The work will include repairs like displaced bricks and uneven sidewalk flags, as well as pruning of trees.

The money to pay for the work will be drawn from tax increment finance (TIF) revenue, which the DDA is authorized to capture under state statue.

The project was recommended by the DDA’s operations committee. The board vote was unanimous.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301, where the DDA board holds its meetings.

Mary Jo Callan, director of Washtenaw County’s office of community and economic development, explained to the DDA board what the affordable housing needs assessment would entail. The board voted to approve $37,500 for the study. (Photos by the writer.)

One was a $37,500 grant from the DDA’s housing fund to help pay for an affordable housing needs assessment to be conducted by Washtenaw County’s office of community and economic development. The other was a routine end-of-year budget adjustment that included the $37,000 grant as well as $500,000 of previous allocations made to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, and a $1.6 million payment for the First & Washington parking garage that was made out of this year’s budget instead of the previous year’s budget.

In other voting business, the board approved up to $125,000 for the redesign and reconstruction of the public sidewalk in front of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown location on Fifth Avenue. That money will come from next year’s (FY 2015) budget, starting July 1. The project will eliminate the step up immediately adjacent from the curb, which was installed as a result of the streetscape changes the DDA undertook during construction of the Library Lane underground parking garage in 2012. The sidewalk project will be incorporated into an AADL project that will substantially renovate the front entrance to the building.

The final item of voting business considered by the board was adoption of a policy for DDA grants to private developments. The policy establishes criteria for eligibility – which include public benefit to property outside the development. The policy also covers limits on the amount of funding, which is a portion of the additional TIF revenue generated by a project.

A resolution that had been postponed at the board’s May 7, 2014 meeting until the June 4 meeting did not receive any board action – a request to pay about $100,000 for the conversion of streetlights in the DDA district to LED technology. The board did not vote on the item. It did not appear on the board’s agenda as a resolution, but only as an update. That update consisted of remarks from executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay. She informed board members that as a result of conversations she’d had with city staff, they should consider the item tabled, but that the request might be brought back in the future.

The board also received its usual range of updates and reports from committees.

Affordable Housing Needs Study

The board considered allocating $37,500 for a housing needs assessment in Washtenaw County to be conducted by the county’s office of community and economic development. The total budget for the project is $150,000.

The firm selected by the county’s office of community and economic development (OCED) to do the needs assessment is czb LLC out of Virginia. [.pdf of RFP for the needs assessment] The current needs assessment will update a report done in 2007.

According to a memo from OCED staff to the DDA, the final report will “provide a clear, easy to understand assessment of the local housing market, identify current and future housing needs, and provide specific and implementable policy recommendations to advance affordable housing. The goal for this update is to include an analysis that links transportation cost and accessibility, as well as other environmental and quality of life issues to the location of affordable housing.”

The RFP for the needs study describes the timeline for the work as including a draft for review due at the end of October 2014, with a final presentation due in mid-December.

In addition to the DDA grant, money to cover the complete cost of the study will also come from a HUD Sustainable Communities Grant ($75,000) and a possible contribution recommended by the city of Ann Arbor’s housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). The board is advisory, so the actual appropriation – from the city’s affordable housing trust fund – would need to be approved by the city council. That approval is scheduled to appear on the council’s June 16 meeting agenda.

In 2005, the DDA board voted to approve $15,000 for the housing needs assessment that the county undertook around that time.

Affordable Housing Needs Study: Board Deliberations

Joan Lowenstein introduced the resolution on grant funding for the housing needs assessment. The DDA is being asked to contribute $37,500 to support the affordable housing needs assessment, she said. The study would be useful to the DDA as well as to all the other governmental units, she said – because they would then not be operating “in the dark.” When they are asked to provide support for affordable housing, they would know what the needs actually are. They would not then have to put money into a pot without knowing what that pot of money would eventually support. The study would establish what the housing needs are in the community, she said.

Lowenstein continued by saying that this report would also consider workforce housing. When affordable housing is discussed in this community, she continued, people often think of below-poverty kind of housing, but this study will also be looking at workforce housing. Lowenstein invited Mary Jo Callan, director of Washtenaw County’s office of community and economic development, to the podium to briefly describe the study.

Callan described this current study as an update of a previous needs assessment. Following up on Lowenstein’s comments about workforce housing, she allowed that it was important to include a range of different affordable housing types. Affordability varies, depending on income, she said, and it’s important to include the workforce strata.

A consultant has been retained to do the study, Callan reported. The consultant was chosen because of his familiarity generally with doing affordable housing assessments – and understanding how markets work – and specifically for that type of analysis in college towns. That’s important for Ann Arbor, as a college town, she said. She expected it to be a significant undertaking – with lots of community engagement, lots of meetings and focus groups with stakeholders. The final report would be done in the fall, she said.

As Lowenstein had pointed out, Callan added, we know we need affordable housing – but it’s important to put some numbers on that. How much? For whom? Located where? She noted that she works for Washtenaw County, but each community in the county has particular needs with respect to affordable housing. The report will highlight some specific areas, she said. One of those specific areas will be the Ann Arbor DDA district. The city of Ann Arbor will also be a specific area focused on in the report. Ypsilanti and Pittsfield Township will also be highlighted as communities with specialized needs.

The study will also include an analysis of transportation as it relates to affordable housing, Callan continued. Access to transportation is critical. Affordable housing is great, she said, but it is only great if it provides access to jobs and other needs. The previous study had not included consideration of how transit affects affordable housing, Callan said.

John Mouat highlighted the fact that out of a budget of $150,000, the Ann Arbor DDA was a 25% stakeholder. Half of the amount would be provided by the HUD sustainable communities grant. And another quarter of the amount would be provided through the city’s housing and human services advisory board, he said. He also stressed the fact that the amount is an “up to” amount.

Callan agreed that it was an “up to” amount – which was important for the DDA board to know. She continued by saying that the $75,000 from the HUD sustainable communities planning grant would definitely be used for the study. And the cost of the entire study is currently pegged at about $92,000. However, she expects – as with any major community undertaking – additional components of the study could be added, including additional outreach and engagement. So while the amount is an “up to” amount, she aims to bring the study in under that amount.

Responding to a question from Lowenstein, Callan described the timeline as starting immediately as far as engaging with the consultant. The community engagement process would start very soon, she said. There would be a couple of major planned community engagement events, probably in September and October. She is shooting for the end of November for a final report, she said, but in any case by the end of the year it would be done.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved $37,500 for the affordable housing needs assessment.

Routine Budget Maintenance: FY 2014

The board considered routine annual budget adjustments totaling about $2 million. The amendments are typically made each year towards the end of the fiscal year to ensure that expenditures do not exceed appropriated amounts – in compliance with Public Act 621 of 197. The Ann Arbor city council undertook a similar action at its May 19, 2014 meeting.

The main part of the adjustment was a $1.6 million payment made for the First & Washington parking garage, which is part of the City Apartments project. The amount was budgeted for last year, but not paid until this year.

The rest of the adjustment was attributable to expenditures out of the housing fund – $500,000 of it to support Ann Arbor Housing Commission projects. The remaining $37,500 went to support a countywide housing needs assessment – an amount that was approved by the board in a separate vote.

The DDA will end the fiscal year with $6,167,757 in fund balance. The breakdown of that total is: TIF ($619,571); Housing ($160,154); Parking ($2,161,676) and Parking Maintenance ($3,226,356).

Routine Budget Maintenance: FY 2014 – Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt introduced the item, saying that state law requires that the budget be amended so that expenses don’t exceed allocations in the budget. There were two areas in which the DDA has “overspent” this year, he explained. In the detail of the parking budget, he noted, there is a $1.6 million increase in the budget for the First & Washington parking structure.

DDA board member Roger Hewitt.

That’s the final cash payment for that structure, he noted. The reason the budget needs to be amended is that the expenditure had been budgeted for the previous fiscal year. The DDA could not make that payment until the certificate of occupancy for the parking garage had been issued. He described it as money that had not been spent last fiscal year and was being spent this fiscal year instead.

The other area where the DDA had “overspent” was in the housing fund, Hewitt said. After the budget had been set, there’d been a request from the Ann Arbor Housing Commission for several projects, he noted. Those projects totaled $500,000. Also a part of the mix was the $37,500 the board had approved at the same meeting for the affordable housing needs assessment study.

John Mouat drew out the fact that the Ann Arbor Housing Commission projects were at Baker Commons and Miller Manor, which are either in or near enough to downtown to fit the criteria the DDA applies for its housing fund investments.

Outcome: The board approved the fiscal year 2014 budget adjustments.

AADL Sidewalk Improvement

The board considered providing $125,000 of funding associated with a redesigned entrance to the Ann Arbor District Library on Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The money will be put toward the redesign and replacement of the public sidewalk along the east side of Fifth Avenue, between William Street and the entrance to the Library Lane parking structure.

The goal of the sidewalk redesign is to eliminate the step that was installed at the curb, when Fifth Avenue was regraded in connection with construction of the underground Library Lane parking structure, which was completed in the summer of 2012.

This is the step near the curb on the east side of Fifth Avenue in front of the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The step will be eliminated as part of a renovation project to the front entrance. The DDA will be funding up to $125,000 of the cost of the improvement to the public sidewalk.

At its most recent meeting, on May 19, 2014, the Ann Arbor District Library board authorized the library director, Josie Parker, to negotiate with Ann Arbor-based O’Neal Construction Inc. for work related to the downtown library entrance. O’Neal would be contracted to provide construction management services. This is the next step in a process that began several months ago, stemming from the need to replace the entrance doors.

At its April 21, 2014 meeting, the AADL board had authorized Parker to hire a construction manager for the project. At that meeting, trustees also allocated $18,580 from the fund balance to pay InForm Studio for construction documents. InForm Studio, the architecture firm that previously designed AADL’s Traverwood branch, gave an update on the process at that same meeting.

The existing teal porcelain panels that wrap around the front facade, part of architect Alden Dow’s original design from the mid-1950s, will be replaced with a “concrete skin” panel. The entrance will continue to be oriented to South Fifth Avenue, with new doors into the building. Leading from the front of the building into the vestibule will be two balanced double doors, which will be easier to open than the existing entry, and a single automatic door. A matching set of these doors will lead from the vestibule to the interior of the building. A heated sidewalk is proposed along the exterior edge of the steps.

The new design also will address accessibility concerns that have been raised by the public. Concerns about the grading and steps on the public sidewalk had been brought up as issues that affect accessibility.

The overall library entrance project is expected to cost about $250,000.

AADL Sidewalk Improvement: Board Deliberations

John Splitt introduced the item. He said when the DDA had built the Library Lane underground parking structure, Fifth Avenue had been regraded – something that needed to be done for water flow and drainage. The level of the street had been changed, and the difference in elevation had to be dealt with near the entrance to the Ann Arbor District Library. So that was dealt with by adding a step, Splitt said. That step has never been terribly convenient for anyone, he said. But now the library is renovating its front entrance. The DDA has been asked to get rid of that step, he continued, saying it was right that the DDA had been asked to do that.

The resolution that the board was considering would allow the DDA to pay for the part of the project that’s in the public right-of-way, Splitt explained. The DDA is not doing the work itself, he continued. The original amount considered by the committee was $100,000, he said, but in the course of committee discussion, they had increased the amount to $125,000 to accommodate any needed enhancements. In the long run, he felt, the cost would be less expensive than that, noting that it was an “up to” amount.

Roger Hewitt pointed out that the Ann Arbor District Library was one of the taxing authorities from which the DDA captures taxes.

Keith Orr supported the resolution, saying it is well within the DDA’s wheelhouse, as it involved infrastructure. Joan Lowenstein asked if the mechanical parking meters that are currently in place would be reinstalled, or if kiosks could be installed. Splitt said he assumed that the mechanical parking meters would be used for the time being.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, indicated that they are waiting to see what happens when the new Blake Transit Center opens – as the traffic flow will be reversed from what it was previously. When the center was located on the Fourth Avenue side of the block, buses entered from Fifth Avenue and exited onto Fourth Avenue. When the new driveway opens, expected in the next few weeks, buses will enter from Fourth Avenue and exit onto Fifth Avenue. It’s not clear how many of the parking spaces can remain, she said. Once more is known, then a decision can be made on the equipment, she said.

Splitt noted that the general strategy will be to replace the old-style meters.

Rishi Narayan asked, from a budget standpoint, if there was any consideration given to what projects this one might be replacing that already been budgeted for. Roger Hewitt responded to the question by saying that in a larger sense, the DDA has money allocated for sidewalk work. The DDA was holding off on decisions about where that sidewalk work might take place, until the streetscape framework plan is completed. Once that framework plan is in place, the DDA can begin to prioritize, he said.

Hewitt characterized the library sidewalk project as “jumping the queue” – although he said there really is not a queue of projects at this point. He summarized by telling Narayan that yes, there is money in the budget for this project, although it has not been allocated to specific projects. Money was not being taken away from some specific project.

John Mouat asked Splitt for some detail about the plans for the redesign of the library’s entrance: “How does the step magically disappear?” Pollay explained that the entire area in front of the library’s entrance is going to be recreated. Instead of the current two steps up into the entrance, there will be four steps, she said. That will allow the portion of the sidewalk that is near the street to be flat, she said. When the work was being done on the streetscape in connection with the underground garage construction, it was not possible to address that issue.

Mouat ventured that it was possible to view this sidewalk work as an unfinished phase of the reconstruction of Fifth Avenue. He indicated that when the step had been installed, everyone hoped that it would be a very temporary installation. Splitt summarized the results of the project as making the elevation change on library property and not in the public right-of-way.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the $125,000 for the library sidewalk project.

Partnerships Grant Policy

The board considered a policy on granting financial support to private developments. [.pdf of DDA partnership grant policy]

The development of the policy was spurred by a request from First Martin Corp., which has asked the DDA to support its extended-stay hotel project at the corner of Ashley and Huron streets. That location is within the DDA district.

Highlights of the policy include a limit on the amount, keyed to the amount of tax increment finance (TIF) revenue the project will generate: “… calculated to be between 1% and 25% of the ten year TIF captured by the DDA from this project, with these funds to be directed to the cost of the public improvements agreed to by the DDA.”

Criteria for awarding grants include:

1. Addresses a documented gap in the marketplace or underserved markets of commerce within this sector of downtown.
2. Demonstrated that the project will act as a catalyst for additional revitalization of the area in which it is located which will trigger the creation of additional new tax revenue.
3. Is “connected” to the adjacent sidewalk with uses on the first floor that are showcased using large transparent windows and doorways to give pedestrians a point of interest to look at as they walk by the project.
4. Creates a large office floor plate.
5. Will facilitate the creation of a large number of new permanent jobs.
6. Is a mixed use development, that will encourage activity in the daytime, evening, and weekend, such as a development with a mix of commercial and residential.
7. Adds to downtown’s residential density.
8. Reuses vacant buildings, reuses historical buildings, and/or redevelops blighted property.
9. Number of affordable housing units created on site or funded by the project elsewhere in the community, which are beyond what is required by the city.
10. Environmental design is at or above a Gold LEED certification, or an equivalent environmental assessment.
11. Architecturally significant building or project design.
12. Strengthens Ann Arbor’s national visibility.

The grant policy considered on June 4 is similar to but distinct from a policy the board adopted at its June 6, 2012 meeting to cover brownfield grants – a policy that was spurred by the 618 S. Main project. [.pdf of brownfield policy]

Partnerships Grant Policy: Board Deliberations

Joan Lowenstein introduced the grant policy item on the agenda. The board has been discussing this for quite a long time, she said. She described the DDA grant program as “lying dormant” for a long period. The policy would structure how the DDA works with private developers, she said. Some guidelines need to exist, she explained, because it can’t be done simply “catch-as-catch-can.”

The policy sets out guidelines, based in part on the DDA’s brownfield grant policy. But Lowenstein stressed that this policy goes in a different direction from the brownfield grant policy. Specifically, this policy begins by asking the question: What can this developer do for us and our downtown and the rest of the community? So the policy incorporates criteria for how a developer can be eligible for grant support. More than just the developer’s own site has to be included in the benefit, she said. “In that sense it is a partnership, not simply a gift,” she said.

Amber Miller, the DDA’s planning and research specialist, was invited to comment by Lowenstein. Miller described two areas where she’d work on the policy with city staff. First, they had focused on the eligible improvements section of the policy. They’d identified opportunities for project elements that are not typically required of a site plan. Second, her work with city staff had also focused on the process by which the grants could be applied for. She noted that it would be helpful to have a grant application reviewed at the same time that city staff reviewed a project. That would be the perfect time for city staff to identify additional public improvement opportunities.

Roger Hewitt ventured that based on the wording of the policy, any residential project would qualify. Back-and-forth between Miller, board chair Sandi Smith, and John Mouat established that the inclusion of residential units was just one of many criteria for eligibility, and was not necessarily a sufficient criterion. Hewitt did not want every student housing project to qualify automatically. Lowenstein characterized the criteria as a “package.”

Mouat noted that the list of criteria was finite – and as the program continues for a number of years, it might be important to remove some items from the list or to add items. For example the need for large office floor-plate space was high right now, but after more of that type of space is built, it might not continue to be a priority.

DDA executive director Susan Pollay said the policy would be reviewed on an ongoing basis – as the city’s priorities change and as developments change. Mouat expressed concern that there might not be enough on the list to get developers interested. Pollay described how the DDA at one time had a façade improvement program – and the same concern had been registered at that point. Not much has been heard about the façade improvement program in the recent past, she continued, and that’s because there was no development interest. These DDA programs are not meant to supplant market forces – but rather are meant to be supportive of the DDA’s goals, she said.

Al McWilliams inquired about a limitation on the number of grants that could be awarded any given year. Smith explained that payment on any grant would be made only after the property owner had paid all the property taxes due. The grant would never be paid ahead of the taxes, she said. For that reason, she said it is not a typical rebate, but rather a grant based on the payment of taxes.

City administrator Steve Powers characterized the policy that was before the board as much improved over previous drafts. Lowenstein said it was helpful to have this policy coordinated with the city’s capital improvements plan – a change she felt was really helpful.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the grants policy.

DTE LED Conversion

The board’s May 7, 2014 meeting included a resolution that asked the board to consider paying $101,733 to DTE for converting 212 mercury vapor and high-pressure sodium streetlights in downtown Ann Arbor to LED technology.

The board voted at that meeting to postpone a decision until its June 4, 2014 board meeting.

DTE LED Conversion: Background

In 2007, the DDA had previously granted $630,000 for conversion of 1,400 other streetlights in the DDA tax capture district.

Streetlight locations are mapped in the joint Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system. Data is available by clicking on icons includes ownership as well as the lighting technology used. This one is a high pressure sodium light operating at 400 watts.

The 212 streetlights that haven’t yet been converted are owned by DTE, which would be undertaking the work. Currently, the city pays DTE $72,585 a year for the energy used by the 212 streetlights. After conversion, the annual cost for the 212 lights is expected to drop to $51,895, for an annual savings of $20,690.

After an EO (energy optimization) rebate of $10,224, the $91,509 cost would be recovered in just under 4.5 years.

The project would include converting 100 watt MV (mercury vapor), 175 watt MV and 100 watt HPS (high pressure sodium) lights to 65 watt LED (light emitting diode). Further, 400 watt MV and 250 watt HPS lights would be converted to 135 watt LED. Finally, 1000 watt MV and 400 watt HPS lights would be converted to 280 watt LED.

DTE LED Conversion: June 4 Meeting

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, told the board that at the previous month’s [May 7] meeting, she’d put forward a request to the board to consider a grant that would enable converting the remaining non-LED streetlights downtown to LED technology.

Some very valid points were raised by the board members, she said, which she’d taken back to a meeting with city staff. In that conversation, city staff had seen merit in both of the points. The first question concerned how the streetlight conversion project lines up with other priorities in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). About that, Pollay reported that “there was a lot of resonance for that question.”

The second question was how the streetlight conversion project lines up with the streetscape framework plan, which is not yet completed: “And that also had resonance with staff,” Pollay said. As part of the development of the streetlight framework plan, she said, we might decide as a community that the goal is to remove all of the cobra-head lights downtown – that we’d like to have all of downtown be lit with pedestrian-scale lighting, she said. And to make an investment at this point – before the DDA finishes that planning process – really didn’t make much sense, she continued.

Staff had “resonated with your questions,” Pollay told the board. So she’d put that board resolution on hold: “So effectively, that resolution you saw before, you should assume is tabled – not permanently, certainly, until after the framework plan,” she said. “If we feel it is important, we will bring it back.”

By way of additional background, in order to take advantage of this year’s funding cycle from DTE – which has a deadline of June 30 for application – the city’s energy office has developed a revised proposal for converting streetlights not in the DDA district. That proposal, to convert 223 mercury vapor lights to LED technology, is scheduled to be on the city council’s June 16, 2014 agenda. The net cost to the city for that conversion is $55,060, with an expected payback period to the general fund of 3.1 years.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s June 4 meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council.

Comm/Comm: Connector Study

Roger Hewitt reported out on the status of the connector study. [By way of background, an alternatives analysis is currently being conducted by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops.]

The technical oversight committee had met the previous day, Hewitt said. They met with an expert on federal transportation administration (FTA) funding. The ultimate hope of the project, he continued, is that half of the construction funds will come from a federal grant. The expert had provided the committee with a lot of good ideas about how to request grant funding for the next phase of the project – which is the environmental impact study.

The expert had also provided ideas about how to request funding for the construction phase of the project, Hewitt reported. The expert had reviewed the projections of ridership 20 years into the future for this particular corridor, and characterized the numbers as “phenomenal,” Hewitt reported. This would easily be one of the top candidate projects for federal funding, as measured by the cost of the project compared to prospective ridership.

The expert had suggested that some FTA officials be invited to visit the city in the fall, when the University of Michigan students are back, because the FTA will not believe the numbers – they would have to see it for themselves. There’s a public meeting planned for Sept. 17, Hewitt reported. That will take place in the evening at the Ann Arbor District Library to bring the public up to date about the conclusions of the alternatives analysis.

Comm/Comm: Zoning Revisions

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter said the group had reaffirmed its support for the city council’s decision to review the downtown zoning, to “correct mistakes that were made in the past.” He said that the previous month, some members of the citizens advisory council had spoken during public commentary at a recent meeting of the planning commission, which had voted unanimously to recommend a change in the zoning of the parcel on the southeast corner of Main and William streets – from D1 to D2. The CAC had supported that change, but had objected to another change associated with the same parcel – which allowed a height of up to 100 feet, instead of the 60 feet associated with other areas of the downtown that are zoned D2.

Detter said he believed that a “planned project” approach would be better than increasing the allowable by-right height in the zoning to 100 feet. Detter said the CAC supported the hiring of a competent urban planning professional to advise the city council and planning commission on ways to make decisions involved in shaping the final recommendations on zoning ordinance changes.

During communications time, Roger Hewitt responded to Detter’s comments made during the initial public commentary of the meeting, saying that past zoning is not necessarily a mistake – it could simply be a difference of opinion. A change in the zoning does not mean that the past zoning was a mistake, he stressed. It might mean that the views of the public have changed. Hewitt reminded everyone that he had served for three years on the A2D2 study committee, which resulted in the zoning changes adopted in 2009. So Hewitt objected to the outcome of those recommendations being referred to as a “mistake.”

Comm/Comm: Footing Drain Lawsuit

As part of his report from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter said the group had spent some time discussing the status of the footing drain disconnection lawsuit that is currently pending against the city. The outcome of that lawsuit could affect the downtown area, he said. He reviewed how the lawsuit had recently been sent back to Washtenaw County’s 22nd circuit court from the federal court, over the objection of Ann Arbor city attorneys.

The footing drain disconnection ordinance, he continued, established a program under which property owners could be required to disconnect their footing drains from the city’s sanitary sewer system. The intent of the ordinance to diminish the risk of sanitary sewer overflows into the Huron River and sanitary sewage backups into homeowners’ basements.

Detter said he wouldn’t go into detail on the topic, but he summarized the essence of the lawsuit as involving inverse condemnation – the taking of private property without just compensation. If the lawsuit is decided against city, he continued, likely possibilities include the discontinuation of the footing drain disconnection ordinance and a discontinuation of the developer offset mitigation program. The developer offset mitigation program applies to every new development. Without that program in place, Ann Arbor’s sanitary sewer system would, he contended, be closed to new development.

The issue of inadequate sewage infrastructure in the city would have to be addressed, he said. If projects like 413 E. Huron are not able to mitigate sanitary in-flow, those projects would have to construct above-ground storage, he ventured. It could also have an impact on the University of Michigan’s new graduate dormitory, he said. The dorm is being constructed at the site of the former Blimpy Burger at Packard & Division.

Comm/Comm: Streetscape Framework Plan

John Mouat reported on a number of upcoming events related to the streetscape framework study. There will be a committee meeting on Tuesday, June 10 at 9 a.m. at the DDA offices. [At its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the board had authorized the consulting contract SmithGroupJJR and Nelson\Nygaard to manage the project.] There will also be a public meeting on June 12. The open house for the June 12 meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. with a presentation and feedback starting at 7 p.m.. That will be held at the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown location at 343 S. Fifth Ave.

Comm/Comm: City’s FY 2015 Budget

City administrator Steve Powers updated the board on the fact that the city council had adopted the fiscal year 2015 budget at its May 19 meeting. The budget includes funding for three additional police officers – two of them for the city’s community engagement unit, and one for traffic enforcement. The budget also includes funding for an additional firefighter and an additional rental housing inspector. There’s also a one-time use of fund balance of $1 million dollars to address the backlog in maintenance on trees in the public right-of-way. The fiscal year begins July 1, 2014, Powers concluded.

Comm/Comm: Main Street Light Poles

Board chair Sandi Smith noted that the replacement of the Main Street light poles was well underway. From what she heard, there’s a significant difference in the brightness of the lights.

Comm/Comm: Communications, Marketing

Reporting out from the partnerships committee, Rishi Narayan said that the communications subcommittee had focused on a couple of different data items to help determine how best to market downtown. The key is how to help market downtown, not for the DDA to take sole responsibility for doing it, he said.

The idea is to help the downtown area associations and the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau. He said the committee is currently exploring a couple of ideas. They’re waiting for some feedback on Ladies Night, which had been an attempt to increase sales and traffic at a time that was not normally high-traffic. It took place on May 9.

They’d come up with some pretty cool ideas about how to use parking data, Narayan said. They were looking at using a startup company in Ann Arbor to look at macro data on purchasing in the downtown. Narayan characterized the committee’s approach as multi-pronged. The committee wanted to get the most bang for the DDA’s buck, and did not want to simply invest money in various events, or into advertising or a website without having a metric by which to gauge success or failure.

Comm/Comm: Main Street BIZ

Keith Orr reported out from the partnerships committee on an update received from the Main Street Business Improvement Zone (BIZ).

Main Street BIZ geographic area and expansion. (Map by The Chronicle from the BIZ plan using Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS services mapping tools.)

Property owners immediately adjacent to the existing BIZ had been interested in participating, and the result of the vote among property owners was in favor of expansion. The expansion increases the geographic area of the Main Street BIZ by about 150%, he said.

The DDA had been asked to voluntarily contribute to the BIZ – something the DDA had already been doing for the Palio surface parking lot – even though the DDA is not assessed because it is a governmental entity, Orr said. Additional parking structures for which the DDA would be contributing a voluntary assessment would include the Kline Lot, the Fourth & William parking garage and the Fourth & Washington garage.

