The council approved a $1,537,608 construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. That work will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue.

Funding for the project will be drawn from the street millage fund ($883,316), stormwater fund ($903,065), and drinking water funds ($489,574) for a total project cost of $2,275,955.

Funding from the drinking water and stormwater funds is based on the fact that the project includes replacing the existing water main and performing stormwater system improvements – including construction of sand filters within the Butternut Street and Nordman Avenue right-of-way. Construction is expected to start in August 2014 with completion expected this fall.

The council also approved a $3,445,200 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the Stone School Road improvements project – between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter.

A new 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk will be constructed on the west side of the roadway from Pheasant Run Circle to Ellsworth Road. Included in the project is the replacement of the existing 16-inch water main in Stone School Road. The water main has broken several times. A short segment of 8-inch sanitary sewer is included in the project. Bioswales and “in-line” stormwater detention will be included. An existing jack-arch culvert under Old Stone School Road along Malletts Creek will be removed, in order to improve creek hydraulics, habitat and stormwater quality. New street lights along Stone School Road will also be installed.

The council also approved an agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding. It will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners.

Here’s how the funding breaks down:

Project Funding
               Scio Church    Barton       TOTAL
Federal Share     $164,000   $36,000    $200,000
Local Share        199,474    42,626     242,100
Spcl Assess          1,626     1,980       3,606            

TOTAL             $365,100   $80,606    $445,706

-

In other action taken at its July 21 meeting, the council was set to give final approval of the assessment roll for the construction of a new sidewalk on Pontiac Trail, after a public hearing. But the council postponed the item until its next meeting, to allow for one of the property owners to protest. The total cost that would be assessed to adjoining property owners is $72,218.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14. The project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s part of the city’s Complete Streets program.

In addition to the sidewalk, approximately 1,960 feet of curb and gutter is being added north of Skydale along Pontiac Trail to protect existing wetland areas. [.pdf of Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment area]

Also at its July 21 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council approved a $104,107 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the regular bridge inspection program. The city is required by federal law to inspect its bridges every two years. The city’s approach is to inspect about half of its bridges each year in order to even out the cost.

Bridges to be inspected include the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue, which is considered a bridge.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the following bridges will be inspected in 2014: Island Drive over the Traver Creek; Maiden Lane over the Huron River; Fuller Road (eastbound and westbound) over the Huron River; Huron Parkway over the Huron River, Norfolk Southern Railroad and Geddes Avenue; and Wastewater Treatment Plant Drive over the Huron River.

And in 2015, the following bridges will be inspected: Broadway over the Huron River; Broadway over Depot Street and the Norfolk Southern Railroad; E. Stadium Boulevard bridge over S. State Street; E. Stadium Boulevard bridge over the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks; Fuller Road over the Norfolk Southern Railroad; East Medical Center Drive over the Norfolk Southern Railroad; Eisenhower Parkway over the Ann Arbor Railroad; the portion of the Fifth Avenue parking structure under South Fifth Avenue; and the University of Michigan tunnel under Huron Parkway.

Funding will come from the major street fund ($133,500) and the sewage disposal fund ($2,500). The University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority will reimburse the city for about $6,600 for inspections related to facilities they maintain.

And finally, the purchase of six new pumps for the wastewater treatment plant – from Premier Pump Inc. for $425,682 – was also given approval during the city council’s July 21 meeting.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, the city’s wastewater treatment plant has six 150-horsepower secondary effluent pumps that are about 35 years old. When the plant is operating in typical mode, two of the six pumps are in continuous operation. Occasionally, when the Huron River is at high levels, additional pumps are used to pump secondary effluent simultaneously to the sand filters and the river.

Over the past three years, three of the pumps have failed. One of the pumps was irreparable, and the other two pumps were repaired but are not reliable for long-term use. The remaining three pumps are fully functional, but in a worn condition.

Failure of the secondary effluent pumps was unforeseen, according to the staff memo, so the cost of their replacement was not included in the design of the Facilities Renovations Project (FRP) currently under construction at the wastewater treatment plant. The city’s attempt to include replacement of the pumps in the FRP and to receive funding through the state’s revolving fund loan program was rejected by the Michigan Depart. of Environmental Quality, according to the staff memo.

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

The Ann Arbor city council’s first meeting of the fiscal year is also the next-to-last one before the Aug. 5, 2014 primary elections for city council and mayor.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber includes Braille.

A month before the dog days actually begin, the council will be considering as part of its July 7 agenda a resolution that would pay Washtenaw County $135,570 for animal control services. The county in turn contracts with the Humane Society of Huron Valley for those services. This is a new arrangement, based on recommendations from a 2012 county task force. The idea is that local governments in the county with their own dog licensing programs, which generate revenue through licensing, should shoulder part of the cost of the county’s animal control contract. Ann Arbor has its own dog licensing program.

The July 7 agenda is heavy with items related to infrastructure. Three special assessments for the construction of new sidewalks are on the agenda for final approval: Stone School Road, Barton Drive and Scio Church Road. And the council will be considering approval of contracts for street repair associated with utilities work, the replacement of a clarifier at the drinking water treatment plan, the replacement of liners for the swimming pools at Buhr and Fuller parks, and for monitoring work at the now-dormant Ann Arbor city landfill.

Several development items also appear on the July 7 agenda. The rezoning of three Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) properties will be given final consideration in connection with major renovations and improvements the commission is making to its inventory – at Baker Commons, Green/Baxter Court Apartments, and Maple Meadows. Initial approval for rezoning of another AAHC property is also on the council’s agenda: North Maple Estates.

In addition to the AAHC properties, the council will consider rezoning for parcels on Research Park Drive, in the southern part of the city, and a site plan for the expansion of Rudolf Steiner High School on the city’s north side.

The council will give initial consideration to changes in the ordinance that defines how city boards and commissions are appointed – changes that focus on the environmental commission. The changes involve clarifications of the nomination process and other housekeeping issues. The council will also consider confirmation of three appointments to the environmental commission: Allison Skinner, Benjamin Muth and Mark Clevey.

The summertime theme of the agenda is reflected in the approval of temporary outdoor sales and consumption of alcohol for several downtown businesses during the art fairs, which run from July 16-19. A permanent liquor license for Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse also appears on the council’s agenda. The theme of transition from summer to fall is reflected on the council’s July 7 agenda in the set of street closing approvals, which include closings around the University of Michigan stadium for home football games.

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.

Animal (Dog) Control Services

The council will be considering a $135,570 agreement between the city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County for animal control services.

Background to the city’s agreement includes a long process of discussions and negotiations between Washtenaw County and the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV) – a conversation that began in 2011 when the amount of funding provided to HSHV was under scrutiny. A task force was appointed, and ultimately the county board of commissioners, at its Nov. 7, 2012 meeting, authorized contracting with HSHV for $500,000 a year for animal control services. [.pdf of contract between Washtenaw County and HSHV]

Recommended as a part of that task force report was for the county to pursue a cost-sharing arrangement with those municipalities in the county that collect licensing fees for animals. The city of Ann Arbor is one such municipality in the county. From the task force report:

Cost Sharing with Local Governments
Between 45 and 65 percent of the animals at the Humane Society come from jurisdictions with their own animal control ordinances or licensing programs. While the County would bear responsibility for stray dogs in those jurisdictions absent a controlling ordinance, it would also collect licensing fees from pet owners in those communities. The current system, however, drives costs to the County without providing direct revenues to offset them. The Task Force recommends that the County reach out to the communities whose ordinances either exceed the scope of the County animal control policy or that capture licensing fees, and develop a cost sharing agreement with those local governments to offset increases driven by local ordinance requirements. [.pdf of 2012 task force report]

Cited in the council’s July 7 resolution as the cost of public animal control countywide is $951,793. The assignment of $135,570 of that cost to the city of Ann Arbor is based on the proportion of dogs that come from Ann Arbor that are housed at HSHV, factoring in the $500,000 provided to the HSHV by Washtenaw County.

The city council’s approved FY 2015 budget had already included $105,000 for such animal control services. Increased dog licensing revenue is projected to fund the remaining $32,570, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The city council’s FY 2015 budget deliberations on May 19 , 2014 resulted in two amendments that affected funding for animal control services. One was an amendment that re-allocated $75,000 for a commercial sign inventory to animal control, including deer herd management. The other was an amendment that adjusted the revenue budget upwards to reflect an assumed 30% participation rate for dog licensing in the city – which would be a total of about $63,000. That’s $48,000 more than the actual amount up to now, with the idea being that a publicity campaign could increase participation in the licensing program. The additional revenue is to be put towards animal control.

Infrastructure: Sidewalk Special Assessments

At its July 7 meeting, the city council will consider the final vote on the special assessment of property owners to help pay for construction of three different sidewalks – on Stone School Road, Barton Drive and Scio Church Road.

The new sidewalk on Stone School Road will be on the west side of the road. This work will be done in conjunction with the Stone School Road reconstruction project from I-94 to Ellsworth Road. The total sidewalk project cost is roughly $128,500, of which about $55,000 will be special assessed. A public hearing on the special assessment will also take place at the council’s July 7 meeting.

The Barton Drive sidewalk project will extend eastward from Bandemer Park at Longshore Drive. The cost of the Barton Drive sidewalk has been calculated to be $80,606. Of that, about $36,000 will be paid from federal surface transportation funds. Of the remaining $44,606, the city’s general fund would pay $42,626, leaving just $1,980 to be paid through the special assessment.

For the Scio Church sidewalk project, the total cost is expected to be $365,100. Of that, about $164,000 will be paid from a federal surface transportation grant. The remaining $201,100 will be paid out of the city’s general fund and by the special assessment of just $1,626.

Infrastructure: Public Services Contracts

Several contracts appear on the council’s July 7 agenda that are related to infrastructure maintenance and repair. The council will be considering a $344,600 contract with Cadillac Asphalt LLC for repair of streets after water mains, storm and sanitary sewers are repaired. The city’s public services area does not have the equipment or the staff to perform these types of street repairs, which often involve the replacement of the concrete base or the concrete street surface, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The city council will also consider awarding a $175,000 contract to replace a clarifier drive in the drinking water treatment plant – to Titus Welding Company. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the drive to be replaced is original to the plant and was installed in 1965. It had an expected life of 30 years. It has begun to show signs of failure, included seizing, high vibration, and bearing failure. The drive has been assessed by the manufacturer and it has been determined that it is not cost-effective to repair, according to the memo.

The council will also consider a $205,055 contract with Renosys Corp. to install PVC pool liners at Buhr and Fuller pools. The city is switching to PVC from Marcite, which is, according to a staff memo, a “cementitous product that covers the pool shell creating a smooth and waterproof surface.” The new product has a smoother surface, and won’t require the yearly patching required due to harsh winters and wear and tear on the pool, according to the staff memo.

The council will consider a $80,836 contract amendment with Tetra Tech Inc. for environmental consulting services at the now-closed Ann Arbor landfill. That brings the total amount on the contract to $624,221. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, for several years the landfill has had a plume of 1-4 dioxane and vinyl chloride contamination offsite primarily in Southeast Area Park, northeast of the landfill. A slurry wall was constructed along most of the boundary of the landfill to eliminate groundwater passing through the landfill, and three purge wells were used to attempt to capture the offsite contamination.

Also on the July 7 agenda is a resolution for $125,000 contracts with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. and Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. for general civil engineering and surveying services. Those services include a range of activities, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution: design and management of capital improvement projects; private development construction plan review; private development utility and road construction inspection; traffic engineering; civil engineering design; construction inspection; drafting; and surveying.

Development

On the council’s agenda are a number of rezoning requests and site plans associated with new development in the city.

Development: Research Park Drive – Rezoning, Recreation

On the city council’s July 7 agenda for initial consideration is the rezoning of six sites along Research Park Drive – from RE (research district) to ORL (office/research/limited industrial district). Related to that rezoning, the council will be asked to give initial approval to amendments to the city’s zoning code to allow outdoor recreation as a special exception use in the ORL zoning district.

The six lots are undeveloped and total 16.6 acres. Four of the lots, on the southern end of the site, are owned by Qubit Corp. LLC; BMS Holdings LLC owns the northern two sites.

A proposed area plan – which is less detailed than a site plan – includes an indoor-outdoor tennis facility on one of the lots. It also includes five two-story buildings that could accommodate office, research, and limited industrial uses on the remaining lots, each with their own parking lot and access point to Research Park Drive.

Prior to construction, the project must go through the city’s site plan approval process, which might require a traffic impact study.

Only the initial rezoning and the amendment allowing recreation as a special exception use will be in front of the council at its July 7 meeting. The planning commission recommended support of both actions at its June 3, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view showing Research Park Drive parcels.

Area plan for four sites in a proposed development on Research Park Drive. The image is oriented with east at the top.

Development: Rudolf Steiner Site Plan

On the July 7 city council agenda is the approval of a site plan for the expansion of the Rudolf Steiner High School. The private school is located at 2230 Pontiac Trail, north of Brookside. The planning commission had recommended approval of the site plan at its June 3, 2014 meeting.

The project – estimated to cost $2.5 million – involves building a one-story, 19,780-square-foot addition to the existing classroom building. The structure will include a 9,990-square-foot gym, with the remaining 9,790 square feet used for classrooms and storage.

According to the staff memo, an existing Quonset hut on the east side of the site will be removed, as will a 48-inch white oak tree immediately east of the proposed addition. The school will be required to plant 12 trees for mitigation. In addition, 17 new trees will be planted as part of the project.

Parking will be increased by 31 spaces to accommodate special events and discourage parking in nearby neighborhoods, according to the staff memo. A total of 32 bicycle parking spaces will be provided near the north entry to the new addition. No additional enrollment beyond the previously approved 120 students is proposed. The school has operated at that location since 2002.

Site plan for Rudolf Steiner High School expansion. The yellow section is the existing building. The white section indicates the proposed addition.

At their June 3 meeting, planning commissioners approved a special exception use for the project. That’s required under Chapter 55 of the city’s zoning code because the site is zoned R1D (single family dwelling). Private schools are allowed within that zoning district, if granted a special exception use. The planning commission has discretion to grant a special exception use, which does not require additional city council approval.

Development: AAHC Rezoning Final Approvals

On the council’s agenda for July 7 is the final approval to the rezoning of three Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties that have been given initial approval by the city council. The planning commission had recommended the rezonings at its May 6, 2014 meeting. Initial city council action came at its June 2, 2014 meeting.

The current PL (public land) zoning for some of the properties is a vestige of the AAHC properties’ status as city-owned land. The city council approved the transfer of deeds to the AAHC at its June 2, 2013 meeting. The three sites given initial rezoning approval on June 2, 2014 are part of the housing commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

Rezoning is in progress for the following public housing sites, two of which are currently zoned as public land:

• Baker Commons: Rezone public land to D2 (downtown interface). The 0.94-acre lot is located at 106 Packard Street, at the intersection with South Main, in Ward 5. It includes a 64-unit apartment building.
• Green/Baxter Court Apartments: Rezone public land to R4A (multi-family dwelling district). The 2-acre site is located at 1701-1747 Green Road and contains 23 apartments in four buildings and a community center. It’s in Ward 2.
• Maple Meadows: Currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district), the recommendation is to rezone it as R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site is 3.4 acres at 800-890 South Maple Road and contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center. It’s located in Ward 5.

At the planning commission’s May 6 meeting, AAHC director Jennifer Hall explained that PL zoning doesn’t allow housing to be built on a parcel. As AAHC seeks private funding to rehab its properties, it needs to ensure if a building burns down, for example, it could be rebuilt. In general that’s why the rezoning is being requested. It’s also being requested to align the zoning with the current uses of the property. She stressed that the highest priority properties to be rezoned are Baker Commons, Green/Baxter and Maple Meadows, because investors have already been found to renovate those sites.

For these three sites, planning commissioners also voted to waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petitions, because no new construction is proposed and surveys of the improvements have been provided.

For additional background on the AAHC process of renovating its properties, see Chronicle coverage: “Public Housing Conversion Takes Next Step.”

Development: AAHC – Appointment

Also at its July 7 meeting, the council will be asked to confirm the appointment of Audrey Wojtkowiak to the board of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, to fill the vacancy of Christopher Geer. Wojtkowiak’s nomination was made at the council’s June 16 meeting. She’s controller for the Consolidation Center at Detroit Diesel.

Development: AAHC – North Maple Rezoning

On the council’s July 7 agenda is initial consideration of rezoning that’s necessary for a renovation project to be undertaken by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission for a site on North Maple.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The council will be asked to give initial approval to rezoning the 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road – from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district).

The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its June 17, 2014 meeting after postponing it on June 3, 2014.

The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The site plan calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms. The project would include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings would be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

The project will require the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, so if the right-of-way vacation is approved, the land would become part of the housing commission property.

The site plan will not be in front of the city council on July 7. Only the initial rezoning approval and a resolution of intent to vacate right-of-way for Seybold Drive appear on the agenda. That resolution of intent sets a public hearing for Aug. 18, 2014 – the same council meeting when a vote will be taken on the vacation’s approval. The rezoning will also need a second vote of approval from the council at a future meeting.

Planning staff noted three issues that need to be resolved before the project gets approval from city council:

The parcel containing two duplex buildings also owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission in the northeast corner of the site must be combined with the subject site, forming a single parcel as a requirement for issuance of any permits.

The legal description and comparison chart data must be confirmed to include the duplex parcel.

The northern-most parking stall, nearest the connection to Vine Court, must be relocated outside of the minimum front setback area.

According to the staff memo, after the planning commission’s June 3 meeting the city’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed new connection from Seybold Drive onto Dexter Avenue, and concluded that sight distances from all approaches are acceptable. He suggested that the pavement markings on Dexter should be refreshed.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is part of an ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

Environmental Commission

The city’s environmental commission appears in two different agenda items – one that amends the city ordinance establishing the commission, and another that nominates additional members to the commission.

Environmental Commission: Ordinance Change

The council will be giving initial consideration to a change to the city ordinance that regulates how appointments are made to the environmental commission (EC). The EC is one of the few boards or commission in the city for which the mayor does not make nominations. The more familiar procedure – for most boards and commissions – includes a mayoral nomination at one council meeting, followed by the confirmation vote of the council at a subsequent meeting.

In the past, the council has mimicked this procedure for the EC by having some councilmember put a resolution on the agenda appointing a member to the EC, and then postponing the resolution until the next meeting. The ordinance revisions clarify that the nominations put forward by the council as a body to the EC are to be made by the two councilmembers who serve as the council’s representatives to the EC.

Besides two slots for council representatives, the EC includes positions for members of the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission. The ordinance revision that the council will be considering on July 7 makes clear that those groups make their appointments to the EC without further city council approval. This specific revision comes after the planning commission had selected Kirk Westphal from its membership to serve on the EC earlier this year, and some councilmembers voted against his confirmation, when the council was asked to confirm his selection two months ago. For background on that vote, see “Hutton, Westphal Reappointed to EC.”

The staff memo summarizes the changes to the ordinance regulating appointments to boards and commissions as follows:

• clarifies that the councilmembers currently serving on the environmental commission nominate persons for “at-large” appointments, which are then approved by council resolution;
• clarifies that the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission each designate a representative to the environmental commission without council approval and for a one-year term;
• clarifies that the 3-year terms should be equally staggered;
• removes references to the Leslie Science Center Advisory Board, which no longer exists;
• requires the city administrator or the designated support staff of the environmental commission to notify council of vacancies – previously this was delegated to the clerk’s office, which does not always have immediate knowledge of vacancies;
• contains a few minor, non-substantive corrections and clarifications.

If the council gives the ordinance amendment initial approval on July 7, it would still need a second and final vote at a subsequent meeting, in order to be enacted.

Environmental Commission: Appointments

Also on the agenda are confirmation of three nominations to the EC, which were announced at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting: Allison Skinner, Benjamin Muth and Mark Clevey.

