams confirmation, which was then immediately postponed by a unanimous vote – until the council’s Oct. 21 meeting.

The minutes of the Sept. 16 meeting also were the subject of debate, based on the way some remarks by mayor John Hieftje had been characterized.

DDA Appointment: McWilliams – Public Commentary

Three people touched on the McWilliams appointment during public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting.

Mary Underwood told the council that after all the “brouhaha” about the McWilliams appointment, she decided to look at his blog. She called it third-grade level potty humor. She said she was embarrassed for the mayor, the council, and downtown merchants. She questioned the ability of McWilliams to exercise good judgment. She asked if he was the best candidate that could be found to represent the city. In wrapping up, she gave councilmembers gift certificates for ice cream cones. Written on the envelopes was a phrase that she attributed to McWilliams about an ice cream promotion: “Hey everybody, don’t forget to shove an ice cream cone up your ass.”

Peter Zetlin talked about community values related to Al McWilliams’ appointment to the DDA board. He’d looked at McWilliams’ blog and seen images of women that objectified them. He invited councilmembers to think about how they’d react if the images had related to race or religion.

Rita Mitchell, who was signed up as an alternate to speak on the question of Al McWilliams’ appointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, held a sign that indicated where she stood on the nomination.

If the images were appropriate, he asks, why did McWilliams take them down? [According to a subsequent blog post by McWilliams, the blog had not been redacted except for one image that he'd taken down at the request of a councilmember. He wrote: "It is unchanged & unedited since my nomination to the DDA save one photo from the Huffington Post that was removed at the specific request of a councilperson... because I’m nice."]

Zetlin contended that McWilliams is immature. He alluded to the recommendation by Maura Thomson of McWilliams. Thomson, who’s executive director of the Main Street Area Association, declined to answer his question to her, Zetlin said: Did she still support McWilliams? Zetlin’s remarks got a smattering of applause.

Jeff Hayner, who’s contesting the Ward 1 city council seat with incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere, read aloud from the New York City charter, Chapter 68, on conflicts of interest. He asked why the council has no conflict of interest policy, citing the deliberations on Al McWilliams’ appointment to the Ann Arbor DDA. He said we can’t trust the national or the state government – or now the local government to make good appointments. It’s important to choose carefully, he said. Hayner said he’d asked to be appointed to the North Main Huron River task force, and the reply he’d received from Briere indicated to him that the members of that task force had been pre-selected before the task force had been established.

During council communications time a short while later in the meeting, Briere responded to Hayner’s remarks. Often a task force is appointed the same night it is established, she said. When the North Main Huron River task force was established, many people stepped forward and asked that additional seats be added. She said they’d tried to make the process open and transparent. Many of the non-members of the task force had attended meetings and helped the process, she said.

DDA Appointment: McWilliams – Sept. 16 Minutes

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations on the approval of the council’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting minutes. [Approval of the minutes is typically routine and perfunctory, and usually is dispatched without comment by the council.]

Kunselman alluded to an updated version of the council minutes. He questioned whether the minutes accurately reflected the McWilliams confirmation to the DDA board. Kunselman first appealed to the Sept. 3 meeting minutes – because that’s the meeting when mayor John Hieftje indicated he was withdrawing McWilliams’ nomination. Kunselman then reviewed the Sept. 16 meeting minutes.

As originally proposed, the minutes in relevant part read as follows – referring to the point early in the Sept. 16 meeting when Hieftje told the council that he’d be asking councilmembers to vote on confirmation later in the meeting:

Mayor Hieftje stated that he postponed the nomination of Al McWilliams to the DDA at the September 3 meeting and he will be bringing that nomination forward tonight under the Communications from the Mayor.

That version appears to be consistent with a transcription of Hieftje’s exact words:

I would note one thing that I didn’t see on the agenda that uh, the nomination of Al McWilliams was postponed and I will be bringing that forward when it comes time for the mayor’s communications. [Sept. 16, 2013]

But Kunselman wanted the minutes to reflect the fact that Hieftje had misstated a fact – that the nomination had been postponed, as opposed to withdrawn. That is, Kunselman appeared keen to draw out the fact that on Sept. 3, the action taken had been to withdraw the nomination, not postpone it. A transcript of Hieftje’s Sept. 3 remarks:

If it is friendly I would ask the mover and the seconder to allow me to withdraw this nomination tonight to explore some of these issues and come back with answers. But. Is that friendly? Okay, so I will withdraw it tonight. [Sept. 3, 2013]

Kunselman pointed out that McWilliams’ name was crossed out after the Sept. 3 meeting in the online Legistar file. [For a detailed accounting of the situation, see: "Column: How to Count to 8, Stopping at 6."

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated support of Kunselman's contention that the nomination had been withdrawn, by saying she also thought the nomination of McWilliams had been withdrawn on Sept. 3. She alluded to a subsequent email exchange she'd had with McWilliams in which she'd stated that she thought his nomination had been withdrawn. On Sept. 6, she'd replied to McWilliams, who'd offered to meet with her about concerns she'd raised. She wrote, in part, "I believe that the mayor has withdrawn your name. If he decides to renominate you we can meet."

Kunselman then offered an amendment to the minutes that left councilmembers and members of the public somewhat perplexed – because he wanted the minutes to indicate that Hieftje had "pretended" the nomination had been postponed. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) expressed no enthusiasm for discussing it. She asked for input from city attorney Stephen Postema. Postema replied that it was not a legal issue, saying that what the council was being asked to do is approve the minutes.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) ventured that the minutes could be approved with an exception. Kunselman indicated to Anglin he was not interested in pursuing an approval with an exception.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said that what Kunselman was proposing was to falsify the historical record, and told Kunselman he was just engaging in political theater.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said that she thought McWilliams' name had been withdrawn on Sept. 3 and was surprised to see it brought forward on Sept. 16. She said she wished she'd had better command of the parliamentary procedures so that she could have objected at the time.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) countered Kailasapathy and Lumm by saying she thought the confirmation had been postponed on Sept. 3 and that Hieftje's intent had been to postpone a vote. Teall told Kunselman that what he was proposing wasn't accurate.

Kunselman stated that he and others took the mayor at his word when Hieftje had said he was withdrawing the nomination. Teall and Kunselman went back and forth for a bit on the question of Hieftje's intent. Briere raised a point of order, asking Hieftje to recognize each speaker in turn to regulate the speaking turns.

Hieftje apologized for contributing to the murkiness. He stated that his intent was to have the motion for confirmation withdrawn, but not to withdraw the nomination. If he had it to do over again, he said, he would have said that he wanted to have the motion withdrawn. But Hieftje added that he didn't have a problem having the minutes amended to reflect the exact transcript of the meeting.

Kunselman's initial proposal, which would have indicated Hieftje "pretended" he'd postponed the nomination, was not approved. Instead the council settled on the following correction [new text in italics and deleted text in strike-through]:

Mayor Hieftje stated that he didn’t see on the agenda that postponed the nomination of Al McWilliams to the DDA was postponed at the September 3 meeting and he will be bringing that nomination forward tonight under the Communications from the Mayor.

Outcome: The amendment on the minutes was unanimously approved, as were the minutes themselves.

DDA Appointment: McWilliams – Attorney Opinion

The requested city attorney’s opinion is supposed to answer questions that were raised about the procedure used to appoint Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor DDA at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting.

On Sept. 16, mayor John Hieftje asked the council to vote on McWilliams’ appointment after saying at a previous meeting, on Sept. 3, that he was withdrawing the nomination. Under the council’s rules, an 8-vote majority is required for confirmation of an appointment when the nomination is made at the same meeting when the confirmation vote is taken. McWilliams was confirmed on a 6-5 vote.