Comm/Comm: Sidewalk Maintenance

John Splitt reported that DDA executive director Susan Pollay and Joe Maynard [of Park Avenue consultants] had conducted a walk-around of the downtown to identify trip hazards and small maintenance issues with sidewalks. The budget for the work this year, which will take place over the rest of the summer, was about $75,000 or $100,000 dollars, Pollay thought. Splitt characterized the work as involving small concrete repairs, re-laying brick and those kinds of things.

Comm/Comm: TiniLite, Tiananmen Square

Changmin Fan introduced himself as the owner of TiniLite World. He told the board that he belongs to two countries – the United States and China. He noted that that very day – June 4, 2014 – was the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square uprising. Up to 1,000 people were killed during that uprising, he said. The whole world had talked about it at the time, but it’s quiet now, he said. We should appreciate the democratic system that we have in the United States and in Ann Arbor, he said. He suggested that his company’s technology could be used to help solve social problems by providing a better means for communication.

Comm/Comm: Downtown Spring Party

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter said the next day’s weather, on June 5, was going to be sunny and 70 F degrees for the annual downtown spring party, which he hosts at his home on North Division. He ventured that all of the candidates for city council and mayor would be in attendance, and said that everyone was welcome to come.

Present: Al McWilliams, Cyndi Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Steve Powers, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Rishi Narayan, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Russ Collins.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, July 2, 2014, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [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 Downtown Development Authority. 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!

A sidewalk marked with a “C” – which indicates that it needs to be cut flush – on Fifth Avenue south of William Street.

The sidewalk repair program is funded out of a five-year millage approved by voters in November 2011.

Some sidewalk slabs are in reasonably good shape but are out of alignment with adjacent slabs. The city takes the approach of shaving the portion that’s out of alignment so that it’s flush.

Cutting the concrete is more cost effective than replacing the entire slab. The contract for the cutting work for the upcoming 2014 program was awarded to Precision Concrete Cutting for $207,350.

The other part of the program involves outright replacement of sidewalk slabs.

That contract with Doan Construction Company for $1,707,037 was also approved by the council at its April 7 meeting.

Areas of the city of Ann Arbor where sidewalk repair will be done in 2013 and 2014.

In addition to an annual sidewalk repair program, the city manages an annual street resurfacing program. Also on April 7, the council approved a construction contract with Barrett Paving Materials Inc. for $3.409 million for the 2014 program. Also approved was a contract for materials testing – with CTI and Associates Inc. for $82,332.

Heavy black highlights indicate stretches of road that are a part of the city of Ann Arbor’s street resurfacing program in 2014.

Text descriptions of the streets to be resurfaced are as follows:

• Washington: First St to Fourth Ave (April – May)
• Fuller: Maiden Lane to Huron River Bridge (May – June)
• Newport: Sunset to south of Bird Rd (June – July)
• Linwood:, Doty to Wildwood (April – May)
• Northside Grill Alley: Broadway to End (April – May)
• Vinewood: Berkshire to Avon (May – June)
• Steeplechase: Whiltshire to Blaney (June – July)
• St. Aubin: Platt to Creek Dr (June – July)
• Woodbury: Astor to Stadium (July – July)
• Prairie: Plymouth to Aurora (July – August)
• Burlington Court: Burlington to End (July – August)
• Waldenwood & Adjacent Courts: Penberton to Earhart (north end) (July – September)

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

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

The council’s April 7 agenda features two significant items of old business: a first reading of an ordinance that would regulate outdoor smoking in certain locations; and an allocation of funds for the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force.

The pedestrian safety task force funding resolution is now expected to be withdrawn. At the first meeting of the task force, held on Friday, April 4, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, speaking from the audience, told the group that it was her intent to withdraw the funding resolution when the council meets on April 7. Even if the resolution is withdrawn at the April 7 meeting, however, the task force will be able to continue its work.

Pedestrian issues form one of the themes of the meeting agenda – as the council will be approving annual contracts for the sidewalk repair program, as well as applying for a grant to renovate the pathway in Gallup Park – from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. Along with the sidewalk maintenance program contracts, the city council will also be asked to approve the annual street resurfacing program contracts.

Another main theme of the meeting is land use. Carried over as a topic from the council’s March 17 meeting is the surface of the city-owned Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor. After voting on March 17 to hire a real estate broker, the council will consider a resolution on April 7 that would allocate to the city’s affordable housing trust fund half of the proceeds of any sale of the site’s development rights.

But on April 7, the council will also be considering an amendment to the March 17 resolution that directed the city administrator to list the surface of the Library Lane parking structure for sale. The amendment would require a public process to take place before brokerage services are obtained or the real estate is listed for sale. That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. The amendment is sponsored by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

The council will also be considering some items that arrived on its agenda via the city’s planning commission: rezoning of a nature area to PL (public land); and a resolution calling on the University of Michigan to incorporate the city’s land use recommendations as it considers the future use of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street. The April 7 agenda also includes, as an item of communication, a resolution passed by the city planning commission on March 18, 2014 that gives advice to the council about how to develop the Library Lane property.

In other business, the council will be considering a resolution to approve an expansion of the Main Street business improvement zone (BIZ). The geographic area of the self-assessment district – which handles sidewalk snow removal, sweeping and other upkeep for property owners – would more than double. The final decision rests with the property owners in the expanded area.

Also at its April 7 meeting, the council will consider a resolution asking that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages.

The council’s agenda also includes several street-closing approvals for upcoming events: Taste of Ann Arbor on June 2; The Event on Main Street on June 19; the Ann Arbor Jaycees Fourth of July Parade on July 4; and the Townie Street Party on July 14.

Among the reports and communications attached to the agenda is the final report of a council economic collaborative task force.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

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

Outdoor Smoking

A new local law regulating smoking in some outdoor locations will be given a first reading by the council for the third time at its April 7 meeting. The law would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks.

The most recent action – to postpone the ordinance until April 7 – came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting. The new ordinance had also been postponed at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the proposed new local law, had appeared before the city’s park advisory commission on Feb. 25, 2014 to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

The ordinance would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited.

Where no signs are posted noting the smoking prohibition, a citation could be issued only if someone doesn’t stop smoking immediately when asked to stop.

An existing Washtenaw County ordinance already prohibits smoking near entrances, windows and ventilation systems, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – but the county’s ordinance can be enforced only by the county health department. The memo further notes that the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act does not regulate outdoor smoking.

At the council’s March 3 meeting, other councilmembers expressed concern about the potential disparate impact of such a law on the homeless, and the challenge of enforcement.

Peds: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force

At its April 7 meeting, the council will consider for the second time a resolution that would appropriate $197,250 to fund the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force. Action to postpone the resolution until April 7 came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

The total amount proposed to be appropriated for the task force project budget is $197,250. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

The funds are to be sourced in part from an allocation made during the May 20, 2013 budget deliberations, which appropriated $75,000 for a study to prioritize sidewalk gap elimination. The connection between sidewalk gaps and the task force’s work is based in part on one of the other “resolved” clauses establishing the task force: “… the task force will also address sidewalk gaps and create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps; …”

The pedestrian safety and access task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

Another key “resolved” clause establishing the group’s scope of work includes the following: “… the task force will explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The responsibilities of the task force include delivery of a report a year from now – in February 2015.

The funding for the task force is in part to be used to pay for a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitator support to the task force.

According to a staff memo written in response to councilmember questions, the facilitator would assist with an anticipated 18 task force meetings, 24 resource group (staff) meetings, five stakeholder meetings and three public meetings. The facilitator would be “preparing materials and agendas; facilitating the meetings; summarizing the meetings; facilitating communication and discussions between, and among, the task force members and the resource group; and, developing materials for community outreach in addition to the actual public meetings, including content for press releases and web page publishing, and a community survey.”

According to the staff memo, a “team of staff members has identified Project Innovations, Inc. as a firm in the region that has demonstrated skill in task force facilitation and robust community engagement efforts, and is uniquely qualified with the capacity to facilitate the pedestrian safety and access task force’s rigorous work approach within the specified timeframe.” Based on the phrasing in the memo, the work appears not to have been put out to bid and Project Innovations was identified as a “sole source” provider.

Project Innovations is the same firm currently providing facilitation support to a citizens advisory committee that is attached to a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study being conducted by the city.

The resolution establishing the task force does not explicitly charge the group with a review of the city’s crosswalk law. But the pedestrian safety task force was established in the same time frame as the council was considering an amendment to the city’s crosswalk law. The council ultimately voted to change the language of that law at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting – so that motorists were required to concede the right-of-way only to pedestrians who had already entered the crosswalk.

That change was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Drawing on the phrasing used in Hieftje’s statement of veto, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has indicated he intends to bring forward an amendment that would require motorists to stop at crosswalks for pedestrians only if “they can do so safely.” At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, Kunselman announced he’d be pursuing such an amendment.

Peds: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force – Recent Developments

The funding resolution is now expected to be withdrawn. At the first meeting of the task force, held on Friday, April 4, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, speaking from the audience, told the group that it was her intent to withdraw the funding resolution when the council meets on April 7.

Even if the resolution is withdrawn at the April 7 meeting, the task force would still be able to continue its work. Here’s why. In the resolution that’s expected to be withdrawn, the total amount proposed to be appropriated for the task force project budget is $197,250. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

So the portion of the project budget that requires hard costs to be covered – other than city staff time – is the cost for the consultant to provide facilitation services. And according to a staff memo to the city administrator written after the council’s action to postpone, the bulk of the cost can already be covered in an existing budget allocation. From the March 27, 2014 staff memo to the city administrator: “The estimated amount for the facilitation work is $70,000 to $90,000. Of this amount, $75,000 is currently budgeted for pedestrian safety and sidewalk-gap planning. The remaining $15,000 will be included in the City Administrator’s recommended FY 14 budget amendment.”

In addition to authorizing the funding, the resolution would authorize a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. But now, it’s not clear that particular consultant will be selected for the work. Originally, Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations is familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting. But now the city has decided to issue an RFP (request for proposals) for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893] Responses to the RFP are due by April 22, 2014.

At the April 4 task force meeting, Connie Pulcipher – a systems planner with the city of Ann Arbor – told members of the task force that they could be involved in the process of interviewing respondents to the RFP. The delay in selecting a facilitator means that the original timeline for the group’s work, which included a final report by February 2015, has shifted to around August 2015.

Peds: Belle Tire Easement

On the council’s agenda is approval of an easement related to the Belle Tire site plan at State and Ellsworth. The planning commission recommended approval at its March 18, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

The site plan itself was recommend for approval by the commission at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting, and the project subsequently received city council approval on Oct. 7, 2013. The site is located in Ward 4.

By way of background, a 50-foot-wide right-of-way easement on the front this site was recorded by the city as part of a previously approved land division for this parcel. That easement reduced the front setback of the Belle Tire building from 10 feet to roughly 3 feet. The minimum front setback for this site is 10 feet.

So the property owner, who also owns the adjacent site at 3975 S. State, has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement.

In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback.

Peds: Gallup Park Path

On the council’s consent agenda – a group of items voted on all-in-one-go – is approval of a grant application to fund renovations to a pathway that runs through Gallup Park, which is part of the Border to Border Trail (B2B) connecting the eastern and western borders of Washtenaw County. Renovations would include repairs to the existing asphalt, as well as widening to 10 feet – in part to meet current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards.

The grant application would be made to SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) and MDOT (Michigan Dept. of Transportation) for the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). The grant funds, if awarded, would fund renovation of the pathway from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. The work would include the loop that leads around that part of the park. Total length of the pathway to be renovated is about two miles.

The city would provide a grant match of $200,000, which would be paid out of the parks and recreation capital improvements millage.

Peds: Sidewalk Maintenance Program

Also related to pedestrian issues are two contracts related to the annual sidewalk maintenance and repair program, which is funded out of a five-year millage approved by voters in November 2011.

A sidewalk marked with a “C” – which indicates that it needs to be cut flush – on Fifth Avenue south of William Street.

Some sidewalk slabs are in reasonably good shape but are out of alignment with adjacent slabs. The city takes the approach of shaving the portion that’s out of alignment so that it’s flush.

Cutting the concrete is more cost effective than replacing the entire slab. The contract for the cutting work for the upcoming 2014 program is to be awarded to Precision Concrete Cutting for $207,350.

The other part of the program involves outright replacement of sidewalk slabs.

That contract is to be awarded to Doan Construction Company for $1,707,037.

Areas of the city of Ann Arbor where sidewalk repair will be done in 2013 and 2014.

Asphalt: Street Resurfacing Program

In addition to an annual sidewalk repair program, the city manages an annual street resurfacing program. On the council’s April 7 agenda is the award of a construction contract to Barrett Paving Materials Inc. for $3.409 million for the 2014 program. Also on the agenda is a professional contract for materials testing – with CTI and Associates Inc. for $82,332.

Heavy black highlights indicate stretches of road that are a part of the city of Ann Arbor’s street resurfacing program in 2014.

Text descriptions of the streets to be resurfaced are as follows:

• Washington: First St to Fourth Ave (April – May)
• Fuller: Maiden Lane to Huron River Bridge (May – June)
• Newport: Sunset to south of Bird Rd (June – July)
• Linwood:, Doty to Wildwood (April – May)
• Northside Grill Alley: Broadway to End (April – May)
• Vinewood: Berkshire to Avon (May – June)
• Steeplechase: Whiltshire to Blaney (June – July)
• St. Aubin: Platt to Creek Dr (June – July)
• Woodbury: Astor to Stadium (July – July)
• Prairie: Plymouth to Aurora (July – August)
• Burlington Court: Burlington to End (July – August)
• Waldenwood & Adjacent Courts: Penberton to Earhart (north end) (July – September)

Asphalt: Windemere Tennis Courts

The council will consider a $134,297 contract with Nagle Paving Co. to relocate and rebuild the tennis courts at Windemere Park. The park advisory commission recommended approval of the contract at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting.

PAC’s recommendation on the contract followed its approval on Jan. 28, 2014 of a revised new location for tennis courts at Windemere Park, on the city’s northeast side. The final location approved by PAC was one put forward at a public meeting earlier this year.

The new location for the tennis courts has been disputed among neighbors who live near Windemere Park, a nearly four-acre parcel north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

Nagle Paving was the lowest of five responsible bidders on the project, according to a staff memo. Including a 10% construction contingency, the entire project budget is $147,727. Funding will come from the FY 2014 park maintenance and capital improvement millage revenues. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution] [.pdf of cost comparison chart]

Land: Library Lot Proceeds to Affordable Housing

The city council will consider a resolution at its April 7 meeting that would direct the city administrator to allocate half the proceeds from a possible upcoming real estate sale to support affordable housing. The land in question is the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure, which completed construction in the summer of 2012. [.pdf of draft resolution on Library Lane sale]

The Library Lane underground parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

From the resolution: “Resolved, That City Council direct the City Administrator to allocate 50% of any and all proceeds, after fees and closing costs, from the sale of development rights at 319 S. Fifth Avenue [the Library Lane lot] to the affordable housing fund.” Use of money in the city’s affordable housing trust fund is subject to recommendations by the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB).

Based on a ballpark estimated value for the property of $6-7 million dollars – given by Jim Chaconas of Colliers International at the council’s March 17, 2014 meeting – the resolution would translate to somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million to support affordable housing, depending on fees and closing costs.

No specific deal appears to be in the offing to develop the top of the structure. But the council voted at its March 17, 2014 meeting to hire a brokerage service to list the development rights to the top of the underground parking garage for sale. At the same meeting, the council passed a separate resolution that reserved 6,500-12,000 square feet on the Library Lane site for a publicly owned urban park.

The resolution allocating 50% of proceeds of a Library Lane sale to support affordable housing is now sponsored by four councilmembers: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5),  and mayor John Hieftje.

The strategy of channeling at least some of the proceeds of land sales to support affordable housing efforts has been a consistent part of city policy dating back several years. However, the council has not always agreed on the portion of a sale that should be allocated to support affordable housing. At the March 16 Sunday night caucus, Briere indicated one reason she might be reluctant at the following evening’s council meeting to support the hiring of a broker to list the Library Lane development rights for sale: She did not at that time want to take on the fight with other councilmembers about what to do with the proceeds. But Briere voted with seven of her colleagues on the 8-1 vote that saw only Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) dissenting. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) were not present for that vote.

The sale of another city property – the former Y lot in downtown Ann Arbor, on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues, across the street from the Library Lane site – is expected to generate roughly $1.4 million in net proceeds from the $5.25 million purchase price. That sale to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann had a closing date of April 2, 2014. And the sale was, in fact, completed.

The council voted at its Dec. 16, 2013 meeting to allocate all of those net proceeds to the affordable housing trust fund. More recently, at its March 3, 2014 meeting, the council directed the city administrator to prepare a budget resolution that would – upon completion of the former Y lot sale – allocate $600,000 from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, to support major capital improvements to its properties.

More than a year ago, at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a general policy on proceeds of land sales that was based on a budget committee recommendation. Essentially the policy is to consider land sales on a case-by-case basis, considering all the needs of the city. A nod to affordable housing was included in an amendment added at the council meeting in the form of a statement that all needs of the city would be considered in deciding the use of land sale proceeds – but “especially the need for affordable housing.”

The draft resolution to be considered at the April 7 council meeting cites the budget committee’s recommendation, which was adopted in the Oct. 15, 2012 council resolution, that “no less than 10% of net proceeds of any sale will be allocated and distributed to the affordable housing trust fund …”

Land: Amendment to Library Lane Resolution to List for Sale

On April 7, the council will also be revisiting the March 17 resolution on listing the surface of the Library Lane structure for sale. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) have sponsored a resolution that would delay the hiring of a broker and listing the property for sale until a public process, to be structured by the city administrator, is completed.

That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. From the resolution:

Resolved, That Resolution R-14-098 Directing the City Administrator to List for Sale 319 South Fifth and Retain Estate Brokerage Services be amended to direct the City Administrator to require that retention of brokerage services be delayed and listing not occur until adequate public process has taken place to explore public uses for the entire property;

Resolved, That the City Administrator structure the public process to allow citizens an opportunity to bring forward and discuss any and all appropriate public uses for this City-owned property, including its use, in its entirety, as a park or plaza;

Resolved, That City Administrator schedule a public hearing as part of the public process for citizen input on public uses for the property

Resolved, That City Administrator provide City Council with report on the public process at its completion; and

Resolved, On completion of the required public process, the City Administrator is directed to seek further direction from City Council as to whether the property should be listed or to continue to develop a wholly public or mixed public/private plan for its use.

The vote on the council’s March 17 resolution was 8-1, with dissent only from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent from the start of the meeting and Margie Teall (Ward 4) departed late in the meeting but before the vote was taken.

The April 7 council agenda also includes, as an item of communication, a resolution passed by the city planning commission on March 18, 2014 that gives advice to the council about how to develop the Library Lane property. The commission’s recommendations focused on conditions for developing the site that would garner economic benefits to the city, such as a mixed-use development that generates foot traffic, with an entry plaza or open space and a design that “creates an iconic addition to the skyline.” The recommendations drew on material in several existing documents, including the Connecting William Street report that was completed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority about a year ago.

Also attached to the council agenda as an item of communication is a resolution passed by the Ann Arbor District Library board on March 17, 2014. The resolution asked the council to reject designating a portion of the city-owned Library Lane site – which is adjacent to the downtown library – as a public park or plaza at this time.

Land: Recommendation to UM on Edwards Brothers

An additional land-use item on the council’s April 7 agenda is a resolution recommending that the University of Michigan collaborate with the city of Ann Arbor on the future development of the former Edwards Brothers property at 2500-2550 South State Street, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. The university is purchasing the 16.7-acre property, following the Ann Arbor city council’s decision on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the site.

The city planning commission passed the same resolution at its March 18, 2014 meeting and forwarded it to the city council.

The resolution was drafted by planning manager Wendy Rampson based on previous discussions by the planning commission and city council. [.pdf of resolution as amended at March 18 planning commission meeting]

The one resolved clause states:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council and Ann Arbor City Planning Commission request that The Regents of The University of Michigan and President authorize University staff to meet with City representatives to collaborate on issues related to future development of the South Athletic Campus area, including, but not limited to:

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be developed, preferably privately, for complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus that also follow the South State Street plan recommendations;
• Discussing options for the relocation of park-and-ride facilities as the South Athletic Campus develops; and
• Discussing the opportunities for a future pedestrian and vehicular connection between South Main Street and South State Street via the planned Oakbrook Drive extension through the South Athletic Campus site.

At the planning commission’s March 18 meeting, Rampson said she’s already shared a draft of the resolution with UM planner Sue Gott and Jim Kosteva, the university’s director of community relations.

The city council voted down a resolution that would have authorized Ann Arbor’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Malloy property, at a special session of the council on Feb. 24, 2014. That will allow the University of Michigan to purchase the property unimpeded.

Land: Stapp Nature Area Addition Rezoning

The council’s April 7 agenda includes a resolution giving initial approval to rezoning of land that’s been donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp. The 2.2-acre parcel at 3301 Traverwood Drive is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline..

City staff recommended that the donated parcel be rezoned from R4D (multi-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The land reaches from Traverwood Drive to the Leslie Park golf course, south of Huron Parkway. Adding the land expands a corridor of natural areas and parkland. Stapp Nature Area, a 8.11-acre property with a mature native forest and small vernal pool, is adjacent to Tuebingen Park and has a connection to Leslie Woods.

The site is on the northern edge of a larger property that’s being developed by First Martin Corp. as Traverwood Apartments. That project received its final necessary approvals from the city council on Jan. 6, 2014.

First Martin has committed to creating a pedestrian access from the apartment complex to the nature area, which will be formalized with an access easement.

The city has a policy of rezoning city-owned land to PL (public land). This parcel will be differentiated as parkland by its inclusion in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, because it will become part of the Stapp Nature Area, which is already in the PROS plan.

The council would be giving the rezoning initial approval at its April 7 meeting. The final vote would come at a future meeting after a public hearing.

Land: Main Street BIZ Expansion

On the council’s April 7 agenda is approval of an expansion of the geographic area of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The business improvement zone was established in 2010 by a vote of property owners in the zone to provide a mechanism for taxing themselves to pay for items like sidewalk snow removal, sidewalk sweeping and landscaping. [For the state enabling legislation for a BIZ, see Public Act 120 of 1961]

The current geographic area of the Main Street BIZ extends north-to-south from William to Huron on both sides of Main Street, extending to the mid-block alleys. The expansion would extend the area westward by a half block from the alley to Ashley Street. The expansion would also extend the area eastward by a half block along the whole north-south dimension; and between William and Liberty, the zone would expand westward an additional block – to Fourth Avenue.

While the council must give its approval of the plan, the expansion is contingent on a vote among property owners in the area, which has to be set for no later than 49 days after the date of the council’s resolution. The council’s April 7 meeting agenda includes a public hearing on the issue.

Main Street BIZ geographic area and expansion. (Map by The Chronicle from the BIZ plan using Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS services mapping tools.)

Same-Sex Marriage

At its April 7 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council will consider a resolution asking that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages. [.pdf of draft resolution on same-sex marriage]

The ruling in question was issued by federal judge Bernard Friedman on Friday, March 21, 2014 in the case of Deboer v. Snyder. In that ruling, Friedman found that Article I, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution – which limits the benefits of marriage to unions between one man and one woman – did not advance any legitimate state interest. So the ruling had the effect of making same-sex marriages legal in Michigan.

But the day following the decision, on March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on Friedman’s ruling. Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are appealing Friedman’s decision.

The council’s resolution reads in part:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council urges Governor Snyder and Attorney General Schuette to immediately suspend all efforts to appeal or otherwise contest Judge Friedman’s Ruling…

Before the stay on Friedman’s ruling took effect, Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum opened his office for business on Saturday, March 22, and issued 74 marriage licenses for same-sex couples in Washtenaw County. The county board had already set the stage for those couples to receive what practically amounts to a fee waiver for the expedited processing of a license, which ordinarily takes three days. The “fee” approved by the board at its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting reduced the usual fee from $50 to 1 cent.

The resolution passed by the county board on Feb. 19 allows the county clerk, consulting with the county administrator, to establish a “fee holiday” on the day preceding a period during which the office’s vital records division would be closed for four or more days, or when an unusual number of marriage license applicants are expected to appear. During a “fee holiday,” the charge for immediately processing a marriage license is 1 cent.

The resolution to be considered by the Ann Arbor city council on April 7 currently initially had four sponsors: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). Later Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and mayor John Hieftje were added, for a total of six. So that resolution is almost sure to be approved – because it needs only a six-vote majority on the 11-member council.

Economic Collaborative Task Force

Among the many agenda attachments – reports and communications – is the final report of the economic collaborative task force, established by the council last year at its May 20, 2013 meeting. The idea to establish the task force had grown out of a desire to review the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in the context of proposed changes to the city ordinance governing the DDA. The task force drew members from city of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor SPARK and the Ann Arbor DDA.  [.pdf of March 28, 2014 economic collaborative task force report]

In more detail, the task force was supposed to do the following:

• Provide clarity, alignment and specificity on economic development policy and objectives for fiscal year 2014 toward accomplishing city council’s success statement for Economic Development.
• Provide for strategic alignment of priorities between the Task Force member entities.
• Highlight cost sharing and maximizing of resource utilization.
• Identify options for sustaining, modifying, or eliminating operations in a financially-responsible manner through efficiencies and/or partnerships as part of a cohesive economic development plan for the city.

The “success statement” mentioned in the resolution was crafted by the city council at a budget retreat held in late 2012.

Those initially appointed to represent the city on the task force were city administrator Steve Powers, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and then councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

According to the resolution establishing the task force, a report was supposed to be presented to the council in December 2013 and the task force was supposed to expire at the end of 2013.

The 4.5-page report in general calls on the city, the Ann Arbor DDA and Ann Arbor SPARK to continue existing initiatives.

Some highlights of the report include a recommendation that the city consider technology infrastructure that is “essential for companies to compete globally and for communities to attract the necessary talent.” In that category of infrastructure, the report indicates that the city and Ann Arbor SPARK should “continue their work to develop a proposal for high-speed fiber that would accelerate both commercial and residential internet speeds.”

Also recommended in the report is the preparation of a plan to market and sell surplus city-owned properties. Properties included on the list include the South Ashley/West William (Kline) lot, the South Main/East William (Palio) lot, Library Lane, and 415 W. Washington.

4:00 p.m. Staff written responses to councilmember questions about agenda items are now available. [.pdf of April 7, 2014 staff responses to councilmember questions]

6:24 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has already arrived in council chambers. She was here earlier for a meeting of the council rules committee – along with Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Dinner for Petersen tonight at the council table is salad.

6:37 p.m. Paul Fulton with the city’s IT department is here, available to comment on an agenda item involving the TRAKiT system.

6:58 p.m. Council chambers are starting to fill up. Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Taylor, and Warpehoski have all arrived.

6:59 p.m. Councilmembers Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) have now arrived.

7:03 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. We’re almost ready to start.

7:08 p.m. And we’re off.

7:08 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance.

7:09 p.m. Approval of agenda. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. Kunselman is bringing back the two resolutions from the last meeting on the Library Lane site for reconsideration. He was on the prevailing side for both of those resolutions – which were both approved.

7:13 p.m. The items will be placed under “unfinished business” which comes right after the outdoor smoking ordinance. And Eaton wants DC-4 to be heard before DC-3.