Clevey is the representative to the EC selected by the energy commission, so this confirmation will not follow the ordinance amendment for which the council will be asked to give initial approval on July 7.

Liquor

At its July 7 meeting, the city council will be considering two items related to serving alcohol. One is an item that would allow several downtown businesses to serve alcohol outdoors during the Ann Arbor art fairs, to be held July 16-19 this year:
Knight’s Restaurant (600 E. Liberty St.), Michigan Theater (603 E. Liberty St.), Neopapalis (500 E. William St.), Cottage Inn (508-512 E. William St.), New York Pizza Depot (605 E. William St.), Ashley’s Restaurant (338 S. State St.), Red Hawk Bar & Grill (316 S. State St.), and Pizza House (618 Church).

The second item is a downtown development liquor license for Ruth’s Chris Steak House. The council approved the site plan for Ruth’s Chris – to be located on Fourth Avenue between William and Liberty – at its June 2, 2014 meeting.

Street Closings

The consent agenda includes approvals of street closings for special events, which provide a window into what’s happening in the coming weeks. Events with street closings on the July 7 city council agenda include:

• Electric Bolt 8K Run/Walk (July 27, 2014): Various streets from 6-10 a.m.
• Cleats and Beats (Aug. 1, 2014): These street closures would be on S. Main from E. William to Huron, on Liberty from S. Ashley to S. Fourth, and on Washington from S. Ashley to the alley by the parking structure. This is sponsored by the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau. It appears to be a different event than the Eats, Beats and Cleats event for which the council unanimously rejected a street closure request last year. That was proposed to take place in a South University neighborhood with a lot of student housing.
• Relevent Sports International Champions Cup Soccer Game (Aug. 2, 2014). Various streets around Michigan Stadium for three hours prior to the start of the game.
• University of Michigan football games (2014 Season): Various streets around Michigan Stadium for three hours prior to the start of each home football game.
• Dancing in the Streets (Aug. 31, 2014): S. Main between Huron and Liberty, and Washington between S. Ashley and the alley on E. Washington toward S. Fourth Avenue, from 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

-

3:56 p.m. People who are signed up for public commentary reserved time are now listed on the agenda. Three people are signed up to talk about U.S.-Israel foreign policy: Mozhgan Savabiehsfahani, Blaine Coleman and Henry Herskovitz. Jeff Hayner is signed up to talk about the Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment. Kermit Schlansker is signed up to call for stopping construction of houses. Changming Fan is signed up to talk about the local development finance authority and job creation. Carolyn Grawi is signed up to talk about the Research Park Drive rezoning item. And Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about electing Mark Schauer for governor, affordable housing, human rights and transportation.

4:20 p.m. The staff responses to councilmember questions about agenda items are now available [.pdf of July 7, 2014 staff written responses to council questions]

7:04 p.m. Council chambers are filling up with councilmembers and audience.

7:08 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:09 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:09 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:09 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the agenda without amendment.

7:09 p.m. Communications from the city administrator.

7:10 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers is calling the council’s attention to a communication attached to the agenda – notifying the council that the city could become a direct grantee of the federal CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) program). But the city could continue its participation through the Urban County, of which it is a member. Powers’ communication indicates that unless he is instructed otherwise, the city will continue its participation with the Urban County. [July 7, 2014 memo from Powers]

7:11 p.m. Powers is also noting that there are several street closings on the agenda. He observes that the books for FY 2014 will be closed and he’ll have a report on that soon.

7:11 p.m. INT-1 Volunteer of the Month. The proclamation honors Peter and Mary Fales as volunteers at the annual “Mayor’s Green Fair.” They have staffed the information booth and barricades and helped with set up and the tearing down of the event. Mary Fales is assistant city attorney with the city.

7:13 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Three people are signed up to talk about US-Israel foreign policy: Mozhgan Savabiehsfahani, Blaine Coleman and Henry Herskovitz. Jeff Hayner is signed up to talk about the Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment. Kermit Schlansker is signed up to call for stopping construction of houses. Changming Fan is signed up to talk about the local development finance authority and job creation. And Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about electing Mark Schauer for governor, affordable housing, human rights and transportation.

7:16 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for the Michigan legislature. He calls it a critically important election year. He calls on everyone to work on behalf of Democrat Mark Schauer’s candidacy for governor. Relevant issues include expanding affordable housing, human rights and access to transportation, he says. It’s important to work beyond current plans to expand affordable housing, Partridge says. He says he’s speaking on behalf of the most vulnerable members of society. The council has addressed the material infrastructure needs of the city, while overlooking the kind of issues he’s talking about tonight, he says.

7:21 p.m. Blaine Coleman says he was here a year and a half ago when Israel was bombing Gaza. He’d asked Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) to spearhead a resolution asking for a boycott Israel. Now he was back a year and a half later and Israel was bombing Gaza again, and he was asking again for a symbolic resolution boycotting Israel. He refers to the beating of school children. [By way of background, here's a link to video posted by The Guardian, which reports the video was broadcast on a Palestinian TV station as showing the beating of Tariq Abu Khdeir, 15-year-old Floridian, who was visiting Israel.] [video] This boy was on the front page of the New York Times, Coleman says. He asks the council to pay for the boy’s airfare from Florida to come talk to the Ann Arbor city council.

7:24 p.m. Jeff Hayner allows that the issue that Coleman had talked about is emotional, whereas he was going to be talking about things paid for with taxes. Hayner is addressing the question of cost associated with the Barton Drive sidewalk construction. Some of the more precise figures are described in a comment Hayer wrote online here: [link] He’s comparing the costs to national costs in other cities. It seems like too much money, he says.

7:28 p.m. Mozhgan Savabiehsfahani is also addressing the beating of the Floridian schoolboy. She’s also talking about other children who have been beaten up “on your watch.” She’s been coming to the Ann Arbor city council for 10 years, she says, telling the council that they need to act, and she’s seen no effect. “How many more dead bodies can you handle?” she asks. She tells them that they’re trying to make history, but “You ain’t gonna make no history, if you say nothing in the face of this kind of brutality,” she tells them. “You support this with your silence,” she says. She calls the bus stop slogans here in Ann Arbor – “Our Way of Life” – phony. She and Coleman are holding signs showing photographs of the beaten boy’s face. She tells the council they’re looking at her like she’s some kind of five-headed dragon. Boycotting Israel is their duty, she concludes.

7:30 p.m. Kermit Schlansker is educating the council on total U.S. energy consumption: 97 quads of energy. One quad is an enormous number, he says. Long-term remedies will depend on lifestyle changes or else hardships. Houses take more energy to heat and more energy for transportation to them, he says. Stand-alone houses are the enemy of the planet, he says. We’re facing a dire long-term problem, he says. Every house that is built will need to be torn down to make way for something more important, he says.

7:34 p.m. Henry Herskovitz reminds the council that he’d told them last month how Israel had attacked the U.S.S. Liberty. Tonight he’s addressing the council on the topic of the Lavon Affair, which was a 1954 operation conducted by Israeli military intelligence that involved recruiting Egyptian Jews to strike U.S. and British civilian targets, which were then planned to be blamed on Muslim extremists. [Wikipedia link on Lavon Affair] Herskovitz traces the Lavon Affair to the policies of Eisenhower and Nasser. Lavon was an official who was forced to resign. Herskovitz quotes Malcom X, saying that the American public has been “bamboozled” on the issue of Israel.

7:37 p.m. Changming Fan introduces himself as president of TiniLite Inc. He thanks everyone, especially the council, for creating a model of volunteerism. He’s talking about the LDFA. He laments the lack of mention of jobs and manufacturing. He calls the leader of Ann Arbor SPARK a good salesperson. “Do something!” he shouts.

7:39 p.m. Carolyn Grawi is director of advocacy and education at the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, which is located on Research Park Drive. She’s addressing the zoning changes that are proposed on tonight’s agenda. She wants the council to make sure that the city’s infrastructure is brought up to speed, in terms of access, whenever there’s development. She’s advocating for sidewalks on Research Park Drive. She points out that the public bus only goes one way, because there’s no stop light to facilitate a left turn. As this area develops and grows, the city needs to pay attention to issues of access, she says.

7:40 p.m. Communications from the council. This is the first of two slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:42 p.m. Jane Lumm is alerting the council to a memo she’d sent to her colleagues about a proposed charter amendment. [link] She also announces a citizens’ participation meeting July 10 at 7 p.m. at the Plymouth Road Holiday Inn on a 500-unit Toll Brothers development on the west side of Nixon and Dhu Varren.

7:43 p.m. Sabra Briere also notes that the same development mentioned by Lumm will be discussed at the planning commission’s work session tomorrow at 7 p.m. here at city hall.

7:45 p.m. Mike Anglin says that many of the city’s documents includes a mention of “health, safety and welfare” but it’s often forgotten. He compliments the planning commission for invoking that notion in delaying the Glendale development at its last meeting on July 1, 2014. Until you can show that you won’t get flooding, no development should take place, Anglin says. He’s comparing the inconvenience to developers with the right to health, safety and welfare for citizens.

7:47 p.m. Margie Teall asks the rules committee to review the idea of “tabling.” She was disturbed at how the tabling motion was used at the council’s last meeting. Because a tabling motion is not subject to debate, it prevented a full discussion. She did not think the motion was used properly. So she is asking the rules committee to review the issue so that meetings could be more cooperative.

7:48 p.m. Communications from the mayor. Mayor Hieftje is welcoming the students from Skyline and Huron high schools.

7:48 p.m. MC-1 Appointments. The council is being asked to confirm the appointment of Audrey Wojtkowiak to the board of the Ann Arbor housing commission, filling vacancy left by Christopher Geer’s resignation.

7:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the appointment of Audrey Wojtkowiak to the AAHC board.

7:48 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Being nominated tonight to the airport advisory commission is Theresa Whiting, replacing John Sullivan. And being nominated as a reappointment to the energy commission is Shoshannah Lenski. Votes on those nominations will take place at the council’s next meeting.

7:51 p.m. Hieftje is now giving an update on the alarming growth of people who are using the Delonis Center, the homeless shelter, who are not from Washtenaw County. That figure is up to 40%, he says. In this coming winter, it might reach 50%, and we might need to turn people away, he says. He’d met with the leadership of the homeless shelter, Ellen Schulmeister, and the city’s lobbyist in Lansing, Kirk Profit. The issue is that other organizations outside the county are sending people to Ann Arbor’s homeless shelter – and they have apparently declined the shelter’s request to call ahead to alert the shelter that they are sending people here.

7:51 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. Tonight there are five public hearings scheduled. The first three hearings are on the rezoning of properties owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission to be consistent with the AAHC’s renovation plans for its housing stock. [For additional background, see Development: Ann Arbor Housing Commission – Rezoning Final Approvals above.]

The fourth public hearing is on the confirmation of the special assessment for a sidewalk construction project on Stone School Road. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Sidewalk Special Assessments above.] And the fifth hearing is on the site plan for an expansion of the Rudolf Steiner High School. [For additional background, see Development: Rudolf Steiner Site Plan above.]

7:53 p.m. PH-1 Green/Baxter rezoning. Thomas Partridge asks that all similar rezoning requests and site plan approvals be sent back and redrafted to include language that the land to be rezoned have significant access to people needing affordable housing on the land.

7:57 p.m. Jeff Hayner says that whenever land is rezoned from public land, there does need to be some extra concern. It needs to serve a public purpose, he says. He cautions against the possibility that the land could eventually serve a commercial purpose. He says that some people are salivating over the possibility of developing the Baker Commons property for commercial purposes.

7:57 p.m. That’s in for PH-1.

7:59 p.m. PH-2 Baker Commons rezoning. Thomas Partridge says there’s no justification for changing the zoning of Baker Commons. He calls for protections to ensure that the land continues to be used for affordable housing purposes. Ann Arbor is supposed to be a leader for human rights, he says, so this protection should be a part of every rezoning proposal that comes before the city council.

8:00 p.m. That’s it for PH-2.

8:03 p.m. PH-3 Maple Meadows rezoning. The previous two hearings concerned properties that are being rezoned from public land to a residential zoning, Thomas Partridge says. This one is not zoned as public land. He’s calling for affordable housing protections.

8:04 p.m. Hieftje is pointing out that all three properties are operated by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

8:05 p.m. PH-4 Stone School Road special assessment roll. Three representatives of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are addressing the council about the amount of the special assessment they’ve been assigned. They’re asking for some kind of waiver, given the nonprofit status of their organization. They’re asking for help and guidance. Hieftje tells them that city staff will provide them with options.

8:06 p.m. Jeff Hayner is telling the council that the cost for this project is twice the national average.

8:08 p.m. PH-5 Rudolf Steiner High School site plan. Jeff Hayner jokes that he’s not trying to usurp Partridge’s record of speaking turns. What “bums out” the neighborhood about this project is the loss of a 48-inch oak tree, he says. They’re planting 12 four-inch trees as remediation, which is good, he says. It would be nice to just move the tree, he says, like the University of Michigan is doing in a similar situation.

8:09 p.m. That’s it for PH-5.

8:09 p.m. Approval of minutes.

8:09 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the minutes of its previous meeting.

8:09 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: Traffic Calming on Wells Street ($23,920).
• CA-2: Approve purchase order to Cogsdale Corporation for annual software maintenance.
• CA-3: Approve street closings and special event provisions for Relevent Sports International Champions Cup Soccer Game (Aug. 2, 2014). Various streets around Michigan Stadium for three hours prior to the start of the game.
• CA-4: Approve street closures for University of Michigan football games for University of Michigan football games (2014 Season): Various streets around Michigan Stadium for three hours prior to the start of each home football game.
• CA-5: Approve street closings for Dancing in the Streets (Aug. 31, 2014): S. Main between Huron and Liberty, and Washington between S. Ashley and the alley on E. Washington toward S. Fourth Avenue, from 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
• CA-6: Approve street closings for the Electric Bolt 8K Run/Walk (July 27, 2014): Various streets from 6-10 a.m.
• CA-7: Approve Street closings for Cleats and Beats (Aug. 1, 2014): These street closures would be on S. Main from E. William to Huron, on Liberty from S. Ashley to S. Fourth, and on Washington from S. Ashley to the alley by the parking structure. This is sponsored by the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau. It appears to be a different event than the Eats, Beats and Cleats event for which the council unanimously rejected a street closure request last year. That was proposed to take place in a South University neighborhood with a lot of student housing.

8:09 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Briere pulls out CA-1 and CA-4.

8:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the consent agenda with the exception of CA-1 and CA-4.

8:11 p.m. CA-1 Traffic Calming on Wells Street. Briere is highlighting the mixture of different solutions – traffic humps and crosswalks. She says it’s unfortunate that the petition did not extend all the way to Burns Park Elementary. Taylor thanks staff for working with residents – with respect to how the percent of residents voting for the petition was to be calculated.

8:12 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved CA-1.

8:15 p.m. CA-4 Approve street closures for University of Michigan football games for the 2014 season. Anglin is questioning why the time period for different lanes is different – three hours versus one hour.

8:15 p.m. Police chief John Seto is explaining the logic of the three-hour closure. He reviews how the original proposal back in 2013 was for three hours for both lanes. The reduction to one hour on one lane was a kind of compromise. Seto says that based on last year’s experience, the appropriate length of time was actually three hours.

8:18 p.m. Anglin is asking if the public was asked about their feeling. Seto said he had walked the neighborhoods, and reminds the council that he’d provided a report back to the council on how things had gone. He also notes that a public meeting was held last week with neighbors. Hieftje says that he’d read a report about that public meeting, and asks Seto to summarize. Seto reports that 8-10 residents had attended. The main concern was post-game traffic, he says. It’s important to educate people to the fact that Main Street is open after the game, he says. There will be more signs and more traffic cones, he says.

8:19 p.m. Seto also notes that there was a complaint about helicopter noise.

8:20 p.m. Petersen asks what the impact had been last year on the front-lawn parking businesses that residents operate. Seto says that issue wasn’t raised at this most recent public meeting. He reported that for those parking lots near Main Street, there’d been some impact. Deeper into the neighborhoods there was less impact. They’d also incorporated suggestions for improvement of signage and messaging boards.

8:22 p.m. Hieftje says that the point is to make the game safe for 110,000 people and Seto is going out of his way to work with one or two residents. Eaton thanks Seto for his work with residents. He’d attended the public meeting, though he’d arrived late. But he’d continued opposing the closing of the streets, because he didn’t see a real security risk. He complimented Seto, however, on the way he worked with residents.

8:23 p.m. Briere says it’s not about security, but rather about controlling traffic and she’d be opposing it.

8:24 p.m. Teall says the idea that the council would second-guess the advice of Homeland Security is scary. She’ll vote for it. Kunselman also says that he’ll vote for it. Inside the stadium and looking out on Main Street, he’d seen a billboard truck inching along – and he’d remarked to his wife: “That could have been it.” We need to minimize the possibility that something horrible could happen, he says.

Taylor says he respects professionals and professionalism. The city has been told on a number of occasions that this is a good step to take. There’s an impact to neighborhoods, but it is mitigated by AAPD. He didn’t see a rationale for voting against it. The threat is easy to articulate and imagine and the cost benefit on this is plain, he says. Briere asks for an amendment to enforce a one-hour closure after the game – if this is indeed about security.

8:29 p.m. Lumm asks for Seto’s view of keeping Main Street closed for an hour after the game. Seto says that was considered last year. It would be difficult tactically to do that. Getting people out of the stadium as quickly as possible would reduce risk, he says. Once people get onto the streets, it’s difficult to get them off the streets. [This is what happened at the Winter Classic.]

8:30 p.m. Seto says that closing the street for an hour after the game would give the AAPD “significant challenges.” Lumm thanks Seto, saying it’s a clear explanation.

8:32 p.m. Kailasapathy allows she’s not a football fan. She wonders if it really takes more than an hour for the foot traffic to disburse. Seto: “It depends.” He’s now explaining various scenarios. Teall takes back a statement about traffic management, saying it is about traffic management and making the stadium area as secure as possible.

8:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved CA-4 over the dissent of Briere, Kailasapathy and Eaton.

8:33 p.m. B-1 (AAHC) Rezoning of 2.42 Acres from PL (Public Land District) to R4A (Multiple-Family Dwelling District), Green/Baxter Court Apartments. This and each of the next two items is for final approval of rezoning of Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. Initial approval by the city council for this and the next two rezoning items came at its June 2, 2014 meeting.

The current PL (public land) zoning for some of the properties is a vestige of the AAHC properties’ status as city-owned land. The city council approved the transfer of deeds to the AAHC at its June 2, 2013 meeting. The three sites given initial rezoning approval on June 2, 2014 are part of the housing commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits. [For additional background, see Development: Ann Arbor Housing Commission – Rezoning Final Approvals above.]

8:37 p.m. Briere asks for AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall to come to the podium. She asks Hall to explain how the AAHC properties are protected for continued use as affordable housing, given their rezoning. Hall is reciting the history of the city’s ownership of the properties – but the land was transferred to the AAHC. The “cleanest” way to go about this was to rezone the property consistent with what is already there. The funders who are providing financial support for the AAHC renovations require that the zoning be appropriate. The underlying use for the property is determined by HUD, she says. So their use will continue as affordable housing, Hall says.

8:41 p.m. Kailasapathy asks how long HUD requires the use to be for affordable housing. Hall is explaining the different kinds of documents. The agreements are in 20-year increments. Kailasapathy wants to make sure the use is for affordable housing in perpetuity. Hall gives three “stopgaps” against other uses: HUD, the AAHC board, and the Ann Arbor city council, which appoints the AAHC board.

8:41 p.m. Anglin wants to dive into B-2. Hieftje asks him to wait.

8:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the rezoning of Green/Baxter Court Apartments.

8:41 p.m. B-2 (AAHC) Rezoning of 0.94 Acre from PL (Public Land District) to D2 (Downtown Interface District), Baker Commons. [For additional background, see Development: Ann Arbor Housing Commission – Rezoning Final Approvals above.]