A “whereas” clause in the opinion resolution states that “the public good will be best served by releasing this advice to the public.” The key resolved clause, which was revised from the version initially placed on the council’s agenda, stated: “That City Council requests that the City Attorney draft an opinion by October 16, 2013 for the benefit of the public that answers whether the September 16, 2013 vote to appoint Al McWilliams to the DDA can be challenged on the grounds that the confirmation motion should have required 8 votes…”

The opinion will likely establish that it’s doubtful a successful court challenge could be brought in connection with McWilliams’ appointment – partly because it’s not clear who might have standing to bring such a suit. It will likely also establish as a key point that no objection was raised at the time about the validity of the vote.

Under the Ann Arbor city charter, written opinions of the city attorney are to be filed with the city clerk’s office. City attorney Stephen Postema has contended in the past that his advice memos are not written opinions under the city charter and has declined to file them with the clerk’s office.

The council has voted in the past on a resolution that would have made an attorney opinion public – on the legal basis for the Percent for Art program. That vote, taken on April 2, 2012, failed with support only from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The Oct. 7 agenda item on the attorney’s opinion was sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Warpehoski explained that the resolution was developed before the city attorney’s advice memo was written. The city attorney’s advice is generally confidential for a good reason, he said. Warpehoski proposed four tests for waiving privilege: (1) legal risk should be small; (2) public interest is wide; (3) release of information doesn’t unduly constrain future council action; and (4) it doesn’t blindside the city attorney. Based on conversations with the city attorney and with Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who is also an attorney, Warpehoski reported that the idea of the resolution, which had been altered from the resolution originally put on the agenda, was to ask that an opinion, for a third party, be written as opposed to waiving privilege for an existing document.

Warpehoski explained the difference between the first draft of the resolution and the revised one. The revised draft read: “That City Council requests that the City Attorney draft an opinion by October 16, 2013 for the benefit of the public that answers whether the September 16, 2013 vote to appoint Al McWilliams to the DDA can be challenged on the grounds that the confirmation motion should have required 8 votes…”

Postema said that it would make no sense for him to prepare an opinion for an audience outside the council in the ordinary course of business. But this resolution is an action taken by the council, his client, so he’s prepared to draft the opinion.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) weighed in by addressing the issue of the public’s interest. Postema told her that the vote on the confirmation of McWilliams was taken and the vote was announced. The legal significance of that is the only thing he was going to put in his opinion, and the answer was going to be fairly easy, he said.

Kailasapathy was not satisfied: “People are really upset.” She was troubled that the legal opinion would be so narrowly focused. She was concerned about the integrity of the entire confirmation process.

Briere observed that Postema had suggested that the council’s rules be revised to make the appointment process clearer. She said she was not sure how to change the outcome of the vote. She didn’t know how Kailasapathy’s goal could be realized – which Briere thought was to rescind McWilliams’ nomination.

Kunselman stated that he found the resolution bizarre, because the provision in the charter already sets forth the procedure for filing a city attorney opinion. Kunselman then reviewed the arguments regarding the procedural requirement of 8 votes for confirmation of McWilliams’ nomination. He reviewed his email correspondence with the city clerk, in which city clerk Jackie Beaudry had indicated she’d asked the city attorney for advice. Kunselman contended that triggers the city charter requirement related to the city attorney’s job responsibility when an administrative head requests advice.

From the Ann Arbor city charter:

The Attorney shall:
(1) Advise the heads of administrative units in matters relating to their official duties, when so requested, and shall file with the Clerk a copy of the entire Attorney’s written opinions; …

By way of background, the city clerk could be considered the head of the administrative unit of the clerk’s office, and has an official duty during council meetings to administer the roll call votes and to report the result of a vote on a question as passed or failed. At issue with the McWilliams nomination was judgment on whether the tally of six was adequate for approval, which Beaudry announced on Sept. 16 was sufficient.

Postema essentially told Kunselman that Beaudry is not a part of the council and that the issue was a council matter, so he only would respond to council requests.

Mayor John Hieftje said he’d be happy to support the resolution.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) ventured that anyone who voted in favor of McWilliams’ nomination could bring it back now for reconsideration. [That is, in fact, allowed under the council's rules, because it was the immediately subsequent meeting after the vote confirmation vote was taken.]

Warpehoski asked Kailasapathy what she was looking for in the resolution. She replied that she didn’t have the exact verbiage, but she felt that justice was not served. It was not just the council that felt blindsided, but also the public, she said. Warpehoski indicated he heard what she was saying, but as he reads Robert’s Rules, he doesn’t see a motion to reconsider as being in order – based on the DDA Act that states that a member can only be removed after a public hearing. He had been ready to move forward with a motion to reconsider, but now didn’t think it was in order under parliamentary rules.

From left: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and city attorney Stephen Postema.

Kunselman came back to his point that that the city clerk was due a response to her request for guidance from Postema. Postema contended she was not due a response from him under the charter. Kunselman then asked Postema if Warpehoski could bring back the motion for reconsideration. Postema replied that’s up to Warpehoski to answer. Warpehoski explained that the outcome of the confirmation vote has been at least partially executed, and for that reason Robert’s Rules would prohibit it, he thought.

By way of additional background, after the Sept. 16 confirmation vote, McWilliams took his constitutional oath, on Oct. 2, to become seated on the DDA board – according to city clerk Jackie Beaudry, responding to a Chronicle query. He then participated in the DDA board meeting on Oct. 2, which included one voting item.

Kunselman asked Hieftje if he would allow Warpehoski to bring a motion to reconsider the question. Hieftje appealed to the DDA Act and what’s required for removal of a DDA member. If the question were reconsidered, and the vote did not succeed for some reason, then the outcome might be considered a removal from the DDA board. And by state statute, a DDA board member can be removed only for cause:

Pursuant to notice and after having been given an opportunity to be heard, a member of the board may be removed for cause by the governing body. Removal of a member is subject to review by the circuit court.

Kunselman responded by saying that the entire board has engaged in willful neglect – by failing to respond to letters that Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker had sent to the DDA and to the city. So that would be the “cause” that could be used to remove members of the DDA board, Kunselman concluded.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) stated that it’s important to clear the air on this. Postema replied that the question is the legal effect of the 6-5 vote that had been taken. Lumm said she didn’t think that clears the air.

Anglin said that the councilmembers who were “hiding behind” legal considerations should move for a reconsideration of the vote.

Outcome: The council voted, over dissent from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), to direct the city attorney to draft an opinion on McWilliams’ appointment.

DDA Appointment: McWilliams – Reconsideration

After the other voting business of the council was finished, Warpehoski announced that he wanted to re-open the agenda to reconsider the McWilliams nomination. The council agreed to do that.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Warpehoski then moved reconsideration of the nomination. He said that whether it took six or eight votes, the ruling on the vote made at the meeting when the vote was taken on Sept. 16 should stand, saying that it’s too late now to raise a point of order. A point of order has to be made at the time of breach. So he felt the vote stands.

However, for purposes of the public interest and the smooth working of the council, Warpehoski wanted to put forward a reconsideration. He asked for some assurances: (1) that there’d be support for a postponement, and that the council wouldn’t vote on it that night; (2) that the vote required at a later meeting would be a six-vote tally, not eight; and (3) if six votes in support weren’t in attendance on Oct. 21, then there’d be support for postponement until the Nov. 7 meeting.

Kunselman responded to the requests for assurance by saying he really supported Warpehoski’s leadership. He offered the assurances requested by Warpehoski. Warpehoski then moved for postponement. Hieftje indicated the motion to reconsider would be shifted to the next meeting. If that vote is successful, then the council will debate the confirmation again and re-vote it.

Hieftje said he’d support that effort. He apologized for using the wrong word – “nomination” versus “motion” at the council’s Sept. 3 meeting. Briere said she appreciated Warpehoski’s work on the effort. They’d worked together on the issue of the attorney’s opinion as well, she said.

Outcome: The council postponed until Oct. 21 the motion to reconsider the vote on the Al McWilliams appointment to the DDA board.

Other Appointments: Appleyard

The council was asked to vote on nominations that were made at the Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. Those included Brock Hastie to the employees’ retirement system board of trustees. That was a re-appointment. Appointed to the city’s energy commission were Erik Eibert (replacing Cliff Williams), and Elizabeth Gibbons (replacing Josh Long). Being appointed to fill a vacancy on the housing and human services advisory board was Kyle Hunter, and to fill a vacancy on the recreation advisory commission was Katie Lewit.