7:13 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved its agenda for tonight’s meeting, over dissent from Teall.

7:16 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers reports that the amount of funds available from the sale of the former Y lot is $1.42 million. Powers also notes that the homeless shelter had found housing for 107 people this season as of the end of February.

Powers now is alerting the council to the report of the collaborative economic task force, which is attached to tonight’s agenda.

7:16 p.m. INT-1 Veg Week Proclamation. The week of April 21-27, 2014, is being proclaimed as Ann Arbor Veg Week. The proclamation names several local organizations and businesses as supporting it: Nicola’s Books, The Lunch Room, Ann Arbor District Library, Humane Society of Huron Valley, Main Street Area Association, A2 Fitness Professionals, and Current Publications. More than 20 restaurants that will be offering vegan special menu items throughout the week, according to the resolution.

7:21 p.m. INT-2 Elizabeth Dean Day Proclamation. This proclamation honors Elizabeth Russell Dean, who died exactly 50 years ago today, on April 7, 1964. She bequeathed nearly $2 million for the benefit of public trees of Ann Arbor, which is held in a trust with the annual interest income to be used for the planting, care and maintenance of these trees. The proclamation of the anniversary of Dean’s death as Elizabeth R. Dean Day “serves as a reminder of the vast contributions Ms. Dean made to ensure that Ann Arbor will forever remain a ‘City of Trees.’”

7:22 p.m. Edith Fletcher and Jane Immonen are on hand to receive the proclamation.

7:22 p.m. Public commentary reserved time. 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.]

Eight people are signed up to speak during public commentary reserved time, half of them to address the topic of the Library Lane site: Alan Haber, Odile Hugonot-Haber, Ingrid Ault and Ali Ramlawi. Ault is chair of the park advisory commission. Ramlawi is owner of the Jerusalem Garden restaurant, which is currently located almost directly adjacent to the Library Lane property and will border the lot when it moves into the former Seva building.

Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about affordable transportation. Frank Burdick is signed up to talk about the funding resolution for the pedestrian safety task force. Cliff Douglas is signed up to talk about the outdoor smoking ordinance. Douglas is director of UM’s Tobacco Research Network. And Kermit Schlansker is signed up to talk about “How to Sow the Earth.”

7:28 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for the state legislature and for the city council. He calls attention to the fact that U.S. president Barack Obama visited Ann Arbor last week, to support an increase to the minimum wage. He wishes that Obama had also supported an expanded transit system in his remarks. Partridge calls for affordable housing and the elimination of homelessness. He advocates for affordable healthcare and lifetime education. He notes the needs of the most disadvantaged members of society, saying we must give more attention to the most vulnerable among us. He calls on people to support the transit millage [on the May 6 ballot].

7:29 p.m. Frank Burdick introduces himself as a Ward 4 resident. He asks that the council postpone consideration of funding a consultant for the pedestrian safety task force. He says that city staff are competent to serve the role of a facilitator. He calls on the council to fund concrete, not more consultants.

7:33 p.m. Cliff Douglas speaks in support of the outdoor smoking ordinance. He’s lived in Ann Arbor since 1997, he says, and is speaking as an individual. But he’s also director of UM’s Tobacco Research Network. He names a number of other individuals at the UM School of Public Health who support the ordinance. The key issue, he says, is that although smoking is devastating to its users, it also causes harm to the environment and results in avoidable cleanup costs. In the U.S. there are 921 municipalities with 100% smoke-free ordinances. He has an 11-year-old son and can’t count the number of times the boy has put cigarette butts in his mouth. Cigarette butts are the leading cause of litter, he says.

7:36 p.m. Alan Haber tells the councilmembers that he’s written to each of them asking them to postpone the idea of selling the Library Lane site. They should use the occasion to establish a public process to explore the full public use of the land. There’s a font of creativity in this town to which the council should open the door, he says. There are possibilities for good and the future and for the children of future generations, he says. He urges the council not to press to find out how much it’s worth in terms of monetary value. He urges beginning now with intermediate activities. He’s asking for support and encouragement for people to gather on the surface of the Library Lane underground garage on Earth Day, which falls on April 22.

7:39 p.m. Ingrid Ault introduces herself as a Ward 1 resident and chair of the city’s park advisory commission. She says she’s puzzled about the idea that the listing of the Library Lane site for sale should be delayed until a public process can take place. She cites the Connecting William Street study and the work of the PAC subcommittee on downtown public parks as public process that has already taken place. About public process she says, “This has already been done.” “When will the madness stop?” she wonders. She hopes it will stop tonight. How would the process be different? She says that a “special interest group” [the Library Green Conservancy] can’t take no for an answer. She asks the council to “end the hamster wheel ride tonight.” [Editor's note: Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy has contacted The Chronicle, saying that while some members of the conservancy are certainly in favor of this resolution, the group has not taken a position on it.]

7:41 p.m. Odile Hugonot-Haber says it’s amusing to her to hear that there’s been a lot of public process and when the process has been done, so many people say they want a public space, a green space, a place where people can come together. There is no place for women with their children to go, she says. The people have clearly spoken, she says, but elected and appointed officials refuse to hear.

7:43 p.m. Kermit Schlansker says that the U.S. Senate had an all-night session recently on global warming. He says conservation is overlooked as a solution. We desperately need to reduce our energy consumption, he says. He calls for living configurations like an apartment house on farmland. Bigger buildings are easier to heat, he says.

7:48 p.m. Ali Ramlawi thanks mayor Hieftje for over 10 years of service. even if he’s disagreed with some of Hieftje’s policies. The future of the surface of the Library Lane site has been a hot button issue, he says. He says that the whole western half should be a plaza. It’s too small for just the southwest corner to be used as a plaza, he says. There’s a lot of fear that the next Liberty Plaza will be built. Liberty Plaza is haunted with a poor design, he says. A better design and a better police presence would lead to a successful plaza, he says.

7:48 p.m. Communications from the council. This is a slot on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:49 p.m. Margie Teall is thanking everyone who helped put on FestiFools this past weekend.

7:51 p.m. Jane Lumm announces that there’s a public meeting hosted by MDOT on the Jackson Avenue reconstruction project from Dexter to Maple. The road will be reconfigured to three lanes – one in each direction and a turn lane. She had not supported that configuration. The meeting will take place on April 10 from 4-6 p.m. at the downtown library. Chuck Warpehoski notes that the purpose of the meeting is to inform the public about the construction schedule. It’s being set up as a drop-in, drop-out situation.

7:54 p.m. Mike Anglin says that when city staff, who are extremely competent, are used in projects then it gets good results. When consultants are used, it creates a disconnect, he says. There’s a good dialogue going on between staff and residents along Seventh Street about traffic calming, he says.

7:55 p.m. Communications from the mayor. Hieftje is describing an energy conference and signing the Alliance to Save Energy.

8:00 p.m. Hieftje is saying that the weather at FoolMoon on Friday, April 4 was wet and cold. He’s recounting several other events of the weekend, including Hash Bash. Hieftje reports that Obama told him he likes coming to Ann Arbor.

Hieftje is now following up on the city administrator’s remarks on the homeless shelter. He says that he met with leaders of Washtenaw County on the topic of homelessness. The city administrator will be providing a report on the work of the shelter and costs that were incurred during the past season. Hieftje is reviewing the history of the homeless shelter. The proportion of county residents served there has decreased over the years, he says. The system is not designed to handle these kind of numbers: Is it a regional center for southeast Michigan? If so, then the city needs to work with the state legislature and other regional partners, he says.

8:02 p.m. Briere inquires about the implications of refusing service to anyone.

8:05 p.m. MC-1 Confirmation of appointments. This item will confirm nominations from the council’s previous meeting, on March 17. The appointments are:

• Ann Arbor Commission on Disability Issues: Westley Resendes, filling a vacancy left by Patti Smith, for a term ending May 31, 2015;
• Economic Development Corporation: Dale Leslie and Tim Marshall (re-appointments for terms ending May 31, 2019);
• Historic District Commission: Ellen Ramsburgh (re-appointment for a term ending May 31, 2017);
• Public Market Advisory Commission: Aimee Germain (re-appointment for a term ending May 31, 2017).

8:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the nominations made at its previous meeting.

8:05 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. A raft of nominations is being made tonight. The vote on the appointments will come at the next meeting of the council. The nominations are:

• Airport Advisory Committee: Mary Karen McClellan (filling a vacancy, for a term ending May 30, 2016);
• Ann Arbor Housing Commission: Gwenyth Hayes (serving out rest of term for Gloria Black as a resident’s representative, through May 4, 2015) and Daniel Lee (re-appointment, for a term ending May 6, 2019);
• Design Review Board: Shannan Gibb-Randall (serving out rest of term for Mary Jucari, through May 30, 2015);
• Employees Retirement Systems Board of Trustees: Mark Heusel (re-appointment for a term through May 2, 2017);
• Public Market Advisory Commission: David Santacroce (re-appointment for a term through May 30, 2017).

8:06 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. Two public hearings appear on tonight’s agenda.

For the first one, the property owner has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement. In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback. This resolution would approve that arrangement. [For more background, see Peds: Belle Tire Easement above.]

The second public hearing is on the expansion of the geographic area of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The business improvement zone was established in 2010 by a vote of property owners in the zone to provide a mechanism for taxing themselves to pay for items like sidewalk snow removal, sidewalk sweeping and landscaping. For the expansion to be finalized it will need to be approved by property owners in the expanded district. [For more background, see Land: Main Street BIZ Expansion above.]

8:07 p.m. PH-1 Belle Tire ROW Vacation. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:07 p.m. PH-2 Amended Main Street BIZ plan.

8:09 p.m. Thomas Partridge says he thinks that this plan should give more attention and greater priority to seniors and those who need access to public transportation.

8:11 p.m. Jan Culbertson says she’s a property owner in the area. She supports the expansion. The consistency of the services is important, she says.

8:13 p.m. Bill Kinley speaks in favor of allowing property owners to make a decision about whether to participate in the expanded BIZ. He’s eager to see a consistent and attractive sidewalk experience. This is not an expense for general taxpayers, but rather of the property owners in the area, he points out.

8:14 p.m. Jim McDonald asks the council to allow property owners to vote on whether they want to participate in the expanded BIZ.

8:14 p.m. Ed Shaffran introduces himself as chair of the Main Street BIZ board. He thanks councilmembers for the conversations he’s had with them. He’s there in case they have any questions, he says.

8:15 p.m. Approval of previous meeting’s minutes.

8:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting.

8:15 p.m. 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:

• CA-1 Approve contract for construction materials testing with CTI and Associates Inc. for the 2014 street resurfacing project ($82,332)
• CA-2 Approve purchase a TS15P R1000 Robotic Total Station and DNA10 Digital Level for Surveying ($33,671)
• CA-3 Approve purchase order for annual maintenance and support of TRAKiT System with CRW Systems Inc. for FY 2014 ($36,500)
• CA-4 Street Closing: Townie Street Party (Monday, July 14, 2014)
• CA-5 Street Closing: Ann Arbor Jaycees Fourth of July Parade (Friday, July 4, 2014)
• CA-6 Street Closing: Townie Party-Ann Arbor Mile (Monday, July 14, 2014)
• CA-7 Approve Transportation Alternatives Program Grant application to SEMCOG and MDOT to fund renovations of the Gallup Park pathway. [For more background, see Peds: Gallup Park Path above.]
• CA-8 Street Closing: Taste of Ann Arbor (Sunday, June 2, 2014)
• CA-9 Street Closing: The Event on Main Street (Thursday, June 19, 2014)

8:15 p.m. Councilmembers can pull out any item on the consent agenda for separate consideration. No one does tonight.

8:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved all items on its consent agenda.

8:16 p.m. C-1 Outdoor Smoking Ordinance. This is still the first reading of a new local law regulating smoking in some outdoor locations. It was previously postponed at two different council meetings. The law would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks. Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building. [For more background, see Outdoor Smoking above.]

8:18 p.m. Warpehoski first moves to replace a substitute resolution. It specifies that it’s a police officer who can enforce the ordinance, not a general employee.

Ellen Rabinowitz, interim health officer for Washtenaw County, is now at the podium sharing the county’s experience in enforcing the county’s ordinance on smoking outside entrances to buildings.

8:23 p.m. Rabinowitz is echoing the sentiments of Cliff Douglas during public commentary. Enforcement has been straightforward, she says. “Our experience in Washtenaw County has been quite good.” There’s been lots of compliance, she says.

Warpehoski is asking about Rabinowitz’s work with the Village of Dexter. Warpehoski invites her to explain why an enforcement mechanism is needed at all, if the idea is that it will be self-enforced.

8:24 p.m. Warpehoski asks Rabinowitz to comment on the benefit of such an ordinance as a public health professional. She ticks through the dangers of smoking. It harms users and innocent bystanders, she says. Anything we can do to limit smoking is a good thing, she says.

8:26 p.m. Eaton confirms that Rabinowitz works for Washtenaw County. He ventures that the county has not made efforts to ban smoking in its parks. She explains that the county parks commission has designated certain areas of county parks as non-smoking. Eaton confirms with Rabinowitz that she is the enforcement officer. He’s quizzing her about how the enforcement mechanism works.

8:28 p.m. Kunselman ventures that the county sheriff does not have a role in enforcement. Rabinowitz confirms that. Kunselman asks if she or her designee has the ability to issue a citation. It seems so. Kunselman says his concern is that he doesn’t want law enforcement officers to be writing tickets. He says it sounds like most people comply when they’re asked to stop.

8:30 p.m. Teall wants information about how other municipalities handle enforcement. Lumm notes that the county has had few complaints filed about violations. Lumm says that the council has received a letter from the People’s Food Co-op. Lumm asks if Rabinowitz has received a complaint from that business. Rabinowtz isn’t sure if People’s Food Co-op was one of the 400 complaints over the last 12 years.

8:31 p.m. Kailasapathy wonders how the city ordinance will add to the county ordinance. Rabinowitz says it will add teeth.

8:33 p.m. Kailasapathy asks for specifics about what Rabinowitz means by “teeth.” She means it in the sense of an additional tool, not in the sense that police officers will enforce it. Kailasapathy wonders if AAPD should be tackling heroin use at the public library or chasing down smokers.

8:34 p.m. Rabinowitz tells Kailasapathy that she’s right: They need to address the problem of heroin overdoses. But the smoking ordinance, she thinks, will be largely self-enforcing.

8:35 p.m. Briere asks if Warpehoski will accept a friendly amendment to the definition of “smoking.” She wants to add e-cigarettes to the definition. Warpehoski says he’d consider that friendly.

8:37 p.m. Warpehoski says he’s continued his outreach to various organizations: merchant area associations and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. He didn’t hear any objections. He recounts the origin of the ordinance – that he’d heard from constituents who felt trapped in situations where they could not get away from second-hand smoke. What drove it home for him was hearing from local businesses in the Sculpture Plaza area.

8:40 p.m. Warpehoski says the allocation of police officers is a red-herring argument. He cites a report out of Toronto that indicates outdoor smoking ordinances don’t cause an additional burden on police. He’s now going over arguments based on litter prevention. He calls it a humble effort. It’s narrow in scope, he says.

8:43 p.m. Warpehoski says it’s a way to make a healthier community. We should have smoke-free playgrounds and bus stops, he says. Taylor thanks Warpehoski for his work in amassing the information. It’s a deeply reasonable effort, he said. Smoking is a scourge, Taylor says, and smokers are accustomed to having a limited set of areas in which they can smoke. The facts are plainly stated, he says. It’s a reasonable ordinance. Concerns about allocation of police resources are not reasonable, Taylor says.

8:46 p.m. Kunselman reports the experience he had of walking behind a group of women who were walking down the sidewalk, three of whom were smoking. That would still be legal, he says. He ventures that receptacles for butts are provided. He brings up the issue of wood smoke, like that generated at Bill’s Beer Garden. He’s received complaints from constituents about wood burning in neighborhoods. He asks Warpehoski if he’d be willing to remove the penalty of a $50 ticket. If there’s a problem with compliance, then the council can revise the ordinance, Kunselman says.

8:48 p.m. Warpehoski ventures that Kunselman might be right that the new law would just move smokers to the sidewalk. But he sees that as an improvement. Warpehoski is now talking about the general issue of good and bad behavior in parks. If there’s a park where smoking is common, that would drive him and his kids out of that park.

8:49 p.m. On the wood smoke issue, Warpehoski says that he’d tried to keep his effort focused and targeted.

8:51 p.m. On the idea of removing the penalties, Warpehoski says we have a set of ordinances – not a book of suggestions. He invites Kunselman to move an amendment and see where it goes.

8:53 p.m. Hieftje says we’ve been talking about this for a while. He says that the information available now is typical of what the council has for a second reading. He says that he doesn’t understand why the council is overthinking the idea of banning smoking in city parks. Lumm says it’s not rational to pass ordinances at first reading just to get to second reading.

8:53 p.m. Lumm is talking about Satchel’s BBQ on Washtenaw Avenue and the wood smoke that comes from there.

8:56 p.m. Lumm says the ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. She appreciates that the ordinance has been amended. She calls it a pretty big step to regulate smoking in city parks. Many of the issues have not been addressed to her satisfaction, she says.

8:58 p.m. Kailasapathy says that the ordinance is structured to be punitive and not educational. Lower socio-economic groups have higher smoking rates, she says. She worries about the disparate impact. She wishes that the police can be taken out of the equation.

8:59 p.m. Warpehoski reiterates his response to Kunselman – that an amendment removing the penalty could be made, but he wouldn’t support it.

9:01 p.m. Eaton asks why e-cigarettes were added through Briere’s amendment – because he thought they did not emit harmful fumes. Cliff Douglas is explaining that these devices are not regulated and that they do contain nicotine.

9:02 p.m. Eaton and Douglas are engaged in a back-and-forth on e-cigarettes.

9:05 p.m. Eaton and Douglas are now discussing enforcement issues.

9:07 p.m. Douglas tells Kunselman that smoking rates have dropped on the UM campus.

9:08 p.m. Kunselman ventures that there’s no enforcement on the UM campus of the no-smoking ordinance, but it still works. Douglas allows that the campus police don’t enforce it, but there is an enforcement mechanism – through an employee’s supervisor, for example.

9:10 p.m. Teall says, “I want to say something!” If there’s a sign you can point to, that allows an ordinary citizen to have something to back up a request made to someone to stop smoking, she notes.

9:12 p.m. Eaton is in a back-and-forth with Rabinowitz on how compliance works.

9:14 p.m. The chief health officer for UM is now at the podium. UM had wanted to be respectful of smokers, but also wanted to create a healthy campus. The medical campus had been smoke-free since 1998, he says. Only one person had been discharged from employment for repetitive smoking, he says.

9:16 p.m. People are not issued citations at UM for smoking anymore than people would be issued a citation for not eating their five vegetables. Warpehoski asks how smoking at UM stadium is handled.

9:18 p.m. Petersen calls the question, saying that the ordinance has a lot of common sense in it and is very practical. Hieftje says everyone needs to have had a chance to speak.

9:20 p.m. [The council isn't voting on calling the question.]

9:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval of the ordinance regulating smoking in some outdoor locations, over dissent from Kailasapathy, Lumm and Eaton.

9:21 p.m. C-2 Stapp Rezoning. This item would give initial approval to rezoning of land that’s been donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp. The 2.2-acre parcel at 3301 Traverwood Drive is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course. [For more background, see Land: Stapp Nature Area Addition Rezoning above.]

9:21 p.m. Briere gives some brief background.

9:21 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval of the rezoning.

9:21 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

9:35 p.m. We’re back.

9:36 p.m. Reconsideration: Library Lot – Designation of Area as Urban Park

9:37 p.m. The council has voted to reconsider the resolution. It was a voice vote, with some dissent, not clear who.

9:38 p.m. Kunselman calls the situation that has arisen – the “unpredictability of posturing politicians trying to please people.”

9:42 p.m. Kunselman is proposing that the previous resolution be amended so that the square footage for the urban plaza is approximately 12,000 square feet. [This is prompted by the fact that Briere proposed the amendment at the March 17 meeting that changed the square footage from 12,000 square feet to a range – from 6,500 to 12,000. And now Briere has co-sponsored the resolution by Eaton and Anglin, later on the agenda, that calls for a public process that could result in the entire surface of the parking structure being used as an urban plaza.]

9:44 p.m. Briere responds to Kunselman by drawing the distinction between a civic use and a greatest and highest use. Hieftje ventures that the council’s action is making it difficult to follow what is going on. He says that using the entire South Fifth Avenue frontage (12,000 square feet) would cost the city $2 million in terms of potential selling price. He’s hesitant to give that up – $1 million of which could go to support affordable housing.

9:45 p.m. Kunselman says he supports the idea of a cantilevered building. He cites the comments from Jerusalem Garden owner Ali Ramlawi during public commentary in support of the idea that a plaza of 6,500 would be too small.

9:47 p.m. Teall says she shares Hieftje’s concerns. She likes the flexibility of the range – 6,500 to 12,000 square feet. She says 6,500 is not too small. Petersen is glad to see these resolutions come back. She says that passing the resolutions “jumped the gun” a little bit. Petersen is pitching the idea of a postponement.

9:48 p.m. Petersen says she wants the time of the postponement to be used to put together a group of stakeholders: the Ann Arbor District Library, Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, First Martin, Dennis Dahlmann, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and the Library Green Conservancy, among others.

9:49 p.m. Petersen says she wants to postpone until the first meeting in October. Hieftje points out that the question before the council right now is Kunselman’s amendment. So the council goes back to the amendment.

9:50 p.m. On the amendment, Taylor says that it’s inconsistent with the library’s view and with the park advisory commission’s view. It’s a blunt instrument that has been deployed for a delicate task, he says. If it’s passed as amended, it would be an impediment to the development of this important parcel.

9:51 p.m. Petersen gets confirmation that the amendment would be consistent with a cantilevered building over the northwest portion of the property.

9:53 p.m. Briere says she hopes that a public space is going to be built. The language change at the last meeting was recommended to her by those who supported the park, she says. Her interest was in making the northern boundary of a plaza flexible. She responds to the talk about a cantilevered building by saying she’s not interested in trying to design a building at tonight’s meeting.

9:56 p.m. Briere quips that it’s an interesting challenge to not posture politically on the council. She won’t support Kunselman’s amendment. Anglin says the question of when we will have a community space in this town has been discussed for a long time. Anglin says he’s not running for office; he’s speaking for the public. He wonders if the council’s action at the last meeting was really what the public wants. He can’t support 12,000 square feet because he’s thinking about something much larger.

9:59 p.m. Warpehoski said at the last meeting there had been a dual narrative that we’d done a lot of process and that we’d not done enough process. He seeks a solution that 1. works for park advocates; 2. works for the city; 3. works for the AADL. He won’t support the amendment. Lumm says she will support it, saying the difference between 6,500 and 12,000 is small.

10:00 p.m. Taylor stresses that the PAC recommendation had not been 12,000 but rather more than the 5,000 that had been indicated in the Connecting William Street study.

10:01 p.m. Part of Warpehoski’s comments included the sentiment that he wanted to see a park on the Library Lane site in time for his kids to be able to play on it.

10:02 p.m. Eaton reminds the council that a sale of this property would require an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council. He said that there wouldn’t be eight votes without 12,000 square feet of parkland. He’ll support the amendment.

10:03 p.m. Kunselman says that the surface has been a surface parking lot for a very long time and he thought it would stay that way.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The amendment passes over dissent from Briere, Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

10:06 p.m. Petersen moves for postponement. Powers asks an opportunity to provide the council with better than just a guess about how long the stakeholder work would take. So the postponement would be to the next meeting, on April 21.

10:07 p.m. Kailsapathy says the resolution should be voted on tonight, and that the stakeholder meetings can be a separate resolution. She doesn’t want to drag it out. Hieftje also won’t support the postponement. There’ve been over 40 public meetings and it’s been going on for years, he says.

10:09 p.m. Taylor says he’ll support the postponement. The reconsideration was appropriate from a parliamentary perspective. But the AADL would probably have a hard time swallowing that as a proper process, he says. The notion that it was amended and passed at the previous meeting, then at this meeting restored to its original form, would be seen as borderline contemptuous of the library’s position, Taylor says.

10:11 p.m. Lumm says that the council is well informed of the AADL’s position. She says she’s going to oppose postponement.

10:13 p.m. Warpehoski says that once upon a time, a pig and a chicken decided to go into business that would serve ham and eggs. Then they said they weren’t sure if they should do that because one of them was bringing the ham and the other was bringing the eggs. Different stakeholders on the Library Lane site would be bringing ham and others would be bringing eggs. He would support the postponement because he was optimistic that the stakeholders could work something out.

10:15 p.m. Petersen explains to Kailaspathy that the postponement for two weeks would allow the city administrator to provide an update on the progress of hiring a broker, which would also include information on programming and maintenance of the public space on top of the Library Lane site.

10:16 p.m. Hieftje wants to move toward a vote on the postponement. Anglin asks a procedural question about reconsideration.

10:17 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t support the postponement. He appreciates Petersen’s effort to coordinate everyone, but he thinks that will create additional unneeded complexity. He ventures that Powers has not yet hired a broker, so there wouldn’t be much of an update.

10:19 p.m. Kunselman says that it’s important for the broker to have a clear understanding of what the council’s intent is. He cautions against postponing to get more information, when there is not going to be any additional information.

10:21 p.m. Outcome: The postponement fails on a 5-6 vote. Voting against were Kailasapathy, Lumm, Kunselman, Eaton, Anglin and Hieftje.

10:21 p.m. Taylor says this resolution is borderline contemptuous of the library. It’s also unwise – because predetermining the size of the public space without the full context of the site is inconsistent with that open space being successful.

10:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the resolution as amended to stipulate the 12,000 square footage – over dissent from Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

10:23 p.m. Reconsideration: Direct Library Lot Listing for Sale

10:23 p.m. The council has voted to reconsider the resolution from last meeting.

10:24 p.m. Kunselman reports that he met with the outside bond counsel last Friday – on the private and public use questions related to the Build America Bond financing. The post-construction analysis had not been done, Kunselman says.

10:27 p.m. Kunselman says there wouldn’t be a post-construction analysis until the property was listed for sale. He says the number of private use spaces available will affect the value of the property. He’s going through the actual costs paid for construction and asks how much of the debt was actually applied. What if the number of spaces is significantly less than the 29% that were calculated pre-construction? He brought it back for reconsideration to let his colleagues know why it was important to list it for sale.

10:28 p.m. Anglin asks why the council can’t get the post-construction analysis just by asking for it.

10:31 p.m. Hieftje tells Anglin that he can just send the city attorney an email asking for it. Kunselman says that he wants the outside bond counsel to put in writing that it agrees with the analysis – because he wants the outside bond counsel’s insurance to cover any errors and omissions. City attorney Stephen Postema says it would be a normal process to get that information as part of putting the property on the market. Kailasapathy says the council should be able to get the information directly. She wants the outside bond counsel to analyze the post-construction numbers.

10:32 p.m. Kailasapathy says we should not rush into selling the land, just in order to get this post-construction analysis. Postema reiterates that it would be a normal part of selling the property.

10:33 p.m. Briere says that now that she understands Kunselman’s motivation for wanting to list the land – and given that it’s clear he didn’t necessarily expect the land to be sold, she thinks it would be easy to vote it down.