8:45 p.m. Anglin asks why the zoning that was selected for the property was D-2. He’s concerned that it would be perceived as “advantageous” to people who might want to acquire and develop the property. Planning manager Wendy Rampson explains that Baker Commons has about 112% FAR and D-2 allows 200%. So there’s more capacity there, she says. Anglin says that people in need should be kept closer to downtown – jobs and transportation. Eaton gets clarification that the overlay district is the First Street character district.

8:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval for the Baker Commons rezoning.

8:45 p.m. B-3 (AAHC) Rezoning of 3.3 Acres from R1C (Single Family Dwelling District) to R4B (Multiple-Family Dwelling District), Maple Meadows. [For additional background, see Development: Ann Arbor Housing Commission – Rezoning Final Approvals above.]

8:46 p.m. Anglin asks Hall to describe meetings with the public. Hall says that there were not meetings with the public about these three sites. The required legal notifications were mailed out, she explains.

8:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the Maple Meadows rezoning.

8:46 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

8:59 p.m. We’re back.

9:00 p.m. Hieftje ventures the council can get through the rest of the agenda fairly quickly if they keep moving.

9:01 p.m. C-1 (AAHC) Rezoning of 4.8 Acres from R1C (Single Family Dwelling District) to R4B (Multiple Family Dwelling District), North Maple Road. This item is similar to the first three rezoning actions for Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties – but this is the initial consideration by the city council. The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its June 17, 2014 meeting after postponing it on June 3, 2014. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report] The site plan calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. [For additional background, see Development: Ann Arbor Housing Commission – North Maple Rezoning above.]

9:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the North Maple Road rezoning.

9:01 p.m. C-2 Rezoning of 16.6 Acres from RE (Research Dwelling District) to ORL (Office/Research/Limited Industrial Dwelling District). The council is being asked to give initial consideration to the rezoning of six sites along Research Park Drive – from RE (research district) to ORL (office/research/limited industrial district). Related to that rezoning, in the next item, the council will be asked to give initial approval to amendments to the city’s zoning code to allow outdoor recreation as a special exception use in the ORL zoning district. The six lots are undeveloped and total 16.6 acres. Four of the lots, on the southern end of the site, are owned by Qubit Corp. LLC; BMS Holdings LLC owns the northern two sites. [For additional background, see Development: Research Park Drive – Rezoning, Recreation above.]

9:03 p.m. Lumm notes that this is for rezoning of undeveloped sites. The natural features analysis and traffic impact analysis will be addressed when site plans are approved, she says. Warpehoski asks for an update on the ZORO (Zoning Ordinance Reorganization) process. City attorney Stephen Postema says that assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald can email an update to all of council.

9:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval of the Research Park rezoning.

9:03 p.m. C-3 Amend zoning to allow outdoor places of recreation in the Office/Research/Limited Industrial (ORL) Zoning District [For additional background, see Development: Research Park Drive – Rezoning, Recreation above.]

9:03 p.m. Briere says that on the assumption that both of the items related to Research Park Drive come back at the next meeting, she wants the order flipped.

9:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval of the zoning amendment that would allow places of recreation in the ORL zoning district.

9:04 p.m. C-4 Amend Section 1:237 of Chapter 8 (Organization of Boards and Commissions). The council is being asked to give initial approval to a change to the ordinance on city boards and commissions. Among the changes is an amendment that makes clear that the city planning commission, energy commission and park advisory commissions make their appointments to the environmental commission without further city council approval needed. [For additional background, see Environmental Commission: Ordinance Change above.]

9:05 p.m. Briere is noting that it’s in front of the council as a first reading item. She thinks that it will clarify the ordinance.

9:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the change to the city ordinance on boards and commissions. For final enactment, the council will need to take a second vote at its next meeting.

9:05 p.m. DC-1 Appoint new members to the city of Ann Arbor environmental commission. The council is being asked to confirm three nominations to the EC, which were announced at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting: Allison Skinner, Benjamin Muth and Mark Clevey.

9:05 p.m. Based on the staff written responses to councilmember questions, Mark Clevey’s name won’t be put forward tonight, because he is the selection by the energy commission to represent the energy commission on the EC. Once enacted, the energy commission appointment to EC (like that of other boards and commissions to the EC) would be for a one-year term. So his confirmation is being held until the ordinance revision is complete.

9:06 p.m. Briere says that because the ordinance is being amended, Clevey’s name is, in fact, being eliminated from consideration tonight.

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the appointments of Allison Skinner and Benjamin Muth to the environmental commission.

9:06 p.m. DC-2 Recommend approval of issuance of a downtown development district liquor license to RCAA Developments LLC (Ruth’s Chris Steak House). The council is being asked to approve a downtown development liquor license for Ruth’s Chris Steak House. The council approved the site plan for Ruth’s Chris – to be located on Fourth Avenue between William and Liberty – at its June 2, 2014 meeting.

9:07 p.m. Lumm, who chairs the liquor license review committee, is explaining the ins and outs of the 2006 statute that allows award of downtown development liquor licenses. The minimum investment is $75,000, but Ruth’s Chris is investing millions of dollars, she says.

9:09 p.m. Anglin, who also serves on the liquor license review committee, cautions against bringing in corporate entities – as other smaller entities without the deeper pockets to make this kind of investment would be pushed out. Hiefjte tells Anglin that it’s a tough problem.

9:10 p.m. Kunselman says it wasn’t that long ago when Kresge and Borders were downtown, so he’s offering a little different perspective. Whether new businesses are corporate or local, he wants them to provide jobs and places for residents to go and shop. He says he kind of misses the McDonald’s that was over on Maynard.

9:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend the award of a special downtown development liquor license to Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse.

9:10 p.m. DC-3 Approve temporary outdoor sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages during the 2014 Ann Arbor Art Fair. This resolution would allow several downtown businesses to serve alcohol outdoors during the Ann Arbor art fairs, to be held July 16-19 this year: Knight’s Restaurant (600 E. Liberty St.), Michigan Theater (603 E. Liberty St.), Neopapalis (500 E. William St.), Cottage Inn (508-512 E. William St.), New York Pizza Depot (605 E. William St.), Ashley’s Restaurant (338 S. State St.), Red Hawk Bar & Grill (316 S. State St.), and Pizza House (618 Church).

9:13 p.m. Lumm notes that the liquor license review committee had recommended this item for approval. Lumm says that city clerk Jackie Beaudry and assistant city attorney Mary Fales had been very nimble in dealing with a change by theMichigan Liquor Control Commission that required a 10-day review. This is the last day on which the council can approve this item, she says.

9:13 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve outdoor liquor for several downtown businesses during the art fairs this year.

9:13 p.m. DC-4 Call public hearing on issuance of bonds by the Economic Development Corporation. This resolution sets a public hearing for Aug. 7, 2014 on the issuance of re-funding bonds by the city’s Economic Development Corporation that were originally issued to finance and refinance capital improvements for the benefit of Glacier Hills Inc. – a series in the amount of $23,245,000, of which $15,440,000 is presently outstanding and another series of bonds in the amount of $9,875,000, of which $4,545,000 is outstanding. The issuance of the re-funding bonds will not encumber the city in any way, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

9:16 p.m. Lumm says she’s happy to co-sponsor this with Petersen. Lumm is reviewing the background of the re-funding of the bonds.

9:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the setting of a hearing on the issuance of bonds by the EDC.

9:16 p.m. DB-1 Approve the Rudolf Steiner High School building addition site plan. The private school is located at 2230 Pontiac Trail, north of Brookside. The project – estimated to cost $2.5 million – involves building a one-story, 19,780-square-foot addition to the existing classroom building. The structure will include a 9,990-square-foot gym, with the remaining 9,790 square feet used for classrooms and storage. [For additional background, see Development: Rudolf Steiner Site Plan above.]

9:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Rudolf Steiner High School site plan.

9:16 p.m. DS-1 Confirm the Scio Church sidewalk special assessment roll. This is the first of three assessment rolls the council is being asked to approve tonight for sidewalk projects. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Sidewalk Special Assessments above.]

9:19 p.m. Briere asks public services area administrator Craig Hupy about Hayner’s concerns – expressed during public comment – that the costs are too high. Hupy notes that the projects have not yet been bid and the numbers are just estimates. City engineer Nick Hutchinson also explains that there’s various curb and gutter and tree work that’s required in addition to the sidewalks. The reason that sidewalks don’t exist in these locations is that they’re challenging locations to install sidewalks, Hutchinson says.

9:21 p.m. Anglin asks about the 10% contingency that is built into contracts. He notes there were problems with the Madison Street reconstruction on the performance of the contractor. He wants specifications spelled out to contractors. The Madison job was left dormant for two months, he said, and that’s the reason it didn’t get done before winter. He ventures that the city should consider using a single-source contractor instead of taking the low bid.

9:23 p.m. Hupy says the 10% contingency can be adjusted up or down depending on the job. There are penalties for non-performance, he says. Hupy says that the city does impose penalties, even though you don’t hear about it. On the question of single-source contractors, assistant city attorney Abigail Elias quotes the one-word answer that a former city staffer, Bill Wheeler, gave regarding single source contracting for public works projects: “No.”

9:23 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm the Scio Church sidewalk special assessment roll.

9:24 p.m. DS-2 Confirm the Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment roll. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Sidewalk Special Assessments above.]

9:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Barton Drive sidewalk special assessment roll.

9:24 p.m. DS-3 Confirm the Stone School Road sidewalk special assessment roll. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Sidewalk Special Assessments above.]

9:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Stone School Road sidewalk special assessment roll.

9:24 p.m. DS-4 Authorize a contract with Cadillac Asphalt LLC for the water utilities street repair program ($344,600/year). The contract covers repair of streets after water mains, storm and sanitary sewers are repaired.

9:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Cadillac Asphalt LLC.

9:24 p.m. DS-5 Authorize contract with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. for $125,000; and Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. for $125,000 for general civil engineering and surveying services. The contracts cover general civil engineering and surveying services. Those services include a range of activities, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution: design and management of capital improvement projects; private development construction plan review; private development utility and road construction inspection; traffic engineering; civil engineering design; construction inspection; drafting; and surveying.

9:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contracts with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. and Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc.

9:25 p.m. DS-6 Award contract for replacement of clarifier drive at the drinking water treatment plant to Titus Welding Company ($175,000). According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the clarifier drive to be replaced is original to the plant and was installed in 1965. It had an expected life of 30 years. It has begun to show signs of failure, included seizing, high vibration, and bearing failure. The drive has been assessed by the manufacturer and it has been determined that it is not cost-effective to repair, according to the memo.

9:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Titus Welding Company.

9:25 p.m. DS-7 Approve Amendment No. 2 to the contract with Tetra Tech Inc. for environmental consulting services at the Ann Arbor Landfill ($80,835). This contract amendment brings the total amount on the contract to $624,221. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, for several years the landfill has had a plume of 1-4 dioxane and vinyl chloride contamination offsite primarily in Southeast Area Park, northeast of the landfill. A slurry wall was constructed along most of the boundary of the landfill to eliminate groundwater passing through the landfill, and three purge wells were used to attempt to capture the offsite contamination.

9:27 p.m. Lumm expresses concern about the amendments and the growing cost. But with this issue, she ventures there’s not a lot that can be done about it – the city has to do what MDEQ says, she says.

9:27 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Tetra Tech Inc.

9:27 p.m. DS-8 Approve a contract with Renosys Corporation to install PVC pool liners at Buhr and Fuller pools ($205,055). The city is switching to PVC pool lines from Marcite, which is, according to a staff memo, a “cementitous product that covers the pool shell creating a smooth and waterproof surface.” The new product has a smoother surface, and won’t require the yearly patching required due to harsh winters and wear and tear on the pool, according to the staff memo.

9:28 p.m. Hieftje says he’s visited both pools in the last few weeks and he’d enjoyed his swims, and the people there seemed to be enjoying themselves.

9:28 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Renosys Corporation.

9:28 p.m. DS-9 Notice the intent to vacate two segments of Seybold Drive adjacent to the proposed Ann Arbor Housing Commission North Maple Road Development. This notice of vacation is related to the rezoning and renovation of Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties at North Maple Estates. [For additional background, see Development: Ann Arbor Housing Commission – North Maple Rezoning above.]

9:28 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give notice of intent to vacate two segments of Seybold Drive.

9:28 p.m. DS-10 Approve agreement between city of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County for animal control services ($135,570). Background to the city’s agreement includes a long process of discussions and negotiations between Washtenaw County and the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV) – a conversation that began in 2011 when the amount of funding provided to HSHV was under scrutiny. A task force was appointed, and ultimately the county board of commissioners, at its Nov. 7, 2012 meeting, authorized contracting with HSHV for $500,000 a year for animal control services. [.pdf of contract between Washtenaw County and HSHV]

Cited in the council’s July 7 resolution as the cost of public animal control countywide is $951,793. The assignment of $135,570 of that cost to the city of Ann Arbor is based on the proportion of dogs that come from Ann Arbor that are housed at HSHV, factoring in the $500,000 provided to the HSHV by Washtenaw County.

9:31 p.m. Lumm has some questions. She is pleased that efforts are underway to improve compliance with dog licensing. Powers says that planning is underway. After the August primary, the clerk will be helping to implement the initiative. Lumm reports that she’d called the clerk’s office number and received the recorded message. She asks that the message provide a menu option for dog licenses.

Responding to another query from Lumm, Powers says that the deer management report will be completed at the end of the month as specified in the council’s resolution.

9:33 p.m. Lumm says she gets a lot of questions from constituents, including: How do you get rid of a dead deer carcass. Lumm thanks Powers for his work with Washtenaw County and the HSHV. For many years, the city has not paid for animal control services, Lumm says. That placed an unfair burden on HSHV, she adds. We’re still not quite all the way there as far as reimbursing HSHV, she says. The resolution designates HSHV as the animal shelter under Chapter 107 of the city code, she notes.

9:33 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Washtenaw County for animal control services.

9:35 p.m. Communications from the council. Kailaspathy alerts the council to a communication from the human rights commission. It concerns the same-sex marriages that were solemnized in Michigan – and it calls on Gov. Rick Snyder and attorney general Bill Schuette to cease their appeal of the federal court decision.

9:37 p.m. Teall is reminding councilmembers of the start of Huron River Day. She also says on July 9 there’s an emergency preparedness exercise at Michigan Stadium. There will be a lot of public safety personnel on site, she says.

9:41 p.m. Warpehoski notes that Lumm had shared her proposed amendment to the charter earlier in the meeting. He thanks Lumm for that effort. He says he fears that the mayoral election will be decided by less than a majority of voters. He’s working with the city attorney on a California-style blanket open primary. He’s not sure if it will be ready for this year, but if not he’ll look at it for 2016. The proposal deals with the possibility of the winner having less than a majority mandate, and would move the decision to an election with higher turnout. A possible downside, he explains, is that it could heighten the impact of money in elections. He’s also exploring the possibility of shifting to four-year election cycles. He’s not sure if it will be ready, but he wanted to follow Lumm’s example of alerting people to what he was working on.

9:42 p.m. Hieftje refers to state-level encouragement to communities that have elections every year to move them so that they are only every two years.

9:44 p.m. Lumm is happy to hear Warpehoski’s report of the work he’s doing. She ventures that a lot of people will want to provide some input into that question. She wants the question of non-partisan elections to be addressed. “This is absolutely something we should look at,” she says.

9:45 p.m. Briere says she wants to encourage people to consider not just the office of councilmember, but also for mayor as they think about this issue.

9:46 p.m. Kunselman says he’s taken the Ward 3 seat twice with less than 50% of the vote. He’s now asking about the DDA ambassador program. He wants to know if the DDA is going to use TIF (tax increment finance) or parking revenues for that program.

9:46 p.m. Clerk’s report.

9:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the clerk’s report.

9:46 p.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

9:48 p.m. Kai Petainen is at the podium. He asks the council to send the minutes from a March LDFA meeting back to the LDFA board because they indicate that he’d been a client of the business accelerator. He says he wasn’t.

9:50 p.m. Ed Vielmetti says that he’s noticed while riding his bicycle around town there’s a lot of bike lanes that are poorly marked. He’s not sure what the process is for reporting the erosion of striping. He asks that a city traffic engineer review the intersection at Hill and Packard. There was a left-turn lane created for the East Stadium bridges project, that might not be needed any longer, he says.

9:50 p.m. Thomas Partridge asks for the council to provide leadership to oversee the work of contractors in the city.

9:56 p.m. Jeff Hayner asks that as the Barton Drive sidewalk project gets done, some type of traffic control is considered. He’s commenting on the charter amendments that councilmembers have talked about. He asks councilmembers to consider the timing of elections when millages are passed, noting that the recent transit millage was passed with roughly 12% participation.

9:56 p.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss land acquisition, pending litigation and attorney-client written communication.

10:27 p.m. We’re back.

10:28 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

The Pontiac Trail project was the subject of two agenda items – one to direct the assessor to prepare an assessment roll, and another to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 21. The assessable cost is $72,218. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14.

The Pontiac Trail project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s a part of the city’s Complete Streets program. In addition to the sidewalk, approximately 1,960 feet of curb and gutter is being added north of Skydale along Pontiac Trail to protect existing wetland areas. [.pdf of Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment area]

The council had previously directed the preparation of a special assessment roll for a new sidewalk along the west side of Stone School Road. This work will be done in conjunction with the Stone School Road reconstruction project from I-94 to Ellsworth Road. The total sidewalk project cost is roughly $128,500, of which about $55,000 will be special assessed. So the action taken by the council on June 16 was to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 7.

The council did not take action on the Barton Drive or Scio Church sidewalk projects, but held public hearings on the projects. No one spoke at the public hearing for the Scio Church project. Jeff Hayner was the only speaker at the public hearing for the Barton Drive sidewalk, thanking everyone involved and noting that it’s been at least 12 years in the works. He encouraged the city’s pedestrian task force to take a look at the area.

The Barton Drive project would extend eastward from Bandemer Park at Longshore Drive. The cost of the Barton Drive sidewalk has been calculated to be $80,606. Of that, about $36,000 will be paid from federal surface transportation funds. Of the remaining $44,606, the city’s general fund would pay $42,626, leaving just $1,980 to be paid through the special assessment. The city council had voted at its May 19, 2014 meeting to set the assessment roll and to schedule the public hearing for June 16.

For the Scio Church sidewalk project, the total cost is expected to be $365,100. Of that, about $164,000 will be paid from a federal surface transportation grant. The remaining $201,100 will be paid out of the city’s general fund and by the special assessment of just $1,626.

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

[photo 4] is looking north on Newport at corner of Riverwood. Drainage from Riverwood to Alexandria is almost non-existent as the road levels out. We have not gotten any word as to what will be done to improve that when the sidewalks will add more impervious area uphill. We also have gotten no information on when the actual roadwork will start. The tree held up by phone lines is right over the edge of our property line at 2053 Newport. We think it may have started as a city tree but now leans back far enough to not look like it is.

As part of a contract to design urgent repairs to the sanitary sewer pipes and structures in Huron Street near the intersections of Glen Street and Zina Pitcher, Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. was tapped to provide the designs for two sidewalk projects that could ultimately result in special assessments for adjoining property owners.

By way of background, its July 15, 2013 meeting, the council approved $15,000 for preliminary design of a sidewalk along Barton Drive.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

And at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting, the council approved $15,000 for preliminary study of a sidewalk to be constructed along Scio Church, west of Seventh Street. On Nov. 7, 2013, the council approved another $35,000 for Scio Church sidewalk design work.

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

The contract with Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. – which includes $50,629 for the design of the two stretches of sidewalk – would draw on that previously authorized funding.