Outcome: The council voted to appoint all the nominees.

In connection with that vote, some back and forth ensued between Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje on the nomination of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission. Appleyard’s nomination was not actually put forward by Hieftje for a confirmation vote, although the nomination had also been put forward at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting.

Anglin appeared to have anticipated that the confirmation would be considered and he raised a concern. Appleyard’s nomination had not been moved, Hieftje explained. Anglin responded by saying that he didn’t think it’s necessary to recruit people who don’t live in the city to serve on boards and commissions. Appleyard is not a city resident. Hieftje pointed out the unique qualifications of Appleyard, saying that he would probably bring the nomination forward at a later time.

Appleyard’s confirmation, as a non-city resident, would have needed seven votes, which it would likely not have received, given the short-handed council. Three councilmembers – Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – were absent on Oct. 7.

From the city charter: [emphasis added]:

Section 12.2. Except as otherwise provided in this charter, a person is eligible to hold a City office if the person has been a registered elector of the City, or of territory annexed to the City or both, and, in the case of a Council Member, a resident of the ward from which elected, for at least one year immediately preceding election or appointment. This requirement may be waived as to appointive officers by resolution concurred in by not less than seven members of the Council.

Appleyard lives in Grass Lake, Mich., according to the nomination information. The city energy commission was established in 1985 by a council resolution to “oversee City policies and regulations in areas of energy efficiency concerns and make periodic public reports and recommendations to the City Council.” Under special qualifications, the online Legistar description states: “wide spread representation; interest in energy.”

Appleyard has served on the energy commission since 2002. Terms of appointment for energy commissioners are three years. When Appleyard was up for reappointment in 2010, no objections were raised. Hieftje pulled out Appleyard’s confirmation for a separate vote at that time to ensure it was clear that he’d specifically received adequate support from the council, despite not being a city resident. Appleyard is principal with Sunstructures Architects, with a focus in renewable energy and sustainable architecture.

Solid Waste Resource Plan

The council considered an update to the solid waste plan of the city of Ann Arbor.

The updated plan presented to the council included a number of initiatives, including goals for increased recycling/diversion rates – generally and for apartment buildings in particular. Also included in the draft plan is a proposal to relocate and upgrade the drop-off station at Platt and Ellsworth. The implementation of a fee for single-use bags at retail outlets is also part of the plan.

A pilot program in the plan would add all plate scrapings to the materials that can be placed in the brown carts used to collect compostable matter. And if that pilot program were successful, the original draft of the plan called for the possibility of reducing the frequency of curbside pickup – from the current weekly regime to a less frequent schedule. [Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan.] [Appendices to Waste Less] [Previous Chronicle coverage: Waste as Resource: Ann Arbor's Five Year Plan.]

Solid Waste Resource Plan: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) explained the background of how the plan was developed. The goal was to reduce the amount of material that is thrown away, she said. Solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie explained that there was a lot of participation from various parts of the community to develop the plan. There’s a big item that the plan includes, he told the council – reduced organic waste. It’s the next big “frontier,” he said, to expand organics collection for composting.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Briere then asked a series of questions of McMurtrie. When the manual sorting of the waste in a truck had been done, she said, it was hard to estimate how much food waste could be diverted from the landfill. McMurtrie explained that it was hard because it was mixed in with all the other material – and he asked councilmembers to imagine “ripping open garbage bags pawing through material” in order to get an estimate of food waste.

Responding to a question from Briere, McMurtrie allowed there would be increased costs associated with processing food waste.

Briere asked McMurtrie to address the issue of some items that could not be composted – like diapers. McMurtrie described the plan as directing the evaluation of reduced frequency, not the implementation of it. He gave Portland as an example. Briere ventured that the food waste collection could be implemented and then be evaluated for the potential of reduced frequency of collection. She ventured that reduced frequency could voluntarily be implemented by people simply not setting out their carts if they’re not full.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked all those involved in developing the plan. She understood that the plan doesn’t commit the city to particular actions, but was concerned about some that are mentioned – like the reduced frequency of trash pickup. People can’t believe that the solid waste millage, which generates $12 million annually, she noted, isn’t enough to pay for weekly trash pickup. She called this the most basic and fundamental service to residents. She moved an amendment to the solid waste plan, to remove all references to every-other-week curbside pickup.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) also wanted mention of “pay as you throw” to be deleted from the plan. Lumm considered Kailasapathy’s suggestion friendly.

Lumm recalled her previous tenure on the council when pay-as-you-throw proposals had been studied. Briere told McMurtrie that she recalled him saying that not everything the city has done in the last 10 years has been included in the plan. She ventured that even if the mention of the frequency reduction were omitted, it’s still possible that it could be implemented. McMurtrie indicated Briere was right, but it couldn’t be implemented without approval of the council.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) questioned whether Portland should be used as an example, because that region doesn’t deal with freezing weather. Kunselman indicated that he supported the amendments proposed by Lumm and Kailasapathy. He said that if you leave a baby diaper in a cart for more than a week, it will be pretty “rank.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she wouldn’t support the amendments. You have to study an issue, she said, to find out if it will work. Teall said she was grateful that we live in an environment where “poop freezes.”

Warpehoski teased Teall that the council will not appoint her, implying that she’d be disqualified for her use of the word “poop” – a reference to the controversy over the McWilliams appointment to the DDA.

Responding to Kunselman, Hieftje said that Portland is generally regarded as a model city in the U.S. Briere noted that it’s possible to track how often people set out their refuse carts [through RFID chips], so the city could measure the impact of its efforts. Briere pointed out that Portland has privatized its trash collection, so its approach can’t be compared directly.

Kunselman noted that Briere’s point about privatization is an important piece of information. He asked if Portland has a “dumping problem.” McMurtrie told Kunselman that hasn’t been researched. Briere reported she couldn’t find anything on that topic.

Responding to Teall’s point that there are a lot of citizens who really like to reduce, reuse, and recycle, Kunselman allowed he’s one of them. But it’s important to give residents confidence that the city is staying on track with weekly trash collection, he said.

Hieftje then wanted to have the amendments on pay-as-you-throw and on every-other-week trash collection separated out again. Lumm and Kailasapathy agreed to that. Hieftje reported that on his block, many people don’t put out their trash every week.

Warpehoski understood Teall’s frustration about Ann Arbor not being able to show leadership on this issue. But he said he’d support the amendment that eliminated the mention of every-other-week trash collection. There’s other lower-hanging fruit than food waste – like improving multi-family recycling rates – which offer less angst, he said.

Responding to Hieftje’s effort to move the council along to a vote on the amendment, Kunselman said there’s nothing he likes more than “talking trash,” apparently completely aware of the pun. Lumm said she supported the amendment.

Outcome on the every-other-week amendment: The council approved the amendment over dissent from Hieftje and Teall.

Kailasapathy then argued for her amendment that would remove mention of pay-as-you-throw from the five-year solid waste plan. Hieftje said he’d support the amendment and hoped it’d move along quickly.

Outcome on the pay-as-you-throw amendment: The council unanimously approved the amendment removing mention of pay-as-you-throw as a possibility.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) raised the question of how dangerous materials are disposed of, like fluorescent light bulbs. Lumm said she’d support the solid waste plan. Kunselman then read a headline out of Portland indicating that when Portland switched to every-other-week pickup, dirty diapers started piling up in recycling bins.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the solid waste plan as amended.

Cross-Lot Walkways

The council considered a change to the city’s sidewalk ordinance that would affect how cross-lot walkways are treated under the city code.

Elements of the ordinance change would: (1) allow such cross-lot paths to be repaired with funds from the city’s sidewalk repair millage; and (2) not trigger the winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners.

Under the city’s current ordinances, if an existing walkway meets the definition of a “sidewalk,” then the city bears responsibility for its repair for the duration of the sidewalk repair millage – which was approved by voters in November 2011 for a five-year period. But all other things being equal, the adjacent property owners are responsible for snow removal in the winter.