10:36 p.m. Kunselman now adds that he brought up the issue because nobody else had brought it up. When he put it forward, community outcry had been heard and some of his colleagues had gotten cold feet. Instead of delaying the listing (as Anglin and Eaton’s resolution later in the meeting would do), he invited his colleagues to vote down the resolution. He’d still vote to list the property, however. Kunselman ventures that the Library Lane site has been an uncomfortable topic – and had caused people to lose elections. It doesn’t hurt to get the information and it doesn’t hurt to list the property for sale, Kunselman says.

10:38 p.m. Anglin wonders why they can’t just ask for the information. Kunselman says he’s not about to put millions of dollars to construct a park on the Library Lane site. There are other park needs – a tunnel to complete the Border to Border Trail, for example – that he would vote to spend money on before he’d spend money on a park on top of the Library Lane parking structure.

10:40 p.m. Kunselman says that through all this discussion, no one has talked about where the money is coming from to build a park on the Library Lot. By listing it for sale, it at least starts a conversation with someone who has some money, he says.

10:41 p.m. Kunselman is reviewing the DDA’s proposed budget and concludes that the DDA would not have money to put into it.

10:44 p.m. Taylor says he wants to provide some context. To look at the Library Lane site on its own is misleading, he says. The parking system as a whole generates revenues that are used to pay the debt, he says. The Library Lane parking structure had allowed tech companies to locate in the downtown and was a success by any rational measure, he says. Hieftje agrees with Taylor. Lumm says she voted for the resolution last time. She seems inclined to support it this time around.

10:45 p.m. Lumm is now talking about the resolution later on the agenda that would delay the listing. She says that’s also important.

10:47 p.m. Heiftje says he’ll vote for the resolution because he doesn’t see any other way to fund a plaza. Briere says she’ll vote for it because there’s an opportunity to amend it later on the agenda.

10:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to affirm its vote from the last meeting over dissent from Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin.

10:48 p.m. DC-1 Same-sex Marriage. This resolution asks that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages. The ruling in question was issued by federal judge Bernard Friedman on Friday, March 21, 2014 in the case of Deboer v. Snyder. In that ruling, Friedman found that Article I, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution – which limits the benefits of marriage to unions between one man and one woman – did not advance any legitimate state interest. So the ruling had the effect of making same-sex marriages legal in Michigan.

But the day following the decision, on March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on Friedman’s ruling. Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are appealing Friedman’s decision. [For more background, see Same-Sex Marriage above.]

10:49 p.m. Taylor is reviewing the content and background of the resolution.

10:51 p.m. Warpehoski echoes the thanks Taylor gave to Washtenaw County clerk Kestenbaum. He didn’t remember crying at his own wedding, but he’d cried at the weddings of some same-sex couples immediately after the Friedman ruling.

10:52 p.m. Lumm was pleased that it had been brought forward and was pleased to add her name as a co-sponsor.

10:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimosuly to approve the resolution calling for state officials to stop opposing the Friedman ruling on same-sex marriage.

10:53 p.m. DC-2 Amended Main Street BIZ plan. This resolution would approve expansion of the geographic area of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The business improvement zone was established in 2010 by a vote of property owners in the zone to provide a mechanism for taxing themselves to pay for items like sidewalk snow removal, sidewalk sweeping and landscaping. For the expansion to be finalized it will need to be approved by property owners in the expanded district. [For more background, see Land: Main Street BIZ Expansion above.]

10:54 p.m. Taylor is reviewing the background. He encourages the council’s support.

10:56 p.m. Kailasapathy asks Ed Shaffran to the podium. She’s comparing the situation to Russia and Crimea. Shaffran explains that they’re following the state statute.

10:57 p.m. Kailsapathy says that the sidewalks on Main Street are wider than on Fourth Avenue. Shaffran ventures that the square footage of sidewalks might differ, but he alludes to 13 iterations to come up with an equitable approach.

10:58 p.m. Shaffran tells Kailasapathy that as a property owner on Main Street and on Fourth Avenue, he’s not hearing snow removal contractors say that they’d charge less to remove snow on Fourth Avenue.

11:02 p.m. Kailsapathy tells Shaffran that she’s weighing in on behalf of property owners who could not attend the meeting. Shaffran notes that the vote needs a 60% majority. Eaton asks what would happen if everyone in the existing BIZ voted for it and in the expanded zone voted against it – and Shaffran tells him it would fail. The new area is larger than the existing area.

11:02 p.m. Hieftje says he’ll vote for it. Warpehoski says he’ll vote for it because it’s an accessibility issue.

11:02 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the amended Main Street BIZ plan.

11:03 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

11:12 p.m. We’re back.

11:12 p.m. DC-4 Amend March 17, 2014 resolution directing Library Lot to be listed for sale. This item revisits a March 17, 2014 resolution on listing the surface of the Library Lane structure for sale. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) sponsored the item which delays the hiring of a broker and listing the property for sale until a public process, to be structured by the city administrator, is completed. That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. [For more background, see Land: Amendment to Library Lane Resolution to List for Sale above.]

11:15 p.m. The reconsidered resolution – to list the Library Lane development rights for sale – from the last meeting was approved (again) earlier tonight. This resolution would amend that resolution to delay the listing until after additional public process.

11:16 p.m. Anglin is giving the background on this proposal to amend the council’s previous resolution. This is to create something the entire city can be proud of, Anglin says.

11:20 p.m. Briere says that more than four years ago, she and Anglin and Kunselman were among those who’d requested that the task force reviewing the responses to the Library Lot RFP also consider those proposals that proposed public space. This resolution would allow the city administrator to structure a public process. She says if she had her way – which she ventured she would not – the city would bring in someone from the outside, because we as a community have become polarized, she says.

11:21 p.m. Briere will support this because having the community discussion is vital to having that public space work. If we don’t have community buy-in, it won’t be a successful space, whether there are eight votes or not, she says.

11:22 p.m. Hieftje is inviting Ault to the podium. He’s asking her to review the outreach that the downtown parks subcommittee had done. Ault, who is chair of the park advisory commission, also chaired that subcommittee.

11:25 p.m. Hieftje says it’s been going on for years. He calls it kicking the can down the road. He says there’s no way to build something on the Library Lane site without selling something. Hieftje highlights the part of the resolution that contemplates the use “in its entirety” of the surface as a public plaza. He calculates that this would entail throwing away $16 million. He says he’d prefer to spend a half million redeveloping Liberty Plaza. “I don’t understand it,” he says about the resolution.

11:27 p.m. Hieftje says that when a pretty narrow interest group wins, then maybe people will say that there’s been enough public process. Kunselman says he also won’t support the resolution. He says the public process described in the resolution could be done in parallel with listing the property for sale.

11:29 p.m. Kunselman says he’d support the resolution if the part about delaying the hiring of a broker were deleted. He says, “I’m not sellin’ without getting a 12,000 square foot plaza or public use space.” He also won’t support considering the entire parcel as a “commons.” Kunselman says that he’s had a conversation with a member of the Library Green Conservancy and that group is not behind this proposal, he says. That group had done its homework and worked to figure out what was possible.

11:30 p.m. Kunselman points out that a planter can get really heavy when it fills up with water.

11:32 p.m. Eaton notes that at the March 17 meeting, the library had asked the council to delay the resolution. And since that meeting, the planning commission had passed a resolution asking the council to use an RFP process. He felt there was still an interest among stakeholders in a continued conversation.

11:34 p.m. Petersen is asking Anglin and Eaton what they intend to happen.

11:35 p.m. She wants to know if the intent is to have a conversation with the stakeholders about keeping the entire site green. Yes, says Anglin.

11:38 p.m. Warpehoski says he can’t vote for this resolution at the same time he voted to accept the PAC recommendations that called for some kind of mixed use. This evening the council had thumbed its nose at the library but now is saying they need to be a partner. Warpehoski says Kunselman has this one right. He thinks that a sales agreement can have a rider agreement just like the former Y lot did. He thinks that the public process can unfold in a parallel way. Warpehoski ventures that there will be a “hot mess” discount when a developer thinks about trying to do business with the city.

11:39 p.m. Lumm says that Warpehoski is right about the conversation being a little bit weird. But she says that if you step back and think about it, it’s about making sure that the public has a chance to provide input.

11:42 p.m. Lumm says more discussion is not a terrible thing. Taylor agrees with Warpehoski’s point about voting for the PAC recommendations and voting for this resolution – that they’re inconsistent. Taylor says that Kunselman has it right – that we’ll see what a developer has to propose, quipping “whoever dares” to bid on the property.

11:44 p.m. Hieftje is suggesting some sort of compromise.

11:44 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess so that councilmembers can figure out some compromise.

11:46 p.m. We’re back.

11:48 p.m. The council has essentially agreed to vote this down and possibly bring it back at a future meeting.

11:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to reject the resolution that would have halted the listing of the Library Lane surface development rights for sale, until a public process has been completed.

11:49 p.m. DC-3 Library Lot sale proceeds. This resolution would direct the city administrator to allocate half the proceeds from a possible upcoming real estate sale to support affordable housing. The land in question is the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure, which completed construction in the summer of 2012. [For more background, see Land: Library Lot Proceeds to Affordable Housing above.]

11:51 p.m. Briere is explaining the background of the resolution. She didn’t think the minimum 10% recommendation of the council’s budget committee over a year ago would be enough. She calls this as modest as possible – and made it 50%.

11:55 p.m. Eaton says that because we have no idea how much the property might sell for, he asks Briere if she would accept an amendment to say “up to 50%” – in case the property generated a greater-than-expected amount of money. Briere says if the property hypothetically generated a sale price of $15 million, she wouldn’t hesitate to put $7.5 million into the affordable housing trust fund.

11:56 p.m. Hieftje says that it would be a “game changer” to be able to work with Washtenaw County on the Platt Road property to develop affordable housing. There would be no harm done in passing this tonight. Taylor concurs with Hieftje that Ann Arbor needs more affordable housing and that’s a capital-intensive endeavor.

11:58 p.m. Taylor says that using the proceeds for affordable housing is consistent with a deeply held community value. Lumm says she supports the concept. She points out that this is what the council had done with the former Y lot. Earmarking half for affordable housing is not unreasonable, she says. But she questions why this decision needs to happen now. It makes more sense to not make this decision now. We should think this through in the context of all city council priorities, she says.

12:02 a.m. Kunselman echoes Lumm, saying that it’s counting our chickens before they hatch. This is not a binding resolution, he says. He ventures that the council won’t see a sale until at least next year, and many councilmembers here tonight won’t be here then. It would make a great statement, he says, but wouldn’t do much for what the council needs to focus on – working on the budget process. He wonders why some of this money would not go toward downtown beat cops.

12:03 a.m. Kailasapathy is focusing on the part of the resolution that puts the other half of the proceeds into the general fund. She wants to see the part of the proceeds not going to affordable housing to go toward capital investments.

12:04 a.m. City administrator Steve Powers ventures that it could be restricted as capital investments. Kailasapathy says she’s not sure if she wants to put in the energy to amend the resolution now, given that a sale is so far away.

12:05 a.m. Petersen says that even if it’s premature, that doesn’t mean it should be voted down. She wants to postpone it until after the budget is approved.

12:06 a.m. The postponement being discussed is until the first meeting in June. [The council ratifies the FY 2015 budget at its second meeting in May.]

12:07 a.m. Briere is arguing against the postponement by drawing a distinction between policy and budgeting.

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the resolution allocating 50% of the net proceeds of a future Library Lot sale to the affordable housing trust fund. Dissenting were Briere, Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

12:08 a.m. DB-1 Belle Tire ROW Vacation. The property owner has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement. In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback. This resolution would approve that arrangement. [For more background, see Peds: Belle Tire Easement above.]

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the Belle Tire non-motorized easement.

12:09 a.m. DB-2 Request UM regents consider city land use recs. This resolution, which originated with the planning commission, recommends that the University of Michigan collaborate with the city of Ann Arbor on the future development of the former Edwards Brothers property at 2500-2550 South State Street, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. The university is purchasing the 16.7-acre property, following the Ann Arbor city council’s decision on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the site. [For more background, see Land: Recommendation to UM on Edwards Brothers above.]

12:10 a.m. Petersen said that when she heard the resolution was coming forward, she was eager to support it. She wished that the city had more leverage, which could have resulted from exercising the city’s right of first refusal on the property. The dialogue has been a long time coming.

12:11 a.m. Lumm said she also wished that the city had exercised its right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property. “Let the talks begin,” she says.

12:11 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the resolution asking UM regents to consider city planning documents as it plans the future of the former Edwards Brothers property on South State Street.

12:11 a.m. DS-1 Pedestrian safety task force funding resolution. This would appropriate $197,250 to fund the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force. It was postponed to tonight from the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitation services. This item is expected to be withdrawn, and the city is putting the facilitator contract out for bid. [For more background, see Peds: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force above.]

12:12 a.m. Briere says she’d like to withdraw the resolution, saying that the staff memo makes it clear that no allocation needs to be made at this time. She gives an update on the first task force’s meeting.

12:13 a.m. Outcome: The resolution has been withdrawn.

12:14 a.m. Eaton raises the question of whether Briere can withdraw the resolution, given that it was placed on the agenda by staff.

12:15 a.m. Hieftje says he’s uncomfortable not voting on it.

12:16 a.m. So the council is now discussing the resolution. Lumm moves to table it. Warpehoski notes that a motion to table is not subject to debate.

12:19 a.m. Briere explains that her intent was not to prevent people from talking, but rather to save time, given that it was a null point. If the staff doesn’t need an allocation of funds, there’s no reason to allocate funds. Briere points to the memo from staff. Powers concurs that the resolution is no longer needed. Lumm withdraws her motion to table.

12:20 a.m. Kailasapathy questions why there’s an RFP being issued for the consultant.

12:22 a.m. Eaton says he’s troubled that the city is considering spending this much money on a consultant to support a task force.

12:24 a.m. Warpehoski is arguing for the need for the labor of a consultant.

12:28 a.m. Powers reminds the council that the $75,000 for sidewalk gaps was to prioritize gaps, not to install concrete. Lumm appreciates the fact that now an RFP is being issued.

12:39 a.m. Lumm is arguing against the resolution. Hieftje points out that those who moved the resolution also want to see it voted down. Kailasapathy asks why the city is hiring a consultant when it’s not clear what kind of consultant is needed. Teall doesn’t understand why Briere and Warpehoski – as the mover and seconder – want to see the resolution voted down. She thinks a task force should be supported. Warpehoski reviews the background. Teall ventures that it’s really all about Project Innovations. Many of the sanitary sewer wet weather citizens advisory committee members were satisfied with Project Innovations work on that project. When there were some complaints, they got a lot of traction, Teall said, and she wasn’t sure that was fair. Briere raises the point that many people objected to the fact that Project Innovations would have been given a no-bid contract.

12:40 a.m. Briere tells Teall that the task force doesn’t need an allocation of funds right now.

12:40 a.m. Outcome: The council votes unanimously to reject the resolution.

12:41 a.m. DS-2 Windemere Tennis Court contract with Nagle Paving Company. The council will consider a $134,297 contract with Nagle Paving Co. to relocate and rebuild the tennis courts at Windemere Park. [For more background, see Asphalt: Windemere Tennis Courts above.]

12:41 a.m. Lumm thanks staff and the neighbors who worked hard on it.

12:43 a.m. Taylor piles on with thanks to PAC, who listened and worked with the neighbors.

12:43 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to to approve the Windemere tennis courts paving contract.

12:43 a.m. DS-3 Annual street resurfacing contract with Barrett Paving This resolution approves a construction contract to Barrett Paving Materials Inc. for $3.409 million for the 2014 street resurfacing program. [For more background, see Asphalt: Street Resurfacing Program above.]

12:43 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the annual street resurfacing contract.

12:44 a.m. DS-4 Annual sidewalk repair contract with Doan Construction Company. Part of the city’s sidewalk repair program involves outright replacement of sidewalk slabs. This resolution approves that contract with Doan Construction Company for $1,707,037. [For more background, see Peds: Sidewalk Maintenance Program above.]

12:45 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the annual sidewalk repair contract.

12:45 a.m. DS-5 Annual sidewalk cutting contract with Precision Concrete Cutting. Some sidewalk slabs are in reasonably good shape but are out of alignment with adjacent slabs. The city takes the approach of shaving the portion that’s out of alignment so that it’s flush. This resolution approves the contract for the cutting work for the upcoming 2014 program is to be awarded to Precision Concrete Cutting for $207,350.

12:45 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the annual sidewalk cutting contract.

12:46 a.m. Communications from the council. Warpehoski thanks the Veg Week sponsors for bringing food. He mentions that the rules committee is looking at an ethics policy that might also include a gift acceptance policy.

12:48 a.m. Kunselman is quoting out a correction made in The Ann Arbor Observer, that vindicates statements by him and Kailsasapathy in a December 2013 article and apologizes to him. “Apology accepted,” Kunselman says.

12:53 a.m. Kunselman is quoting out incident reports from the AADL that documented heroin overdoses at the downtown location. Kunselman says he’d asked the city administrator to find out what exactly is going on. He says he hasn’t seen anything about arrests being made. He wonders why someone who ODs and survives is not prosecuted and why the dealers are not tracked down and prosecuted. Hieftje ventures that the police might be pursuing this matter “quietly.” Kunselman doesn’t agree with that approach. Warpehoski says that he’s inquired with Jim Balmer of Dawn Farms and the indication was that treatment is an appropriate response to addiction. Kailasapathy says that this doesn’t apply to those who are peddling the drugs.

12:54 a.m. Briere says that Kailasapathy is right, but that it can take time to develop a case against a drug dealer.

12:55 a.m. Clerk’s report of communications, petitions and referrals. Outcome: The council has accepted the clerk’s report.

12:55 a.m. Public comment general time. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:56 a.m. Stefan Trendov says that in all the time he’s watched the council, he thinks that the councilmembers are finally talking to each other. They’re going in a good direction and he wishes them a good night.

12:58 a.m. Kai Petainen says that he wants the Ann Arbor station study process to be transparent. He says that a label on one of the maps covers up green dots that show areas of environmental concerns near the Fuller Road site. He wants maps that don’t look like marketing materials, he says.

1:02 a.m. Alan Haber says he’s sat through the deliberations and gives them great honor for persevering through all the detail. He’s always considered the whole surface of the Library Lot parking structure as a community space. He objects to the characterization of his group as a narrow interest group.

1:04 a.m. Odile Hugonot-Haber expresses disappointment at the council’s decisions on the Library Lot. She reports that she’s heard about a greenbelt property that sold its development rights for mineral extraction through fracking.

1:07 a.m. Caleb Poirer says that he was impressed with the patience that councilmembers had shown each other tonight. He thanks the attendees of the March 17 meeting on homelessness. He was moved by Briere’s point that affordable housing is a priority, but not a funded one. He tells the story of “Million-Dollar Murray.” Sometimes affordable housing reduces the need for policing.

1:08 a.m. Hieftje asks Powers if new mics can be purchased – as they generate a fair amount of static.

1:09 a.m. Closed session. The council is going into closed session to discuss pending litigation.

1:25 a.m. We’re back.

1:25 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.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the April 7, 2014 meeting agenda.

The council’s April 7 agenda features two significant items of old business: a first reading of an ordinance that would regulate outdoor smoking in certain locations; and an allocation of funds for the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force.

[Updated 5 p.m. April 4, 2014. The pedestrian safety task force funding resolution is now expected to be withdrawn. At the first meeting of the task force, held on Friday, April 4, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, speaking from the audience, told the group that it was her intent to withdraw the funding resolution when the council meets on April 7. Withdrawing the resolution at the April 7 meeting would not mean that the task force will not be able to do its work. Details are included after the jump.]

Pedestrian issues form one of the themes of the meeting agenda – as the council will be approving annual contracts for the sidewalk repair program, as well as applying for a grant to renovate the pathway in Gallup Park – from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. Along with the sidewalk maintenance program contracts, the city council will also be asked to approve the annual street resurfacing program contracts.

Another main theme of the meeting is land use. Carried over as a topic from the council’s March 17 meeting is the surface of the city-owned Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor. After voting on March 17 to hire a real estate broker, the council will consider a resolution on April 7 that would allocate to the city’s affordable housing trust fund half of the proceeds of any sale of the site’s development rights.

But on April 7 the council will also be considering an amendment to the March 17 resolution that directed the city administrator to list the surface of the Library Lane parking structure for sale. The amendment would require a public process to take place before brokerage services are obtained or the real estate is listed for sale. That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. The amendment is sponsored by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

The council will also be considering three items that arrived on its agenda via the city’s planning commission: rezoning of a nature area to PL (public land); approval of a site plan for the gym expansion at Concordia University [now expected on the April 21 meeting agenda]; and a resolution calling on the University of Michigan to incorporate the city’s land use recommendations as it considers the future use of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street.

In other business, the council will be considering a resolution to approve an expansion of the Main Street business improvement zone (BIZ). The geographic area of the self-assessment district – which handles sidewalk snow removal, sweeping and other upkeep for property owners – would more than double. The final decision rests with the property owners in the expanded area.

Also at its April 7 meeting, the council will consider a resolution asking that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages.

The council’s agenda also includes several street-closing approvals for upcoming events: Taste of Ann Arbor on June 2; The Event on Main Street on June 19; the Ann Arbor Jaycees Fourth of July Parade on July 4; and the Townie Street Party on July 14.

Among the reports and communications attached to the agenda is the final report of a council economic collaborative task force.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

Outdoor Smoking

A new local law regulating smoking in some outdoor locations will be given a first reading by the council for the third time at its April 7 meeting. The law would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks.

The most recent action – to postpone the ordinance until April 7 – came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting. The new ordinance had also been postponed at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the proposed new local law, had appeared before the city’s park advisory commission on Feb. 25, 2014 to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

The ordinance would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited.

Where no signs are posted noting the smoking prohibition, a citation could be issued only if someone doesn’t stop smoking immediately when asked to stop.

An existing Washtenaw County ordinance already prohibits smoking near entrances, windows and ventilation systems, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – but the county’s ordinance can be enforced only by the county health department. The memo further notes that the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act does not regulate outdoor smoking.

At the council’s March 3 meeting, other councilmembers expressed concern about the potential disparate impact of such a law on the homeless, and the challenge of enforcement.

Peds: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force

At its April 7 meeting, the council will consider for the second time a resolution that would appropriate $197,250 to fund the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force. Action to postpone the resolution until April 7 came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

The total amount proposed to be appropriated for the task force project budget is $197,250. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

The funds are to be sourced in part from an allocation made during the May 20, 2013 budget deliberations, which appropriated $75,000 for a study to prioritize sidewalk gap elimination. The connection between sidewalk gaps and the task force’s work is based in part on one of the other “resolved” clauses establishing the task force: “… the task force will also address sidewalk gaps and create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps; …”

The pedestrian safety and access task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

Another key “resolved” clause establishing the group’s scope of work includes the following: “… the task force will explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The responsibilities of the task force include delivery of a report a year from now – in February 2015.

The funding for the task force is in part to be used to pay for a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitator support to the task force.

According to a staff memo written in response to councilmember questions, the facilitator would assist with an anticipated 18 task force meetings, 24 resource group (staff) meetings, five stakeholder meetings and three public meetings. The facilitator would be “preparing materials and agendas; facilitating the meetings; summarizing the meetings; facilitating communication and discussions between, and among, the task force members and the resource group; and, developing materials for community outreach in addition to the actual public meetings, including content for press releases and web page publishing, and a community survey.”

According to the staff memo, a “team of staff members has identified Project Innovations, Inc. as a firm in the region that has demonstrated skill in task force facilitation and robust community engagement efforts, and is uniquely qualified with the capacity to facilitate the pedestrian safety and access task force’s rigorous work approach within the specified timeframe.” Based on the phrasing in the memo, the work appears not to have been put out to bid and Project Innovations was identified as a “sole source” provider.

Project Innovations is the same firm currently providing facilitation support to a citizens advisory committee that is attached to a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study being conducted by the city.

The resolution establishing the task force does not explicitly charge the group with a review of the city’s crosswalk law. But the pedestrian safety task force was established in the same time frame as the council was considering an amendment to the city’s crosswalk law. The council ultimately voted to change the language of that law at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting – so that motorists were required to concede the right-of-way only to pedestrians who had already entered the crosswalk.

That change was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Drawing on the phrasing used in Hieftje’s statement of veto, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has indicated he intends to bring forward an amendment that would require motorists to stop at crosswalks for pedestrians only if “they can do so safely.” At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, Kunselman announced he’d be pursuing such an amendment.

The council’s April 7 deliberations on the funding of the task force could be impacted by the first meeting of the task force, which is scheduled for April 4. Based on the agenda for that first task force meeting, recommendations on the funding question could come from the task force to the council to consider on April 7. Indications at the March 3 council meeting were that the budget for the task force and the scope of work for the staff and consultant support could change considerably.

[Updated 5 p.m. April 4, 2014]  The funding resolution is now expected to be withdrawn. At the first meeting of the task force, held on Friday, April 4, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, speaking from the audience, told the group that it was her intent to withdraw the funding resolution when the council meets on April 7.

Withdrawing the resolution at the April 7 meeting would not mean that the task force will not be able to do its work. Here’s why. In the resolution that’s expected to be withdrawn, the total amount proposed to be appropriated for the task force project budget is $197,250. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

So the portion of the project budget that requires hard costs to be covered – other than city staff time – is the cost for the consultant to provide facilitation services. And according to a staff memo to the city administrator written after the council’s action to postpone, the bulk of the cost can already be covered in an existing budget allocation. From the March 27, 2014 staff memo to the city administrator: “The estimated amount for the facilitation work is $70,000 to $90,000. Of this amount, $75,000 is currently budgeted for pedestrian safety and sidewalk-gap planning. The remaining $15,000 will be included in the City Administrator’s recommended FY 14 budget amendment.”

In addition to authorizing the funding, the resolution would authorize a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. But now, it’s not clear that particular consultant will be selected for the work. Originally Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations is familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting. But now the city has decided to issue an RFP for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893] Responses to the RFP are due by April 22, 2014.

At the April 4 task force meeting, Connie Pulcipher – a systems planner with the city of Ann Arbor – told members of the task force that they could be involved in the process of interviewing respondents to the RFP. The delay in selecting a facilitator means that the original timeline for the group’s work, which included a final report by February 2015, has shifted to around August 2015.

Peds: Belle Tire Easement

On the council’s agenda is approval of an easement related to the Belle Tire site plan at State and Ellsworth. The planning commission recommended approval at its March 18, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

The site plan itself was recommend for approval by the commission at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting, and the project subsequently received city council approval on Oct. 7, 2013. The site is located in Ward 4.

By way of background, a 50-foot-wide right-of-way easement on the front this site was recorded by the city as part of a previously approved land division for this parcel. That easement reduced the front setback of the Belle Tire building from 10 feet to roughly 3 feet. The minimum front setback for this site is 10 feet.

So the property owner, who also owns the adjacent site at 3975 S. State, has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement.

In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback.

Peds: Gallup Park Path

On the council’s consent agenda – a group of items voted on all-in-one-go – is approval of a grant application to fund renovations to a pathway that runs through Gallup Park, which is part of the Border to Border Trail (B2B) connecting the eastern and western borders of Washtenaw County. Renovations would include repairs to the existing asphalt, as well as widening to 10 feet – in part to meet current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards.

The grant application would be made to SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) and MDOT (Michigan Dept. of Transportation) for the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). The grant funds, if awarded, would fund renovation of the pathway from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. The work would include the loop that leads around that part of the park. Total length of the pathway to be renovated is about two miles.