The council also approved a $30,000 general fund expenditure to pay for a new sidewalk along the east side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from the westbound I-94 exit ramp to the north end of the I-94 bridge, and along the west side of Ann Arbor-Saline Road from Brookfield Drive to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) park-and-ride commuter parking lot. The work is part of a more general road reconstruction project being handled by MDOT under an agreement between the city of Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw County road commission, MDOT and Pittsfield Township. Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc. also did  design work for this project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details of other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

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

6:54 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Councilmembers who’ve arrived in council chambers so far are Stephen Kunselman, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, and Marcia Higgins.

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

7:08 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7:27 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7:35 p.m. Minutes and consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. Tonight’s consent agenda includes five items, three of which relate to street closings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10:52 p.m. No one speaks.

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

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

11:08 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber.

The longer-than-usual break stems from the regular meeting schedule, which actually calls for a meeting on the first and third Monday of the month, not every two weeks. The traditional shift from Monday to Thursday to accommodate the Tuesday, Aug. 6 Democratic primary will add three more days to the break.

Two councilmembers have primary challenges this year – incumbent Stephen Kunselman is competing with Julie Grand for the Democratic nomination in Ward 3; and incumbent Marcia Higgins is competing with Jack Eaton for the Ward 4 nomination.

At its last meeting before the Aug. 6 election, the council’s agenda is relatively full. Dominant themes cutting across several agenda items are concrete and water.

In the category of concrete, the council will be asked to approve $15,000 for the design of a section of sidewalk along Barton Drive. The council approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road on Nov. 19, 2012. The interest in having sidewalks was supported by petitions submitted by adjoining property owners.

The council will also be asked to accept some easements and the dedication of right-of-way near the intersection of Platt Road and Washtenaw Avenue – in connection with the Arbor Hills Crossing development, where construction is well underway. A sidewalk is to be built along Platt Road as part of the intersection work.

Sidewalks also appear in connection with an agenda item that would approve a $212,784 engineering services contract with CDM Smith Michigan. The contract covers design for a street reconstruction project in the Springwater subdivision, located southeast of Buhr Park, south of Packard Road. The work is scheduled for FY 2014-16, and includes the construction of new sidewalks.

The council will also be asked to approve a $965,990 contract with MacKenzie Co. for street reconstruction between South University Avenue and Hill Street on Forest Avenue. The scope of the project includes the reconstruction of sidewalk.

Adding to the concrete on the agenda is the $1,031,592 construction contract with Krull Construction to build a concrete skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park. Among the features of the skatepark will be pools and bowls.

Although they won’t be skate-able, bowls show up in another agenda item that asks the council to approve $216,000 for renovations of 13 restrooms in the old city hall building. The bathrooms are 50 years old.

In the category of water, the council will be asked to approve a $33,743 annual contract with the Huron River Watershed Council to assist in compliance with the city’s stormwater permit from the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. HRWC’s work includes public education efforts, water quality monitoring and reporting assistance.

Stormwater is also on the agenda in the form of a Stone School Road reconstruction project. Of the $4 million project total, $1.2 million of it involves stormwater work on the county drain north of Ellsworth Road between Varsity Drive and Stone School Road. The council will be asked to approve a petition to the office of the county water resources commissioner for a loan under the state’s revolving fund (SRF) program. If approved by the state, the loan repayment would come from the city’s stormwater fund.

A loan that’s already been secured through the SRF will pay for another item on the agenda – a $509,125 contract with Margolis Companies Inc. for the purchase and planting of trees, as well as stump removal along city streets. The stormwater fund is used for this work because of the positive impact trees have on stormwater runoff.

Water also shows up in a consent agenda item that asks the council to approve a $43,788 annual contract with the Ecology Center to give tours of the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF). The cost of the contract is split 60%-40% between the solid waste fund and the drinking water fund. The drinking water funding is related to a Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources requirement that the city engage in source water protection educational efforts.

Leftover business from the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting includes changes to the council’s rules and the approval of the State Street corridor plan. Rules changes include reductions in speaking times for public commentary as well as for councilmembers.

Details of other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

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

6:52 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. About eight people are in the audience chambers now. No one from the city council has arrived yet.

7:00 p.m. Councilmembers are starting to arrive. Christopher Taylor, Stephen Kunselman, Sabra Briere, Chuck Warpehoski and Sally Petersen are now here.

7:02 p.m. Mike Anglin, John Hieftje, Sumi Kailasapathy and Margie Teall also here.

7:09 p.m. All councilmembers are here. We’re almost ready to start.

7:12 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:12 p.m. Proclamations. No proclamations are on the agenda tonight.

7:12 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.] A pending rule change to be considered at tonight’s meeting would limit speaking time to two minutes. Another pending rule change would address “frequent flyers,” by only allowing people to reserve time at the start of the meeting, if they did not speak during reserved time at the previous council meeting. Tonight’s lineup for reserved time speaking is: Blaine Coleman, Thomas Partridge, Lisa Dusseau, Jack Eaton, Lefiest Galimore, Rev. Jeff Harrold. Galimore, Harrold and Coleman will be addressing the council on the topic of the Trayvon Martin verdict. Ward 4 council candidate Jack Eaton is here to talk about the council rules changes.

7:16 p.m. Blaine Coleman tells the council they should make as much noise about the Trayvon Martin verdict as they did about the killing of white children in Newton, Mass. He tells councilmembers he expects strong statements from them about what happened to Martin, which he characterizes as “legalized lynching.” He is speaking to the “slavemaster mindset,” which says that black life is worth nothing. Councilmembers need to rid themselves of that mindset, he says. That’s a mindset that says it’s okay to hunt and kill black people. He expects the council to say that black life is worth something, and express its revulsion at the Trayvon Martin verdict.

7:19 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls for a new attitude and a new mayor of the city. He wants a council that will work to place items on every agenda that will expand human rights and expand public participation at meetings. He calls for increased affordable housing and transportation. For too long, the mayor and council have neglected and abused Michigan’s most vulnerable citizens, he says. Money is allocated that highlights historic discrimination, he contends, and it’s time to end that.

7:23 p.m. Lisa Dusseau speaks in support of domestic partnerships. She said her life partner is an Ann Arbor firefighter. They share everything a married couple would – except for health insurance. Her asthma medication isn’t covered under her own policy. She calls on the city of Ann Arbor to follow suit with other Ann Arbor institutions, in the light of recent court decisions, to restore domestic partner benefits.

7:25 p.m. Jack Eaton encourages the council to enact the rule change on its agenda that adds public commentary to work sessions. The proposed reduction in speaking times, however, is something he’s not supporting. He tells the council that the reduction in time was a reaction to a few speakers who abuse the opportunity for public commentary. He says democracy requires that they listen to all the voices who want to speak.

7:29 p.m. Lefiest Galimore is joined by seven others at the podium. He weighs in against the so-called “stand your ground” law in Florida. He recites the history of the Pioneer High School football brawl. He calls for the revocation of Michigan’s version of the “stand your ground” law. Rev. Jeff Harrold says it’s all too easy to see a young black man as threatening. He encourages the council to go on record against the “stand your ground” law. He calls on the council to support federal civil rights charges to be brought against Zimmerman. He cites the fact that the Ann Arbor Reads selection is The New Jim Crow.

7:29 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:31 p.m. Sabra Briere offers a remembrance of Karl Pohrt. She calls him a man with a “beautiful soul.”

7:37 p.m. Mike Anglin offers some anecdotal information on flooding. A taxpayer has replaced all her basement walls. The taxpayer’s damages have been several thousand dollars, and the city’s cost has been $8,000. He wants to put a human face on the tragedy. He says the city needs to do its best to do a better job controlling floods and “disasters of that nature.”

Sumi Kailasapathy addresses the issue of racial discrimination that public speakers raised. She didn’t know what to tell her kids to explain to them why the Trayvon Martin verdict came out the way it did. She says she’ll support a resolution or work with other cities to make sure a situation like Trayvon Martin’s doesn’t occur in Michigan. Chuck Warpehoski also addresses the issues of marriage equality, racial equality and calls them issues dear to his heart. He indicates a willingness to support efforts to address “stand your ground” laws in Michigan. Racism isn’t just a Southern thing, he says.

7:41 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers is calling attention to the street closings that are on the consent agenda. On a more significant issue, he asks police chief John Seto to give an update. The first six months of the year show Part 1 crimes down 10% compared to last year. And overall crime is down 7.5%, he reports. The department is analyzing the initial data collection from the electronic activity logs for officers. The department expects to be staffed up to the full authorized level with the anticipated hire of four officers.

7:41 p.m. Public hearings. For tonight’s meeting there are no public hearings – a relatively rare occurrence.

7:46 p.m. Council communications. More council communications include a report from Jane Lumm that the city administrator will be meeting with the humane society to coordinate how stray animals will be handled. She discloses that she’s a board member for the Humane Society of Huron Valley. Mike Anglin says he wants to add his voice of support for those who wanted to work on human rights issues.

Marcia Higgins reports on meetings between city of Ann Arbor staff and University of Michigan about the possibility of closing Main Street, between Stadium Blvd. and Pauline Blvd., for football games. There will be a public meeting on July 24 at 6 p.m. at the downtown public library. Sabra Briere updates the council on the D1 review and the R4C committee work. Four meetings of the R4C will take place in August and September, she reports.

7:46 p.m. Minutes and consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. Items on the consent agenda tonight include:

• Street closings for the Electric Bolt 8K Run/Walk on July 28, 2013. It’s a new course this year, looping around Argo Pond, hosted by the Bezonki-award-winning Ann Arbor Active Against ALS.
• Street closings for the 2013 UA Block Party to include the Plumbers and Pipefitters 5K on Monday, Aug. 12, 2013.
• $43,788 annual contract with the Ecology Center to give tours of the material recovery facility (MRF). The cost of the contract is split 60-40 between the solid waste fund and the drinking water fund. The drinking water funding is related to a Michigan Department of Natural Resources requirement that the city engage in source water protection educational efforts. The authorization is for the contract to be extended annually for five years with a 3% increase each year.
• Agreement with Complus Data Innovations Inc. for parking citation collection. The current contract with Complus, which goes through Nov. 14, 2013, gives Complus $2.28 per ticket issued. Under the new agreement the cost will be $1.92 per ticket issued, with no annual increases for the life of the contract including any extensions. The city thinks this will result in a combined savings to the city and the University of Michigan of around $46,800 annually. That works out to about 130,000 parking tickets issued per year. The “convenience fee” is also being changed – from $3.50 per citation to a 3% transaction fee (which could cover multiple citations), with a minimum of $2.95 per citation.
• Approval of $91,533 for an amended grant contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for a snow removal equipment building at the Ann Arbor municipal airport. The project was completed in 2012. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project lasted several years and MDOT-Aero forgot to amend the agreement earlier.

7:49 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Warpehoski removes the Plumbers and Pipefitters 5K street closing for separate consideration. He’s concerned about the city’s notification plan for neighbors of the race. On Fifth and Division streets, there are parking lots that have no other access. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl gives Warpehoski an assurance.

Lumm has pulled out the MRF tour item to correct the amount of the contract, but she observes that the amount has already been corrected.

7:49 p.m. Outcome: The council voted to approve all the consent agenda items.

7:49 p.m. Pension ordinance for police service specialists and command officers association. The council is being asked to give initial approval to a change to the pension ordinance to incorporate changes negotiated with the police service specialists and command officers association bargaining units.

7:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give initial approval to the changes in the pension ordinance.

7:50 p.m. GAC appointment: Jean Cares. This item was postponed from the previous meeting, as is standard practice with a greenbelt advisory commission appointment, which is made by the council, not by the mayor (as most nominations to boards and commissions are). When it appears on the agenda the first time and is postponed, that’s treated as the nomination. The following meeting, the vote is taken as a confirmation – which is what’s happening tonight. Cares is nominated as the agriculture landowner representative on the greenbelt advisory commission. Cares owns the Dexter Mill.

7:51 p.m. Taylor reminds everyone about the designated slots for differently qualified people on GAC.

7:51 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to confirm the appointment of Cares to GAC.

7:51 p.m. 2013 Council rules amendments. For Chronicle coverage on these changes, see “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.” Highlights include adding public commentary to council work sessions, but reducing public speaking time to two-minute turns. A “frequent flyer” rule would prevent people from signing up for reserved time at the start of a meeting two meetings in a row. The total time that each councilmember could speak on an item of debate would be reduced from eight minutes to five minutes. The council postponed a vote from its previous meeting, on July 1, 2013, on these changes due to the absence of Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – who were described by council rules committee chair Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) as wanting to take part in the conversation. The council had also postponed the item at its June 17, 2013 meeting.

7:56 p.m. Higgins remarks that the item seems like it’s been on the agenda forever. She summarizes the discussion of the council rules committee and characterizes it as a “lively debate.” She invites discussion from councilmembers on the proposed changes. The changes can be approved as a whole or in pieces, she ventures.

Lumm proposes an amendment. She understands the need to streamline meetings, but says that the recent long public hearings were not typical. She doesn’t support a reduction of public speaking time. Sometimes two minutes might be sufficient, but other times it might not be enough. She’d prefer to err on the side of allowing additional speaking time. Streamlining should be done some other way. So she proposes that the reduction from three minutes to two minutes for public speaking time be eliminated. Warpehoski seconds Lumm’s proposal.

8:09 p.m. Anglin supports Lumm’s proposal. He wants to continue with the three-minute limit. Everyone has their own story, he says. If the council is really looking at how to shorten council meetings, there are other ways to do that, Anglin says. Briere says in a “prior life” she’s addressed the council as a member of the public, and says that three minutes goes by very fast. It’s not about limiting access or limiting the duration of a meeting, she says. The message she’d taken away from an Michigan Municipal League work session was that between minute 2 and minute 3, people tend to repeat themselves. The MML’s recommendation could be disregarded, she said.

Petersen said she didn’t think that the time limit change was meant to be a “cure-all” for making meetings more efficient. It’s one step that might contribute to that, she felt. Her first concern was that the amount of time being allocated to councilmembers and to members of the public was different. The point is to improve the quality of the speaking time, she says, and to make the time as efficient as possible. She supports Lumm’s amendment.

Teall says she could support going back to three minutes for the reserved time, because those speakers have made the effort to sign up ahead of time. And that is limited to just 10 slots. So she supports three minutes for public speaking reserved time.

Higgins ventures that the council should not try to amend amendments, as Teall is suggesting. Higgins wants each proposed amendment to be considered in turn. She asks Lumm to take her amendment off the table and to consider each of the kinds of public commentary separately – reserved time, general time, and public hearings. Lumm doesn’t want to do that.

Hieftje forges ahead with Teall’s amendment to the amendment, but it dies for lack of a second. We’re back to Lumm’s amendment – to keep all public speaking time at three minutes. Kunselman ventures that the council could spend another hour on the topic. He supports going back to the original three-minute time period. Democracy is about giving people a chance to speak, he says. It’s important to continue Ann Arbor’s tradition.

Taylor says that the purpose of reducing the meeting time has been disclaimed, so he’s speaking to that. He rejects the idea that reducing the speaking time limits access and participation, but rather encourages broader participation. He also points out that there are many points of contact between the public and the council besides the public commentary portions of meetings. He relates how he’s heard from people who have despaired of ever trying to address the council because they have to wait through other speakers.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The vote is 10-1, with dissent from Teall.

8:21 p.m. Kailasapathy is now addressing the “frequent flyer” portion of the rule. Briere suggests that the council just go through each rule change and vote them up and down. Briere talks about people who are very savvy and who are on the phone early in the morning to sign up for reserved time. People who want to address the council on an agenda item don’t have a chance, she said. But the council also needs to hear from people who want to speak on non-agenda items. She calls the proposed rule change – the “frequent flyer” provision – a compromise.

From the audience, Thomas Partridge says that only six people signed up for reserved time tonight. Hieftje rules him out of order. Hieftje says that he wants some mechanism to ensure that if someone wants to address the council, they’re not prevented from speaking by those who speak frequently.

Warpehoski proposes to amend the rule so that reserved time is assigned on a preferential basis to those who did not address the council at the previous meeting – instead of making it a strict prohibition against someone reserving time two meetings in a row. Kunselman wonders how this would work logistically.

Higgins asks that the changes just be rejected, instead of trying to amend the rules. Hieftje ventures that there’s no rush to do this. He suggests postponing again after the council goes through all the rules changes.

8:30 p.m. Warpehoski encourages the rules committee to consider changing the admonishment that council debate not include “personality” to saying that it shouldn’t include “personal attacks.” He suggests that emails sent to all councilmembers (draft language for amendments, for example) be made available to the public. He also notes that sometimes when councilmembers question staff – which isn’t counted as speaking time – often it includes editorial comments. How is that handled?

Higgins reports how the rules committee had discussed the issue of councilmember speaking time. Higgins talks about the possibility of rotating the job of timekeeper among councilmembers. She invites councilmembers to send suggestions to the rules committee. Lumm says that time limits for councilmembers is appropriate. Five minutes seems too long for the first time, so the reduction from five minutes to three minutes seems reasonable. But the second speaking time should stay at three minutes, she says. Hieftje says that the length of the meetings changes as the issues change. Hieftje invites someone to move for postponement.

8:40 p.m. Anglin ventures that the agenda itself needs to be shortened. He also wants the public to be notified if it’s known that an item will be postponed by the council. Briere counters that the council can’t act on the assumption that an item will be postponed. One should not presuppose an action by the council, she says.

The discussion has wandered to the idea of managing the number of proclamations. Kailasapathy says that many people, like her, have children and full-time jobs, so meetings that go to 1 a.m. are a hardship. It’s more humane to have two four-hour sessions, she ventures. She says that meeting length shouldn’t be a barrier to service on the council for people with young children and full-time jobs.

Petersen ventures that the agenda itself should be examined – noting that tonight’s agenda includes 16 items introduced by staff members. Higgins mentions the rule about communications via mobile devices at the table. She says that if councilmembers need to communicate, then they can just step away from the table to do that.

Teall asks about the rule limiting the clerk’s report on the agenda to only certain items. Briere explains there have been times when councilmembers have received correspondence and councilmembers have asked that the correspondence be added to the electronic agenda item.

8:40 p.m. Some young men who were here for the skatepark item have given up and departed the meeting.

8:42 p.m. Higgins suggests that the item be postponed until the first meeting in September, which is Sept. 3. Hieftje suggests the second meeting in September. Briere wants to have the rules in place for the work session in September. So the proposal is to postpone until Sept. 3.

8:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone the amendments to the council rules until Sept. 3.

8:43 p.m. The council is now in recess.

9:00 p.m. The council has returned from recess.

9:00 p.m. Right of way agreement with University of Michigan. This resolution stems from an item that appeared on the council’s May 13, 2013 meeting agenda. It involves a right-of-way occupancy for the University of Michigan to install conduits in Tappan Street. The purpose of the conduits under Tappan Street is to connect a new emergency generator to the Lawyers Club buildings at 551 S. State Street. The Lawyers Club and the generator are located on opposite sides of the street. The university considers the transaction to be a conveyance of an interest in land. The city doesn’t see it that way. But UM insists that the council approve the resolution as if it were a conveyance of an interest in land, which requires an eight-vote majority. On May 13, the council only had seven votes in favor. Tonight’s resolution directs the staff to renegotiate the agreement.

9:15 p.m. Lumm introduces the resolution. Higgins wants the process to be one in the future that could be approved at the staff level with a standard licensing agreement, as other entities do. Another possibility is to use easements, she says. She wants UM to use the tools that are already in place.

Petersen asks what has happened since May 13? What’s the change? Higgins reiterates that there’s a standard licensing tool for this purpose. Taylor says that the smooth operation between the city and the university is important. He encourages staff to move swiftly and surely, without prejudicing the city.

Anglin thanks those who brought the resolution forward – and is glad that the city is not granting the transfer of any property. Hieftje says the university has work pending, and wonders if the council’s action or non-action would have an impact. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias says that the resolution tonight would not preclude the Tappan Street agreement from coming back to the council.