The change to the definition relates to walkways that connect a street to a park or school, or that connect two parallel streets. The city calls them “cross-lot” walkways. The ordinance change considered by the council for approval on Oct. 7 would allow such walkways to be “sidewalks” if the council votes to accept them for “public use.” A companion resolution on Oct. 7 called for acceptance of 34 cross-lot walkways throughout the city for public use.

The ordinance change had previously been in front of the council for final approval – on July 1, 2013. However, objections by several property owners to the winter maintenance requirement led the council to postpone the final vote until Oct. 7. Because of the new approach the city took – which does not trigger the winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners – the council’s Oct. 7 consideration was considered only the initial approval. The ordinance change does not relieve owners of property adjacent to other sidewalks from the winter shoveling requirement.

The city has estimated that for the 34 cross-lot paths, repairs and snow clearance would annually total around $7,000 – $5,100 for snow plowing and $1,900 for repair.

Cross-Lot Walkways: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked the staff for responding to concerns of the council about the burden that the definition change could place on property owners. The ordinance doesn’t just change the definition, but also makes clear that adjacent property owners are not responsible for winter snow clearance or mowing the grass. Historically, they’ve never been responsible for that, she said. She noted that this approach would eliminate the possibility that one of four property owners who shared the responsibility might be regarded as a “slacker.”

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) also indicated she’d support the ordinance change. Lumm said the original intent was a good one – to allow the sidewalk repair funds to be used for these cross-lot paths. She complimented the staff for researching how the problem was addressed in other communities. The $7,000 cost to the city for repair and maintenance, she said, is “peanuts.” It’s just what local government should do, Lumm concluded.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) also said he supported this approach to the issue. But he wanted to know what happens if a renewal of the sidewalk repair millage did not pass in a future election

Cresson Slotten, manager of the city’s systems planning unit, explained to Kunselman that if that millage were not renewed, the property owners would still not have any responsibility for repair or winter maintenance.

Responding to a question from Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Slotten indicated that the new ordinance makes clear that adjacent property owners do not have responsibility for repair and maintenance. Anglin wanted it to be made clearer. Briere said she could understand Anglin’s confusion, because the two parts of the ordinance don’t appear to be related. But she reiterated Slotten’s point – that the ordinance simply states that property owners don’t have responsibility for cross-lot walkways.

Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explained that the exception for the cross-lot walkways is an absolute exception – that is, not contingent on the passage of the sidewalk repair millage. Lumm reported that this clarification had been sent to adjacent property owners, saying it was “great work on staff’s part.”

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) brought up subsection (B) and wondered if it voided existing agreements with neighborhood associations. Elias indicated that it did not void such agreements. Anglin said he wanted the city to provide a document for residents that they can keep with their deeds.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) questioned whether the cross-lot walkways belong to the property owners in a sense that would make recording with deeds appropriate. Elias was reluctant to support the recording of any documents with deeds, because the council can change the ordinance in the future.

Anglin reported that a resident had just handed him some communication that the resident had received from the city in 2009. That communication had stated that the resident now had responsibility for maintenance. Anglin suggested that a similar communication could be sent to state that people don’t have responsibility now.

Slotten responded to a question from Warpehoski saying that two of the 34 cross-lot walkways have existing maintenance agreements with a homeowner’s association. Elias explained that the agreements with the homeowner’s associations will remain intact.

Kunselman asked about the dates in the ordinance that refer to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Elias allowed that the ordinance would need to be revised if the sidewalk repair millage were renewed. She explained that Kunselman was referring to the section of the ordinance that relates to ordinary sidewalks on the side of streets.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the inclusion of cross-lot walkways in the definition of sidewalk, but without the associated requirement that adjacent property owners are responsible for snow clearance.

Cross-Lot Walkways: Public Acceptance of Walkways

This was considered a companion resolution to the sidewalk ordinance change that would broaden the definition of a sidewalk to include cross-lot walkways. The ordinance change – which was given initial approval earlier in the meeting – allows such walkways to qualify as sidewalks for purposes of spending from the sidewalk repair millage, without triggering a winter maintenance requirement by adjacent property owners. But to qualify, the walkways must be accepted for public use by the city council. So the council considered a resolution to accept 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) moved to postpone the resolution. It will be considered at the same meeting as the second reading of the related ordinance change. City administrator Steve Powers confirmed it would be appropriate to postpone the resolution.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone acceptance of 34 different cross-lot walkways for public use until the council’s Oct. 21 meeting.

Traffic Calming Projects

The council considered a resolution adding five traffic calming (speed bump) projects to the city of Ann Arbor’s work plan over this year and the next.

By way of background, starting in 2010, the city had reduced the number of traffic calming studies that it would fund to just one per year. The Oct. 7 resolution transferred $55,000 from the city’s general fund to the local street fund, to pay for an additional two studies this year (FY 2014). In addition, the resolution directed city administrator Steve Powers to include three traffic calming projects in FY 2015.

The five projects mentioned in the resolution are: South Boulevard (Ward 3 – qualified for traffic calming in 2009); Pomona Road (Ward 5 – qualified in 2009); Wells (Ward 3 – qualified in 2009); Larchmont Drive (Ward 2 – qualified in 2010); and Northside (Ward 1 – qualified in 2012).

The resolution was sponsored by Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Traffic Calming: Public Commentary

Several people addressed the council on the topic of the traffic calming measures during public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting.

Diane Kreger told the council she loves living in Ann Arbor. She loves her neighborhood. She’s lived on Northside for many years, but she’s concerned about the lack of traffic calming. She called it a “recipe for disaster.” She described a situation where a car had come whipping down the street and almost hit a little girl. She then read a statement from a 10-year old girl, Anna Morgan, who wrote that she’s not allowed to play in the front yard because the cars go faster than the 25 mph speed limit, and there are no sidewalks. “Please help make my street safer for everyone,” the statement concluded.

James Billingslea noted that the traffic calming item was the topic of six of the 10 reserved time speaking slots. He said that there would have been more people who would have come to address the council, except for the limit on reserved slots. He stressed that these traffic calming measures are not luxuries. He described several of the specific locations where there are problems. He lives on Northside, which he described as a short street with 20 houses. Eight of those houses have young children living there. He described how cars often have taken out mailboxes or the stop sign. A short 25 mph street shouldn’t have to endure that, he said. There’s a blind rise and a blind corner on the street, he said. Without the budget amendment, it would be 2017 before traffic calming measures would be implemented, he noted.

Alissa Ruelle represented residents who live on Pomona, a street that runs north-south from the water treatment facility down to Miller. Newport is a main road, but Pomona is a secondary road, she said. Pomona winds downhill and has only one stop sign, and cars drive very fast down Pomona, she told the council. The neighborhood had petitioned back in 2009 for traffic calming measures. Her understanding was that the traffic calming measures are supposed to be implemented next year. Regarding the children who live on the street, she said she didn’t want their young mistakes to be their last mistakes. Residents are looking forward to traffic calming measures, she said. Her remarks generated applause.

Sheila Henley also represented Pomona. There are definitely kids in the neighborhood, she said. Her mother is 78 and there are Alzheimer patients. She signed the petition back in 2005, she said. She definitely supports the resolution. Her remarks drew applause.

Zoltan Jung spoke on behalf of the Northside neighborhood in support of traffic calming measures. He characterized the demographics as a bimodal distribution of very old and very young. The neighborhood kids run and play on this street, he said. Cars bounce off the neighbor’s tree and wind up in his yard, he reported.

Lisa Richardson lives on Wells, seven houses from Packard and Burns Park Elementary. Drivers routinely speed down the street, using it as a cut-through, she said. Someone is going to be injured or killed, she told the council. Fourteen small children live on the street, she said. No one stops at the three-way stop. When drivers turn onto Wells, they “gun it” to get to Packard, in order to make the light, Richardson reported. A traffic study was completed in 2010, she said, but the traffic calming measures are not scheduled for implementation until 2016. The city knows that a dangerous situation exists and that results in liability for the city, she said. The reaction time of drivers doesn’t allow them to react if they’re speeding. She thinks the city needs to look at speeding on all the city’s roads. Her commentary generated a lot of applause.