The city would provide a grant match of $200,000, which would be paid out of the parks and recreation capital improvements millage.

Peds: Sidewalk Maintenance Program

Also related to pedestrian issues are two contracts related to the annual sidewalk maintenance and repair program, which is funded out of a five-year millage approved by voters in November 2011.

A sidewalk marked with a “C” – which indicates that it needs to be cut flush – on Fifth Avenue south of William Street.

Some sidewalk slabs are in reasonably good shape but are out of alignment with adjacent slabs. The city takes the approach of shaving the portion that’s out of alignment so that it’s flush.

Cutting the concrete is more cost effective than replacing the entire slab. The contract for the cutting work for the upcoming 2014 program is to be awarded to Precision Concrete Cutting for $207,350.

The other part of the program involves outright replacement of sidewalk slabs.

That contract is to be awarded to Doan Construction Company for $1,707,037.

Areas of the city of Ann Arbor where sidewalk repair will be done in 2013 and 2014.

Asphalt: Street Resurfacing Program

In addition to an annual sidewalk repair program, the city manages an annual street resurfacing program. On the council’s April 7 agenda is the award of a construction contract to Barrett Paving Materials Inc. for $3.409 million for the 2014 program. Also on the agenda is a professional contract for materials testing – with CTI and Associates Inc. for $82,332.

Heavy black highlights indicate stretches of road that are a part of the city of Ann Arbor’s street resurfacing program in 2014.

Text descriptions of the streets to be resurfaced are as follows:

• Washington: First Ave to Fourth Ave (April – May)
• Fuller: Maiden Lane to Huron River Bridge (May – June)
• Newport: Sunset to south of Bird Rd (June – July)
• Linwood:, Doty to Wildwood (April – May)
• Northside Grill Alley: Broadway to End (April – May)
• Vinewood: Berkshire to Avon (May – June)
• Steeplechase: Whiltshire to Blaney (June – July)
• St. Aubin: Platt to Creek Dr (June – July)
• Woodbury: Astor to Stadium (July – July)
• Prairie: Plymouth to Aurora (July – August)
• Burlington Court: Burlington to End (July – August)
• Waldenwood & Adjacent Courts: Penberton to Earhart (north end) (July – September)

Asphalt: Windemere Tennis Courts

The council will consider a $134,297 contract with Nagle Paving Co. to relocate and rebuild the tennis courts at Windemere Park. The park advisory commission recommended approval of the contract at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting.

PAC’s recommendation on the contract followed its approval on Jan. 28, 2014 of a revised new location for tennis courts at Windemere Park, on the city’s northeast side. The final location approved by PAC was one put forward at a public meeting earlier this year.

The new location for the tennis courts has been disputed among neighbors who live near Windemere Park, a nearly four-acre parcel north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

Nagle Paving was the lowest of five responsible bidders on the project, according to a staff memo. Including a 10% construction contingency, the entire project budget is $147,727. Funding will come from the FY 2014 park maintenance and capital improvement millage revenues. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution] [.pdf of cost comparison chart]

Land: Library Lot Proceeds to Affordable Housing

The city council will consider a resolution at its April 7 meeting that would direct the city administrator to allocate half the proceeds from a possible upcoming real estate sale to support affordable housing. The land in question is the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure, which completed construction in the summer of 2012. [.pdf of draft resolution on Library Lane sale]

The Library Lane underground parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

From the resolution: “Resolved, That City Council direct the City Administrator to allocate 50% of any and all proceeds, after fees and closing costs, from the sale of development rights at 319 S. Fifth Avenue [the Library Lane lot] to the affordable housing fund.” Use of money in the city’s affordable housing trust fund is subject to recommendations by the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB).

Based on a ballpark estimated value for the property of $6-7 million dollars – given by Jim Chaconas of Colliers International at the council’s March 17, 2014 meeting – the resolution would translate to somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million to support affordable housing, depending on fees and closing costs.

No specific deal appears to be in the offing to develop the top of the structure. But the council voted at its March 17, 2014 meeting to hire a brokerage service to list the development rights to the top of the underground parking garage for sale. At the same meeting, the council passed a separate resolution that reserved 6,500-12,000 square feet on the Library Lane site for a publicly owned urban park.

The resolution allocating 50% of proceeds of a Library Lane sale to support affordable housing is sponsored by four councilmembers: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje.

The strategy of channeling at least some of the proceeds of land sales to support affordable housing efforts has been a consistent part of city policy dating back several years. However, the council has not always agreed on the portion of a sale that should be allocated to support affordable housing. At the March 16 Sunday night caucus, Briere indicated one reason she might be reluctant at the following evening’s council meeting to support the hiring of a broker to list the Library Lane development rights for sale: She did not at that time want to take on the fight with other councilmembers about what to do with the proceeds. But Briere voted with seven of her colleagues on the 8-1 vote that saw only Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) dissenting. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) were not present for that vote.

The sale of another city property – the former Y lot in downtown Ann Arbor, on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues, across the street from the Library Lane site – is expected to generate roughly $1.4 million in net proceeds from the $5.25 million purchase price. That sale to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann had a closing date of April 2, 2014. And that sale was, in fact, completed.

The council voted at its Dec. 16, 2013 meeting to allocate all of those net proceeds to the affordable housing trust fund. More recently, at its March 3, 2014 meeting, the council directed the city administrator to prepare a budget resolution that would – upon completion of the former Y lot sale – allocate $600,000 from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, to support major capital improvements to its properties.

More than a year ago, at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a general policy on proceeds of land sales that was based on a budget committee recommendation. Essentially the policy is to consider land sales on a case-by-case basis, considering all the needs of the city. A nod to affordable housing was included in an amendment added at the council meeting in the form of a statement that all needs of the city would be considered in deciding the use of land sale proceeds – but “especially the need for affordable housing.”

The draft resolution to be considered at the April 7 council meeting cites the budget committee’s recommendation, which was adopted in the Oct. 15, 2012 council resolution, that “no less than 10% of net proceeds of any sale will be allocated and distributed to the affordable housing trust fund …”

Land: Amendment to Library Lane Resolution to List for Sale

On April 7, the council will also be revisiting the March 17 resolution on listing the surface of the Library Lane structure for sale. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) have sponsored a resolution that would delay the hiring of a broker and listing the property for sale until a public process, to be structured by the city administrator, is completed.

That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. From the resolution:

Resolved, That Resolution R-14-098 Directing the City Administrator to List for Sale 319 South Fifth and Retain Estate Brokerage Services be amended to direct the City Administrator to require that retention of brokerage services be delayed and listing not occur until adequate public process has taken place to explore public uses for the entire property;

Resolved, That the City Administrator structure the public process to allow citizens an opportunity to bring forward and discuss any and all appropriate public uses for this City-owned property, including its use, in its entirety, as a park or plaza;

Resolved, That City Administrator schedule a public hearing as part of the public process for citizen input on public uses for the property

Resolved, That City Administrator provide City Council with report on the public process at its completion; and

Resolved, On completion of the required public process, the City Administrator is directed to seek further direction from City Council as to whether the property should be listed or to continue to develop a wholly public or mixed public/private plan for its use.

The vote on the council’s March 17 resolution was 8-1, with dissent only from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent from the start of the meeting and Margie Teall (Ward 4) departed late in the meeting but before the vote was taken.

The April 7 council agenda also includes, as an item of communication, a resolution passed by the city planning commission on March 18, 2014 that gives advice to the council about how to develop the Library Lane property. The commission’s recommendations focused on conditions for developing the site that would garner economic benefits to the city, such as a mixed-use development that generates foot traffic, with an entry plaza or open space and a design that “creates an iconic addition to the skyline.” The recommendations drew on material in several existing documents, including the Connecting William Street report that was completed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority about a year ago.

Also attached to the council agenda as an item of communication is a resolution passed by the Ann Arbor District Library board on March 17, 2014. The resolution asked the council to reject designating a portion of the city-owned Library Lane site – which is adjacent to the downtown library – as a public park or plaza at this time.

Land: Recommendation to UM on Edwards Brothers

An additional land-use item on the council’s April 7 agenda is a resolution recommending that the University of Michigan collaborate with the city of Ann Arbor on the future development of the former Edwards Brothers property at 2500-2550 South State Street, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. The university is purchasing the 16.7-acre property, following the Ann Arbor city council’s decision on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the site.

The city planning commission passed the same resolution at its March 18, 2014 meeting and forwarded it to the city council.

The resolution was drafted by planning manager Wendy Rampson based on previous discussions by the planning commission and city council. [.pdf of resolution as amended at March 18 planning commission meeting]

The one resolved clause states:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council and Ann Arbor City Planning Commission request that The Regents of The University of Michigan and President authorize University staff to meet with City representatives to collaborate on issues related to future development of the South Athletic Campus area, including, but not limited to:

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be developed, preferably privately, for complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus that also follow the South State Street plan recommendations;
• Discussing options for the relocation of park-and-ride facilities as the South Athletic Campus develops; and
• Discussing the opportunities for a future pedestrian and vehicular connection between South Main Street and South State Street via the planned Oakbrook Drive extension through the South Athletic Campus site.

At the planning commission’s March 18 meeting, Rampson said she’s already shared a draft of the resolution with UM planner Sue Gott and Jim Kosteva, the university’s director of community relations.

The city council voted down a resolution that would have authorized Ann Arbor’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Malloy property, at a special session of the council on Feb. 24, 2014. That will allow the University of Michigan to purchase the property unimpeded.

Land: Stapp Nature Area Addition Rezoning

The council’s April 7 agenda includes a resolution giving initial approval to rezoning of land that’s been donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp. The 2.2-acre parcel at 3301 Traverwood Drive is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline..

City staff recommended that the donated parcel be rezoned from R4D (multi-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The land reaches from Traverwood Drive to the Leslie Park golf course, south of Huron Parkway. Adding the land expands a corridor of natural areas and parkland. Stapp Nature Area, a 8.11-acre property with a mature native forest and small vernal pool, is adjacent to Tuebingen Park and has a connection to Leslie Woods.

The site is on the northern edge of a larger property that’s being developed by First Martin Corp. as Traverwood Apartments. That project received its final necessary approvals from the city council on Jan. 6, 2014.

First Martin has committed to creating a pedestrian access from the apartment complex to the nature area, which will be formalized with an access easement.

The city has a policy of rezoning city-owned land to PL (public land). This parcel will be differentiated as parkland by its inclusion in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, because it will become part of the Stapp Nature Area, which is already in the PROS plan.

The council would be giving the rezoning initial approval at its April 7 meeting. The final vote would come at a future meeting after a public hearing.

Land: Concordia University Gym Expansion

An additional land-use issue that appears was expected on the city council’s April 7 agenda is approval of a site plan to expand the existing Concordia University gym.

Corrected: This item is now expected to be considered at the council’s April 21 meeting. 

The plan also includes reconfiguring nearby parking lots and stormwater management features on the 187-acre site at 4090 Geddes Road, just west of US-23 and north of the Huron River. The city planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its March 4, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of Concordia University campus, south of Geddes Road and west of US-23.

As a separate item, planning commissioners were asked to grant a special exception use for the project. That’s required because the private university is located on a site zoned R1B (single-family residential district).

The site plan requires city council approval, but the special exception use does not.

The proposal calls for a three-story, 34,391-square-foot addition to the current 22,021-square-foot gym that was built in the early 1960s, located on the west side of Concordia’s main campus. [.pdf of campus map] The addition will include men’s and women’s locker rooms, athletic office space, classrooms and an auxiliary gym. A second phase of the project entails constructing a single-story, 5,280-square-foot athletic training room.

An existing gravel parking area west of the gym will be paved and landscaped, and another lot north of the gym along Geddes will get new landscaping and bioswales. A total of 92 new parking spaces will be created, mostly in the former gravel lot. A new stormwater management system will be completed to address a 100-year storm event, including a detention pond with an outlet into a bioswale south of the developed area.

The site plan is for a planned project, which allows variations in height and placement. The proposed addition would be 39 feet high. The site’s zoning has a height limit of 30 feet. The existing gym is about 33 feet high, measured at the midpoint of the roof.

Land: Main Street BIZ Expansion

On the council’s April 7 agenda is approval of an expansion of the geographic area of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The business improvement zone was established in 2010 by a vote of property owners in the zone to provide a mechanism for taxing themselves to pay for items like sidewalk snow removal, sidewalk sweeping and landscaping. [For the state enabling legislation for a BIZ, see Public Act 120 of 1961]

The current geographic area of the Main Street BIZ extends north-to-south from William to Huron on both sides of Main Street, extending to the mid-block alleys. The expansion would extend the area westward by a half block from the alley to Ashley Street. The expansion would also extend the area eastward by a half block along the whole north-south dimension; and between William and Liberty, the zone would expand westward an additional block – to Fourth Avenue.

While the council must give its approval of the plan, the expansion is contingent on a vote among property owners in the area, which has to be set for no later than 49 days after the date of the council’s resolution. The council’s April 7 meeting agenda includes a public hearing on the issue.

Main Street BIZ geographic area and expansion. (Map by The Chronicle from the BIZ plan using Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS services mapping tools.)

Same-Sex Marriage

At its April 7 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council will consider a resolution asking that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages. [.pdf of draft resolution on same-sex marriage]

The ruling in question was issued by federal judge Bernard Friedman on Friday, March 21, 2014 in the case of Deboer v. Snyder. In that ruling, Friedman found that Article I, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution – which limits the benefits of marriage to unions between one man and one woman – did not advance any legitimate state interest. So the ruling had the effect of making same-sex marriages legal in Michigan.

But the day following the decision, on March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on Friedman’s ruling. Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are appealing Friedman’s decision.

The council’s resolution reads in part:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council urges Governor Snyder and Attorney General Schuette to immediately suspend all efforts to appeal or otherwise contest Judge Friedman’s Ruling…

Before the stay on Friedman’s ruling took effect, Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum opened his office for business on Saturday, March 22, and issued 74 marriage licenses for same-sex couples in Washtenaw County. The county board had already set the stage for those couples to receive what practically amounts to a fee waiver for the expedited processing of a license, which ordinarily takes three days. The “fee” approved by the board at its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting reduced the usual fee from $50 to 1 cent.

The resolution passed by the county board on Feb. 19 allows the county clerk, consulting with the county administrator, to establish a “fee holiday” on the day preceding a period during which the office’s vital records division would be closed for four or more days, or when an unusual number of marriage license applicants are expected to appear. During a “fee holiday,” the charge for immediately processing a marriage license is 1 cent.

The resolution to be considered by the Ann Arbor city council on April 7 currently has four sponsors: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Economic Collaborative Task Force

Among the many agenda attachments – reports and communications – is the final report of the economic collaborative task force, established by the council last year at its May 20, 2013 meeting. The idea to establish the task force had grown out of an idea to review the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in the context of proposed changes to the city ordinance governing the DDA. The task force drew members from city of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor SPARK and the Ann Arbor DDA.  [.pdf of March 28, 2014 economic collaborative task force report]

In more detail, the task force was supposed to do the following:

• Provide clarity, alignment and specificity on economic development policy and objectives for fiscal year 2014 toward accomplishing city council’s success statement for Economic Development.
• Provide for strategic alignment of priorities between the Task Force member entities.
• Highlight cost sharing and maximizing of resource utilization.
• Identify options for sustaining, modifying, or eliminating operations in a financially-responsible manner through efficiencies and/or partnerships as part of a cohesive economic development plan for the city.

The “success statement” mentioned in the resolution was crafted by the city council at a budget retreat held in late 2012.

Those initially appointed to represent the city on the task force were city administrator Steve Powers, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and then councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

According to the resolution establishing the task force, a report was supposed to be presented to the council in December 2013 and the task force was supposed to expire at the end of 2013.

The 4.5-page report in general calls on the city, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and Ann Arbor SPARK to continue existing initiatives.

Some highlights of the report include a recommendation that the city consider technology infrastructure that is “essential for companies to compete globally and for communities to attract the necessary talent.” In that category of infrastructure, the report indicates that the city and Ann Arbor SPARK should “continue their work to develop a proposal for high-speed fiber that would accelerate both commercial and residential internet speeds.”

Also recommended in the report is the preparation of a plan to market and sell surplus city-owned properties. Properties included on the list include the South Ashley/West William (Kline) lot, the South Main/East William (Palio) lot, Library Lane, and 415 W. Washington.

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

Sandi Smith was elected by her colleagues as chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board at its July 3, 2013 annual meeting. Here she’s showing the DDA’s new website on her tablet. (Photos by the writer.)

The board also approved a $59,200 grant to support the formation of a business improvement zone in the South University area. A “trolley” for the upcoming art fairs also received $10,000 worth of support, in action taken by the board.

The capital projects included $50,000 for repair of sidewalk-related amenities that aren’t covered by the city’s sidewalk millage. In addition, the board allocated $200,000 for a streetscape framework planning project. Board action also included $300,000 for the replacement of light poles on Main Street.

The light pole replacement is one source of current friction between the city and the DDA – as the expectation of the city had been that the entire $516,000 project would be paid for by the DDA. But the result of wrangling over the DDA’s FY 2014 budget – given approval by the council on May 20 – was a transfer of $300,000 from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund. So the DDA’s position is that it can’t fund the entire light pole replacement project, because of that transfer to the housing fund.

The light pole question is related to the general issue of DDA finances and the revenue it receives through tax increment finance (TIF) capture of taxes – from entities that levy those taxes in the DDA district. Elected as chair at the annual meeting – which immediately followed the board’s monthly meeting – Sandi Smith will face the resolution of the TIF revenue issue as one of her first challenges.

The outstanding issue concerns the way that the DDA administers Chapter 7 of the city code of Ann Arbor – which regulates the DDA’s TIF capture. This spring the Ann Arbor city council gave initial approval to a revision to Chapter 7. The council’s action, if given final approval, would prevent the DDA from giving the code an interpretation that doesn’t recognize a cap on TIF revenue that is expressed in Chapter 7. The amendment to the ordinance would return several hundred thousand dollars a year to other taxing authorities from which the DDA captures taxes. Those entities include the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College, Washtenaw County and the city of Ann Arbor.

The council has postponed final action on the matter until Sept. 3, 2013. Between now and then, the council’s expectation is that a joint DDA-council committee will meet and make recommendations on the Chapter 7 issue.

At its July 1 meeting, the city council appointed four members to its committee: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). And at the July 3 monthly meeting, outgoing DDA board chair Leah Gunn appointed the DDA’s committee: Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Joan Lowenstein and Sandi Smith.

Another point of recent budgetary friction between the city and the DDA was raised briefly at the July 3 board meeting. In a formal resolution, the city council had encouraged the DDA to allocate money to fund downtown beat patrol police officers. For its part, the DDA has for a few years already been mulling the question of some kind of additional security – either in the form of ambassadors, community standards officers or police officers. At the July 3 meeting, DDA board members indicated they would continue to mull that range of options, but seemed disinclined to commit to funding police officers.

The board also heard a range of routine reports on July 3, including the monthly parking revenue report. The DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. In the future, it was announced, the report will be delivered only on a quarterly basis. Also related to parking policy, a tentative pilot project was announced that could change the basic approach the DDA takes to selling monthly parking permits. The idea would be to assign permit eligibility only to property owners in a defined geographic area. The number of permits would depend on the number of square feet of property – independent of uses such as office, residential, retail, etc. Currently, the DDA uses a first-come-first-served system for individuals, with a waiting list.

The DDA’s monthly meeting marked a transition on the board, as two board members were bid farewell. Newcombe Clark served one four-year term. He’s making an employment-related move to Chicago. Leah Gunn concluded nearly 22 years of service on the board. She finished out her time on the board as chair.

South University Area BIZ

The DDA board was asked to approve a $59,200 grant to support the establishment of a business improvement zone (BIZ) for the South University area of downtown. The money would be allocated only at specific milestone points.

A BIZ is a self-assessment district that can be established under Public Act 120 of 1961 by agreement of a sufficient number of property owners in the district – to generate funds to pay for additional services not provided by the city. If it’s established, the South University Area BIZ would be the second such district in downtown Ann Arbor. In 2010, a BIZ district was established for a three-block stretch of Main Street, between William and Huron streets – to provide sidewalk snow clearing, litter pickup and poster removal. [See Chronicle coverage from 2009: "Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ Clears Hurdle."]

The Ann Arbor DDA provided a grant to assist with the formation of the Main Street BIZ, voting on April 1, 2009 to award $83,270 to defray various costs associated with the formation of the BIZ. Those costs included accounting, auditing, operations and legal services.

At that time, DDA board members reflected on the fact that they did not necessarily want to be signaling – through their support of the Main Street BIZ – that the DDA would be inclined to support all other subsequent efforts to establish business improvement zones in other areas of the downtown. Partly to address that concern, the board asked that the Main Street BIZ produce a “blueprint” for the formation of a BIZ, which could be used by other groups to help navigate the lengthy required process.

At a May 29, 2013 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee, South University Area Association executive director Maggie Ladd and consultant Betsy Jackson pitched the grant to the committee. Jackson, president of The Urban Agenda Inc., told the committee that while the blueprint was a useful fill-in-the-blank document, it was important to have someone with sufficient expertise to fill in those blanks. Jackson was also the consultant hired for the Main Street BIZ.

According to the DDA board resolution, South University property owners are contributing a total of $25,000 toward the start-up costs.

South University Area BIZ: Board Deliberations

Joan Lowenstein introduced the resolution on the South University Area BIZ. Lowenstein reported that South University Area Association executive director Maggie Ladd had spoken to the partnerships committee about the grant. Lowenstein noted that something similar was already in place for an area along Main Street. In the South University area, Lowenstein said, there’s increased commercial activity, and along with that there was increased use of the sidewalks. It would be useful to take a more uniform approach to issues like cleanliness, visitor comfort, and snow removal. The initial support for the South University Area BIZ, Lowenstein said, was shown by the willingness of property owners to contribute $25,000 to the administrative start-up costs.

Lowenstein noted that one of the deliverables from the DDA’s funding of the administrative start-up costs for the Main Street BIZ was a template for creating additional business improvement zones. She reported that such a template had been created, but that creating a BIZ is not just a matter of filling in the blanks. The template or blueprint would save some legal costs – but there’s a log of legwork involved, she said. For example, the exact method of the assessment has to be calculated and its impact weighed. [For example, an assessment could be done based on lineal feet of street frontage or by square feet of property, which would give different burdens to property owners and possibly affect the willingness of a property owner to vote yes.]

Keith Orr indicated his willingness to support the resolution because a BIZ can do things that a DDA can’t do.

Russ Collins stressed that the DDA was responding to requests from businesses in the area, and that it was not a proposal about development. Businesses in the area decided they wanted additional services to make their area more appealing. Sometimes, Collin said, the general public feels the DDA’s primary purpose is to promote new building in the downtown – when the DDA doesn’t actually do much of that. But the DDA does try to support local businesses when they request support to fulfill a mission that fits with the DDA’s mission. And he felt the grant fits that dynamic.

Newcombe Clark wanted to know if there was definitely going to be a South University Area BIZ “at the end of this” or if the DDA’s grant would just support a study. Orr indicated that it’s unknown whether a BIZ would actually be established, but he said, “one hopes there’s a BIZ at the end.” It’s not a study to see if the property owners want it or not. But because it adds a new tax, the people who would be taxed have to vote on the proposal, Orr pointed out. And there are a number of milestones along the way that have to be completed, he noted. Lowenstein explained that there’s an initial vote, and if the proposal didn’t manage to get approval on the initial vote, then the DDA’s contribution would be minimal. After that initial vote, there’s additional administrative work that needs to be done.

Newcombe Clark.

Clark indicated that his recollection was that when the organizers of the Main Street BIZ had approached the DDA, they had “enough ducks in a row” that they’d been able to say: Give us this money and there will be a BIZ at the end of this. Orr responded to Clark by saying that for the Main Street BIZ, the outcome had been unknown. Orr noted that you’d have to canvass to find out who the actual property owners are, which is not always obvious. Clark responded to Orr by saying, “In South U. it’s pretty easy to get 60% [the threshold for BIZ votes of approval] … Two or three people. That’s not a $90,000 project.” Clark said that as long as there are milestones for the DDA’s payments, he was inclined to support it. “If we’re out five grand for a vote,” he said, that would be fine, but he didn’t want to “be out 90 grand to look up numbers that are in my cell phone.”

In response to Clark’s concern, Sandi Smith noted that a “whereas” clause provided for disbursement of funds at key milestone points. She ventured that the language could be modified to say “up to $59,200″ so that if the process stalls along the way, the DDA would stall on its disbursement of funds. That language was added.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the $59,200 grant to help establish a BIZ for the South University area.

Art

Art came up in several ways, in addition to the board’s resolution on funding for an art fair “trolley.”

Art: Art Fair Trolley

The board was asked to provide $10,000 worth of support for a “trolley” to operate during the upcoming art fairs. The shuttle service for the Ann Arbor art fairs – which take place from July 17-20, 2013 – would circulate to the four different fair areas. [.pdf of the "trolley" route]

The Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau is also contributing $10,000. The DDA board resolution described the annual operating cost of the art fair trolley as more than $25,000.

Art: Art Fair Trolley – Public Commentary

Max Clayton introduced herself as the executive director of the Guild of Artists and Artisans, but she was speaking on behalf of all four art fairs that make up the Ann Arbor art fairs. She characterized the art fairs as an economic driver, which had been its original mission. They had succeeded at that mission, she continued, for more than 50 years. The art fairs bring about $78 million of economic impact to the community each year, she said. But that $78 million is not revenue to the art fairs, she stressed. That’s money being spent by fairgoers, to shop in stores, eat in restaurants, park in lots and structures, and enjoy a hotel stay.

She described how the art fairs in the last few years are starting to face increased competition from fairs in other parts of the country. Ann Arbor’s art fairs can compete based on the quality of the artists and the art in the fairs, she said. A survey had been done of fairgoers to discover what they need and what they enjoy – to keep them coming back. What they’d heard from fairgoers was the importance of understanding where they were. They’d heard that the fair is too big and people don’t know how to get around. It was determined that fairgoers need to be helped to understand how to navigate the fairs better – so that the event could be enjoyed to its fullest.

So the organizers of the art fairs had decided to pay for an art fair trolley, which follows a route encircling all of the art fairs. The shuttle stops for the art fair trolley are the same as the stops for the shuttle service operated by the AAATA, she said. It costs about $25,000 a year. She pointed out that the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau had also contributed $10,000 to the effort. The support of the DDA would be recognized in various ways, including signage placed on the trolley, she said. The vehicle also has a wonderful trolley bell, she noted.

Art: Art Fair Trolley – Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt introduced the item by saying that other organizations were also involved in supporting the trolley – the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau as well as the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

Outcome: Without further discussion, the board unanimously approved the $10,000 grant for the art fair trolley.

Art: East Stadium Bridges Public Art

During the public commentary segment at the start of the meeting, John Kotarski introduced himself as a member of the Ann Arbor public art commission. He updated the board on the status of the East Stadium bridges art project. He pointed board members to the art commission’s website, where they could view a 45-minute presentation on the four artist proposals for the site. He addressed two questions: Why had the East Stadium bridges location been chosen? And what had been done to include local artists?