Petersen wants to know how long the renegotiation will take. She’d heard the original negotiation had taken three years. Elias expresses optimism, but allows that it takes two parties to reach an agreement. Higgins says that as long as the agreement doesn’t include a conveyance of land, it doesn’t need to ever come to the council. Lumm agrees with Higgins – that it’s about streamlining the process.

City attorney Stephen Postema says that if the university comes back with an agreement that requires eight votes, then it could be a longer negotiation than Elias had described. Taylor clarifies that things that need to be done for the Tappan Street project can be done currently. Elias says that there’d need to be a license agreement. It’s up to UM to ask for what it needs to move forward.

Petersen asks what UM’s objection is to a licensing agreement. Elias says that UM felt it needed an interest in the land but the city felt that the conduit serves a structure, not the land. She characterized the proposal the council had rejected as an agreement to disagree. Anglin asks why this issue has even arisen. He calls the previous resolution “gibberish” that no one can understand.

9:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct renegotiation of the right-of-way agreement with UM.

9:16 p.m. Nomination to greenbelt advisory commission: John Ramsburgh. John Ramsburgh’s name is being put forward to serve on the greenbelt advisory commission to replace Dan Ezekiel. This was announced by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the last meeting of GAC on July 11, 2013. Taylor serves as the city council representative to GAC. Taylor explains how GAC’s term limits work and requests a postponement.

9:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the vote on Ramsburgh’s nomination to GAC, as is customary. The item’s first appearance on the agenda serves as the “nomination” and the subsequent vote is the confirmation.

9:16 p.m. South State Street corridor plan. This resolution would adopt the South State Street corridor plan into the city’s master plan. The city planning commission voted unanimously to adopt it at its May 21, 2013 meeting. At the council’s previous meeting, on July 1, 2013, councilmembers had voted to postpone the question, in deference to Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who wanted more time to evaluate it.

More commonly when the planning commission votes on a matter, it’s to recommend action by the city council. For master plans, however, the planning commission is on equal footing with the council: both groups must adopt the same plan. Among the recommendations are: (1) Evaluate use of vacant parcels for alternative energy generation; (2) Evaluate integrating public art along the corridor; (3) Evaluate use of open land for community gardens; (4) Assess and improve high crash areas along the corridor; (5) create boulevard on State Street between Eisenhower and I‐94 to enable safer automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; (6) Consider utilizing vacant parcels for athletic fields and recreation facilities; (7) Develop a pedestrian and bicycle path along the Ann Arbor railroad that will connect the planned Allen Creek bikeway to Pittsfield Township through the corridor; and (8) Resurface roads in the corridor.

9:17 p.m. Higgins thanks her colleagues for the postponement at the last meeting so that she could look at the item a bit more closely.

9:17 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt the South State Street corridor plan into the city’s master plan.

9:17 p.m. Waive park space rental fee for Liberty Plaza. This item comes on recommendation from the park advisory commission, which voted at its June 18, 2013 meeting to recommend the waiver of fees in Liberty Plaza on a trial basis through next year. The fee waiver comes in response to a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when city staff applied fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park in Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church. Members of Camp Take Notice, a self-governed homelessness community, have addressed the council at several of its recent meetings on this topic. They’re keen to see a more general written commitment that the city would allow humanitarian efforts to take place on public land generally.

9:20 p.m. Taylor reviews the history of the issue with the Pizza in the Park program in Liberty Plaza. The program was under a perceived cloud, he said. PAC felt that a waiver would be useful for the particular purpose of protecting Pizza in the Park, but also address the general purpose of activating the park. If the one-year trial is successful, it could become permanent. Taylor noted that advocates for Pizza in the Park have solidified how they think humanitarian efforts should be treated – beyond Liberty Plaza. Teall describes how she’s met with several people and they’re exploring the possibility of extending waivers to other parks as well.

9:32 p.m. Briere asks community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl to explain how permit fees are normally waived. Bahl said it’s not the usual practice to waive fees – and says he can’t recall that being done in the past. He allows that the council could direct the staff to waive fees. Briere ventures that during the art fairs, the council could pass a resolution to direct the waiver of the permit fee at other parks. Higgins notes that the art fair are held this week, so she wonders where Pizza in the Park is happening this week. Bahl indicates that it’s being held at West Park, and that no fee is being applied.

Anglin asks how this proposal came about, and Taylor says that staff had heard the tenor of the council’s reaction to the Pizza in the Park advocates who’d addressed the council at previous meetings. He ventures that the proposal – which protects Pizza in the Park, while also helping to activate the park in general – “feeds two birds with one stone.”

Kunselman asks if there’s an events committee through which this request could be handled. Kailasapathy agrees with Kunselman’s suggestion that nonprofits could be included in the fee structure as exempt, instead of waiving the fees by resolution. Briere cautions that “nonprofit” and “humanitarian aid” are not precise terms and would need to be refined.

Lumm reported that she’d met with the advocates of Pizza in the Park, and appreciated that they were trying to get direction from the council. She also worried about opening the door to all nonprofits and encouraged a narrowly-defined solution.

9:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the fee waiver in Liberty Plaza on a trial basis through July 1, 2014.

9:32 p.m. FY 2014 allocations to nonprofit entities for human services ($1,244,629). This is the distribution of funds to specific nonprofits that provide human services under contract with the city. The budget allocation for $1,244,629 was already made, at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting.

A total of 20 programs operated by 16 different organizations are receiving funding from the city of Ann Arbor this year. Half of those organization are receiving more than $90,000: Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw County ($91,645); Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw ($94,490); Food Gatherers ($95,171); Community Action Network ($104,944); Perry Nursery School of Ann Arbor ($109,851); Avalon Housing Inc. ($142,851); Legal Services of South Central Michigan ($177,052); and the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County ($245,529).

In the coordinated funding approach to human services, a total of $4,369,102 is being allocated by the city and other entities. In addition to the city’s share, here’s a breakdown of other contributions: United Way of Washtenaw County ($1,797,000); Washtenaw County general fund ($1,015,000); Washtenaw Urban County ($288,326); and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation ($24,147).

9:33 p.m. Taylor asks the council to vote to excuse him from voting on the item, because one of his clients is Planned Parenthood, which is among the groups being funded. They take the necessary vote.

9:36 p.m. Briere notes that this is a three-year agreement and the amount this year is the same as it was the previous two years. Hieftje recites how much each of the other entities are contributing. Lumm thanks Mary Jo Callan and Andrea Plevek, the staff who are responsible for this. She recites the history of the program. Human services continue to exceed the available funding, she says.

9:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the human services funding distributions for FY 2014.

9:36 p.m. Krull contract for skatepark at Veterans Memorial Park ($1,031,592). The park advisory commission voted at its June 8, 2013 meeting to recommend award of the contract. The originally approved budget for the project, to be located at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park, was $800,000 – though the expectation was that the project would cost about $1 million.

This conceptual design by Wally Hollyday for the Ann Arbor skatepark at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park was approved by the city council on Jan. 7, 2013.

The total budget now – including the construction contract, 10% contingency and $89,560 design contract – is $1,224,311, or $424,311 higher than the originally budgeted $800,000. Funds to pay for the skatepark include a $400,000 grant from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, $300,000 from the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources Trust Fund, and $100,00 raised by the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, which paid for the skatepark’s design. The city identified funds from a variety of sources to make up the gap.

9:41 p.m. Kunselman says it’s been a long time coming. He recalls helping the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark back in 2007-08, giving them a voice at the council table. Everyone had come together to make it possible. He compares the vote to standing at the rim of a pool looking down getting ready to skate: “Just go for it.”

Petersen praises the effort but expresses concern about the amount of an additional appropriation being made from city funds. She allows that the Friends of Ann Arbor Skatepark are going to continue to do fundraising. She wonders if it’s possible to delay the vote for a couple of months while private funding is pursued.

City administrator Steve Powers asks Sumedh Bahl to comment on the issue. The project needs to be completed by August 2014 under terms of the MDNR trust fund grant. Under the current schedule, a June 30 estimated completion date is foreseen. There’s some “float,” Bahl says, but essentially it needs to go ahead on the current schedule.

9:50 p.m. Taylor explains that staff worked closely with the construction company, with PAC, and with the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark. Staff were mindful that additional money was being requested. Nevertheless, they were excited about moving forward, even with that additional cost. The effort had been long and earnest and had the support of many governmental partners. The bid came in higher than was anticipated, Taylor says, but it was determined that this was simply how much it would cost. He allowed that it was more money than had been anticipated. It would be a good thing for kids and adults who skate, Taylor concludes.

Bahl notes that Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark have recently received a $50,000 grant from the Knight Foundation. Lumm allows that the amount that the budget was off “could have been worse.” She notes that the specs had been reduced and that Krull had agreed to reduce the prices by $10,000. She noted that the fund balance for the parks maintenance and capital improvements is healthy. She calls the parks system one of the reasons the quality of life in Ann Arbor is so strong. Adding the new facility, even at the city’s cost, is worth doing, and she’ll support it.

Anglin recalls how the entire council chambers had been filled with supporters. He calls Trevor Staples to the podium. Hieftje establishes that no one on the council objects to Staples coming forward to speak. Staples quips that he himself might object. He notes that about $900,000 is being brought to the city’s park system by the project. So he encouraged councilmembers to think about what could be lost if it doesn’t pass.

9:53 p.m. Petersen asks about the operating agreement: How will security be provided at the skatepark? Hieftje ventures that no additional security is provided for basketball courts. Petersen said that she didn’t see any “eyes on the park” – that has been a concern cited in regard to downtown parks that have been proposed. Hieftje contrasts urban area parks with the future location of the skatepark. Hieftje hopes it will pass tonight. He recalls the kind of fund raising efforts that the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark have made. The enthusiasm they’ve generated has been inspiriational, he says. The city’s contribution is not coming from human services money, he adds.

9:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to award the construction contract for the skatepark. Kunselman briefly leaves the table to give Staples a hug.

9:54 p.m. Larcom building (city hall) restrooms renovation ($216,000). The council is being asked to move $216,000 from the general fund to the fleet and facilities fund, to cover a $188,484 contract with Howell Construction Services, plus a $27,516 contingency. The work would renovate 13 restrooms in the old city hall building, which are 50 years old.

9:56 p.m. Lumm notes that the money had originally been in the facilities budget and had reverted to the general fund balance at the end of the fiscal year. So the council was simply restoring the money to the facilities fund.

9:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Howell Construction for the Larcom building restroom renovations.

9:56 p.m. Huron River Watershed Council contract ($33,743 annually for six years for a total of $202,463). The council is being asked to authorize a contract with HRWC to be funded out of the stormwater operating and maintenance budget – to comply with the requirements of an MS4 stormwater discharge permit that it has through the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. An MS4 system (short for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) is “a system of drainage (including roads, storm drains, pipes, and ditches, etc.) that is not a combined sewer or part of a sewage treatment plant.” The goal of the MS4 program is to reduce pollution of Michigan’s surface waters. HRWC’s activities are described in the staff memo accompanying the agenda items as: “public education efforts; water quality monitoring; reporting assistance; watershed group facilitation; and, technical assistance.”

9:56 p.m. This item comes in the context of an incident on June 27, when heavy rains briefly overwhelmed the city’s sanitary sewage system and resulted in 10,000 gallons of untreated sewage flowing into the Huron River. The city has separate sanitary and stormwater sewer systems, but the sanitary system receives stormwater flow from cracks in the system as well as footing drains that were connected to the sanitary system as part of standard construction techniques in the 1970s. Incidents like the one on June 27 led to the creation of the city’s footing drain disconnection program in the early 2000s. From the city’s press release on the incident three weeks ago:

On Thursday, June 27, 2013, the Ann Arbor area was deluged with intense rainfall that caused flooding conditions and significantly increased the flow of wastewater to the City of Ann Arbor Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) over a short period of time. Plant flows more than tripled within a half hour. As a result of this unprecedented increase in plant flow, approximately 10,000 gallons of untreated wastewater was discharged to the Huron River from 5:20 to 5:30 p.m. By comparison, the WWTP fully treated approximately 350,000 gallons of wastewater during the 10minute period over which this incident occurred.

9:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with the Huron River Watershed Council.

9:57 p.m. Stone School Road and Malletts Creek stormwater improvements ($1.2 million loan application). The council is being asked to approve a petition to the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office to apply for a state revolving fund loan for $1.2 million worth of stormwater improvements as part of a $4 million road improvement project. The stormwater improvements will include work “to clean out, relocate, widen, deepen, straighten, extend, tile, interconnect, or otherwise improve a portion of the county drain located north of Ellsworth Road between Varsity Drive and Stone School Road, known as the Malletts Creek Drain.” The loan would be repaid in annual installments of up to $76,307 from the city’s stormwater fund. Up to 50% of the loan could be forgiven as a “green” project.

9:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the petition to the water resources commissioner’s office for the Stone School Road Mallets Creek project.

9:57 p.m. Purchase, planting of trees, and stump removal along city streets, contract with Margolis Companies Inc. ($509,125). The council is being asked to approve a two-year $509,125 contract with Margolis Companies Inc. to plant 750 trees in FY 2014 and 1,000 trees in FY 2015. The work would be paid for from the city’s stormwater fund and reimbursed with a state revolving fund (SRF) loan that has been obtained through the county water resources commissioner’s office.

9:57 p.m. Warpehoski reviews the environmental benefits to tree planting.

9:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the tree-planting contract with Margolis Companies Inc.

9:58 p.m. Barton Drive sidewalk design ($15,000). The council is being asked to appropriate $15,000 from the city’s general fund to pay for the design of a 400-foot new concrete sidewalk on the south side of Barton Road from a spot west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. The council approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting. The interest in having sidewalks was supported by petitions submitted by adjoining property owners.

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

10:01 p.m. Briere notes that people who are attempting to push strollers to Bandemer Park have complained for years about the lack of a sidewalk. The design budget doesn’t guarantee construction will take place, she allows, but it’s a good step. There was a meeting between staff and neighbors and the response was overwhelmingly positive, she says. Kailasapathy confirms the nature of the neighborhood meeting. She highlights the importance of non-motorized transportation.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the design budget for the proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

10:02 p.m. Engineering services for Springwater subdivision with CDM Smith Michigan Inc. ($212,784). The council is being asked to approve the engineering consultant work for improvements in the Springwater subdivision – located southeast of Buhr Park, south of Packard Road. The work is planned over the course of three years, and would include the north-south streets of Nordman Road and Springbrook Avenue and the east-west streets of Butternut and Redwood. The eventual project, to be completed in 2014-16, would include “a reconstructed roadway section, storm sewer upgrades, storm water quality improvements, water main replacement, replacement of curb and gutter, and the construction of new sidewalk and/or the filling in of sidewalk gaps within the project limits.”

10:02 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the contract with CDM Smith Michigan Inc. for the Springwater subdivision street improvements.

10:02 p.m. Forest Ave. construction contract with MacKenzie Co. ($965,990). The council is being asked to approve the construction contract for work on Forest Avenue from South University Ave. to Hill Street. In addition to reconstructing the street, the existing 6-inch water main between Willard Street and Hill Street will be replaced with a 12-inch pipe. The project also includes installation of a stone reservoir under the street to allow for infiltration of stormwater. The total estimated $1,257,000 cost is to be paid for as follows: water fund capital budget ($185,000), street millage fund ($543,937), developer contributions (Zaragon Place and 601 Forest Ave.) to the parks memorials and contribution fund ($78,063), and the stormwater fund ($450,000). The city has obtained a loan through the state revolving fund for the stormwater portion of the project.

10:05 p.m. Briere says there’s some concern about the timing of the project, from August to October. It will accommodate student move-in, she says. She ventures that the city is eventually going to turn the corner on stormwater. Lumm says it’s good that the work is being done, characterizing the stretch as a “moonscape.”

10:05 p.m. Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract with E. T. MacKenzie Co. for the Forest Avenue work.

10:05 p.m. Traffic signal materials: Carrier & Gable Inc. ($475,000) The council is being asked to approve the purchase of materials for the following work: (1) Packard and Stone School pedestrian signal upgrade ($45,000); (2) Packard and Jewett/Eastover pedestrian signal upgrades ($50,000); (3) maintenance operations including wear-out and accident damage, and support of other city projects ($250,000); (4) traffic signal rebuild at Ashley and Liberty ($65,000); (5) traffic signal rebuild at Packard and Pine Valley ($65,000). The materials are being paid for from the street fund.

10:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of traffic signal materials.

10:06 p.m. On-call engineering services: Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. and Hubbell, Roth & Clark (each not to exceed $100,000 per year). The council is being asked to approve on-call contracts with engineering services firms in the event that projects come up faster than city staff can design repair work for “small and medium size projects including, but not limited to, architectural design for building repair, structural engineering work for repair or construction of pedestrian bridges, retaining walls and structural building repairs, civil engineering designs for difficult or specialized utility repairs, and landscape architecture designs to augment storm water management.”

10:08 p.m. Lumm says it’s appropriate to have such arrangements in place. But she’s curious about whether it’s a new approach or if it’s something the city has always done. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy says that it’s been a common practice. The approach is to facilitate a quick turn-around time, he says.

10:08 p.m. Outcome: The council voted to approve the contracts for on-call engineering services work.

10:08 p.m. Landfill monitoring: Tetra Tech Inc. ($178,596). The council is being asked to approve an amendment to the contract with Tetra Tech Inc. (TTI) to provide additional monitoring services of the city’s now-closed landfill. The $178,596 amendment brings the total amount of the contract to $543,386. Many of the additional services the city is asking Tetra Tech to provide are associated with a plume of 1,4 dioxane and vinyl chloride contamination in Southeast Area Park, which is located northeast of the landfill at Platt and Ellsworth.

10:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the landfill monitoring contract with Tetra Tech.

10:09 p.m. Fire dispatching: Emergent Health Partners (fka Huron Valley Ambulance) ($215,750). The council is being asked to approve a contract for fire dispatching services – as calls for fire emergencies are not handled by the sheriff’s office like other emergency calls are. The amount of the contract is based on the number of calls in the previous year.

10:09 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Emergent Health Partners for fire dispatching.

10:09 p.m. Easements at Washtenaw & Platt (Arbor Hills Crossing). The council is being asked to approve three separate land-related items in connection with the Arbor Hills Crossing project at Platt & Washtenaw. Two of the items are easements – for a sidewalk and for bus shelters and bus pullouts. The other item is the dedication of additional public right-of-way, so that Platt Road can be widened at that intersection. Here’s how construction looked yesterday from the intersection of Platt & Washtenaw:

Platt & Washtenaw looking east down Washtenaw on July 14, 2013.

The council had approved the site plan for Arbor Hills Crossing at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting.

Drawing showing the location of the planned sidewalk along Platt Road for which the city council is being asked to accept an easement.

10:11 p.m. Outcome: The council voted unanimously without discussion to approve all the items associated with Arbor Hills Crossing.

10:11 p.m. Appointments & nominations. The council is being asked to confirm the re-appointment of Russ Collins to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. By custom, the addresses for appointees are included in the council’s information packet. Collins, who’s executive director of the Michigan Theater, lives on Hollywood Street.

Also up for confirmation of nominations made at the council’s July 1 meeting are Jane Immonen, John Bassett, and Patrick Ion to the Elizabeth Dean Trust Fund committee, Geoffrey Mayers and Kevin Busch to the housing board of appeals, and Heather Lewis to the zoning board of appeals.

10:11 p.m. Being nominated tonight are Sue Perry to the Elizabeth Dean Trust Fund committee and Evan Nichols to the zoning board of appeals. Richard Beedon is being nominated for re-appointment to the board of the local development finance authority (LDFA). Terms on the LDFA are four years, so Beedon’s term extends to within one year of the end of the LDFA’s planned 15-year life in FY 2018.

10:12 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to confirm all the nominations.

10:13 p.m. Council communications. Warpehoski reports on a meeting about fracking and says that he’ll be bringing a proposal to the environmental commission, on which he serves. Hieftje suggests that Warpehoski work with Pittsfield Township.