Traffic Calming: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that her neighborhood [along Broadway] had sought traffic calming measures back in about 2003. They’d first asked for stop signs and had been told they couldn’t have them. She recalled the confusion about the petitioning process. She recalled how a porch had been torn off by a speeding car. A stopped speeder told the police officer to just keep her driver’s license because she was in a hurry. Briere then talked about the importance of addressing the traffic calming measures in other neighborhoods.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said that cars speeding down quiet streets is not the kind of Ann Arbor we want to see. Traffic calming helps make neighborhoods livable, she said. She contrasted the importance of funding projects like this, with the constant push to focus on the downtown area.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she was happy to co-sponsor the resolution, and thanked Briere and Kailasapathy for co-sponsoring it too. She asked Nick Hutchinson, senior project manager, some questions about traffic calming. He explained that the five petitions mentioned in the resolution are the only petitions currently active with the city.

Lumm wanted to know if the money allocated for the State Street corridor study could be used for the FY 2014 traffic calming projects. City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the State Street corridor study is complete – so no. There’s also a State Street traffic study, he explained. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl explained that the study in the FY 2014 budget is for traffic and transportation in the State Street area.

Lumm said she’s supportive of the resolution and was glad to see it move forward.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’s also supportive, but he was concerned about a future backlog, saying he’d hate to have a backlog in FY 2016. He wanted to know who makes the decisions about opening up the petitioning process.

Hutchinson replied that the FY 2014 projects would need to be completed by June 30, 2014. The other two would need to be done after July 1, 2014. Kunselman noted there are a number of street projects coming up in FY 2014. Kunselman wanted to know if the traffic calming projects would impact the staff’s ability to complete those other street projects.

The design of a traffic calming project, Hutchinson explained, is not complicated. It’s more the public engagement process that requires effort. He said the 2010 decision to suspend acceptance of petitions was made by the public services area administrator at the time [Sue McCormick].

Kunselman pressed for more details about the program. He wanted to know why more money wasn’t already budgeted in FY 2014. Powers explained it was a question of priority. Kunselman wanted to know why the council would now amend the budget. Briere ventured that the reason that the city council didn’t ask for more traffic calming is that the council had forgotten that such projects were even done. She ventured that the neighborhoods might not have pestered councilmembers about that concern enough.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) reported that the rerouted traffic from the East Stadium bridges project had led a neighborhood to delay a request for traffic calming. Lumm reported she now had a list of streets where people have said they want traffic calming for their streets.

Lumm suggested that the $237,000 of street funds in the public art fund could be tapped for additional traffic calming projects. She wanted information from the city attorney about how to proceed with that. That seemed like a logical and appropriate source for funding traffic calming, Lumm said.

Briere appreciated the reminder about the public art fund. She noted that the public art ordinance would need to be amended first – in order for the council to have the legal authority to return those public art funds to the street fund.

Kunselman responded to the idea of using street millage funds – returned from the public art fund – for traffic calming, saying he didn’t think that the street millage fund could be used for traffic calming.

In a follow-up response to an emailed Chronicle query, Hutchinson confirmed Kunselman’s understanding: “Some types of traffic calming measures (such as curb bump-outs) can be incorporated into our street projects as part of the project cost. However, the more familiar ‘in-street’ traffic calming measures (speed humps, raised crosswalks, raised intersections) cannot.”

Kunselman wanted more information about how to fund traffic calming for a much longer duration. He didn’t want a stop-and-go approach for the funding of the program. As much as he’d like to spend the money, he said he still wanted to be careful. A more comprehensive long-term approach would open up the door for other safety projects – streetlights, crosswalks and the like.

Kunselman wanted a postponement. [As a budget amendment, the resolution needed eight votes, so any one of the councilmembers could effectively "veto" the resolution.] So Kunselman moved for postponement.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) began speaking. Margie Teall (Ward 4) raised a point of order, saying that Anglin should be speaking to the postponement. Anglin replied that he was speaking about a reason for the postponement – that he wants a more scientific way of looking at the issue.

Lumm understood the intent of the postponement, but wouldn’t support it. The resolution that night was modest, she said.

Briere said she appreciated Kunselman’s goal in postponement. She felt it was an infrastructure improvement, so it was a resolution consistent with the council’s priorities. It focused on Kunselman’s regular critique of the council, she noted – that the council doesn’t focus on health, safety and welfare. Briere said she appreciated the need for more data, but thought that a lot of the data already exists.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she would support the postponement, but appreciated what Kunselman’s goal is – to look at the issue more comprehensively.

Outcome on postponement: The motion to postpone failed.

With postponement no longer an option, Kunselman said he’d support the resolution. It brought forth a new era of projects supporting safety in neighborhoods, he said. Lumm reiterated her support of the resolution.

Mayor John Hieftje recalled being around when the traffic calming program started. During the recession, many things were cut, he said, including the traffic calming program. He warned there could pushback on these kinds of projects, because some people don’t support traffic calming.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to add five traffic calming projects.

Belle Tire Site Plan

The council considered a site plan for a new Belle Tire, to be located at 590 W. Ellsworth – just east of the intersection with South State Street.

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

The planning commission had recommended approval of the site plan at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting.

The 1-acre site – currently vacant – is on the north side of Ellsworth, adjacent to and east of a new Tim Hortons. A restaurant building formerly located on the property was demolished. The proposal calls for putting up a one-story, 9,735-square-foot auto service facility with 49 parking spaces, included 10 spaces located in service bays.

An existing curb cut into the site from Ellsworth will be closed, and the business will share an entrance with the Tim Hortons site. The project includes a new sidewalk along Ellsworth.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Belle Tire site plan.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru

The council considered final approval of a Shell/Tim Hortons drive-thru at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. The council needed to approve changes to the planned unit development (PUD) zoning supplemental regulations on the 1.44-acre site in order to allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located.

The council was asked to vote separately on approval of the project’s site plan.

The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. A PUD had previously been approved by the council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, but without plans for a drive-thru restaurant. The city planning commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request for a revision at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru: Public Hearings

During the public hearing on the zoning, Thomas Partridge told the council that the intersection of Ann Arbor-Saline and Eisenhower is a very busy location. He contended there’s no evidence of a traffic study being done, especially during rush hour. He asked that the proposal be referred back to the planning commission. During the public hearing on the site plan, Partridge again criticized the project based on traffic issues.

Another resident – who lives near the corner of Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline Road – addressed the council about a number of concerns that had been voiced by residents, none of which had been addressed so far, he said. Because of the speed on Ann Arbor-Saline, bicyclists use the sidewalk. So he had concerns about pedestrians being impacted by this development. Planning staff contend that traffic would not increase, but he was skeptical about that. He asked that the project be referred to the planning commission for further review.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru: Council Deliberations

Margie Teall (Ward 4) invited city planning manager Wendy Rampson to the podium to address the traffic issues that had been mentioned during public commentary. Rampson indicated that a traffic study concluded that most of the traffic that would be turning into the drive-thru would be traffic already traveling along the road. That is, the project isn’t expected to generate additional traffic.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the changes to the PUD supplemental regulations for the Shell/Tim Hortons drive-thru on Ann Arbor-Saline Road. In a separate vote, without deliberations, the council also approved the associated site plan.

New Liquor License Fees

The council considered changes to the liquor license fee schedule. Some fees were proposed to be eliminated – those related to licenses for which the state of Michigan doesn’t require local review. And the remaining license fee schedule is was proposed to be revised to reflect actual costs:

• on-premise liquor license annual renewal – $90 (increase from $50)
• new liquor license – $600 (reduction from $2,500)
• new liquor license application fee – $150 (increase from $100)
• new DDA district license – $600 (reduction from $1,000)

New Liquor License Fees: Public Hearing

Jeff Hayner addressed the council by saying he’d just received a text message from a Ward 1 bar owner. The bar owner’s message allowed that lowering the fee for new licenses helps reduce the barrier to entry to starting a new business, but the owner was not in favor of the increase of fees for existing license holders. But the bar owner appreciated the fact that the city wants to cover its staff costs, Hayner reported.