East Stadium Boulevard as well as South State Street form a gateway into the city, Kotarski said. At the direction of the city, the public art commission had reached out to stakeholders in that general area. The money that has been allocated for the project originated with the Percent for Art program, he pointed out. And that means that the money has to be connected thematically to the funds of origin. The idea was to create a sense of place and to unify East Stadium Boulevard and South State Street, and to encourage multimodal transportation.

Ann Arbor public art commissioners Bob Miller (standing) and John Kotarski at the July 3 DDA board meeting.

Addressing the idea of local artists, he said it was the desire of the public art commission to involve local artists. But the fact of the matter is, he explained, it’s not possible to have an exclusive competition for local artists – because the city attorney has said that would be illegal. So what the public art commission has done to encourage local artists, he continued, is to do extensive outreach. He named four organizations – the Ann Arbor Art Center, the Street Art Fair, the Arts Alliance, and the Ann Arbor Women Artists – along with 45 other organizations that had been encouraged to be engaged and to submit proposals. There had been 32 submissions for this project. Of those, 10 were Michigan artists and four were Ann Arbor residents. Those 32 have been winnowed down to four.

Kotarski encouraged DDA board members to check out the proposals and to take the survey. Their feedback, he said, is important and invaluable to the public art commission. He and art commission chair Bob Miller – who accompanied Kotarski at the DDA board meeting – have been presenting the information to various groups, including the park advisory commission, the Arts Alliance, and a Ward 2 public forum. The following week they’d be appearing before the planning commission, at its July 9 working session. The public art commission really wants the community to understand what the four proposals are, he said.

You don’t always hit home runs, Kotarski cautioned, though you hope for that. But he did feel there was one proposal of the four that would work very well. So he again encouraged board members to investigate the four proposals and to take the survey.

Art: Public Commentary

Ray Detter reported out from the downtown area citizens advisory council. He said that Marsha Chamberlin, from the public art commission, had filled in the CAC on projects currently in progress. Detter said that Chamberlin had reported that the city had approved the hiring of a full-time city administrator. [The conclusion of a city council committee on public art, which made recommendations that led to the elimination of the Percent for Art funding mechanism at the council's June 3, 2013 meeting, stated: "A full-time art administrator is preferable." Chronicle inquiries about the possibility that the city has moved forward with a decision to hire a full-time administrator have not yet been answered, because of the holiday break.

[Added Monday, July 8 at 8:45 a.m.: Responding to an emailed Chronicle inquiry, public services area administrator Craig Hupy indicated no decision has been made about how to implement the recommendation for a full-time administrator. There are, he wrote, "a couple of ways to deliver that desire: a FTE as a city employee, a contract employee or a contract for services. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages." Before a "vehicle" for providing that full-time effort can be determined, the scope of needs and desires must be drafted, he indicated. "Whatever is recommended will likely have to go to city council for approval," Hupy wrote.]

Pedestrian Issues

Pedestrian issues were the subject of two board resolutions.

First, the board was asked to consider a streetscape framework plan for downtown Ann Arbor at a cost of $200,000 over the next two years. The resolution allocating the funds states that “an enjoyable pedestrian experience is one of downtown’s principal attractions.”

The $200,000 cost would not cover construction. But according to the board’s resolution, it’s a realistic budget to cover “consultants, contingency, and other related costs.” The idea cited in the resolution is to shorten the planning phases and reduce the costs associated with future streetscape projects. The resolution directs the DDA’s operations committee to create a final project budget and timeframe.

The most recent streetscape project completed by the DDA related to improvements on Fifth and Division, which included a lane reduction and bump-outs.

The second agenda item on July 3 that affected the downtown Ann Arbor pedestrian environment was a $50,000 allocation for general sidewalk maintenance. The money would cover displaced bricks, uneven sidewalk flags, and missing, dead or overgrown trees.

Pedestrian Issues: Streetscape Framework

Roger Hewitt introduced the resolution on the streetscape framework plan by saying it had been discussed for several months now. He stressed that the DDA was not looking to plunge into a specific streetscape improvement project. But in the past, when the DDA has done streetscape improvements, it has looked at a single street or a few blocks of a street and decided what it might look like. Now, it would be appropriate, Hewitt said, to take a step back and look at how all downtown streets are used by cars and pedestrians. The idea was not to identify materials or locations of where every lamppost or sign or bench should go. The idea, he said, was to determine “what sort of streets those should be.”

For example, Hewitt said: Should parking be made available on a street? Should the sidewalks be wider or narrower? Where should loading zones go? Where should taxi stands go? The idea would be to identify four or five different types of streets and which streets should be in each category. The DDA would coordinate with the city staff, as well as the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on the project. The project would provide a blueprint for where streetscapes should go in the future, Hewitt said – and provide guidelines for what a particular improvement on a particular street should look like. The proposed budget of $200,000 would be spent over the next two fiscal years, Hewitt said. The major cost would be the cost of the consultant, Hewitt concluded.

Sandi Smith said she hoped that the streetscape framework planning process wouldn’t preclude acting on opportunities that might arise in the shorter term. As an example, she gave the 618 S. Main project, noting that part of the brownfield grant would pay for streetscape improvements. John Splitt ventured that the 618 S. Main improvements would be done in the summer of 2014, so he assumed that the framework planning wouldn’t stand in the way. Keith Orr stressed that the framework planning was not a design guideline project, but would address issues like: On this type of street, what should signage look like? Which signs should be together? How far should one parking meter be from another parking meter? Russ Collins jokingly added to Orr’s questions: Should trees be removed that block beautiful theater marquees? [Collins is executive director of the Michigan Theater.]

Smith returned to her point that she wanted to make sure the DDA remained nimble enough to be responsive when needed. Newcombe Clark responded to Smith by saying: “We never stop dancing.” Hewitt ventured that the DDA had learned how to be nimble.

Outcome: The DDA board unanimously approved the $200,000 for a streetscape planning framework.

Pedestrian Issues: Sidewalks

DDA executive director Susan Pollay described the needed work on sidewalks as issues that had been identified during two walk-throughs of the downtown. While there’s a city sidewalk millage that can address slabs of concrete that show significant deterioration, it doesn’t cover issues like the following: bricks that are coming loose, tree pits, and pruning of trees. Those are details that add up to a walkable downtown, she said. She told board members that the money is in the approved budget.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board unanimously approved the $50,000 for sidewalk repairs.

Main Street Light Poles

The board was asked to approve a resolution allocating $300,000 for the replacement of decorative light poles on Main Street. The total estimated cost of the project is $516,000 for 81 light poles.

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

Based on the DDA board’s resolution, it’s the DDA’s expectation that the city of Ann Arbor will make up the difference of $216,000.

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.

The DDA’s resolution indicates that the city of Ann Arbor’s budget approval process this year had determined that the city would allocate $216,000 for the project. What the Ann Arbor city council actually did 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 resolution also recommended that the DDA spend $300,000 of its TIF fund on the Main Street light pole replacement. In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that the city council will be asked to act on the matter either at its July 15 or Aug. 8 meeting. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy, responding to the same query, explained that it wasn’t yet clear if the council action would include an additional appropriation, or if it could be handled within the existing budget.

Main Street Light Poles: Public Comment

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter indicated support for the DDA’s resolution. Combining city and DDA funds makes good sense, he said, and the light pole replacement provides an opportunity to do that. He indicated there could be an opportunity to use public art funds for that project.

Main Street Light Poles: Board Deliberations

DDA executive director Susan Pollay introduced the item by saying that there had been a problem “quietly brewing” on Main Street. One of the first installations of pedestrian-scale lighting in the DDA district, she said, was along Main Street between Huron and William. On the inside they’re rusting, she explained, because water has intruded. Last year, she said, four of them blew over in a storm. [In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city of Ann Arbor staff stated that two light poles had fallen down in the spring of 2012. After inspection of all the poles, it was determined that two additional poles were at immediate risk of falling and were also replaced.]

According to Pollay, the city staff have been trying to find a way to pay for the replacement. As part of the city council’s budgeting process, Pollay said, the DDA was supposed to provide $300,000 for the project. If the board approved the resolution, then Pollay would communicate to the city staff, so that a resolution could be prepared for the city council, and the council would need to approve the remaining amount. Newcombe Clark drew out the fact that the money would be drawn from the DDA’s TIF fund. He asked that the point be added to the resolution.

Pollay described how the replacement would need to be coordinated with banner replacement and holiday light plug-ins.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the $300,000 grant to the city of Ann Arbor for replacement of the light poles on Main Street.

City Council, DDA Relations

The light pole question is actually related to the general issue of DDA finances and the revenue it receives through tax increment finance (TIF) capture of taxes – from entities that levy those taxes in the DDA district. Elected as chair at the annual meeting – which immediately followed the board’s monthly meeting – Sandi Smith will face the resolution of the TIF revenue issue as one of her first challenges.

City Council, DDA Relations: Background

An effort led by Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – which has taken different forms over the last year and a half – culminated earlier this spring in initial approval by the council of a revision to Chapter 7, which regulates the DDA’s TIF capture. The council’s action, if given final approval, would prevent the DDA from giving the city code an interpretation that doesn’t recognize a cap on TIF revenue expressed in Chapter 7. The amendment to the ordinance would return several hundred thousand dollars a year to the other taxing authorities from which the DDA captures taxes. Those entities include the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College, Washtenaw County and the city of Ann Arbor.

City Council, DDA Relations: Committee Not “Mutually Beneficial”

The council has postponed final action on the matter until Sept. 3, 2013. Between now and then, the council’s expectation is that a joint DDA-council committee will meet and make recommendations on the Chapter 7 issue.

Board chair Leah Gunn. One of her last acts as chair was to appoint members to the DDA-council joint committee.

At its July 1 meeting, the city council appointed four members to its committee: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

In her remarks on the appointment of the DDA members to the committee, board chair Leah Gunn indicated that the understanding going into the city council meeting was that there would be three members. But the council had appointed four members. [During the council's July 1, 2013 meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had proposed that Jane Lumm (Ward 2) be added to the list.]

The four DDA board members appointed to the committee by Gunn are: Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Joan Lowenstein and Sandi Smith.

Newcombe Clark asked if it had to be called the “mutually beneficial” committee. He referred to the fact that history is “unfortunately … annotated and tagged with these names.”

At the council’s July 1 meeting, the council had also eschewed the label of “mutually beneficial” for the name of the committee – at the suggestion of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was sitting in the audience of the July 3 DDA meeting and waved to board chair Leah Gunn, who then invited Briere to the podium to explain. Briere told the DDA board that the council had settled on the idea of calling it a joint DDA-council committee. The DDA board appear amendable to that as well.

City Council, DDA Relations: More Background

By way of background on the reluctance on the part of some to call the group a “mutually beneficial committee,” that phrase in connection with the sorting out of issues between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor DDA is not new.

The phrase was first mooted in a Jan. 20, 2009 council resolution. The main issue at that time was the contract under which the DDA administers the city’s public parking system. Subsequently, “mutually beneficial” committees for both entities were appointed, but they did not achieve any results. The following year, new committees were appointed and those committees met over the course of several months, culminating in a new parking agreement ratified in May 2011.

The council formally disbanded its “mutually beneficial” committee at the end of 2011.

City Council, DDA Relations: Housing, Light Poles

Pending the resolution of the Chapter 7 TIF issue, the city council had already altered the DDA’s FY 2014 budget in action taken at its May 20, 2013 meeting. The council’s resolution modifying the DDA’s budget involved housing and the Main Street light poles.

Touching implicitly on the housing issue at the July 3 DDA board meeting, Sandi Smith reported out from the recent meeting of the partnerships committee. The committee had received an update from representatives of various affordable housing advocates – Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) executive director Jennifer Hall, Washtenaw County office of community & economic development director Mary Jo Callan and Washtenaw Housing Alliance executive director Julie Steiner. Smith reported that the three had been given an update on “where the moving parts fit together” and about ongoing funding reductions at the federal and state levels. The partnerships committee learned about the places the DDA can “plug in,” Smith said, and had agreed to continue to learn and talk to representatives of the affordable housing community.

By way of additional background, one place that housing advocates hope the DDA “plugs in” is with $300,000 of support for an initiative the AAHC is undertaking, which would convert the city’s public housing stock to project-based vouchers. The effort includes a requirement that significant renovations be made to many of the properties. The hope is that the DDA would provide $300,000 of support for a package of renovations that includes AAHC properties within 1/4 mile of the DDA district boundary. That’s the area the DDA currently uses as a policy guideline for allocating expenditures from its housing fund.

The $300,000 figure is significant, because it’s the amount the city council transferred from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund, in a budget action taken on at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. The DDA’s position is that it can’t fund the entire light pole replacement project – because of that transfer to the housing fund.

City Council, DDA Relations: Downtown Beat Cops

Reporting out from the DDA’s operations committee, Roger Hewitt noted that the city council had passed a resolution requesting that the DDA consider providing funding for police officers. [That resolution was passed at the council's June 3, 2013 meeting. At the DDA board's June 5, 2013 meeting, board chair Leah Gunn had referred the matter to the operations committee.]

Hewitt said the committee had a discussion about the matter of funding downtown police. There are a number of ways to approach it: with ambassadors, community standards officers, or police officers. Hewitt said the DDA would take a reasoned approach to determine what fits best.

Sandi Smith expressed a reluctance for the DDA to pay for an ongoing city operational expense. She felt, however, that it would be great to fund a start-up program to cover equipment needs – like uniforms. A light-hearted exchange unfolded based on the idea of Robocop as a depreciable asset.

Parking

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. A report on monthly parking activity is a typical part of all board meeting reports.

Parking: Monthly Report

Roger Hewitt gave the monthly parking revenue update. [A recent Chronicle column includes the breakdown of the DDA parking numbers for nearly the last four years.]

Hewitt highlighted the revenues from the new Library Lane structure, which was completed in July of 2012. The structure showed revenues over $100,000 for May 2013. That is far more than projected, Hewitt said, and compares favorably with revenues from the Forest structure, which has been open for 20 years. The Library Lane structure has been accepted by patrons and is being adopted for use more rapidly than any other new structure, Hewitt said.

Hewitt also noted that this month’s report would be the last monthly report, and in the future quarterly reports will be given instead.

Commenting on the rationale for the move to quarterly reports, Newcombe Clark stated that “the painful convenience of data is that you can often torture it to tell you whatever you want it to say.” He’d been more and more concerned about the pressure that the DDA might feel to create policy based on monthly data. It might indicate a trend, but at this point the DDA is not running any kind of statistical analysis that would give any confidence or probability that “anything from the tides of March or the weather or what-have-you” might indicate revenue, he said.

At his self-described “polite and insistent poking,” Clark had proposed to move the reports to a quarterly review, so that the DDA could look at trends with a more objective eye. “The data will, of course, be collected daily as it [currently] is, and will be available for anybody that wants it,” he said. If board members just miss the monthly reports and it leaves a void in the monthly operations committee meeting, Clark quipped, he suspected they would restore the monthly reports. He thought it was a good policy to take a break from looking at data and getting lost in it without understanding it.

Parking: Permit Pilot Program

As part of his report from the operations committee, Roger Hewitt noted that the committee had focused on the high demand for parking in the area of the University of Michigan campus. Illustrating the overall demand was the number of monthly parking permits that had been sold for the new Library Lane structure. Over 600 monthly permits had been sold for Library Lane, Hewitt said, and there’s already a wait list for that new structure.

Hewitt said the operations committee had been discussing how to make the process for issuing permits “less subjective and more objective.” By way of background, the parking permit allocations are currently made on a first-come-first-served policy with a waiting list. So decisions about who may purchase them are objective. What could be considered subjective is the number of permits that can be sold for a particular structure. For some structures, the oversell margin seems to be maximized. For others, it is not.

That subjective component can make other DDA decisions also seem subjective – like determining whether monthly permits will be assigned to new developments under the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. That program can allow a new development to satisfy a parking requirement by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system. Permits purchased through the CIL program are priced at a 20% premium. The DDA can exercise its discretion in determining whether there is capacity in the parking system to grant the permits. Whether there is capacity is the issue that could be subjective.

When the DDA granted 40 CIL permits in the Forest Street structure to the proposed 624 Church Street project – which is in the South University area – at least one owner of an existing residential building complained that this was unfair. That was the owner of the Zaragon building, located adjacent to the 624 Church Street development. Hewitt operates his revive + replenish business on the ground floor of Zaragon.

At the July 3 meeting, Hewitt reported that the operations committee had decided to start a pilot project for the Forest Street structure – to assign permits not based on the first-come-first-served basis as they currently are. Instead, permits would be issued to building owners in the South University area inside the DDA district, based on the square footage of those buildings.

That would provide an objective standard for determining who gets the parking permits instead of assigning them in a subjective manner, he said. It would be a pilot project, Hewitt stressed. No contract would be issued. Each building owner would be contacted and would be offered a chance to purchase permits at the going rate, based on how much square footage they owned. Hewitt indicated that roughly one parking space would be provided for every 2,500 square feet of building area, based on the data the DDA had collected.

Current permit holders would be “grandfathered in,” Hewitt said. He said there are very few examples where there are more permits in a building now than the proposed system would allow. If every building owner took up the DDA’s offer, about 280 permits would be sold for the Forest Street structure, compared against roughly 600 spaces in the structure, Hewitt reported. [However, half of the 600 spaces in the Forest structure are allotted to the University of Michigan. Currently, about 100 permits are sold for Forest.]

Hewitt indicated that at this point, the goal is to measure the level of interest. No one is going to lose their parking space, he stressed. If someone voluntarily decides not to renew their monthly parking permit, then the permit would go into the new system of allocation. Because the South University area is a separate geographic area from the rest of downtown, Hewitt said, it would be a better laboratory to experiment in.

Keith Orr asked about the timeframe for the project and the standards for evaluating success. What does success look like? Orr asked. Hewitt characterized the project at this point as “more informational gathering.” It’s not that the DDA is trying to achieve a specific goal beyond encouraging development in the South University area, Hewitt said. It gives current and future property owners the firm knowledge that: “If I build this many square feet, I’m going to get this number of parking spaces. It takes away a variable and puts in a known number,” Hewitt said.

It’s a question of whether there’s continued economic development and continued job growth, Hewitt said. The pilot project would be evaluated as it goes along, Hewitt said. It’s difficult to know what the reception is going to be and how successful it is. In the South University area, the DDA receives a large number of requests for monthly permits from students or parents of students who don’t live in the DDA district. That was a group that the DDA didn’t need to incentivize, Hewitt said. This proposal would use the parking system to benefit property owners in the area, Hewitt said. It would be up to the property owners to decide how those permits would be divided among their tenants.

Newcombe Clark indicated that he had been concerned about this. “Trying to answer the question of what is fair, is just going to give heartache for everybody,” Clark said. What he hoped would be released is something a bit more detailed – something that defines who the property owners are. With the exception of a limited number of reserved parking passes, the permits provide the ability for regular users of the system to save some money and have consistency with expectations for availability of parking. South University makes sense, Clark said, because of the geographic area – but also because of the contribution in lieu (CIL) approval of 40 parking spaces for the 624 Church Street development.

This approach to permits, Clark said, might allow the DDA to “get ahead of all these reactive pulling-out-of-the sky of who gets what, where, and why.” To him it was a big step to address demand management with monthly parking permits. There are long wait lists at large structures, and he didn’t want to get into the question of whether students or students’ parents deserve those spaces or not. That will be something the DDA continues to wrestle with, but the fact is, Clark stated: There will be more demand than supply. Getting away from the idea of “fairness” to the idea of an “objective standard” is a step forward, Clark said. If everyone hates it or no property owners take up the DDA on the offer, that would be helpful information, he said.

Hewitt wrapped up the conversation by saying that the CIL ordinance had pushed the DDA to address the issue, characterizing the CIL program as requiring the DDA to provide parking if there is room in the system.

Parking: Public Commentary

During public commentary time at the conclusion of the meeting, Alice Liberson indicated that she had no problem with cost and availability of parking in Ann Arbor. She said “it cracks me up” when she hears people say it costs too much and there’s no place to park. That’s because she compares the situation to Boston, where she lived previously. She was critical, however, of the new parking kiosks. She described them as very cumbersome. You have to wait for the screen to come up. And she felt she’s not the only one who’s had to go back and verify the number of the space where she’d parked – which has to be keyed into the kiosk. She’s also had her coins and credit card rejected.

Liberson also contended there’s a mean-spiritedness about the new parking kiosks, because they don’t show you the amount of time that’s still remaining from a previous patron, which makes it difficult to use the leftover time. She also complained about the way the meter bag program is handled. [Meter bags are placed over the meter heads to indicate that motorists are not allowed to park there.]

Board Transition

At the annual meeting, which immediately followed the regular monthly meeting on July 3, Sandi Smith was elected chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board for the current fiscal year, which began July 1.

Newcombe Clark reacts to a modification of his resolution of appreciation to include the phrase ‘”polite and insistent poking.”

Smith’s election as chair followed the board’s custom of electing its vice chair to the position of chair for the next year.

Other board officers elected included John Mouat as vice chair, Keith Orr as secretary, and Roger Hewitt as treasurer. They were all made by separate unanimous votes.

Smith took over the role of chair from Leah Gunn, who’s concluding her service on the board. Gunn’s current term on the DDA board expires on July 31 this year.

At the board’s July 3 meeting, the board bid farewell to Gunn and Newcombe Clark, whose term is also expiring at the end of July. First appointed in 2009, Clark served one four-year term. He’s making an employment-related move to Chicago.

Gunn served for nearly 22 years on the board starting in 1991.

In 2011 she announced she would not to seek re-election in 2012 to a seat on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. She had first been elected as a county commissioner in 1996. After redistricting of the county board seats, she decided to support fellow Democrat Yousef Rabhi, who was re-elected and now serves as chair of the Washtenaw County board. In her professional life Gunn served as a librarian in the University of Michigan graduate and law libraries.

Bob Guenzel led the standing ovation given to Leah Gunn on concluding her DDA board service.

The second term for Russ Collins is set to expire on July 31, along with those of Gunn and Clark. However, Collins was nominated at the city council’s July 1 meeting by mayor John Hieftje for reappointment to the DDA board.

Resolutions of appreciation were read aloud by DDA executive director Susan Pollay for outgoing board members Clark and Gunn.

Clark took some good-natured ribbing from his board colleagues as Smith picked up on a phrase he’d used earlier in the meeting to describe his own behavior: “polite and insistent poking.” The phrase was incorporated into his resolution.

For her part, Gunn picked up on her resolution’s mention of her previous turn as chair of the board – in 1995-96. She took the opportunity to note that during that period Pollay had been hired as executive director, so Gunn wanted to take some credit for Pollay.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council.

Comm/Comm: Connector Study

By way of background, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is currently conducting an alternatives analysis study for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops.

A previous study established the feasibility of operating some kind of high-capacity transit in that corridor. A key finding of the feasibility study was that the demand for high-capacity transit is clear in the “core” of the corridor – primarily between the University of Michigan’s north campus, medical facilities and central campus. The demand was found to be less intense on the corridor’s “shoulders.”

In his report out from the operations committee at the DDA’s July 3 meeting, Roger Hewitt said that the connector study had held a public meeting a few weeks ago. It had not been overly well-attended, he allowed. The study is at this point in the process of looking at routes and modes. The option of the elevated guideway system had been eliminated from further consideration – due to cost, and difficulty of putting it through an historic district. It was five times more expensive than the next-most expensive option, he said.

Comm/Comm: DDA Website

Sandi Smith pointed out that the new DDA website is up. She thanked DDA management assistant Jada Hahlbrock for her hard work with Keystone Media to complete that project. Smith said the website includes an interactive map, where visitors can find out where charging stations, bike stations, and parking structures are, with details about each facility, including current vacancy rates. Vacancy rates are not all “hooked up” yet, she said, but that functionality is in progress.

Comm/Comm: Development, Planning

Issues of future downtown planning came up during public commentary at the start of the July 3 meeting and during Ray Detter’s report out from the downtown area citizens advisory council.

Alice Liberson introduced herself as a resident of Burns Park who owns a business on Fourth Avenue [Dogma Catmantoo]. She’d never attended a DDA board meeting, she said, but she’d just been reading an article in the media that she wanted to comment on. Whatever is going on in the South University area took her by surprise, she said. Some people want to make a high-density downtown – a regular, “grownup downtown.” Many times, she said, things happen under the radar and then all of a sudden it’s a fait accompli. What’s wrong with one- and two-story buildings? she wondered. Whatever you do, you’re not going to bring grownups to that South University area, she said.

She indicated skepticism that building high-density, fancy buildings would encourage specific demographics to move. The city can’t control who’s going to live where, and she didn’t think it should try. She suggested that there’s a great opportunity to establish a pedestrian, no-car zone. There are no such zones in Ann Arbor, she noted. She contended that most charming small towns have a car-free zone, where you can sit outside and enjoy a meal and not inhale car fumes. In such a car-free zone, people move slowly, and they wind up patronizing retail stores. She concluded her remarks by saying she hoped she didn’t sound strident, quipping that she has “tone issues.”

At the conclusion of the meeting, Liberson clarified that she was not against development.

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter updated the DDA board on the re-establishment of the R4C citizens advisory committee. He also updated the board on the D1/D2 zoning review process that the city council, on April 1, 2013, had directed the planning commission to undertake. Detter reported that the planning commission’s executive committee had met the previous day to begin interviews to hire a consultant to help with that process. Two large public meetings would be held, Detter reported, in addition to several smaller meetings – with the goal to report back to the city council by the end of September.

Detter also noted that a design review task force had been established [through council action on March 4, 2013] to review the downtown design guidelines. The first of four scheduled meetings would take place on July 24 from 4:30-6 p.m. in the ground floor south conference room at city hall. Detter hoped that public input would be allowed at the meetings. He called for “more teeth” for the design guidelines. There are ways to give them more teeth, Detter contended.

The developer of the 413 E. Huron project, Detter contended, had “scoffed” at the recommendations of the design review board. Detter mentioned two projects that would be coming forward located in the D1 zoning area: at 121 E. Liberty and 210 S. Fourth. The public participation meetings for those projects would be taking place on July 10, Detter said. Nothing higher than five stories is proposed, Detter said. The properties are in a historic district, he pointed out.

[The back-to-back meetings for those projects start at 6 p.m. on July 10 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. The first citizen participation forum, from 6-7:10 p.m., is for a proposal by the owners of the Running Fit building at 121 & 123 E. Liberty. They hope to add two stories of apartments to the existing one-story building, as well as a rooftop patio and penthouse occupying a partial fourth floor. The second forum, from 7:10-8:30 p.m., is for a project at the Towne Center – the former Montgomery Ward building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave. The project would add up to three stories of apartments above portions of an existing two-story building. A new facade is planned for the building.]

Present: Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein,

Absent: Nader Nassif, John Mouat.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Sept. 4, 2013, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [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 Downtown Development Authority. 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!

In action taken by the council on May 13, 2013 at a meeting that had started on May 6, the city assessor was directed to prepare a special assessment roll. [.pdf of table showing parcels and amounts] The second step was to set a public hearing on the matter – for June 3, 2013.

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]

2013 Ann Arbor street resurfacing program.

The council has also approved two contracts in connection with the city’s 2013 ramp and sidewalk repair project – a $748,576 contract with Doan Construction Company and a $207,350 contract with Precision Concrete Cutting.

Action on all three contracts came at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting.

The city has a ramp and sidewalk repair program in place that is meant to repair deficient sidewalks (not install new sidewalks) throughout the city over a five-year period – which is the duration of a 1/8 mill tax approved by voters in 2011. Each year about 20% of the city is covered by the repair program.