10:14 p.m. Communications from the city attorney. City attorney Stephen Postema says that the three easements on the agenda tonight took a lot of work.

10:15 p.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:19 p.m. Thomas Partridge rises to speak for responsibility and integrity as an advocate for those residents of the city and state who are most vulnerable. Seth Best, advocate for Pizza in the Park, thanks the council for the time and for the resolution the council had passed on a fee waiver at Liberty Plaza. On behalf of the homeless population, he invites councilmembers to Pizza in the Park this Friday, which will be held in West Park.

10:19 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

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

First, councilmembers postponed a decision on a change to the definition of “sidewalk” in the city code – which would have implications for the adjacent property owners of “cross-lot paths.” While the definitional change would allow the city to take responsibility for capital repairs on such cross-lot paths – using sidewalk repair millage funds – it would place the burden of winter snow shoveling on adjacent property owners.

That division of responsibility for repair and maintenance is one that’s now familiar to owners of property adjacent to sidewalks that run next to a road or a street. Given the number of open questions about how logistics would actually work, and concerns expressed during the public hearing on July 1 as well as at a previous public meeting on the topic, the council decided to postpone a final vote until Oct. 7, 2013.

Second, the council postponed a vote on adding the South State Street corridor plan to the city’s master plan, which consists of several separate documents. The city planning commission has already voted to adopt the corridor plan as part of the master plan. It’s one of the few issues on which the planning commission does not act just as an advisory body that makes recommendations to the council. For the master plan, the council and the planning commission must adopt the same plan. The postponement came in deference to a request from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). The area of the study lies in Ward 4, which she represents.

Despite the postponement, the South State Street corridor plan still had an impact on a decision made by the council – to deny a rezoning request for the parcel at 2271 S. State St. The change in zoning would have allowed the parcel to be used for car sales. That use isn’t consistent with the recommendations in the corridor plan, and the planning commission had recommended against rezoning on that basis. Even though it was just the initial vote on the rezoning – an occasion when councilmembers sometimes will advance an ordinance change to a second reading in order to allow a public hearing to take place – the rezoning request got no support on the council.

In contrast, the initial rezoning requested for the Kerrytown Place project – an 18-unit townhouse development at the location of the former Greek Orthodox church on North Main Street – received unanimous approval at the council’s July 1 meeting.

Also related to land use, the council reconstituted a 12-member citizens advisory committee to study the R4C zoning area. The re-establishment of the group, which was originally appointed in 2009, comes after the planning commission had voted at its April 16, 2013 meeting to send recommendations to the city council for revisions to the R4C zoning areas. The recommended revisions were not the actual ordinance language. That language would need to be written after councilmembers sign off on the general recommendations. No action is expected by the council until the committee has met two or three times.

Another committee reconstituted by the council on July 1 was a group to sort through some contentious issues between the council and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The council has postponed until Sept. 3 a final decision on a change to Chapter 7 of the city code, which regulates the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The four councilmembers on the committee are: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Two days later, at its regular monthly meeting, the DDA’s complement was appointed: Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel, Joan Lowenstein and Sandi Smith.

A proposed video privacy ordinance that was on the council’s July 1 agenda did not win sufficient support to advance to a second reading. The proposal would have regulated the way that public surveillance cameras could be used by local law enforcement officials. Although the vote was 5-4 in favor, that fell short of the six-vote majority it needed on the 11-member body. So the council voted down the video privacy ordinance on its initial consideration – having postponed the issue several times previously.

The council also decided to delay adoption of amendments to its own internal rules – out of deference to two councilmembers who were absent from the meeting: Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). Highlights of the rule changes include the addition of a public commentary opportunity at council work sessions, and reduction in the time per turn for the public from three to two minutes. A change in councilmember speaking times equates to a reduction from eight minutes to five minutes total per item for each councilmember.

The council handled a number of other items during the meeting, including the adoption of the 2009 International Fire Code, a location change for the Ward 2 Precinct 8 polling place, approval of a special assessment to help pay for sidewalk and curb improvements along Miller Avenue, and confirmation of appointments to boards and commissions.

Sidewalk Definition Change

The council was asked to given final consideration to an ordinance amendment that would change the definition of “sidewalk.”

Sidewalk Definition: Background

The new definition of “sidewalk” would expand the existing definition to include non-motorized paths that are [emphasis added] “designed particularly for pedestrian, bicycle, or other nonmotorized travel and that is constructed (1) in the public right of way or (2) within or upon an easement or strip of land taken or accepted by the city or dedicated to and accepted by the city for public use by pedestrians, bicycles, or other nonmotorized travel, …”

The impetus behind the proposed change is several “cross-lot paths” that exist in the city, where it’s somewhat unclear who owns the land or who’s responsible for repair and winter snow clearing.

If the council changes the ordinance and it also accepts the “cross-lot” paths for public use – through a formal resolution – the impact of the “sidewalk” definition change would be twofold. First, it would make the paths eligible to be repaired by the city using sidewalk millage funds. But it would also make adjoining property owners responsible for winter snow clearing.

Also on the agenda was a resolution accepting 33 cross-lot paths for public use.

The staff summary of a meeting with owners of property adjoining the cross-lot paths included this: “There was a general consensus amongst attendees at the public meeting that city council should postpone voting on these items until further discussion can be had and more details can be worked out.” For many of the specific paths, there was a reluctance to accept the responsibility of snow removal during the winter. [.pdf of maps for all 33 cross-lot sidewalks]

The council had given initial approval to the definition change at its June 3, 2013 meeting.

Sidewalk Definition: Public Hearing

Sherif Afifi introduced himself as the owner of a parcel adjacent to one of the cross-lot paths. He summarized how he sees the issue: The paths are used by a limited number of people [not necessarily the property owners] to provide convenience for them. Transferring financial and legal responsibility to a limited number of people [property owners] for the benefit of others didn’t seem fair to him. An additional problem Afifi identified was the fact that the responsibility would be shared by at least two people [the properties on either side of the cross-lot path.] He asked the council to postpone a vote, to allow further study and input from the public, including people who use the paths. He’d sent a detailed memo to some councilmembers. He felt that if “we could get our minds together” it would be possible to come up with something that everyone would be happy with. He offered to provide as much help as he could.

John Ohanian approached the podium using a wheelchair. He wanted to talk about a letter from the city that says he’s responsible for maintenance of the walkway from Frederick and Middleton drives into Greenbrier Park.

This cross-lot path was described by John Ohanian as one that he’d become responsible for shoveling if the city adopted the change in the definition of sidewalk.

He’d talked to city engineer Deborah Gosselin about that property and stressed to her that he doesn’t own that property. Every year for 47 years the city has cut the grass on either side of the walkway and maintained it, he said. Now the city is asking him to take responsibility for the liability. He described how the property has a timber wall on the edge of it and the kids like to play on it, by walking across the top of it pretending they’re the “Wallendas.” He can’t stop them, he said, and if they ever fall, then he’d be responsible, which he didn’t think was right.

Ohanian also pointed out that the walkway is not for a general good, but for a specific purpose: the entrance to a parkway. It’s been maintained by the city of Ann Arbor for 47 years. And what the city is trying to do now is shift the liability to him by calling it a “sidewalk” when it’s not a sidewalk, he said. The city can’t impose an insurance liability on him for property he doesn’t own, he added.

He’d heard from the city staff that the city also doesn’t own the property. With respect to the ability of the city to use sidewalk millage funds for capital repair, he pointed out that the millage is for five years at a time. That meant that he’d have responsibility for the repair of the walkway depending on the passage or non-passage of the millage by voters. If the city was going to transfer the responsibility and liability to him, then the city should transfer the land to him in a favorable way.

Miranda Wellborn Eleazar introduced herself as the owner, with her husband, of a property adjacent to a pathway to Mitchell Elementary School and Scarlett Middle School.

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

She described the pathway as well-used by many people, at all hours. But she objected to the idea that she’ll be made liable for maintenance. There’s no reason for her and her husband to take over maintenance, given that the school district is currently maintaining it, she said. She understood that the current sidewalk repair millage would cover the capital repair of the pathway through 2017, but she wondered what would happen if the millage were not renewed. The ordinance amendment that changes the definition of a sidewalk is just the easy way to go, she said. She suggested that in situations where there is someone already maintaining and snowplowing the path, that person or entity should be made responsible. She would not be able to shovel all the snow, she said.

Jeff Hayner wondered how a request for a sidewalk ordinance change comes about. He pointed out that there are another 28 paths – beyond the 33 cross-lot paths – described in the staff memo. So the council would only be acting on half of the paths. He encouraged the council to postpone action.

Thomas Partridge advocated for fairness and rejected the use of Republican Tea Party tactics in determining fees. Many residents of the county and the state are being driven out of their homes due to the unfairness of flat-rate taxes and fees, he contended, including sidewalk repair assessments.

Sidewalk Definition: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off deliberations by saying that he’d vote against the change. It’s not a fair way to approach the topic, he contended. Picking up on the remarks of John Ohanian made during the public hearing, Kunselman said the city has been maintaining a path for 47 years, and he wondered why it would stop. If a school is currently maintaining a path, then arrangements should be made to continue that. So he’d vote against the change in the definition.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who sponsored the ordinance change, asked assistant city attorney Abigail Elias and public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium. Briere said that in her own research, she’d learned it wasn’t clear who owns the property. Elias indicated that the language is different in each of the plats. Responding to Briere, Elias didn’t answer the question of whether the ordinance change would give the city an easement or title to the land. Rather, Elias indicated the ordinance would give “access.” Elias said she had not looked at the issue of who owns the property.

Responding to a question from Briere, Hupy confirmed that if the ordinance doesn’t go forward with the change in the definition to “sidewalk,” then the city doesn’t believe it can use sidewalk millage money to repair the cross-lot paths.

Briere asked Hupy if the city thinks it’s appropriate to place the burden for winter maintenance on adjacent property owners. Hupy responded in part by saying the school district is not interested in making the capital improvements – so the city was attempting to find a way to pay for that. Later during the deliberations Hupy ventured that schools might be reluctant to undertake capital repairs because they’re barred by state law from making investments on property they don’t own. Some of the winter maintenance that the school district is doing, he said, is actually done out of convenience to the district staff – to find a good place to turn around, for example. The burden of winter maintenance, Hupy said, is the “collateral damage” associated with the city’s use of sidewalk millage funds for the capital repairs. Briere indicated that she had a problem with the redefinition of who’s responsible for the winter maintenance.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ventured that these paths could somehow be defined as a subset of “sidewalks.” She floated the idea of postponing the ordinance change. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) observed that many councilmembers have a desire to use the sidewalk millage to repair the paths. But he pointed out there’s another problem as well – that non-motorized connections have actually been lost because there’s not a mechanism for accepting them for public use. He was inclined to support the ordinance change, because it puts a mechanism in place to accept a path into public use. But that doesn’t mean that the council has to accept all 33 of the paths for public use. It might be a much smaller set, Warpehoski said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that not all 33 paths were found to be in current need of repair. Hupy indicated that last year there were four paths in dire need of repair that were not repaired, because they were not accepted for public use. Lumm didn’t like the “no-man’s land” aspect of the situation. She saw it as a positive that the millage funds could be used. But the burden on property owners of winter maintenance is a problem, she said.

Mayor John Hieftje.

Lumm indicated agreement with John Ohanian, who spoke during the public hearing to argue that if there’s to be a transfer of responsibility for the maintenance, then the land transfer should be done in a way that’s “favorable” to the property owner. Lumm elicited from Elias the fact that under some circumstances, an owner of property adjoining a path could be required to mow grass in the summer too, as well as clear snow in the winter.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that the 33 paths should be looked at individually and judged on an individual basis.

After summarizing the situation, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) followed up on a possibility raised by Higgins: Can the city find a way to use the sidewalk millage without causing the burden of day-to-day upkeep to shift? Elias traced the issue to the definition of “sidewalk.” So Taylor floated the idea of tabling or delaying in some other way.

Lumm moved to postpone the vote until the first meeting in October, which is Oct. 7. Warpehoski asked how a postponement would affect the pathways that are in dire need of repair. Hupy indicated the postponement would mean they wouldn’t get repaired this year. Mayor John Hieftje ventured that if the city has muddled along all this time, three months wouldn’t hurt.

Kunselman mooted the idea of not using sidewalk millage funds to do the repair of those walkways in dire need of repair. He gave an example of a path that was repaired with park maintenance millage funds. Kunselman suggested that it might be necessary to research the history of the platting, saying that if the city asked for the public paths in the first place, then the city should maintain them.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the change in the definition of sidewalks until Oct. 7. Later in the meeting, the council also voted to postpone the acceptance of the 33 sidewalks for public use until its first meeting in October.

South State Street Corridor Plan

The council was asked to consider the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan into Ann Arbor’s master plan.

The city planning commission had voted unanimously to adopt the plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting. More commonly when the planning commission votes on a matter, it’s to recommend action by the city council. For master plans, however, the planning commission is on equal footing with the council: both groups must adopt the same plan.

Planning commissioners and staff have been working on this project for more than two years. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "State Street Corridor Study Planned," “Sustainability Goals Shape Corridor Study,” “Ideas Floated for South State Corridor.” and “South State Corridor Gets Closer Look.”]

Recommendations in the South State Street corridor plan are organized into categories of the city’s recently adopted sustainability framework: Land use and access, community, climate and energy, and resource management. Among the recommendations are: (1) Evaluate use of vacant parcels for alternative energy generation; (2) Evaluate integrating public art along the corridor; (3) Evaluate use of open land for community gardens; (4) Assess and improve high crash areas along the corridor; (5) create boulevard on State Street between Eisenhower and I‐94 to enable safer automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; (6) Consider utilizing vacant parcels for athletic fields and recreation facilities; (7) Develop a pedestrian and bicycle path along the Ann Arbor railroad that will connect the planned Allen Creek bikeway to Pittsfield Township through the corridor; and (8) Resurface roads in the corridor.

Each recommendation includes several related action items. The plan also provides a section that organizes the recommendations into each of three distinct sections of the corridor: (1) from Stimson on the north to Eisenhower Parkway; (2) from Eisenhower south to the I-94 interchange; and (3) from I-94 to Ellsworth. In addition, there are nine site-specific recommendations for areas including Briarwood Mall, the complex of hotels near Victors Way and Broadway, and the research park development near the corridor’s south end.

From left: Ward 1 councilmembers Sumi Kailasapathy and Sabra Briere.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council’s appointee to the planning commission, introduced the proposal. She said that the South State Street corridor plan was being treated as a model – because it links the recommendations to the sustainability framework that the council had adopted. She described it as very rigorous and helpful for understanding why the recommendations are what they are. The question for the council was whether to add the document to the city’s master plan. The planning commission had been impressed with the work, Briere said, as had been the environmental commission. The North Main Huron River corridor study task force had also positively reviewed the way the corridor plan had been done. So she encouraged councilmembers to include the South State Street corridor plan in the city’s master plan.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she was not supportive of including the plan in the city’s master plan. She still had some concerns in the southern part of the corridor, particularly in the Research Park area. As the economic development collaborative task force has begun its work, that area has come up in discussion, she reported. [The council had appointed the task force at its May 20, 2013 meeting.]

So Higgins asked for a postponement for two weeks.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the South State Street corridor plan until July 15, 2013.

Rezoning for Car Dealership

On the July 1 agenda was a rezoning request for 2271 S. State St. that would have allowed the owner to sell cars on the parcel.

The council was asked to give initial approval to rezoning the parcel from M1 (limited industrial district) to M1A (limited light industrial district). The city planning commission vote on the recommendation was taken at its May 21, 2013 meeting. That vote came out 1-8, with only Eric Mahler supporting it. So the planning commission’s recommendation was for denial.

Rezoning for Car Dealership: Public Comment

Local attorney Scott Munzel addressed the council during the public hearing on the South State Street corridor plan – because the rezoning itself was only up for initial consideration and did not include a public hearing. Munzel was representing the property owner of 2271 S. State St. Munzel pointed out that the proposed rezoning was consistent with the master plan, before the South State Street corridor plan was put forward. He asked the council to remember that when the council considered the rezoning request.

Rezoning for Car Dealership: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pointed out that the council in the past has put off rezoning decisions based on the pending work on the South State Street corridor plan.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson gave the example of the Biercamp property, for which rezoning was not approved because the South State Street corridor study was just getting started at that time. There was also a rezoning request across the street from Biercamp, she noted, so that a property could be used as a medical marijuana dispensary. [The Biercamp rezoning was denied at the council's Feb. 21, 2012 meeting. The rezoning request from Treecity Health Collective was denied at the council's Oct. 3, 2011 meeting.]

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ventured that the city council has the final say on the South State Street corridor plan – to which Rampson replied, “kinda sorta.” The planning commission and the city council have to concur, Rampson noted. Higgins felt like the property owner had been in the pipeline for a while before the South State Street corridor study was under way. Rampson and Higgins engaged in back-and-forth on timing of the citizen participation meetings for the corridor plan and the proposed project’s requiring rezoning.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) drew out the fact that McKinley Inc. had written a letter of support for the corridor plan. Kunselman also noted that the adjoining school bus parking lot might not be a factor – as the school district might decide not to continue to offer transportation in the future.

Kunselman wondered if it’s good policy to get rid of manufacturing zoning. Rampson explained that the planning commission had also grappled with that question. She pointed to Area 1C in the plan that recommends maintaining the current uses, which include manufacturing. The area around the parcel that’s requested to be rezoned, Rampson said, has already seen some transition to office use.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to deny initial approval to the rezoning of 2271 S. State Street.

Kerrytown Place

The council was asked to give initial approval to the rezoning that’s necessary to construct Kerrytown Place – a proposed development at 414 N. Main and 401 N. Fourth Ave.

Kerrytown Place is a project that Tom Fitzsimmons is planning to build on the site of the former Greek Orthodox church on Main Street. The rezoning would be from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district). The 18-unit townhouse development that Fitzsimmons is planning to build is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved at the request of a different owner.

The city planning commission gave a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting. On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council’s appointee to the city planning commission, introduced the items and briefly recited the history of the previously proposed project by a different owner. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he was pleased to support the rezoning. He reminded his council colleagues that when the property was in the hands of the Washtenaw County treasurer, he’d proposed doing something similar – rezoning the property on the council’s initiative. [That proposal of Kunselman's had been voted down by the council at its Aug. 20, 2012 meeting.]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the rezoning changes necessary for the Kerrytown Place project. Rezoning requests require a second and final vote – at a meeting when the site plan is likely to be presented as well.

R4C Advisory Committee

The council considered a resolution to re-establish a citizens advisory committee to provide input on changes in the city’s R4C (multi-family) zoning category.

The idea for re-establishing the group comes after the planning commission had voted at its April 16, 2013 meeting to send recommendations to the city council for revisions to the R4C zoning areas – but without the actual wording of the ordinance changes.

The recommendations are described in two phases. The changes in the first phase are seen as somewhat less controversial, but still diverge in places from those of the advisory committee. For the first phase, the planning commission recommended:

• Parking requirements are less stringent: Recommendations adopted by the planning commission are to make parking requirements less stringent than either the existing requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit or the advisory committee recommendations (1.5 spaces per unit for 0-4 bedroom units, and 2 spaces per unit for 5-6 bedrooms). The planning commission recommendation is for 1 space per unit for 0-4 bedrooms, and 1.5 spaces per unit for 5-6 bedrooms.
• Lot combinations need approval: Planning commission approval would be required for lot combinations in R4C districts, as part of a project’s site plan review. Review standards would be developed, as well as standards for design and massing, to ensure that new development is compatible with the neighborhood. [The advisory committee had recommended instituting a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet, equal to an allowable density of three units. The consensus on the ordinance revisions committee (ORC) of the planning commission was that this maximum lot size would be too restrictive.]
• Conflicting land use buffer for vehicle areas only: The only areas that would require screening would be those used for vehicles – such as areas used for parking. This recommendation essentially reverts to the requirements used prior to 2011, when the city instituted changes to its landscape ordinance. Those changes expanded the conflicting land use buffer requirement in R4C districts to apply to the screening of buildings, in addition to vehicular use areas. The change resulted in an increase in variance requests for redevelopment in R4C districts, given the small size of the lots. [The issue was not part of the advisory committee's recommendations.]
• Further study of R2A district: Further study is called for to determine if the R2A lot size should be reduced to 6,000 square feet, allowing opportunities for duplex conversions. This number is based on the lot size requirement that was in place prior to 1984, when the requirement was raised to 8,500 square feet. [The advisory committee did not recommend zoning changes in the R2A district.]