Thomas Partridge was concerned about the loss of income to the city through the lowering of the fees. He called for the proposal to be returned to the council’s liquor license review committee, to see if fees can be raised.

Joshua Nacht addressed the council from the perspective of free market principles. It should be easier to start businesses in all areas, he said. The city should make it cheaper to obtain liquor licenses, he said.

New Liquor License Fees: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) introduced the resolution on behalf of the council’s liquor license review committee. She explained that transfers don’t require review by the state, so those fees are being eliminated. She noted that the adjustments are meant to reflect the actual underlying city costs. The fees hadn’t been reviewed in a quite a while, she said.

Lumm thanked the various staff who helped with the recommendation.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the changes to the liquor license fees.

Ann Arbor: Resilient City?

The council was asked to approve the city’s application for designation as one of 100 Resilient Cities by the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation defines “resilience” in terms of preparedness to withstand catastrophic events – both natural and manmade.

Each of 100 winning cities will receive three forms of support, according to the Rockefeller Foundation website:

• Membership in the newly formed 100 Resilient Cities Network, which will provide support to member cities and share new knowledge and resilience best practices.
• Support to hire a chief resilience officer (CRO). The CRO would oversee the development of a resilience strategy for the city.
• Support to create a resilience plan, along with tools and resources for implementation.

At the Oct. 7 meeting, Matt Naud – environmental coordinator for the city – said the grant would be for $1 million. However, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, it’s not the case that cities would receive that much money. The deadline to apply is Oct. 14, 2013.

Ann Arbor: Resilient City – Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) reported that the resolution was recommended by the city environmental commission. He characterized the city’s chances as somewhat of a long shot, but the strength of the city’s application resides in the work that the city has already done, he felt. The staff effort to put together the application is not anticipated to be onerous, he said.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked Matt Naud, environmental coordinator for the city, to come to the podium. She asked about working toward improved rankings compared to actually improving the quality of life in the city. Naud reported that the amount of the grant would be $1 million, with the only requirement that the city name someone as the chief resilience officer.

By way of background based on communication from the Rockefeller Foundation to The Chronicle, it’s not accurate to divide the $100 million total grant funding into the 100 cities and conclude that each city would receive $1 million. According to the Rockefeller Foundation, “The direct financial support from the Foundation will be in the form of 2 years of salary support for the Chief Resilience Officer. Each selected city will receive support to develop a resilience plan and a resilience fund is being developed to support the cities to implement these plans. We cannot specify a dollar amount as the plans are to be developed.”

Kailasapathy asked about staff time necessary to do the work of developing the resiliency plan. Naud replied that the city would be buying someone to work on developing the plan for the period of the grant. He said it would supplement the work that the city is already doing.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked what “resiliency” means in this context and what the city would be planning for. Naud’s first try got this response from Kunselman: “You didn’t answer my question.” On follow-up, Naud indicated that the idea is to be being resilient in the face of natural and manmade disasters. Naud referred to the city’s emergency management plans and climate action plans as examples.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that the environmental commission, on which she serves as a councilmember along with Warpehoski, has been talking about resiliency. It includes helping neighborhoods to make connections to the city to make sure that assistance can be provided – to deal with a tree that’s fallen down or a road that’s collapsed. The goal is to create the capacity to recover quickly when things go wrong, she said.

Briere said the issue has been studied in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, as well as in Chicago, looking at how neighborhoods responded to economic downturns.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wondered if these grants were intended for cities much larger than Ann Arbor. Anglin said he thinks it’s a good idea to be prepared. Mayor John Hieftje said he didn’t see a reason not to apply, saying the reward could be great. He ventured that these kinds of grants tend to be awarded to cities that already have “a lot on the ball.” Ann Arbor is not immune from natural disasters, he allowed. He called the departure of Pfizer as an economic storm that the city had weathered very well. He appreciated the environmental commission bringing it forward.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct the city administrator to apply for the Rockefeller Foundation 100 Resilient Cities grant.

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. Here are some highlights.

Comm/Comm: Attendance

Only eight of 11 councilmembers attended the Oct. 7 meeting. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) were absent. Taylor and Petersen were attending the International Downtown Association conference in New York City, which ran Oct. 6-9. A contingent of Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board members (5) plus the executive director also attended the conference.

City administrator Steve Powers responded to an emailed Chronicle request about the council’s travel budget: $6,500 was budgeted for FY 2014 with $0 used to date.

Petersen responded to a Chronicle emailed inquiry by saying that the DDA is paying for her conference registration, but she is paying for her own airfare, hotel, meals, etc. The conference registration was $743.75 each, according to Petersen. [.pdf of DDA travel policy]

Comm/Comm: Michigan Association of Planning Conference

During communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she had attended the Michigan Association of Planning conference in Kalamazoo the previous weekend. Briere serves on the city planning commission as the city council’s representative. Per the planning commission’s bylaws, commissioners at their Sept. 17, 2013 meeting had voted to reimburse the conference expenses for Briere and one other planning commissioner, Paras Parekh. Their expenses will be paid for out of the city’s training budget for planning staff and related commissions.

Comm/Comm: Crosswalk Ordinance

During council communications time, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) talked about the city’s crosswalk ordinance and the possibility of repealing that ordinance and replacing it with the uniform vehicle code. Lumm’s remarks indicated that a proposal would be coming forward at a future meeting.

On the topic of education about crosswalk safety, Lumm said there’s the possibility for posting signs for bicyclists to educate them about how to approach crosswalks. This is appropriate in the context of launching a bike sharing program next spring, Lumm said. She wanted the signs placed first at the busiest crosswalks.

Comm/Comm: UM Football Game Street Closures

City administrator Steve Powers announced that the Ann Arbor police department’s final report on University of Michigan football game street closures was now available. [.pdf of UM football street closures report] Police chief John Seto gave a preliminary oral report at the council’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. Seto attended the council’s meeting on Oct. 7, and a bit after midnight he delivered highlights of the report and accepted thanks from councilmembers.

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

Thomas Partridge addressed the council during public commentary reserved time asking for write-in votes for the Ward 5 council seat. He’s a declared write-in candidate. He called for a new attitude in Ann Arbor, one that’s family-friendly. The number of speakers in favor of traffic calming is a testament to the problem with the socio-economic environment, Partridge said. He called for the end of crime and corruption. He called for the replacement of mayor John Hieftje, Gov. Rick Snyder, and U.S. House speaker John Boehner. Ann Arbor and its families and college students suffer without a respectful set of attitudes, he said. Partridge called for building affordable housing and ending homelessness in Ann Arbor.

Comm/Comm: Against Negative Perceptions of Muslims

Eldred Bruce Meadows, who introduced himself as a practicing Muslim, rose to speak during the public hearing on the Shell/Tim Hortons PUD zoning issue, indicating that he wanted to advocate against negative perceptions of Muslims.

Mayor John Hieftje, left, talks with Eldred Bruce Meadows.

Mayor John Hieftje explained that speakers must address the topic of the public hearing. Meadows thanked Hieftje for the explanation and left the podium. He waited until the end of the meeting for the general public commentary time and then addressed the council. He invited councilmembers to the Islamic Center of Ann Arbor to learn more about their community.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Stephen Kunselman, John Hieftje, Chuck Warpehoski.

Absent: Sally Petersen, Marcia Higgins, Christopher Taylor.

Next council meeting: Oct. 21, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

Top: Example of a cross-lot walkway, leading from street to school. Middle: Sidewalk that was cut flush funded by the city’s sidewalk repair millage. Bottom: Recommended detention ponds in Eisenhower Park near the proposed Scio Church sidewalk.