The contract with Precision Concrete Cutting reflects the city’s interest – where feasible – in slicing off portions of sidewalks that have “vaulted,” to restore the surface to horizontal. Slicing is more cost effective than removing and re-pouring.

The streets to be resurfaced include the following.

• State Street: Oakbrook to Eisenhower (April – June)
• Barton: Pontiac to Plymouth (August – October)
• Sorrento: King George to end (April – May)
• Alley “Benjamin”: Sybil to Benjamin (May – June)
• Alley “Mary”: Benjamin to Hoover (May – June)
• Franklin: Stadium to Hutchins (June – July)
• Hiscock: Brooks to Spring (June – July)
• Arbana: Mark Hannah to Huron (July – August)
• Mark Hannah: Arbana to Arbana (July – August)
• Waldenwood: Earhart to Penberton (July – August)
• Birch Hollow: Tacoma to Stone School (August – September)
• Penberton & adjacent courts: Waldenwood to Waldenwood (TBD)
• Sulgrave Place: Barrister to end (TBD)

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, Depot Street (Main to Carey) was included as part of the original bid package. However, the storm sewer within Depot Street – based on early indications from the Allen Creek Railroad berm opening feasibility study – could be impacted by possible solutions related to a railroad berm opening. So other local streets will be substituted for Depot Street this year.

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

The funding source being tapped is the sidewalk repair millage, which was approved by voters in November 2011.

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]

From left: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and city of Ann Arbor transportation program manager Eli Cooper. (Photos by the writer.)

First, the council accepted the award of a roughly $2.8 million federal grant to help fund a site-alternatives analysis for possible construction of a new train station. That analysis is meant to result in the confirmation of a locally-preferred alternative to be reviewed by the Federal Rail Administration.

The grant requires a local match of roughly $700,000, which the city expects to make with funds it has already expended – in connection with the Fuller Road Station project, before the University of Michigan withdrew its participation earlier this year. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) voted against accepting the grant.

One of many concerns expressed by Lumm was that the study would not be conducted starting with a “clean sheet,” which city transportation program manager Eli Cooper acknowledged was the case. But Cooper observed that starting with a clean sheet would mean wiping away previous work that had already been done.

Some of that work has been completed by SmithGroup JJR. At its June 4 meeting, the council also approved a $196,192 amendment to an existing contract with the firm – for further site analysis, funded by the new federal grant. Partly on the basis of a perceived conflict of interest by SmithGroup JJR in conducting the current work – given that it had done the previous work on site analysis – Lumm and Anglin also voted against that contract amendment as a two-person minority.

Lumm and Anglin were joined by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) in voting against a revised agreement among four parties that establishes a framework for possibly creating a larger transportation authority. The four parties to the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. In conjunction with reconsidering the four-party agreement, the council also approved articles of incorporation for the new Act 196 transit authority that would eventually need to be filed by Washtenaw County – on request from the AATA – in order to establish a new governance structure.

The council had previously approved the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012. The need for the Ann Arbor city council to reconsider the documents arose after the Ypsilanti city council amended those documents before approving them on May 15. On a unanimous vote, the Ann Arbor city council accepted only those amendments made by the Ypsilanti city council that affected the city of Ypsilanti. The Ann Arbor council majority gained one vote from its 7-4 approval of the agreement in March – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) switched her earlier position and voted for it. The following day, on June 5, the Ypsilanti city council reconsidered and adopted the version of the four-party agreement that had been approved by the Ann Arbor council.

The result of the action by the two councils is an agreement that the cities will treat their transit taxes differently with respect to a municipal service charge. The city of Ann Arbor will impose the charge and keep roughly $90,000 that would otherwise go to the new transit authority, while Ypsilanti will forward an estimated $3,000 to the new transit authority, rather than applying that charge.

The four-party agreement will next be formally considered by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners – first at a June 14, 2012 working session. It now appears almost certain that the final ratification of all parties to the agreement will not occur with sufficient lead time for a countywide transit millage to be placed on the November 2012 ballot.

In other transportation-related action – affecting pedestrians – the council gave final approval to a revision to the city’s sidewalk repair ordinance. The ordinance revision relieves property owners of responsibility for sidewalk maintenance, during the five-year period of the millage that voters approved for that purpose in November 2011. The revision also provides a mechanism for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to pay for sidewalk repairs within its geographic district.

In other business, the council gave final approval to new water, sewer and stormwater rates. It also revived a previous requirement that it had rescinded last year – that a construction utility board (CUB) agreement be signed with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council as a condition of award for city construction contracts. The council had rescinded the requirement in deference to a law enacted by the Michigan legislature, but a federal court has since enjoined against enforcement of that law.

In some of its other action items, the council formally made a change in the composition of the Elizabeth Dean tree fund, and authorized two street closings for the Sonic Lunch summer music series in Liberty Plaza. The council also heard public commentary on a range of topics, including a proposed warming center for the homeless.

Federal Rail Administration Grant

The council considered action on two items that relate to a possible new train station for the city of Ann Arbor. The first was acceptance of a grant made through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT). The grant would fund initial planning and environmental documentation related to possible construction of what’s now called the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. The contract for the work is being funded with a federal grant worth $2,806,400 with a required 20% local match of $701,600. The grant was awarded by the Federal Rail Administration in connection with the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program.

City administrator Steve Powers (left) chats with University of Michigan community relations director Jim Kosteva before the city council’s June 4 meeting. Kosteva was not attending the meeting in connection with the rail project, but to receive an award on behalf of the university from the city’s historic district commission for Burton Tower.

A conceptual pre-cursor to the project was called the Fuller Road Station, which had included the University of Michigan’s participation. UM was interested in a 1,000-space parking structure to be built in conjunction with a new rail station on an identified site nestled between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive, adjacent to the UM medical campus. However, UM withdrew from that project earlier this year, on Feb. 10. The university decided instead to revisit its earlier plans to build additional parking on Wall Street.

For purposes of the federal local match requirement, Ann Arbor now intends to use funds already expended toward the former Fuller Road Station project – for conceptual planning, environmental documentation efforts and some preliminary engineering. Over the past three years, the city has paid for that work from its major street fund, alternative transportation fund, and the previously existing economic development fund.

The city also hopes that UM will contribute toward the costs of the work already done. However, the city’s FY 2013 budget, approved by the council at its May 21 meeting, allocates up to $307,781 from the city’s general fund to cover the local match, if an agreement with UM can’t be reached. Responding to recent Chronicle queries, city administrator Steve Powers and UM community relations director Jim Kosteva have characterized the conversations between the city and the university on this topic as “ongoing dialogue.”

The grant was the subject of public commentary from several people.

FRA Grant – Public Commentary

Sumi Kailasapathy told the council she regretted that some of the city’s cherished parkland appears to be taking one more step toward conversion to a railway station and parking garage [a reference to the Fuller Road site]. She described how in many Asian countries, temple lands are considered sacred. In Ann Arbor, for many residents, parks hold a similar sacred status, she said. [Kailasapathy is a Democratic candidate for the Ward 1 city council seat – to which incumbent Sandi Smith has announced she's not seeking re-election.]

Kailasapathy noted that while parkland is one of the permissible uses for land zoned PL (public land), it’s the only use that has a limitation on incompatible uses, she said.

By way of background, at its July 6, 2010 meeting, the city council approved a change to the use regulations for PL (public land) to replace airports as an allowable use with the more general “transportation facilities.” The change explicitly included “municipal airports, rail stations, bus stations, bicycle centers, auto and bicycle parking facilities” as examples of such facilities.

Kailasapathy reminded the council that the city’s zoning ordinance states: “No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated parkland which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.”

The Fuller Road site is designated as parkland in the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, she said, adding that a train station would not be customarily incidental to the principal use of that land. She asked the council to respect the zoning ordinance and preserve the site as it was intended – for enjoyment as parkland. Adopting other uses for parkland without a vote of the people, she continued, is in direct opposition to the charter amendment passed by a large margin of voters in 2008, which prohibits the sale of parkland without a popular referendum.

From an economic and financial point of view, Kailasapathy said, there needs to be a detailed business plan for a train station, which lays out the funding mechanism for the station and the trains. Until there are answers in writing to those questions, she said that spending on the train station should stop.

Jack Eaton told the council he was there to speak in opposition to the Fuller Road train station. [Eaton is contesting the Ward 4 Democratic primary, challenging incumbent Margie Teall.] He noted that Ann Arbor residents have repeatedly and consistently supported parkland. They approved dedicated millages for park acquisition and maintenance. They approved a charter amendment that restricts the sale of parkland. The city’s zoning ordinance restricts the use of parkland. He reiterated the point about allowable uses of parkland that Kailasapathy had made, regarding structures on parkland that are not customarily associated with a parcel’s principal use. The city also has a long history of supporting public transportation, he said. But a train station is not consistent with parkland use, and he asked the council to consider the precedent that would be set by re-purposing the parkland at the Fuller site for use as a train station.

Nancy Shiffler addressed the council as chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She noted that she’d sent a letter with concerns about the two resolutions related to what’s now being called the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. By appearing before the council, she wanted to reinforce those concerns about the process outlined for the environmental assessment, which is a component of the Federal Rail Administration grant, and is required under National Environmental Policy Act guidelines. Although NEPA regulations require that contractors be chosen to avoid any conflict of interest, the selection of SmithGroup JJR introduces just such a conflict, she contended. SmithGroup JJR has been contracted for the train station project from the outset – with the assumption that it will be located at the Fuller Road site.

The preliminary engineering component, for which SmithGroup JJR is contracted for, she said, can’t start until the environmental assessment has been approved by the FRA. The scope of work in the contract for SmithGroup JJR’s work makes clear that the intent is to end up with a recommendation for the Fuller Road site, she said. One of the deliverables, she continued, includes a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the Fuller Road site. Under those circumstances, she said, it’s hard for her to believe that SmithGroup JJR could produce an objective report. A part of the environmental assessment is consideration of alternative sites for the project – that’s reflected by including, in the scope of services document, the current Amtrak site as a possible location.

But elsewhere it’s indicated that they’re planning to take the structures with the footprint for the Fuller Road site and “plop it onto the current Amtrak site,” she said, rather than designing a plan to fit that particular site. That’s not the way to support an objective analysis, she said, unless the council’s intent is to support a forgone conclusion. The council should require that competitive bidding be used for the contract, she said. Her group has shared these concerns with MDOT and FRA in the past and would continue to do so.

Rita Mitchell spoke on behalf of the group Protect A2 Parks. She described herself as an advocate for the integrity of Ann Arbor’s public parks and honest processes that follow the will of the people on significant decisions for the city, like those before the council that night. She felt the council did not have adequate information to make a decision. She noted that the name of the project has changed from Ann Arbor Multimodal Center, to Fuller Intermodal Transit Station, to Fuller Road Station, to its current name: Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station. In the course of different council actions taken over the last few years, those described as stakeholders, city councilmembers and city staff have focused on the same piece of city parkland – for a project that has not been completely defined or approved by the council. She pointed to the city project that relocated sewer lines to accommodate a planned station there – for whatever rail project it is.

Mitchell allowed that the sewer relocation had been included in the city’s capital improvements plan, but it had not been a high priority at the time it was approved. The invitation to bid was entitled “Contract Documents for Fuller Road Station Phase One, Northside Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Relocation and Site Utility Construction Project.” SmithGroup JJR has been involved with the design since the start and is biased, Mitchell continued. The public participation so far, she said, consisted of a planning commission work session, a park advisory commission meeting and a public open house – all held between Sept. 10 and Sept. 17 of 2009. She questioned whether those meetings were adequately noticed. She contended that there’s been only one true “public hearing” – held by the planning commission in 2010. Other presentations were held as presentations, with city staff maintaining tight control on questions from citizens, she said. There was no sense of asking citizens what they wanted.

James D’Amour told the council that he is very much in support of public transit, including trains that run to Chicago. He contended that city transportation program manager Eli Cooper has stressed that acceptance of the grant means the city is obligated to carry out a full planning process. So a yes vote, D’Amour argued, strongly commits the city to build a new train station. But the city has no finalized plans for construction or financing, he said. The FRA grant funding doesn’t add to the city’s budget. D’Amour contended that voting yes commits the city to matching 20% of this grant and whatever grants are received from the federal government in the future. Because the city has no guarantees of future funding, the city would be left “holding the bag,” he contended. Voting no costs the city nothing financially, he said. He called it reckless for the council to make this decision without further thought about the consequences. He asked the council to postpone a vote.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations

During the time allotted for council communications toward the start of the meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) responded to the commentary on the rail station by saying he was impressed with speakers who had taken the time to learn about the issues. They had good suggestions about how to proceed as a council. The speakers love the city as councilmembers do, he said. While some of the things they said might not be technically correct, they are the people that the council represents, he said. The council needs to be conscious of that and be respectful of their position and their interest in improving Ann Arbor, Anglin concluded.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – Commitment?

When the council arrived at the FRA grant agenda item, it was Jane Lumm (Ward 2) who led off the deliberations. She started by focusing on the issue that had been raised during public commentary – about the kind of commitment that the city’s acceptance of the grant reflected.

Councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Lumm asked transportation program manager Eli Cooper: By accepting the grant, is the city committing to proceed with the project? A second question she had: Was the city “in any way, shape or form” committing to spending any additional local money? Cooper explained that by accepting the grant, the city would be committing to the work identified in the list of deliverables under the grant. Those include a detailed work program, an environmental document, conceptual plan and preliminary engineering after the FRA’s authorization to enter into that phase of the work. So, Cooper said, there’s a break in the contract where the FRA has the right to direct the city to proceed to undertake the work under the grant agreement.

The final deliverables are a set of preliminary plans – which could complete the city’s work, if the city decided to stop at that point. There are no additional federal funds awarded to the project at this time, he said, and the city would have to apply under a separate agreement for any subsequent work. It’s not the case, Cooper said, that if you commit to spending the first dollar that you’re fully committed to build whatever project comes out of the process. He felt it would be the community’s desire and it would be in the community’s best interest to pursue subsequent grants. But by accepting the planning grant, there’s no requirement that the city is committing to deliver a final project.

Lumm picked up on Cooper’s use of the phrase “at this time” and wanted to know if that meant there’d be an eventual commitment. Cooper responded with, “The simple answer is no.” If there were no federal funds available after the planning grant-funded activity is completing, the federal agency would itself require the city to go back and revisit the environmental clearance document. The city could not be forced to proceed during the short term or at any time, he said, under the terms of accepting the $2.8 million grant.

Lumm confirmed with Cooper that currently there were no federal funds identified for the project at this point, beyond the planning grant. Cooper said the lack of identified federal funding is a risk that had been outlined in the city’s application. Lumm asked again if by accepting the grant, the city was committing to spending any additional local funds. Cooper told Lumm that there’s no additional investment required to “complete the work that’s before us.” That’s because the city has identified local in-kind funds for the match as funds that have already been expended. Lumm said she meant beyond the planning grant activity – would there be any future local funds required?

Cooper told Lumm he wouldn’t say that no future local funds would be required to deliver a train station. If the economy were in such condition that there was another federal stimulus project that provided 100% funding – like recent awards to Battle Creek and Dearborn – then Ann Arbor “might be so blessed,” he said. But Cooper indicated that if a federal grant award for the actual construction of a rail station is made under terms of the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant – like the current planning grant – then a 20% local match would be required. That local (non-federal) match could be made by a combination of state, city, university or the local transit authority, Cooper said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wanted to clarify Cooper’s answer further: By accepting this grant, she ventured, the city was not committing to going beyond the scope of the contract. Cooper’s reply: “Correct.” Briere described it as a grant, and if the city were to decide at the conclusion of the grant phase that it’s done, then the city would be done. She said it’s her understanding that unless the city receives additional federal assistance beyond this grant, the city did not expect to build anything. Cooper told Briere that there’d been no city staff recommendation to date that the city invest 100% of funds for any rail improvement.

Briere asked if it’s the city’s intent to provide any money for the maintenance and operation of a rail system. After clarifying the question, Cooper said, “The answer is no.”

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – Spending to Date

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if Cooper could provide a detailed breakdown of spending to date on the Fuller Road project, noting that the last information he had was from a year ago, which had been produced by the city under a Freedom of Information Act request.

The source of the funds outlined in a staff memo provided to the council before the meeting provided the following breakdown.

$  54,621 FY2010 Major Streets Fund (0021)
$  54,621 FY2010 Alternative Transportation Fund (0061)
$ 104,742 FY2010 Economic Development Fund (0045)
$ 327,733 University of Michigan Contribution
$  46,664 FY2010 Sewage Disposal System Fund (0043)
$  64,564 FY2010 Street Repair Millage Fund (0062)

-

Anglin appeared more interested in getting an itemized breakdown of actual expenditures to date. Cooper indicated that the spreadsheet he had in front of him showed expenditures related to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and EA (environmental assessment) for the project amounting to $737,784.90.

Anglin said he was confused by the project, because for a time the city had talked about an intermodal facility, then talked about commuter rail and was now talking about passenger rail. The city has a train station and has had one for many years. If the city were to accept this grant, Anglin wanted to know if the requirement was to study the feasibility of potential sites. Cooper told Anglin that such a study was absolutely one of the prerequisites of any investment of federal funding – to look at the “no-build” alternative, as well as the alternative that would simply improve the existing facility.

Anglin indicated that some material the council had received described how by 2015 all Amtrak facilities will need to be ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. He wondered why the city was in the railroad business, and he ventured that the city was not qualified to build a train station or a railroad or anything like that. He did not like the idea of any of the city’s money going in that direction.

Anglin said he’d spoken against the train station from the point of view of the use of parkland, and the lack of a financial plan. It comes at a time when the city is having a difficult time taking care of the essentials, he said. That bothered him. A train station would be a nice thing to have, if the city were in flush times. But it seemed to him that accepting the grant still commits the city to a 20% match – which the city has already spent. He said he could not ever remember a vote by the council saying that it wanted the Fuller Road site to become an intermodal station or a train station. It’s all very confusing, he said.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – National Rail Policy

Anglin asked Cooper to clarify what’s going on. Cooper began by saying that for transportation infrastructure funding, there are funding crises at all levels – federal, state and local. In conversation with MDOT, which has recently created an office of rail passenger service, they’ve indicated that stations are local issues, Cooper said. From the standpoint of rail operations, he continued, the emphasis and focus of the state and the feds is to keep the trains moving. Access to amenities locally (like stations) are seen as a local contribution. What Ann Arbor began in 2006 and continued through 2009, he said, was a local process that included the adoption of the city’s transportation plan update. That’s a part of the city’s master plan, he pointed out. So the city’s master plan indicates the provision of a better train station in Ann Arbor as something that merits consideration.

Because that’s a matter of adopted city policy, staff have pursued grant resources that have been made available, Cooper continued. And Ann Arbor was fortunate enough to be selected by the FRA for the grant that was before the council for consideration, he said. It’s a difficult decision, Cooper added, to deal with the day-to-day issues of today, compared to making an investment in an asset that will serve the community for “decades if not centuries.” The challenge for city staff was to respond to the council’s direction, so the grant was pursued and an application was made. Cooper noted that he’d stood before the council on many occasions in connection with the project and looked forward to the council’s future direction – through environmental analysis, preliminary engineering to the design, and construction at any location that the planning process determines.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked Cooper why he felt that Ann Arbor’s application to the FRA was successful when so many other communities had applied but were not successful. Cooper felt that Amtrak itself recognizes that the Ann Arbor station is the busiest in the state of Michigan. It’s also on a Detroit-Chicago line that is not adequate to meet current demands.

Amtrak ridership at the Ann Arbor station. Over the last 10 years, ridership through the Ann Arbor station has shown a consistent increasing trend. For 2012 (heavy black line) the ridership levels continued at their peak levels to date through March. In April there was a significant decrease compared to last year’s record numbers. (Chart by The Chronicle using MDOT data. Links to larger image.)

Cooper felt it was important to remind councilmembers that the federal government has awarded $0.5 billion to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to acquire and upgrade the rail line between Detroit and Chicago. This past April, FRA and MDOT purchase bilevel passengers cars to increase the capacity of each train. The number of people who will be traveling along the line will increase, he said. Cooper said that Amtrak expects that ridership will double over the next 25 years. We’re currently stressed, he said. It’s well recognized now that for certain times of the year, the Amtrak station capacity and all the parking around it are 100% consumed.

Cooper described how tracks are being upgraded to allow for faster trains. The number of trains could be increased – from six per day to 10 per day, and the capacity of each train is increased with higher-capacity cars and adding cars. The platforms that are outlined in Amtrak designs for appropriate stations are 1,000 feet long, Cooper said. The current Amtrak station platform is not nearly that long, he noted. The intent, he said, is to have 1,000 foot trains with passenger cars that people can get on and off for that roughly quarter-mile stretch. That’s the enormity of the type of infrastructure that a high-speed passenger rail system needs, he said. That’s the opportunity that Ann Arbor has in front of it – to position itself to continue to be a leading community that provides “first-rate, world-class transportation in and out of our city,” Cooper said.

Hohnke ventured that the investment being made by the federal government in Michigan’s high-speed rail would lead to the ability of Ann Arborites to make connections from Chicago, for example, to the rest of the Midwest.

He also asked Cooper to give some background on why the funds are available on the federal level. Cooper said he felt the issue is that there’s pressure on the national aviation system – to meet the demand for people to travel 300-600 miles throughout the country. As business and commerce increases throughout the Midwest, Cooper said, the capacity of the airspace and the road networks is limited. While it might appear that there’s adequate capacity near Kalamazoo, for example, as you approach the metropolitan corridors, there are congestion issues, he said. The rail system is seen as an underutilized asset in North America, he said, and that’s why it’s federal policy to make those investments. Cities like Cleveland, St. Louis, Chicago, and Minneapolis are all about 300-500 miles from each other, and high-speed rail is an efficient and effective way for travelers to cover that distance.

Hohnke confirmed that expenditures to date locally will cover the local match requirement. Cooper said it’s his understanding that based on the timing of the notice of funding eligibility, the resources that have been expended to date will satisfy the 20% local match requirement. Hohnke ventured that if that turns out to be accurate, then the city is looking at the opportunity to have almost $3 million to continue planning work for a passenger rail station. Cooper clarified that the roughly $700,000 local match will leverage $2.8 million in federal funds for a total investment of $3.5 million.

FRA Grant: Council Deliberations – Support, Opposition, Delay?

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she was excited about the project. As someone who goes past the train station, she encounters people who are coming and going. Right now, she said, a whole bunch of people pile out with 30-pound suitcases and they have to go up a long flight of stairs, across the Broadway bridge, and down another flight of stairs to find their car. It’s clear that the current train station is not adequate. The study will indicate what would need to be done to improve the existing station if it were to remain in the current location, Smith said. Cooper confirmed that’s within the scope of services that SmithGroup JJR will provide – whether the existing station can be modified to meet existing demand.

Smith asked about the traffic issue – would a traffic analysis be part of this? Yes, said Cooper. Smith felt that the pushback from the community on this was either unwarranted or at least premature – because we don’t know yet what the answer is going to be. Regardless, some kind of “blueprint” for the issue would emerge for a better train station, Smith said.

Cooper sought to make clear that while no final decision has been made after seven years of effort, there is a leading preferred local alternative. The council and the federal government will have to make a final decision about whether there is an acceptable locally-preferred alternative [the Fuller Road site]. There’s clearly been a substantial amount of effort, and now more work will be put into documenting that and clarifying that, meeting with residents and providing all that information to the FRA, Cooper said. And ultimately the FRA will evaluate whether the existing site or the locally-preferred alternative is better.

Smith reiterated that she is excited about the project going forward and that the city is on the verge of something great. She said she couldn’t imagine that there’s a Democrat sitting around the table who would not be excited to see this project coming out of Washington right now.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) followed up on the federal high-speed rail program. She said she understood the federal investment to be one-time federal stimulus money. Cooper indicated that the total investment had come over the course of more than one year from a combination of different funding mechanisms. Lumm asked if any of the money could be used for the construction of the train station. Cooper said that if there were money left from the planning grant, the money could be used to build something. But understanding the complexity of the final design and construction drawings, Cooper felt it was highly unlikely that the city could build anything with that amount of money.

Lumm asked Cooper about future federal transportation funding. Cooper said that was an ongoing debate – it had been going on for several years. He indicated he didn’t want to offer an opinion about how that might turn out.

Lumm wanted to know if the city had surveyed people who ride the trains. She also asked about having more robust public engagement on the issue. Cooper noted that the term “locally-preferred alternative” is one associated with the federal regulatory process. That process also includes various formal terms for the environmental documents – an environmental assessment is different from an environmental review or from an environmental impact statement. The draft preliminary locally-preferred alternative is something that needs to be given to the lead agency – in this case, the FRA – for their review and comment. There’s a draft environmental assessment that clearly states there’s a locally-preferred alternative, he said. That’s purely a city staff and consultant product, and was never reviewed by the FRA.

However, there was an effort put into that assessment to come up with that locally-preferred alternative, Cooper explained. It was subjected to about 18 meetings. He allowed that there are a variety of opinions about how effective the public engagement had been. However, he said there’s been a website set up with frequently asked questions that derived from the process. There were changes made between the initial plans and the locally-preferred alternative that came in response to input from the public, he said. The council had held working sessions on the topic and staff had done additional work based on direction from the council, he said.

Cooper said that the staff have been thorough and deliberative, and while they haven’t reached a final conclusion, they have “a leading track” of a locally-preferred alternative. The city is required to do so in order to advance the project for the review of a federal agency and that agency’s ultimate approval, he said. The first steps of this grant agreement, if the council approved it that night, would be to begin refining the existing documents so that the city can respond to concerns the FRA has outlined, and that include additional public meetings if they’re required. So it’s not on a “fast track” but rather on a “deliberative track,” Cooper said. Ultimately, the city will get a determination from the FRA about whether the intrusion into parkland for the train station is justified.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) literally don’t see eye to eye on the Ann Arbor train station issue.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that, like Smith, he was excited about the project. Transportation is one of the essentials. He stressed that the preliminary step the council will be taking won’t bear fruit for several years. He’d asked the mayor of Dearborn how long they’d been working on the planning for the new rail station that recently broke ground, and Derezinski had been told around 12 years. Derezinski called the acceptance of the grant for Ann Arbor an essential step for the future of the city. You have to take some of these steps, he said, and you have to have some faith in the future. People of good intentions are on both sides of the issue, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Cooper if there was a deadline for accepting the grant. Cooper said there was not a deadline per se. But the preliminary environmental analysis, Cooper said, “grows older each day.” Kunselman wanted to know how long the city would have before that analysis would be considered “stale.” Cooper told him that would ultimately be up to the FRA, but that after a couple of years, he expected that would be too long. Kunselman ventured that meant the city had considerable time. Cooper countered that the preliminary analysis had been done a year and a half ago. Part of the proposal is to freshen up some of the analysis. Kunselman asked about a roundabout design for Maiden Lane and Fuller Road – would that be part of the traffic analysis? Cooper said he didn’t think so. Kunselman felt like another work session would be very helpful.

Kunselman expressed concern about the amount of money that was being paid to SmithGroup JJR. He asked if the following sentence was correct: “The not-to-exceed cost for the work associated with this amendment is estimated to be $196,192.00, and will be funded by a federal High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program Grant awarded to the State of Michigan and being made available through a contract between the City and the Michigan Department of Transportation.” He wanted to know if that money would be city dollars or federal grant dollars. Cooper explained that it would be federal grant dollars, under city control.