Based on discussions among staff and the ORC at several meetings attended by The Chronicle, these first-phase recommendations are seen as somewhat easier to implement, because it’s felt there’s general consensus on them.

A second phase would focus on creating a “group housing” zoning district, but that is recognized as controversial.

Any affirmative action by the council on the planning commission’s recommendations at this point would be to direct the planning commission to develop the ordinance language reflecting the recommendations. At that point, the planning commission would need to approve the proposed ordinance language, with final action still required by the council.

Membership on the reconstituted citizens advisory committee that the council was asked to consider included 12 people. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will represent the planning commission. Chuck Carver will represent rental property owners. From the wards: Ilene Tyler and Ray Detter (Ward 1); Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2); Ellen Rambo and Michelle Derr (Ward 3); Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4); Eppie Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5). Weatherbee was designated as chair of the group.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) introduced the resolution, alluding to a neighborhood meeting that had taken place the previous week – in Rose White Park. The issue of the recommendations that are coming to the council was discussed. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Higgins for her work. Lumm wondered when the council might be asked to act on the recommendations. Higgins indicated that the committee would meet only two or three times. But she said that before the council acts on the planning commission recommendations, the committee should be able to weigh in.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to re-establish the R4C citizens advisory committee.

Video Privacy Law

The council was asked to give initial approval to a proposed new local law regulating the use of public surveillance cameras.

The new ordinance would apply only to a limited range of cameras – those used by the city of Ann Arbor “to monitor human activity without the physical presence of an operator, including cameras on remotely operated aerial vehicles.”

The ordinance would not apply to a range of other city of Ann Arbor cameras, for example: cameras used to improve traffic design, security cameras operating in jails, prisons, water treatment facilities, public housing facilities, or the Ann Arbor Airport and other governmental facilities.

The new ordinance would allow for public surveillance cameras to be installed for 15 days or less at the discretion of the city administrator if the purpose were to address a specific criminal problem. But a period of longer than 15 days would have required two-thirds of nearby residents to give written permission. Regardless of the period of the installation, onsite notice of the camera’s presence was to have been required.

The council had voted several times previously to postpone consideration of the ordinance. The most recent postponement had come at the council’s June 17, 2013 meeting. The council seemed willing to postpone a vote on that occasion based on the fact that police chief John Seto was not available to answer questions about the impact on law enforcement activities. Some councilmembers indicated at that meeting a reluctance even to give the ordinance an initial approval. Ordinances require an initial approval followed by a second vote taken at a subsequent meeting, after a public hearing.

Video Privacy: Public Commentary

During public commentary, several people addressed the council on the topic of the video privacy ordinance.

Will Leaf rejected the idea that the ordinance would tie the hands of the police. [His involvement with the topic dates back several years. He led Students Against Surveillance at the University of Michigan.] Leaf cited news media articles on the topic. They included a June 19, 2013 LA Times article about Muslims suing the New York City Police Department over surveillance of congregants at mosques that has included video surveillance.

Leaf also cited an Oct. 25, 2010 article in The Guardian about the dismantling of video surveillance cameras in Birmingham, England, and a Jan. 13, 2006 BBC News article about CCTV camera operators who pointed cameras into a woman’s apartment and observed her in a state of undress. Leaf said that if public surveillance cameras are installed, then they should be regulated. He pointed out that the ordinance wouldn’t affect any cameras currently in place. He got a round of applause from the roughly two dozen people attended the council meeting in support of the ordinance.

Leslie Stambaugh, who’s chair of the city’s human rights commission, agreed with Leaf. She pointed out that the ordinance originated with a citizens group. She posed the rhetorical question: Why can’t we just trust the police only to adopt this practice when they need it? It seems modern and effective, she allowed, but video surveillance hasn’t been shown to reduce or solve crime, she contended. For nuisance crimes, she allowed it might have some benefit. The city of Lansing had installed 11 cameras, which wound up costing $2.3 million , she said. The Ann Arbor human rights commission doesn’t like video surveillance, she said, and the ACLU doesn’t like it. If the city wants to use video cameras for surveillance, it needs to be regulated, she concluded.

Kent Weichmann weighed in to support the video privacy ordinance. Michael Benson weighed in briefly against it at the conclusion of his remarks during public commentary.

Video Privacy: Council Deliberations

Police chief John Seto addressed the council from the podium to start the discussion on the ordinance.

Ann Arbor chief of police John Seto marched in the 4th of July parade held three days after the council meeting. In the background of the photo is Washtenaw County sheriff Jerry Clayton.

He had reviewed many versions of the ordinance, and he thanked everyone for their work. He noted that the ordinance has been under discussion for several years. By way of additional background, the council had been alerted to the forthcoming ordinance proposal six months ago when Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) told his colleagues at their Dec. 17, 2012 meeting that he and wardmate Mike Anglin would be bringing a proposal forward.

And before that, former Ward 1 councilmember Sandi Smith had announced at a council meeting on Aug. 4, 2011 that she’d be bringing a video surveillance ordinance for consideration at the council’s Sept. 6, 2011 meeting. That draft ordinance never came forward for consideration. And a year before that, Smith had indicated the city’s human rights commission would be working on the issue.

Seto said he was sorry that he was not able to attend the previous council meeting, when the council had the item on its agenda. The council had postponed the item so that he could be available to answer questions. Seto said he’d start with a general statement. As chief, Seto said, his responsibility is to provide service and protection for all. He recognized that responsibility had to be balanced between what can be done and what should be done – specifically in the area of technology. He would not deploy technology or implement a policing practice that would have negative implications on community relations or community engagement. Determining that balance is a challenge.

Seto stressed that it’s difficult to determine the appropriate balance, when the kind of video surveillance that’s contemplated by the ordinance is not being done in the city. He could not predict the security concerns and policing needs of the future. Large crowds themselves create an added risk.

Annotation of draft ordinance, in which police chief John Seto notes that large crowds pose a possibly increase risk.

He gave some examples of some concerns he has about the ordinance in its current form. He believed that large crowds in themselves create a threat, or at the very least, a heightened security risk that the police must address. In light of the recent Boston marathon bombing, Seto said – and in light of the added security concerns that he’d considered subsequently in connection with the Ann Arbor marathon – he couldn’t support an ordinance that would potentially limit his ability to monitor large crowds like those associated with a marathon or University of Michigan football games, or street closures that result in large crowds.

He also felt that short-term use of cameras could be potentially useful for apprehending suspects involved in a specific crime, when there’s credible information. He appreciated the fact that the ordinance provided for the short-term use of cameras without requiring permission from neighbors. However, he felt that the requirement that a notice be posted to alert people to the presence of a camera could hinder an investigation. The ability to use live monitoring only when there’s an imminent risk would be limiting, he said.

His main concern, Seto said, is that he does not know what kind of unknown impacts such an ordinance might have. Because he can’t know the policing needs of the future, there could be unintended consequences, he said. His main two concerns were about large crowds and specific short-term criminal investigations, he said.

He also highlighted a concern with the definition of the cameras that would fall under the ordinance.

There are currently many privately-owned camera surveillance systems that the police might seek to gain access to in connection with a criminal investigation, he said. There were many examples of crimes being solved by using such information, he said. So he wondered if the ordinance would prevent AAPD officers from using information from a privately-owned camera system in its investigations. [.pdf of draft ordinance annotated with comments from various staff]

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked Seto if he saw the ordinance as limiting compared to what’s been done in the past. Seto couldn’t recall a case where an unmanned camera had been used and simply been mounted on a pole. One exception was a case when AAPD had worked in cooperation with a property owner, Seto said, and the camera was installed on the property. The possibility of using cameras had been discussed, but Seto did not believe cameras had been used in such a manner since he had assumed a leadership role in the department.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if Seto was familiar with the West Willow neighborhood in Ypsilanti Township. Kunselman ventured that his own impression from media accounts was that the neighborhood had requested installation of cameras and that crime had been deterred through the use of cameras. Seto wasn’t able to confirm Kunselman’s impression in any detail.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) ventured that former police chief Barnett Jones felt that video surveillance installations would never be accepted in Ann Arbor by the community. He asked if Seto felt that the ordinance would give Seto the regulatory framework that would allow those community concerns to be addressed. Seto said he couldn’t speak to Jones’ concerns. He reviewed the main concerns he had about the ordinance potentially inhibiting effective law enforcement. He also ventured that it’s possible that times have somewhat changed, in the few years that the ordinance has been under discussion.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that one of her concerns about crowd surveillance was that almost all of the footage that was useful in the Boston marathon bombing had been from private cameras. It wasn’t police surveillance. As a general statement, “police surveillance” gave her pause. She appreciated that the human rights commission, Warpehoski and Anglin had tried to find a balance – between not giving police general permission, but allowing the police to pursue a discrete goal. But she wondered if the balance had actually been found. Seto responded to Briere by saying that he’s not advocating the use of cameras, but felt that if the need does arise, he wants to make sure that he has flexibility.

Kunselman referred to the comments made during the public commentary about the possibility of police misconduct by personnel in the use of cameras. Seto responded to Kunselman by indicating that the in-car video cameras already used by officers are subject to departmental policies.

Mayor John Hieftje cited a memo written by Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, about the use of cameras in parking structures. Her memo reads in part: “The parking structures are unique, in that they are psychologically viewed by many as very scary places. Because downtown relies on people feeling safe, the parking structures must be included as one of the city-owned sites where security cameras are permitted.”

Hieftje also cited the issue of the perception of safety – saying that some people say they’d feel more comfortable in an underground parking garage if there were video surveillance.

Hieftje noted that in 2001-02 there had been problems in Liberty Plaza, and the city had filmed from the building overlooking the park. Those cameras were hand-held, Hieftje allowed. But he wanted to know if Seto felt that the ordinance would inhibit the police department’s ability to undertake necessary operations.

City administrator Steve Powers and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wondered if the required sign stating the presence of a camera would undermine the point of the surveillance. For short-term use, Seto said, the sign could potentially have a negative impact. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) discussed with Seto the requirements for installing cameras. She recounted how all the windows of her car had been smashed in the Fourth & Washington parking structure, but there were no cameras in place to capture any footage.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) described the ordinance as possibly “a regulation too far.” But he noted that the police chief’s job description was similar to the council’s job: Law enforcement should be consistent with community values. So Taylor felt it should be voted forward to a second reading, which would provide an opportunity for a public hearing.

Kailasapathy ventured that the FBI would not have to adhere to the local ordinance, if the FBI wanted to conduct surveillance. Seto indicated that he thought this observation was correct. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) brought up the issue of University of Michigan football games, saying she thought that crowds are currently monitored for football games. Seto indicated that on a liberal interpretation, the ordinance might have an impact on his ability to use cameras for football crowd monitoring. But UM would be able to use cameras independently of the city ordinance, Seto said.

Kunselman inquired what the law is when a camera catches someone doing something illegal on their own property. He wondered if someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. City attorney Stephen Postema responded to Kunselman by saying he had not researched the issue. Higgins ventured that if the city has been working on the ordinance for a long time, then surely the city has an understanding of what privacy in a home means.

Kailasapathy followed up on the privacy issue by asking if it’s OK for a camera to be trained on a front door to monitor who is entering and leaving a residence. Postema responded by saying it depends on what is done with the footage. Briere adduced the example of Google Street View and how it blurs images of people’s faces. Briere agreed with Taylor that she was willing to support the ordinance so there should be a further discussion in the community. Passive surveillance can be used well or not well, Briere said, adding that she wished it weren’t used at all.

Warpehoski described placing a camera on a pole and pointing it into a neighborhood as an affront to privacy. The ordinance would prevent that affront, he said. The ordinance tries to find a balance between privacy, property owner rights and law enforcement needs, Warpehoski contended. He didn’t want cameras to be deployed over neighborhood opposition. Warpehoski says he put forward the best ordinance he knew how to put forward – but allowed that there were still things that could be worked on. He asked for support of the ordinance at first reading, but told his council colleagues not to vote for it on first reading just to please him – if they were definitely not going to vote for it on second reading.

Anglin described the ordinance as “preemptive,” so that the questions surrounding the use of cameras could be answered before they are used. The ordinance allows cameras to be installed as useful tools, he said. He gave destruction of property in parks as a use case for the cameras. He did not think it’s a solution looking for a problem – a response to remarks from Kunselman at an earlier meeting.

Kunselman responded to the idea of a “regulatory framework” and wondered why the council was not simply providing guidance on policy to the administration. Ordinances are passed to regulate behavior, and there are punishments for violating them. He wondered if Seto violated the ordinance, would he be fired? Kunselman said he would support giving policy direction. In any case, the city could do what it needs to do, Kunselman said. If Seto needs to use a camera to catch a suspect, Kunselman said, then, “By golly, let him do it!”

Kunselman described how the relationship between the police and young people has changed from the time when he was young. He returned to his idea of giving guidance through policy, instead of through enactment of an ordinance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is waving hello on arrival at the meeting.

Lumm stated that the ordinance is overly regulatory. The balanced approach that Seto would take would not result in the application of technology that would harm the community, Lumm contended. She said she wouldn’t support such an ordinance unless it had Seto’s unequivocal support. So Lumm wouldn’t support it at first reading.

Briere said generally she’s inclined to advance an ordinance to a second reading. But she didn’t like the ordinance, because she saw it as giving permission for surveillance. She distinguished between speculative surveillance versus a situation where there’s a targeted deployment. But she was still inclined to hear from the public. That would help the council make a better decision on the issue, she concluded.

Hieftje said he likes the idea of policy guidance – alluding to Kunselman’s proposal that policy guidance would be better than an ordinance. Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor is host to events that have the spotlight of the nation on the city. He couldn’t say he’d support the ordinance at second reading, but he was willing to support it at first reading.

Outcome: The council voted 5-4 to give the video privacy ordinance initial approval, so it failed. Voting against it were Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

DDA-City Committee

The council was asked to establish a committee to sort through issues between the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Named in the original resolution to represent the council were: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Jane Lumm (Ward 2) was added to the group during the council’s meeting.

The current source of friction between the DDA and the city concerns the interpretation of Chapter 7 of the city code, which regulates the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The DDA has chosen to interpret the Chapter 7 language in a way that does not recognize the cap on TIF revenues that is set forth in Chapter 7. That led to a proposal by some councilmembers earlier this year to revise the ordinance so that the DDA’s alternate interpretation is clearly ruled out. The council gave the ordinance change initial approval on April 1, 2013. But later, on May 6, 2013, the council chose to postpone the vote until Sept. 3, the council’s first meeting that month.

In the memo accompanying the council’s July 1 resolution, the group – which was described as a “mutually beneficial” committee – is tasked with coming up with a recommendation for Chapter 7 revised language with a deadline of Sept. 2. During the meeting, the name of the committee was changed from “mutually beneficial” to simply a “joint DDA-council committee.”

The phrase “mutually beneficial” in connection with the sorting out of issues between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor DDA was first mooted in a Jan. 20, 2009 city council resolution. The main issue at that time was the contract under which the DDA administers the city’s public parking system. Subsequently, committees for both organizations were appointed, but they did not achieve any results. The following year, new “mutually beneficial” 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.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the item on July 1 by saying that in May, several people had indicated that the city staff and the DDA staff should be working on the issue. But whatever changes might be made to Chapter 7, she felt councilmembers should have a voice. The mechanism for that was proposed to be to “reinvigorate” the “mutual beneficial” committee. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that when the council approved the ordinance at first reading, he and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) had begun having conversations with DDA board members and staff. He saw the resolution that as solidifying a process that was already underway.

However, Kunselman didn’t like the label “mutually beneficial.” So it was changed by mutual assent to the “joint DDA-council committee.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to add a member – for a total of four councilmembers. Higgins wanted Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to be on the committee, saying that Lumm has put a lot of work into the issue. That proposal was accepted as friendly.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) briefly floated the idea that the existing DDA partnerships committee might be involved.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appoint a joint DDA-council committee, with members Lumm, Taylor, Kunselman and Petersen. Two days later the DDA appointed its members: Roger Hewitt, Sandi Smith, Bob Guenzel, and Joan Lowenstein.

New City Council Rules

The council considered a revision to rules on speaking times and agenda setting for city council meetings.

Highlights of the proposed rules changes include adding public commentary to council work sessions. But public speaking time would be reduced from three minutes to two minutes across all types of public speaking – general commentary, public hearings, and reserved time. A “frequent flyer” rule would prevent people from signing up for reserved time at the start of a meeting two meetings in a row.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). The proposed new council rules include a provision against councilmembers using their personal electronic communications devices during the meetings while at the table. This photo was taken before the meeting started.

The total time that each councilmember could speak on an item of debate would be reduced from eight minutes to five minutes. In more detail, the two turns they get per item would be reduced from five to three minutes and from three to two minutes.

Another change would put nominations and appointments to boards and commissions at the start of the agenda, before the council’s voting business, instead of after all the items. For Chronicle coverage on these proposed changes, see “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.”

New City Council Rules: Public Commentary

James D’Amour told the council that some of the changes to the rules are pretty good. [As former city planning commissioner, D'Amour has some experience with public commentary from the other side of the microphone.] The addition of a public commentary period during work sessions is a good step, he said. But the time reductions are a step backward, he contended. If hundreds of people show up to speak, then the council has done something wrong, he said. The game that councilmembers need to play is to be more accessible, not less accessible.

Thomas Partridge reminded the council that he has run for election to the state legislature in the past. He accused mayor John Hieftje of seeking to suppress public access to the council. Instead of diminishing public participation time, it should be increased, Partridge said.

Michael Benson pointed out that if he had a handout for the clerk, that would be attached to the minutes. So he encouraged the council to advertise that fact as a way to mitigate against reduced speaking time. Benson also suggested that the council pay attention to their own question time that they use during their deliberations. [Hieftje does not count time that councilmembers spend questioning staff as speaking time for councilmembers.] Benson cited a possible problem for organizing the public speaking reserved time at the start of a meeting: A single agenda item could dominate all the slots.

New City Council Rules: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she wanted to postpone the issue, in light of the absence of Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4), who wanted to be part of the conversation. Higgins chairs the council’s rules committee, which brought the amendments forward.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the rule amendments until the July 15 meeting.

2009 International Fire Code

The council was asked to take final action on the adoption of the 2009 International Fire Code, as an amendment to Chapter 111 (Fire Prevention) of the city code. The council had given the ordinance change initial approval at its June 17, 2013 meeting.

While the change is essentially administrative – changing the version of the International Fire Code adopted in the ordinance from 2003 to a more recent 2009 – some councilmembers on June 17 indicated an interest in exploring the question of frequency of fire inspections. They’ve heard complaints that fire inspections are being conducted too frequently – as a way to generate revenue.

On June 17, fire chief Chuck Hubbard indicated that some of the confusion could be attributed to re-inspections, which are done when a deficiency is found. But Hubbard indicated on June 17 that fire inspections have increased. He’s increased the number of personnel assigned to fire inspections from three to seven.

Ann Arbor fire inspections: 2006-2012. (Data is from city financial records. Chart by The Chronicle.)

During the public hearing on the issue, Thomas Partridge said that councilmembers and the mayor are out of touch. He says that the councilmembers who sponsored the ordinance change should explain it in their own words. He contended that the city looks for ways to impose costs on those who can least afford it.