Yet these existing and future slabs of concrete are themselves a constant topic of confusion and controversy: Who’s responsible for repairing the busted slab in front my house? Who’s supposed to shovel snow off the sidewalk in the winter?

Sidewalks also connect up to other equally important if also dull components of local governance – like stormwater management and public art.

So here’s a quick rundown of some specific sidewalk-related issues that the Ann Arbor city council will be considering.

The council’s agenda for Monday, Oct. 7, includes an item on the definition of sidewalks. If an existing walkway meets the definition of a “sidewalk,” then the city bears responsibility for its repair for the duration of the sidewalk repair millage. All other things being equal, the adjacent property owner would be responsible for snow removal in the winter.

The Oct. 7 agenda item focuses on walkways that aren’t really on the “side” of anything – walkways that connect a street to a park or school, or that connect two parallel streets. The city calls them “cross-lot” walkways. If such walkways were added into the definition of “sidewalk” – as the city council is contemplating – then the city would be responsible for repair. That’s a result welcomed by property owners. But it would put the burden for snow removal on those property owners – a less welcome result. That was the sentiment that led the council to postpone final consideration of a change to the definition of “sidewalk” three months ago, on July 1, 2013.

So on Oct. 7, the council will be asked to consider a different approach to that definitional change – one that would allow the so-called “cross-lot” paved pathways to qualify as sidewalks under the city’s ordinance, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners.

The fresh look would mean that the council’s possible action on Oct. 7 would be considered only an initial approval of the ordinance change. Final enactment of the change would require a second vote at a subsequent council meeting. If approved, the ordinance would allow cross-lot paths to be repaired under the city’s sidewalk repair program – funded through the five-year millage approved by Ann Arbor voters in November 2011. That program is noticeable to residents in the form of pink markings that appear on sidewalk slabs – an “R” for replace and a “C” for cutting an out-of-alignment section so that it lines up flush with the next slab.

The millage can pay for repair or replacement of existing slabs of sidewalks, but not for the construction of new sidewalks. So that millage money isn’t available to build a new stretch of sidewalk along the south side of Scio Church Road (or to fill in a smaller gap on the north side) – a section of sidewalk that residents have petitioned the city to build. The petition for a sidewalk there is based on several considerations, including a desire to connect to amenities west of I-94, like the Ice Cube, Wide World of Sports and the Ann Arbor District Library’s Pittsfield branch. It’s also seen as a pedestrian safety issue, because the lack of a sidewalk on one side of the road could induce pedestrians to cross the road at places where motorists don’t expect pedestrians to cross.

The city council authorized $15,000 of general fund money for the study of alternatives along that stretch – alternatives that were presented at a meeting held on Sept. 18 at Lawton Elementary School and attended by about two dozen people. Next up for the city council, likely on Oct. 21, will be a request for a design budget, so that costs of the project can be estimated with more precision.

Among the alternatives that were considered, but not pursued in much detail, was construction of a pathway through Eisenhower Park. That’s where the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner is now recommending that a pair of detention ponds be constructed – to help mitigate overland flooding in the area. That recommendation was presented to a group of about 80 neighbors on Sept. 30 – also held at Lawton Elementary School.

And a fence that that might need to be constructed along the proposed Scio Church sidewalk – to prevent people from falling down the steep incline – received a glancing mention at a recent meeting of the Ann Arbor public art commission. A proposal to fund a public art project that would be integrated into the fence was tabled by the commission at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting.

Cross-lot Sidewalks

The city council had given initial consideration to the change in the definition of a sidewalk at its June 3, 2013 meeting. When the final decision came before the council on July 1, 2013, councilmembers heard from residents like John Ohanian and Miranda Wellborn Eleazar, whose properties abut cross-lot walkways.

Under the ordinance change the council considered that evening, the city’s sidewalk repair millage could be used to fix any defects in the slabs – but Ohanian and Wellborn Eleazar would have to shovel the walkway during the winter. That concern led to a postponement by the council until Oct. 7.

This cross-lot path was described by John Ohanian at the city council’s July 1, 2013 meeting as one that he’d become responsible for shoveling if the city adopted the change in the definition of sidewalk.

This is the path – looking east from Frederick and Middleton into Greenbrier Park – that abuts Ohanian’s property.

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

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

On Oct. 7, the council will be asked to consider a revised approach to these cross-lot walkways. The ordinance would still be changed to include them in the definition of a “sidewalk” – so repairs could be paid for with sidewalk millage money. But the ordinance change would not assign responsibility for snow clearance to the adjacent property owners. The staff memo accompanying the Oct. 7 ordinance proposal estimates that the total city cost for repairs and snow clearance for 34 cross-lot walkways would be $7,000 – $5,100 for plowing and $1,900 for repair.

The 34 cross-lot walkways that would be affected by the ordinance change would need to be accepted by the city for public use, in order for the ordinance language to apply. That’s a companion resolution the council will also need to approve.

Because the change to the ordinance is substantively different from the approach the council had previously given initial approval, any action taken on Oct. 7 by the council would be considered another initial approval, according to the staff memo. For the ordinance change to be enacted, it would need a second, final vote by the council at a subsequent meeting.

Construction of New Sidewalks

As part of the current fiscal year 2014 budget approved on May 20, 2013, the city council included $75,000 for a sidewalk gap prioritization study.

But before and after the adoption of the budget, the city council approved money related to specific gaps – for an alternative study or actual design work. The council has made such allocations on three occasions in the last year, starting on Nov. 19, 2012. That’s when the council approved $15,000 for an alternatives analysis of a stretch along Scio Church Road, west of Seventh Street and east of I-94.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

Residents who live on and near Scio Church had submitted a petition asking for the construction of a sidewalk along the south side of the road. That petition prompted the city council allocation of money for an alternatives analysis.

For some of the other specific sidewalk projects, the council allocated a design budget. For Scio Church Road, the alternatives analysis comes first, because the design won’t be straightforward – due to the physical challenges involved, related to the sloping terrain.

In fact, those physical challenges were cited by city senior project manager Liz Rolla at the Sept. 18 Lawton Elementary School meeting as one possible reason why the sidewalk gaps exist along that stretch. One resident, who described herself as new to the area, asked for a nutshell explanation of why, on the south side of the road, there’s a sidewalk heading west until halfway between Delaware and Churchill, “and then there’s nothing.”

In addition to the physical challenges, Rolla ventured that when the sidewalks were constructed, the perceived need for pedestrians to go west all the way to I-94 and beyond was not as great. Facilities like the Ann Arbor Ice Cube, Wide World Sports Center and the Pittsfield branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, she said, were from her perspective relatively new – but for her kids, they seem like they’d been there forever. Those facilities create a need for pedestrian travel westward.

One resident at the meeting traced the problem to the city’s failure to install proper sidewalks when the land was annexed from Pittsfield Township, citing the city’s requirements that regulate how public sidewalks and driveway entrances are constructed. He was reluctant to see just the gap on the south side of Scio Church addressed, reasoning that the city should provide sidewalks on both sides of the street.

An outcome of the Sept. 18 meeting is that the staff will request that the city council provide money for a design budget – for both sides of Scio Church, including the shorter gap on the north side of the street. That request is supposed to be on the council’s Oct. 21 agenda, according to the staff summary of the meeting. [.pdf of Sept. 18, 2013 staff summary of Lawton Elementary School sidewalk meeting]

The sentiment of the attendees at the Sept. 18 meeting was that – while they very much wanted to see sidewalks constructed to eliminate the gap – they were reluctant to see what they viewed as unreasonable costs imposed on adjacent property owners, who would bear some of the project’s cost. That cost is typically imposed by the city through a special assessment of properties that front the sidewalk. Because much of the south side of Scio Church, where the proposed sidewalk would be constructed, is adjacent to city parkland or the rear of cul-de-sacs, few property owners would be special assessed.

Lawton Elementary School sidewalk meeting on Sept. 18, 2013.

One resident who attended the Sept. 18 meeting, and whose property would be special assessed, indicated he had not signed the petition, nor had he known about it: “The funding of this is a very, very big deal to me,” he said. “This is money that I’m hoping that my son can use to go to college. A portion of that would have to go to this project if this property is assessed.”