Kunselman’s line of questioning was abandoned as relevant to the subsequent agenda item – the resolution on the SmithGroup JJR contract. Kunselman asked if it would be possible to have another work session on the topic. Cooper said that if the city were to continue working on the project, then acceptance of the grant would allow that work to happen, with the aid of the federal grant.

Anglin said that for the original intermodal project, the council had been told there were 11 sites that had been considered and that the site selected would be the Fuller Road site. So if the city has already done that selection process, he wondered why the city was going back and looking at that question. He then discussed the train schedules and the difficulty that they present to travelers. The problem with the train is not with the train station, he said, but rather with the way the trains are scheduled. Building a new station won’t improve train service at all, he contended. He said he was afraid the city was about to embark on something that will be “a big boondoggle for our little town.” He said he was against the acceptance of the grant. He contended that the $1.3 million for the relocation of sewer pipes should be counted as an expense connected to the train station. Anglin contended that the city was committing to a $60 million project down the road, and he didn’t think the city had the money for that.

Kunselman said he was torn because he loved trains. He was looking forward to riding the train to Providence, Rhode Island to visit his daughters – who are graduating from high school this year and will attend Brown University. However, he did not like spending general fund dollars. Cooper clarified that the contract amendment with SmithGroup JJR would be federal grant dollars. Kunselman pointed out that the some of the matching funds that had already been expended originated as general fund dollars.

From left: Ward 3 councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman.

Kunselman asked if the MichCon site on Broadway would be included in the further study? Cooper indicated that the analysis would include the prevailing conditions at the time of the study. Right now, Cooper said, MichCon has not made the land immediately adjacent to the Amtrak station available. He said that as part of a design workshop, MichCon might be looked at to see if it could remedy any of the issues at that location. But that parcel was not one of the 15 sites that the city had looked at starting four years ago, he said. Subsequently, the staff reviewed privately-owned properties, and two rose to consideration – one was a private manufacturing plant, and the other was the MichCon property.

Kunselman noted that MichCon had indicated openness to selling the property to the city. Mayor John Hieftje said that his own discussions with MichCon related to the river side of the parcel, not the part close to the railroad tracks.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said two things were important to her. First, no new dollars would go to the project. By accepting this grant, the city would be able to spend federal dollars from the grant. Without accepting the grant, Briere said, the city can’t get to the point of looking at what the project might look like, or how it might be different from the project design as it looked 18 months ago, or what the impact on traffic will be, or whether the site at Fuller is the best possible site. The city is not making a commitment to build anything, she said, but everyone knows that once you’ve gone a certain distance, that you want to build whatever it is you struggled to get approved. But without spending the federal grant, she added, the city won’t get to the point of a decision about what to do if there are no funds to build the train station in a couple of years.

Briere addressed the idea that it’s unprecedented for a city to construct a train station. She assured people that it’s not unprecedented. The current station was constructed with state and local dollars, and the selection of the site grew out of a citizen and staff decision by committee. The location was selected to be next to the old historic train station, even though it had already outgrown the parking capacity, she said, because people sitting around a table like the current council romantically believed that the train station should be where it had always been. She allowed that she, too, is romantic and loved the Gandy Dancer [a restaurant in the former train station]. She’d be delighted if the city had a train station right there. But the FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] flood maps show that the entire piece of land is in the flood plain. What implications does that flood map have for potential improvements to the site? she asked. Briere figured she would not get an answer to that question unless the city accepted the grant. She said she was eager to accept the grant, but wanted to separate the grant from the location. That’s a conversation she wants as well.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) ventured that this had been the longest time the council had ever spent accepting a grant. Given that there would be no additional local dollars spent as part of accepting the grant, and that it did not reflect a commitment to build a train station, and that it preserved options going forward, it was not clear to him why the council would not accept the federal funds. Hohnke pointed to the lesson of Troy, Mich., where the local Tea Party had pressured the Troy city council to reject the offer of similar federal funds. That news was covered nationally, and Hohnke characterized the consensus view as an exercise in cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Acceptance of the grant was an opportunity to align Ann Arbor with the federal and state investment in high-speed rail.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) just before raising a point of order about the length of Jane Lumm’s (Ward 2) speaking turns.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said her issue is what commitment the city is making by accepting the grant. She indicated that she was not satisfied with the answers she’d heard concerning the required commitment. She felt that what was needed was a “clean sheet,” starting from scratch. She would not sign a blank check, and there are too many unknowns, she said. She would not support acceptance of the grant. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) raised a point of order about the number and length of Lumm’s speaking turns. Mayor John Hieftje asked Lumm to wrap up, which she did.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was certainly going to support acceptance of the grant. The council has a chance to do something good for Ann Arbor by moving forward with an exciting project. Meeting transportation needs is core to maintaining Ann Arbor as a vibrant, thriving place to live. So it’s “mission-critical,” he said. Acceptance of the grant doesn’t reflect a final decision – that decision would be made later, he said. The grant is bound “by the four corners of the document,” he said. People who speak to the council in general opposition to the project never fail, Taylor said, to express their affection for rail. They say: “I’m not against rail, I’m against this project.” He said he took them at their word.

However, the corollary to that, Taylor said, is that being in favor of the project doesn’t make you “anti-park.” The Fuller Road site, he said, is not “some bucolic wonderland.” It’s not a soccer field or a tennis court or a brook, but rather a parking lot, he said, and it’s been that way since 1993. No child has played there since the Clinton administration, he said. If another location is better, then let’s look at that, said Taylor, but he’d be delighted to vote yes. [.gif animation of aerial photography of the site beginning in 1940, with the last slide from 1998]

Margie Teall (Ward 4) also indicated she is excited about this project and it needs a bigger discussion. That bigger discussion can’t happen until the city gets the information from the studies that are being done, she said.

Hieftje asked city administrator Steve Powers if acceptance of the grant would affect the city’s ability to pay for core services. No, Powers answered.

Hieftje asked about ridership on Amtrak. Cooper said it continues to move in an upward direction as the speeds along the Detroit-Chicago corridor are increasing to 110 mph. Hieftje characterized the service that Ann Arbor would eventually have as the kind of train service that other parts of the country have. Ann Arbor’s Amtrak station is the busiest in the state, he said. Referring to the city’s sustainability framework that will be coming to the council for approval, Hieftje said he didn’t know how the city would achieve those sustainability goals, without investments in rail. [.pdf of proposed sustainability goals]

Hieftje disputed the idea that the council had never voted on the project. He pointed out that the memorandum of understanding with the University of Michigan on the precursor to the current project had gotten a unanimous vote from the council. [That vote had been taken at the city council's Nov. 5, 2009 meeting.]

Outcome: The council voted to accept the Federal Rail Administration grant ($2.8 million, based on a $700,000 local match to be provided by Ann Arbor with already-expended funds) – with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

SmithGroup JJR: Rail Station Planning Work

A separate item on the council’s agenda related to money that’s provided through the Federal Rail Administration grant. The council considered a $196,192 amendment to an existing contract with SmithGroup JJR for continuation of study and planning work that was already done in connection with the Fuller Road Station project. The work under the contract will be funded from the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant, and will involve continued “… re-examination of the current program definition to affirm it is consistent with the stakeholder goals for the Ann Arbor Rail Passenger Station Project, and revisions as required to the conceptual plan,” as well as completion of required National Environmental Policy Act documentation.

SmithGroup JJR: Rail Station Planning Work – Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed skepticism that the work would be approached objectively. She asked the city’s transportation program manager, Eli Cooper, how he could ensure that there’ll be an objective “clean sheet.” Cooper indicated that it was not the intent to have such a “clean sheet” and he could not assure her there would be one. He said in order to assure a “clean sheet,” the city would have to wipe away the previous work.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) engaged in a conversation about the potential depth of flood waters at the current Amtrak site. Given the length of the platforms involved [1,000 feet], Kunselman ventured that some location between the Fuller Road site and the current Amtrak location might be appropriate.

Lumm wanted to make sure that the current Amtrak location got “a fair shot.”

Asked if SmithGroup JJR had a conflict of interest, assistant city attorney Mary Fales indicated that she did not believe so.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he was pleased that sites other than the Fuller Road site would be engaged as part of the study, and that consideration of the Fuller Road site was “not stacking the deck” but rather taking into account an already established factual basis.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract amendment with SmithGroup JJR, with dissent from Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Four-Party Agreement

The council reconsidered an agreement among four parties on a framework for possible transition of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to a broader geographic service area, governance, and funding base.

The four parties to the agreement are the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA. In conjunction with reconsidering the four-party agreement, the council also considered articles of incorporation for the new Act 196 transit authority. Those articles would eventually need to be filed by Washtenaw County – on request from the AATA – in order to establish a new governance structure. According to the four-party agreement, even if a new governance structure is established under Act 196 of 1986, the transition of assets from AATA to the new authority, tentatively named The Washtenaw Ride, would not take place until a voter-approved funding mechanism is established.

The council had previously approved the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012, with implied approval of the attached appendix that included the articles of incorporation. The need for the Ann Arbor city council to reconsider the documents arose after the Ypsilanti city council amended those documents before approving them on May 15.

The Ypsilanti amendment to the four-party agreement related to a 1% municipal service charge that the agreement originally allowed the two cities to impose on their transportation millages, before forwarding the millage money to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council struck the municipal service charge from the agreement for both cities. It amounted to around $3,000 that the city of Ypsilanti would forgo, but $90,000 for Ann Arbor.

For the most recent general Chronicle coverage of transit issues, see: “AATA Board OKs Key Countywide Documents.”

Four-Party Agreement: Public Commentary

Thomas Partridge complimented the work of those who’d been presented with awards from the Ann Arbor historic district commission – at the start of the meeting – quipping that he hoped he did not appear to be an antique himself. He told the council that he had an appreciation of history. He called on the public to support countywide transportation, saying it’s essential for moving forward economically, and it’s a civil rights issue as well. He called for support of the four-party agreement.

Four-Party Agreement: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed an amendment to the four-party agreement that essentially reversed the amendments that had been undertaken by the Ypsilanti city council to the extent that they applied to the city of Ann Arbor. The impact of the amendment preserved the ability of the city of Ann Arbor to apply a 1% municipal service charge to its millage before passing along the millage proceeds to the new transit authority. The Ypsilanti council’s amendment had eliminated that for both cities. The financial impact on the two cities is disparate – because of the difference in millage rate (roughly 2 mills for Ann Arbor and 1 mill for Ypsilanti) and the relative value and amount of property in Ann Arbor compared to Ypsilanti. For Ypsilanti, the 1% translates to roughly $3,000, compared to $90,000 for Ann Arbor.

In arguing for the amendment, Lumm noted that the Ann Arbor council had essentially already voted on the issue, on Feb. 6, 2012, during its initial consideration of the four-party agreement, when it considered an amendment related to the municipal service charge.

Lumm cited an email from the city’s chief financial officer attesting to the fact that the city’ financial staff spent a considerable amount of time on transportation issues. The municipal service charge is fair, Lumm said, and that’s why it’s there. She also felt that in the future, city staff would be spending even more time – as transportation evolves regionally.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Michael Ford – CEO of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – to describe what services the AATA receives from the city that are covered by the service charge. She also asked what effect would it have on the AATA if the city did not assess the charge. Ford told Briere that the money could go into transportation service for Ann Arbor. One type of charge started in 1975, Ford said, and it was for tax assessment, billing, collections, receiving and banking. Since that time, an administrative fee has been added – for coordination and review of transportation plans and over city planning, and city clerk services related to AATA matters. Such a fee might have been appropriate when the AATA was in its infancy stages, Ford said, but his own staff now deals with transportation issues involving coordination with other jurisdictions. Those services are something that the AATA is actually doing on its own, Ford said.

Briere asked how the AATA would use the $90,000 from the municipal service charge if it were available to the AATA to spend. Ford reiterated that it could be reallocated into increased services – adding frequency to routes #4, #5, or #3, for example.

Mayor John Hieftje said he was inclined to support the amendment.

Outcome on the municipal service charge amendment: The council unanimously approved the amendment to restore the municipal service charge.

Briere clarified that by approving the four-party agreement, the council is also approving the articles of incorporation, so she encouraged her colleagues to think about whether they had any remaining questions on that document.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) clarified with assistant city attorney Mary Fales that after the council approved the amended document, it would need to go back to the Ypsilanti city council and the AATA board as well for reconsideration and reapproval. [Ypsilanti did that the following evening, on June 5, 2012.]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked about the agreement with Ypsilanti, noting that Ypsilanti is a vital part of the community. He noted however, that Ypsilanti is strapped financially. Outside the framework of a possible new transit authority, Anglin said he’d be willing to work with Ypsilanti to provide services. His fear was that the agreement would be putting an undue burden on Ypsilanti, which would lead to some hard decisions in the future. He wanted to keep Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti in “strong unison.” Ford responded by saying that he would not speak for Ypsilanti, but that he felt Ypsilanti was looking to provide transit service at a higher level. Route #4 [between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti] is up 20% since increasing the frequency of service. He felt that Ypsilanti thinks “this is the way to go” in partnership with Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Ford about the purchase of service agreement (POSA) between Ypsilanti and the AATA. Kunselman noted that it expires in June 2012. Ford confirmed that is the case and said that the AATA is working with Ypsilanti on that issue. Kunselman asked Ford to elaborate on what happens when the POSA expires. If it’s extended, where will the funding come from? Ford said that Ypsilanti and the AATA are talking about that right now and would be meeting on that issue to work out some strategies.

Kunselman pressed the issue of where the money would come from – not from the city of Ypsilanti, because they don’t have the money, he said. The only source of additional funding for Ypsilanti would have to come from the Ann Arbor millage or from state funding or federal funding, Kunselman ventured. He felt like the Ann Arbor millage was the most likely revenue source and asked Ford to explain if that were an option. Ford said there are different options on the table right now and he would like to meet with Ypsilanti to discuss them.

Kunselman asked about expanded services that are to be offered – based on a possible additional 0.5 mill countywide millage. Ford indicated that as part of the new transit authority, expanded service is planned for both Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor – he pointed to higher frequency service, later evening service, and more weekend service. He passed around a brochure outlining some of the features of the improved services.

From left: Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) peruse an AATA brochure as Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) speaks.

Kunselman noted that Ypsilanti can’t pay for the level of service it enjoys now. With an additional 0.5 mill worth of revenue, that might get Ypsilanti to the point where it can cover its existing service. But if services are to be expanded in Ypsilanti, Kunselman asked, where will the money come from to cover that? Ford said that Ypsilanti’s millage and additional funding for the countywide authority would together fund Ypsilanti’s transportation, and that Ypsilanti has to make that clear to its citizens.

Kunselman came back to his question about the city of Ann Arbor millage: Is it an option that the city of Ann Arbor millage will be used to help support Ypsilanti during tough times? Ford said he’d rather talk to Ypsilanti first and find out what the options are.

Kunselman asked about ridership and revenues. Ford noted that according to a recently published USA Today report, AATA was fourth in the nation, measured by ridership increase. Kunselman also asked about discount fares that are expected to end. Ford confirmed that the new service to the Detroit Metro Airport (AirRide) has a promotional fare of $10, which will go up to $12 at the end of July. That service, Ford reported, had started off with 400 passengers a week and is now carrying over 1,000 passengers a week. Kunselman asked who is paying for long-term parking in the downtown Ann Arbor parking structures. Ford explained that through partnership with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (which manages the city’s downtown public parking), AirRide passengers can park for two-weeks for $2 in a downtown parking structure. Kunselman elicited the fact that the AATA is not paying the DDA the difference in the regular cost. Ford characterized that arrangement as the DDA providing the AATA with the opportunity to grow the AirRide service.

Kunselman stated that he would not support the four-party agreement. He said he’d been out to Chelsea recently and he had a problem with running empty buses past that farmland. Kunselman said he was more interested in working with Ann Arbor’s immediate neighbors where there is the most density and where it makes sense to run fixed-route buses – like Ypsilanti.

The council’s subsequent deliberations unfolded along similar lines to previous discussions. Highlights included Briere’s observation that some Ann Arbor city councilmembers’ concerns about only having 7 of 15 seats on a new countywide transportation authority board were countered by worries in other communities that Ann Arbor would dominate with 7 of 15 seats. She noted that the five-year service improvement plan includes increased frequency and more weekend and evening service.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that the four-party agreement and the articles of incorporation lay the groundwork for intergovernmental cooperation: “You can’t have intergovernmental cooperation without intergovernmental cooperation.”

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) couched his support in terms of the importance of regional approaches to issues.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if it’s accurate that other jurisdictions can opt out of the countywide authority. Ford confirmed that’s the case, but said the idea is to get everybody involved with an opportunity to participate. The more communities that participate, the better it is for everybody, Ford said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he was hopeful that the council’s unanimous support for the amendment that night might lead to unanimous support for the whole agreement. There’s a great benefit to the city if the council speaks with a loud, clear voice. He allowed that it was a bit of a stretch to expect that those who opposed the agreement the first time around would vote for it on that basis.

Kunselman confirmed for Hohnke that it was a stretch to expect that – by ticking through some of his by-now-familiar objections.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the amended four-party agreement and articles of incorporation, with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who had previously voted against it, supported it this time around.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance

The council considered final approval to a revision to the city’s sidewalk repair ordinance – in light of the voter-approved sidewalk repair millage, which passed in November of 2011.

The basic idea is that for the period of the authorized millage – through fiscal year 2016 (which ends June 30, 2017) property owners will not be responsible for repairs to sidewalks abutting the property on which they pay taxes. There are various wrinkles and contingencies in the revised ordinance for properties located within the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority tax increment finance (TIF) district.

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

As part of the resolution passed by the city council to place the sidewalk millage question on the November 2011 ballot, the council directed the city attorney and other staff to provide the ordinance revision for the council’s consideration on or before Dec. 1, 2011. Like the council’s deliberations on May 21, when initial approval was given for the ordinance change, they did not include any comment at the council table about why the revision came to the council nearly half a year after the date specified. Nor did discussion by the council focus on the basic purpose of the ordinance change – to ensure that property owners were not held responsible for sidewalk repairs adjacent to their property.

Instead, the focus of council deliberations was on the wrinkle of the ordinance revision that pertains to the area of the city inside the DDA district.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge stressed that safe pedestrian transportation is very important for seniors and handicapped people.

Sidewalk Repair Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the background of the ordinance revision by describing the purpose of the ordinance change as setting up a way to give the city responsibility for maintaining and repairing sidewalks inside the DDA district, and for the DDA to provide funding for that task. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pointed out that funding to be provided by the DDA comes from the DDA’s TIF [tax increment finance] capture of the newly enacted city sidewalk millage.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) chats with assistant city attorney Mary Fales before the June 4 meeting.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know if the DDA would make payments to the city after the sidewalk repairs, or if the city treasurer would withhold the money prior to disbursing the TIF capture to the DDA? Craig Hupy, interim public services area administrator, told Kunselman that he anticipated the DDA would return the tax capture of the 0.125 mill tax to the city. Kunselman asked if there’s a separate agreement between the city and the DDA to that effect – if so, he wanted to see a copy of that agreement. Hupy noted that the ordinance revision lays out the two options – either the DDA does the work, or the DDA returns the money to the city for the DDA area.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the revision to the sidewalk repair ordinance.

Water, Sewer, Stormwater Rates

The council was asked to give final approval to increased rates for drinking water, sanitary sewer and stormwater utilities. According to a staff memo, the impact of the increases on an average single-family customer comes to 3.21% across three different rate increases – assuming the same level of consumption as last year. That 3.21% increase works out to $19.40 per year.

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

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

Ann Arbor’s tiered rate system was implemented in 2004. Before that, the rate for all usage levels was the same. In 2003, that was $1.97 per unit. In 2004, the lowest tier was dropped to $0.97. This year’s rate for the lowest tier is still less than what the general rate was in 2003. However, basic service charges for water and sewer service were implemented as part of the tiered system – which for the smallest size 5/8-inch meter are currently $10.57 and $11.25 per quarter, for water and sewer, respectively. The stormwater service charge is $6.77 per quarter. Those service charges did not increase this year.

[Link to Google chart illustrating the history of Ann Arbor water rates] [.jpg of chart showing history of Ann Arbor water rates] [.pdf of water, sewer rates]

Water Rates: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge told the council that they need to come up with a formula that is progressively oriented and that does not impose undue burdens on tenants.

Water Rates: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) pressed for some explanation of how the financial incentives are set up for the stormwater discounts. By way of background, residents can get discounts to the stormwater charge – based on a formula that includes the amount of impervious surface area on their property. Residents can get discounts for various measures. By way of example, by installing one or more rain barrels, residents can get a discount of $1.96 per quarter.

Craig Hupy, interim public services area administrator, explained to Smith that the amount of the discount is based on the estimated actual reduction in the cost of services. The city has actually pushed hard to get discounts up to the current level. Smith allowed that it was a fair rationale, but she wished that the incentive would be high enough that people would actually implement those measures.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked what the administrative charge covered for the stormwater fee. Hupy explained that it’s for the overflight, with infrared photography to measure impervious surface – on which the stormwater rates are based.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the new water, sewer and stormwater rates.

Dean Tree Fund Committee Changed

The council considered an item to officially eliminate the city council appointee to the Elizabeth Dean Tree Fund committee. The committee was established in 1975 to oversee the use of investment earnings from a nearly $2 million bequest made to the city by Elizabeth Dean. According to a Nov. 10, 1974 Ann Arbor News article, the bequest was made in the early 1960s to “repair, maintain and replace trees on city property.” The principal amount remains intact.

The formal elimination of the city council committee member leaves the committee with seven voting members and one non-voting member – the city’s urban forestry & natural resources planning coordinator. The city’s description of the committee indicates “No Council Rep. Based on City Council action taken on 1/6/03.” Based on city council action on that date, it appears that no councilmember was appointed when all of the council committee assignments were made. It appears that in subsequent years, the council has not had a representative on the Dean Tree Fund.

A staff memo accompanying the resolution indicates that the reason for the formal change is a desire to have an odd number of voting members and to reduce the quorum requirement for meetings from five members to four.

For fiscal year 2012, the investment income to the fund is budgeted at $85,000.

Currently, only six people are listed as members of the Dean Tree Fund committee, in the city’s Legistar system: Albert E. Gallup, Bonita D. Ross Ion, Jane Immonen, John R. Bassett, John Remsberg, and Warren Attarian.

During the brief council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) observed that the council’s action was making official an unofficial practice. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) indicated support for having the city’s urban forestry & natural resources planning coordinator on the committee. He said there were major changes taking place with the urban forest and he hoped there would be information about that in the near future.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the change in the composition to the Elizabeth Dean Tree Fund committee.

CUB Agreements

Last year, the Michigan state legislature passed Act 98 of 2011, which prohibited municipalities from signing construction contracts in which contractors were required make an agreement with a collective bargaining organization.

At the time, the city of Ann Arbor had such a requirement: Contractors signing construction contracts with the city had to execute a Construction Utility Board (CUB) agreement with the Washtenaw County Skilled Building Trades Council, as a condition of the contract. So on Aug. 15, 2011, in response to the state law, the city council rescinded that requirement.

However, the U.S. District Court has since found Act 98 to be unenforceable, based on the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relation Act. The court’s decision has been appealed, but currently Act 98 cannot be enforced.

So at its June 4 meeting, the council considered reinstating the CUB agreement requirement. Brief deliberations were highlighted by Jane Lumm’s (Ward 2) objections to the requirement, on philosophical and practical grounds. She pointed to similar pending legislation that might be enacted that would address the court ruling, as well as the possibility that the U.S. District Court’s ruling could be overturned.

Outcome: The council reinstated the CUB requirement, with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Warming Shelter, Community Center

Alluding to the presentation of the historic district awards at the start of the meeting, Orian Zakai told the council she hoped that 40 minutes could also be devoted to the tents of Camp Take Notice and the people who live there and who are about to be evicted. She wanted to talk about the Imagine Community project – a nonprofit organization working to open a 24-hour warming center by next winter. It would also serve as a daytime community center that is open to all. No one should sleep outside in the Michigan winter, she said, and everyone should have a space to explore their creativity. The North Main community offers very limited services, she said. She doesn’t see her group as a charitable organization, but as a hub of creative people who inspire each other and care for each other.

She said that her group’s weekly daytime creative program at the Delonis Center, a shelter at 312 W. Huron, has taught them that it doesn’t take much to bring people together through creativity – all you need is some enthusiasm, some art supplies, some musical instruments, paper and pens, and safe space.

The Imagine Community needs a space of its own, she said, and has approached the city several times about the building owned by the city at 721 N. Main. They’d been given two tours of the building and found it suitable for their intended purposes. Despite many conversations with city officials, she said, the city had informed her group that the city would not consider giving her group the space.

Mary Conway told the council that Camp Take Notice will be soon be dispersed. There are 50 residents, she said, but that number varies on regular basis. Wherever they wind up, she said, they will have needs – bathroom, a tent, a place to eat, a place to get water, a place to wash and clean their clothes. The Delonis Center, she said, can’t help many of the people at Camp Take Notice, because of drug abuse and behavioral problems. But the needs of these people need to be addressed. She said that if the city won’t make the building at 721 N. Main available, the city should at least set up port-a-johns at Liberty Plaza [a city park at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division]. There needs to be an alternative plan, she said, otherwise homeless people are going to interfere with business and tourism. The homeless are residents of Washtenaw County, she said. She said she was joined that night by two residents of Camp Take Notice who are barred from the Delonis Center. Conway invited councilmembers to read some of the poetry that had been written by members of the homeless community at imaginewarmingcenters.org. “We can make them a part of our great city of Ann Arbor,” she concluded.

Alexandra Hoffman followed up on comments from Zakai on the possible use of 721 N. Main. She said she didn’t want to believe that a city would drag along a group of caring citizens in an attempt to frustrate and exhaust them. Her group was not exhausted and won’t give up, she said. She felt it was possible to turn the deserted, wasted space into an opportunity. To change homelessness, you have to change yourself, she told the councilmembers. It’s important to change the focus away from the failures of those who are homeless, she said, and rather turn attention to our communal failing – that someone doesn’t have a place to go for warmth and support.

Lilly Au disputed remarks made by mayor John Hieftje to the effect that no one was being turned away who wanted access to a warming shelter. She talked about the challenges that the homeless face in getting referred to the Dawn Farm treatment program. Right now, she said, it’s just the faith community that takes care of the homeless.

Comm/Comm: Vacancies on Boards/Commissions

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) alerted her colleagues to the fact that John German needs to be reappointed to the city’s environmental commission. There is another vacancy on that commission too, she added. [Briere serves as the city council appointee to that commission.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that there are still two vacancies on the taxicab board.

Comm/Comm: Crime

City administrator Steve Powers publicly congratulated the Ann Arbor police department on arrests made in connection with graffiti offenses and an armed robbery at the Broadway Party Store.

Comm/Comm: Argo Cascades

City administrator Steve Power reported that on Memorial Day, the city grossed over $72,000 between the Argo and Gallup liveries – as the city was sold out of kayaks.

Comm/Comm: South State Street Corridor

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, reported on a retreat the commission had held recently, focused on the South State Street corridor. The city is currently engaged in a process to study the corridor, from Stimson down to Ellsworth. [For more detail on that retreat, see Chronicle coverage: "South State Corridor Gets a Closer Look"]

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

Next council meeting: Monday, June 18, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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