Rolla and city engineer Nick Hutchinson, who also attended the meeting, stressed throughout the discussion that the numbers they’d provided should not be seen as the amounts that residents would have to pay – because the estimates were only very rough, and not all elements of the project would be subject to special assessment. Retaining walls, for example, would likely not be assessed, Hutchison indicated.

Another factor reducing the potential burden to local property owners is the possibility that federal surface transportation funds could be used to offset part of the cost. But Hutchinson stressed that even if the city was successful in obtaining such federal funds – which are administered through the state of Michigan – a 20% local match would still be required.

Residents at the meeting appeared sensitive to the potential financial burden that just a few residents might have to bear. The resident who had organized the petition to the city reported that he got the feeling from talking to the neighborhood that there are ways to share the burden of the assessment – either formal or informal ways among those who wouldn’t ordinarily be special-assessed. Speaking for himself, he said, “I’m eager to do it.” Another resident chimed in, quickly: “I was just going say the same thing. I am perfectly willing to chip in,” she said. “I definitely want sidewalks,” she continued. “Me, too!” added another. “Yes, I am in favor of that as well,” another resident said.

Rolla told attendees that the preliminary conversation with the city attorney’s office had indicated that a formal arrangement of those neighbors – people contributing to the sidewalk who wouldn’t ordinarily be specially assessed – would best be done through a single point of contact for a group of property owners, like a neighborhood association.

The dollar figures that residents reacted to were the following for the three numbered alternatives – as the option of building a pathway through Eisenhower Park wasn’t pursued in any detail. Even the staff’s preliminary consideration led to the conclusion that the park path option would be cost prohibitive.

0. Build Path through Park
   Challenges: Slope issues (Americans with Disabilities Act); it would require removal of many
   trees; it’s isolated with no streetlights; requires crossing of creek.
   Cost: Cost prohibitive. Not pursued.
1. Pedestrian Crossing Island near Churchill
   Estimated cost: $56,000
   Funding mechanism: In the past, pedestrian islands have been funded in conjunction with major road reconstruction projects, safety funds, street millage, MDOT. Not specially assessed to residents.
   Responsibility for snow shoveling: City of Ann Arbor
2. Fill-in North Side Gap
   Requires: Grading, retaining wall, tree removal.
   Rough estimated cost: It’s about 370 feet long, with estimated cost of $90,000, which means about $245 per lineal foot.
   Funding mechanism: In the past, this type of project is funded by special assessment to fronting properties or installed by the property owner.
   Responsibility for snow shoveling: Property owners who have property that fronts the sidewalk.
3. Extend South Sidewalk to Maple
   Requires: Grading, retaining wall, tree removal, replacement of guardrail, addition of curb and gutter and fence.
   Rough estimated cost: It’s about 2,000 feet long, with estimated cost of $360,000, which is about $180 per lineal foot.
   Funding mechanism: In the past, special assessment has been used, but only a few of the properties along the stretch could be special assessed, as the rear of cul-de-sacs would not be subject to the assessment. Federal surface transportation funds could be used, requiring a 20% local match.
   Responsibility for snow shoveling: Property owners who have property fronting the sidewalk (corner lots). This does not include cul-de-sac lots with no connection to the sidewalk. The city would plow the sidewalk where no other adjacent property owner is responsible

Next up for the city council, on Oct. 21, will be a request for a design budget, so that costs of the project can be estimated with more precision.

Detention Ponds, Art

The project extending the Scio Church sidewalk to Maple Road includes a fence – to keep pedestrians from falling down the embankment. That fence was the subject of deliberations by the Ann Arbor public art commission at its  Sept. 25, 2013 meeting.

The art commission tabled the proposal. [.pdf of AAPAC's intake form for the Scio Church fence] Typically the city would, at this kind of site, install a standard kind of chain link fence. But Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator – had previously told the public art commission that there might be an opportunity for something more creative, if AAPAC wanted to explore that possibility. The AAPAC budget for the tabled fence enhancement was recommended to be between $40,000 and $80,000 from the remaining Percent for Art street funds.

Those funds won’t be replenished after they’re spent, because the city has ended the Percent for Art approach to funding public art. In the future, public art funding will come from partnerships, fundraising and any money that the city council allocates to “enhance” capital projects. The remaining Percent for Art funds are supposed to be spent on projects that are tied thematically or physically to the funds of origin.

Although the Scio Church fence art project was tabled on Sept. 25, the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, told art commissioners he could put together a more detailed proposal for AAPAC’s October meeting.

The end of the sidewalk near Maple, where the fence and a guardrail would need to be reconstructed, received comment at the Lawton Elementary School meeting of Sept. 18 – in connection with a pair of potential detention ponds in the adjacent Eisenhower Park. The Washtenaw County water resources commissioner is recommending that the ponds be constructed there as part of recommendations for mitigating flooding in the area.

At the Sept. 18 meeting, one resident suggested that the earth that would need to be excavated to create the detention ponds could be used to help soften the angle of the slope from Scio Church Road down into the park, possibly helping to meet the challenge of sidewalk construction there. The same resident expressed desire for the sidewalk construction to be coordinated with the detention pond construction, so that the city does not construct a new sidewalk, fence and guardrail, and then tear it out to gain access to Eisenhower Park for the detention pond project.

While the sidewalk construction project could be undertaken in late 2014, the detention pond probably entails a longer timeline. The final report from the upper Mallets Creek stormwater study isn’t due until early 2014. And from that point, the recommendations would need to be adopted into the city’s capital improvements plan, which is the purview of the city planning commission. And after that, the city council would need to decide whether to approve funding allocations for any or all of the recommended projects. [For previous coverage of that project, see: "County Gets Info on Flooding, Shares Options"]

Those recommendations, however, have been developed and modeled. They were unveiled at a meeting on Sept. 30, 2013 – also held at Lawton Elementary School. Although the three proposed stormwater facilities were described as “alternatives,” project manager Harry Sheehan, who’s managing the project in the water resources commissioner’s office, indicated that all three projects are being recommended:

Proposed Pioneer High School detention pond. Cost estimate: $1.2 million. Surface area: 2.8 acres. Total volume: 400,000 cubic feet.

Proposed Lawton detention pond. Cost estimate: $5.15 million. Surface area: 1.1 acres. Total volume: 280,000 cubic feet.

Proposed Eisenhower Park detention ponds. Cost estimate: $2.1 million. Surface area: 2.5 acres. Total volume: 470,000 cubic feet.

At the Sept. 30 meeting, the effect of each project on the mitigation of flooding was presented as modeled for the March 15, 2012 storm, which had resulted in significant overland flooding in the Landsdowne neighborhood.

In the animated .gif below, which loops continuously, the first frame indicates the March 15, 2012 flooded areas in black. The next three frames show the modeled cumulative effect of adding each of the proposed stormwater detention facilities. That is, the maps show what the flooding would have been like, if the proposed stormwater detention facilities had been in place on March 15, 2012.

Maps by Spicer Group, the engineering consultant for the upper Mallets Creek stormwater study. Scans and animation by The Chronicle.

The Chronicle is like a sidewalk – because we can’t survive without concrete (financial) support. The kind of support we hope you’ll provide is through voluntary subscriptions. Those voluntary subscriptions support our coverage of public bodies like the city of Ann Arbor. 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!

Voters approved the 1/8 mill sidewalk repair millage in November 2011. The city council resolution placing the question on the ballot that year excluded certain properties inside the DDA district – those that are not one- and two-family houses – from the city’s sidewalk repair program that is funded with the millage proceeds.

The council subsequently enacted an ordinance, on June 4, 2012, that assigns responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and repair to the city of Ann Arbor. But for the excluded properties within the DDA, the ordinance provides the option that the DDA itself handles repair of adjacent sidewalks or that the DDA pays the city to do the work.

It’s an agreement related to the second of those two options that the city council voted to approve at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting.

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