Earlier in the meeting during communications time, city administrator Steve Powers had indicated that staff were available to answer questions about why the ordinance change adopting the 2009 International Fire Code was necessary. It was portrayed as a separate question from the inspection issue that councilmembers had previously expressed concern about. Powers described how there would be a meeting for property owners and the public about fire safety inspections – on July 16, at 1 p.m. in city council chambers.

Deliberations by the council were scant. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked staff for their work in responding to questions.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the 2009 International Fire Code.

Miller Avenue Special Assessment

The council was asked to take the final step in approving a special assessment on property owners to finance sidewalk and gutter improvements along Miller Avenue.

The assessment would apply to 18 private property owners, who would pay an average of $365 apiece. The total construction cost of the project is stated in the table of assessment as $42,860 – with about 75% of that to be paid for with federal funds. The resolution approved by the council was the fourth and final one in the process. A public hearing had been held at the council’s previous meeting.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the special assessment for Miller Avenue improvements.

Precinct 2-8 Polling Place

The council considered a resolution that changed location of the polling place in Ann Arbor’s Ward 2 Precinct 8 (2-8) to the First United Methodist Church at 1001 Green Road. The location for several years has been St. Paul Lutheran School.

According to a letter sent to the city earlier this year by school principal Brad Massey, the decision to stop offering St. Paul Lutheran Church and School as a polling place to the city was based on “recent events affecting the safety of school children.” [.pdf of April 16, 2013 letter]

During the brief deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked St. Paul for allowing the city to use the facility as a polling location for many years.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to change the Precinct 2-8 polling location to the First United Methodist Church.

Appointments, Nominations

The council was asked to confirm the appointment of Jeremy Peters to the city planning commission. Peters works in creative licensing and business affairs with Ghostly Songs. Peters had been nominated at the council’s June 17 meeting. Tony Derezinski had originally been slated at the June 3 meeting to be nominated for re-appointment, but his name was never put forward by mayor John Hieftje.

The council was also asked to confirm the appointments of Eric Jacobson to the local development finance authority (LDFA) board and Jan Davies McDermott to the economic development corporation board.

Outcome: The council voted to confirm all the appointments.

Also at the council’s July 1 meeting, Hieftje nominated Russ Collins for re-appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Hieftje indicated that he would not yet be nominating replacements for Newcombe Clark or Leah Gunn, as he felt there was “no rush.” The terms of Clark and Gunn expire on July 31, 2013.

Also at the council’s meeting, Jean Cares was nominated by the council as a whole to the greenbelt advisory commission as the agriculture landowner representative. Christopher Taylor, who serves on GAC as the council representative, introduced the resolution, mentioning that Cares owns the Dexter Mill. Hieftje noted that the agriculture landowner representative slot is difficult to fill.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone a vote on Cares’ appointment. This is a standard procedure, as the initial consideration is considered the nomination by the council. GAC is one of the few boards and commissions for which the council, not the mayor, makes the nominations.

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: Safe Streets

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) told the council he wanted the dialogue on safe streets to continue. People who live on all kinds of streets should be listened to, he said. He wanted traffic directed away from residential streets that are not designed for that kind of traffic.

Comm/Comm: D1 Zoning Review

The council had directed the city planning commission on April 1, 2013 to undertake a review of areas of the city zoned D1 (downtown core).

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who’s the council appointee to the planning commission, indicated during communications time that the D1 zoning review would begin the next day as the executive committee of the planning commission would be meeting to hire a consultant.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked Briere if a schedule has been established for the review and how it will be implemented. The executive committee of the planning commission will be interviewing potential consultants, Briere explained. That’s because staff and commission members were felt to be too close to the process to lead a public meeting. So someone with an outside view would be used, Briere said. There’ll be A2 Open City Hall surveys or perhaps also Survey Monkey surveys. The consultant will look at those issues and move to have a public meeting in August. Briere noted that the timeline requires the work to be done at the end of September. In response to a question from Lumm, Briere said she’s not sure how it relates to the old Y lot, at Fifth and William streets. [Later in the week, councilmembers were informed that Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas have been selected to handle the possible sale of the former YMCA lot.]

Comm/Comm: Website Down

During communications time, city administrator Steve Powers asked CFO Tom Crawford to explain what happened with the city’s website, which was down that day, except for a limited set of links.

Crawford explained it was a software/hardware failure. He believed all the data was still there, and would be back up by 8 a.m. on July 2, the following day. [It was back up by that time.]

Comm/Comm: Pizza in the Park

At the May 20, 2013 city council meeting, several people spoke to oppose the fee that was apparently charged to the Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor as part of its Friday evening homelessness ministry. That ministry is called Pizza in the Park, which the church conducts at Liberty Plaza. While oral assurances had been given, at the council’s June 3 meeting there was some follow-up during public commentary that included an interest in getting some kind of written commitment from the city that the fee would not be charged to the church.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

So during communications time on July 1, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) updated the council on the park advisory commission’s action at its June 18, 2013 meeting to recommend a waiver of fees for Liberty Plaza – in response to a request from Camp Take Notice to make sure that Pizza in the Park can continue at that location.

During public commentary at the end of the July 1 meeting, Seth Best addressed the council on the topic, beginning by thanking everyone. He spoke on behalf of Camp Take Notice’s advocacy for humanitarian aid generally, not just for Liberty Plaza. He was concerned that humanitarian aid is being excluded because of concern for music, bands and art. He told his story of becoming homeless in Texas, eventually making his way to Ann Arbor. Pizza in the Park had allowed him to be human again, he said – at least for an hour.

Greg Pratt introduced himself as an Eastern Michigan University faculty member and vice president of MISSION. He spoke in support of the Camp Take Notice advocacy for Pizza in the Park. He provided some context for the situation. As the weather turned warmer, the Delonis Shelter ended the warming shelter, and that happened around the same time as Pizza in the Park was having a fee applied. He noted that MISSION had been working with councilmembers and he would prefer to approach it that way.

Caleb Poirer began his remarks by quipping that this was too early to end a council meeting and that he felt cheated. [Compared to recent council meetings, the time was relatively early – around 11 p.m. ] He characterized the PAC resolution as an attempt to address the concerns that Camp Take Notice had raised, but said that it doesn’t actually address their concerns. That’s why they’re continuing to push for a more general ordinance. He allowed that the homeless are not natural constituents of any politician. So he was grateful that the council had been willing to give them “the time of day.”

Comm/Comm: Saying Something Nice

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she’d attended an event recently where people were asked to say something nice about others, and that she had been present at another meeting when people were expected to say something nice about departing members of a commission. So she was going to say something nice about everyone. Briere read aloud remarks that she posted later on her blog.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Briere for making her remarks.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Absent: Margie Teall, Sally Petersen.

Next council meeting: Monday, July 15, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber.

The council will be giving final consideration to an ordinance change that expands the definition of “sidewalk” – to include any sidewalks the city has formally accepted for public use. The change has implications for owners of property adjacent to several “cross-lot paths” in the city – which are on the meeting agenda for acceptance for public use.

One consequence of the definition change is that those property owners will not be responsible for the repair of those paths – because the paths will be eligible for sidewalk millage repair funds. But the adjacent property owners would become responsible for clearing snow from the paths.

Also related to land use on the meeting agenda are rezoning requests associated with two proposed developments. Up for an initial vote is the rezoning from PUD (planned unit development) to D2 (downtown interface) for the parcels on North Main and Fourth Avenue where Kerrytown Place is planned. The 18-unit townhouse development is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved.

Also up for initial consideration is a rezoning request for 2271 S. State St., where the owner would like to be able to sell automobiles. The planning commission recommended denial of that request, in part because that land use was not felt to be consistent with the draft South State Street corridor plan. At its July 1 meeting, the council will also be asked to adopt that corridor plan.

The re-establishment of a citizens advisory committee on changes to R4C zoning in the city also appears on the meeting agenda. The origins of that committee date back to 2009. The reconstitution of the 12-member committee comes as the planning commission has recommended changes to R4C zoning that the council will be weighing – to decide if ordinance language should be drafted to reflect those changes.

Another committee with its origins in 2009 is set to be reconstituted at the council’s July 1 meeting, but it’s not related to land use. The council will be asked to re-establish a “mutually beneficial” committee to work through recommendations to changes in the city ordinance that regulates the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The council has already given initial approval to some ordinance changes. Committee members will be working with their DDA counterparts with a two-month window of time – because the council has postponed final action on DDA ordinance changes until Sept. 3.

The council will also be asked to take an initial vote on a video privacy ordinance, having postponed that initial vote several times previously.

And finally, Ward 2 will not have a city council primary election a month from now, but it appears on the agenda in connection with polling places. The Precinct 2-8 polling location will be changed for all future elections to the First United Methodist Church on Green Road.

Details of other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

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

6:55 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. Currently in chambers are mayor John Hieftje, city administrator Steve Powers, city attorney Stephen Postema. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) has just arrived. Audience is a bit sparse so far. Less than a dozen people are here.

7:06 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) are the only councilmembers not yet here. Petersen will definitely not be here. Advocates for the video privacy ordinance have arrived. About a dozen or so. They barely outnumber the large box of Washtenaw Dairy donuts they’ve brought to share. “This is not going to be good for my beach body this summer, but it’s delightful for my tastebuds.”

7:07 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. Petersen and Teall are absent. We’re under way.

7:07 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

A pending rule change to be considered at tonight’s meeting would limit speaking time to two minutes. Another pending rule change would address “frequent flyers,” by only allowing people to reserve time at the start of the meeting, if they did not speak during reserved time at the previous council meeting. Only six of the 10 slots have been reserved tonight.

Three people are signed up to talk about the council rules changes on the agenda tonight: James D’Amour, Michael Benson and Thomas Partridge. Partridge is also signed up to talk about the video privacy ordinance, as are three other people: Will Leaf, Leslie Stambaugh and Kent Weichmann. Stambaugh is chair of the city’s human rights commission. The video privacy ordinance is up for its initial consideration after having been postponed several times. The ordinance would restrict the ability of local law enforcement officials set up un-staffed cameras for public surveillance.

7:11 p.m. James D’Amour is up first. [As former city planning commissioner, D'Amour has some experience with public commentary from the other side of the microphone.] Some of the changes, he says, are pretty good. The addition of a public commentary period during work sessions is a good step, he says. But the time reductions are a step backward, he says. If hundreds of people show up to speak, then the council has done something wrong. The game they need to play is to be more accessible, not less accessible, he says. There’s been a change in the dynamic of local politics, and it’s less collegial, he says.

7:14 p.m. Thomas Partridge reminds the council that he has run for election to the state legislature in the past. He accuses Hieftje of seeking to suppress public access to the council. Instead of diminishing public participation time, it should be increased, he says.

7:17 p.m. Will Leaf is now addressing the council on the video privacy ordinance. [His involvement with the topic dates back several years. He led Students Against Surveillance at the University of Michigan.] He rejects the idea that the ordinance would tie the hands of the police. Leaf is citing news media articles on the topic. They include a June 19, 2013 LA Times article about Muslims suing the New York City Police Department over surveillance of congregants at mosques that has included video surveillance.

Leaf is also citing a Oct. 25, 2010 article in The Guardian about the dismantling of video surveillance cameras in Birmingham, England, and a Jan. 13, 2006 BBC News article about CCTV camera operators who pointed cameras into a woman’s apartment and observed her in a state of undress. Leaf says that if public surveillance cameras are installed, then they should be regulated. He points out that the ordinance wouldn’t affect any cameras currently in place. He gets a round of applause from the now roughly two dozen people who are here in support of the ordinance.

7:20 p.m. Leslie Stambaugh agrees with Leaf. She points out that the ordinance originated with a citizens group. Why can’t we just trust the police to adopt this practice when they need it? she asks. It seems modern and effective. But video surveillance hasn’t been shown to reduce or solve crime, she contends. For nuisance crimes, she allows it might have some benefit. Lansing installed 11 cameras, which wound up costing $2.3 million. The human rights commission didn’t like the ordinance surveillance she said, and the ACLU doesn’t like it. If the city wants to use video cameras for surveillance, it needs to be regulated, she says.

7:24 p.m. Michael Benson is now addressing the council on the topic of council rules. He points out that if he had a handout for the clerk, that would be attached to the minutes. He encourages the council to advertise that fact. He suggests that the council pay attention to their own question time as well. He suggests a way of addressing the problem of an agenda item clogging up the reserved commentary time.

7:25 p.m. Kent Weichmann weighs in for the video privacy ordinance. Benson had weighed in against it at the conclusion of his remarks.

7:25 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:31 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) says he wants the dialogue on safe streets to continue. People who live on all kinds of streets should be listened to, he says. He wants traffic directed away from residential streets that are not designed for that kind of traffic.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) reminds the public about the July 2 public art forum on the East Stadium bridges project.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicates that the D1 zoning review will begin tomorrow. There will be two larger public meetings as well as smaller meetings. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asks if a schedule has been established for the review and how it will be implemented. The executive committee of the planning commission will be interviewing potential consultants, Briere explains. Staff and commission members are felt to be too close to the process to lead a public meeting. So someone with an outside view will be used, Briere says. There’ll be A2 Open City Hall surveys or perhaps also Survey Monkey surveys. The consultant will look at those issues and move to have a public meeting in August. Briere notes that the timeline requires the work to be done at the end of September. How it relates to the Y lot, she says, she’s not sure – in response to a question from Lumm.

7:33 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers asks CFO Tom Crawford to explain what happened with the city’s website. Crawford says it was a software/hardware failure. He believes all the data is there, and will be back up by 8 a.m. on July 2. Powers gives the usual updates associated with national holidays with respect to trash pickup and the like.

7:34 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. Three public hearings are on the agenda. The first hearing is on an ordinance change that will change the definition of sidewalk in the city. The second would adopt the 2009 International Fire Code as part of the city’s ordinances. And the third public hearing is on the South State Street corridor plan, which is proposed to be adopted into the city’s master plan.

7:39 p.m. PH: Sidewalks. A resident who lives next to one of the cross-lot paths addresses the council. He says they’re used by a limited number of people. He doesn’t think it’s fair to assign the responsibility for winter maintenance to those who live next to the paths. He urges the council to postpone the resolution accepting the cross-lot paths for public use.

A resident who uses a wheelchair is the next speaker. He wants to talk about a letter from the city that says he’s responsible for maintenance of a path. He says he doesn’t own that property. Every year for 47 years the city has cut the grass and maintained it. His property has a timber wall on the edge of it. The sidewalk is not for a general good, but for the entrance to a park. What the city is trying to do is shift the liability to him by calling it a sidewalk when it’s not a sidewalk. The city can’t impose an insurance liability on him for property he doesn’t own, he says. He doesn’t want to make his responsibility dependent on the passage of a millage every five years.

7:44 p.m. A resident who lives next to the walkway near Scarlett-Mitchell public schools objects to the idea that she’ll be made liable for maintenance. There’s no reason for her and her husband to take over maintenance, given that the school district is currently maintaining it. The ordinance is the easy way to go. She suggests that where there is someone already maintaining and snowplowing the path, that person or entity should be made responsible. She would not be able to shovel all the snow, she says.

A fourth resident wonders how a request for a sidewalk ordinance change comes about. There are another 28 paths beyond the 33 cross-lot paths, described in the staff memo, he points out. So the council would only be acting on half of the paths.

7:47 p.m. Thomas Partridge advocates for fairness and rejects the use of Republican Tea Party tactics in determining fees. Many residents of the county and the state are being driven out of their homes due to the unfairness of flat-rate taxes and fees, he contends, including sidewalk repair assessments.

7:51 p.m. PH: Fire Code. Thomas Partridge rises to speak to this issue. He says that councilmembers and the mayor are out of touch. He says that the councilmembers who sponsored the ordinance change should explain it in their own words. He contends that the city looks for ways to impose costs on those who can least afford it. No one else speaks at this public hearing.

7:54 p.m. PH: State Street Corridor. Local attorney Scott Munzel addresses the council on the topic of the hearing. He’s representing the property owner of 2271 S. State St., which is seeking a rezoning of the parcel to allow for automobile sales. [At its May 21, 2013 meeting, the city's planning commission had voted against a recommendation of rezoning.] Munzel points out that the proposed rezoning was consistent with the master plan, before the South State Street corridor plan was put forward. He asks the council to remember this when the council hears the rezoning request.

7:55 p.m. Council communications. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) clarifies where Pilar’s Tamales is located – in Ward 5. [The business is located at 2261 W. Liberty St.] Munzel had mentioned Pilar’s in the context of the 2271 S. State St. property. Pilar’s was formerly located there.

7:59 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) says she’s going to say something nice about everyone, without there being any reason. Mike Anglin is praised for his ability to mobilize people. Jane Lumm, Christopher Taylor, and Stephen Kunselman are praised in turn. Chuck Warpehoski listens to people in a way that improves council discussion, Briere says. Marcia Higgins is described as deceptively quiet. Mayor John Hieftje is also deceptive, she says – in the way that leaders can be. His knowledge provides balance. Sally Petersen is practical and pragmatic. Margie Teall’s commitment to social justice affects everything she does, Briere says.

8:00 p.m. Lumm is thanking Briere for her remarks.

8:02 p.m. Police chief John Seto is explaining how a July 16 meeting for property owners on fire inspections will work.

8:02 p.m. Minutes and consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes a contract with Tanner Industries Inc. for purchase of anhydrous ammonia, which is used in the city’s drinking water treatment process. About 25 tons of anhydrous ammonia is used per year and Tanner will provide it at $1,540 per ton for a total cost next year of $38,500.

The consent agenda also includes an item to amend the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) exemption for the proposed Burton Commons affordable housing development. Instead of taxes, the developer would pay the city $1. The number of units would stay the same at 80. But the council’s action would approve a new development partner, Highridge Costa Housing Partners (HCHP), and change the mix of units. Previously some units had been set aside for supportive housing services, but now they will all be targeted for people with incomes at 30-60% of the area median income (AMI).

8:02 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Kunselman pulls out the PILOT for Burton Commons for separate discussion.

8:06 p.m. Kunselman wonders what the status of the project is. Brett Lenart comes to the podium. He’s with the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development development. He describes how the project was originally conceived as a 120-unit project with permanent supportive housing. But it was reconceived at a smaller scale – 80 units. And now there is no supportive housing component. Planning manager Wendy Rampson clarifies that building permits need to be pulled before the end of the extension of a site plan, at the end of the year. But there’s no limit to the number of administrative extensions that can be granted, Rampson explains.

8:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved the consent agenda.

8:07 p.m. Ordinance: Sidewalk definition. The council gave initial approval to this definition change at its June 3, 2013 meeting. The new definition of “sidewalk” would expand the existing definition to include non-motorized paths that are [emphasis added] “designed particularly for pedestrian, bicycle, or other nonmotorized travel and that is constructed (1) in the public right of way or (2) within or upon an easement or strip of land taken or accepted by the city or dedicated to and accepted by the city for public use by pedestrians, bicycles, or other nonmotorized travel, …”

A resolution later on the agenda would accept 33 cross-lot pathways for public use. The impact of the definition change would make the paths eligible to be repaired by the city using sidewalk millage funds. However, adjoining property owners would be responsible for winter snow clearing. Here’s some examples of cross-lot sidewalks near Dicken Elementary School:

Example of cross-lot sidewalk in Ann Arbor.

[.pdf of maps for all 33 cross-lot sidewalks]

8:13 p.m. Kunselman leads off by saying that he’ll vote against it. It’s not a fair way to approach the topic. If the city has been maintaining a path for 47 years, he wondered why it would stop. If a school is currently maintaining a path, then arrangements should be made to continue that. He’s voting against it.

8:14 p.m. Briere, who sponsored the ordinance change, asks assistant city attorney Abigail Elias and public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium. Briere says that in her own research she’d learned it wasn’t clear who owns the property. Elias says the language is different in each of the plats. Responding to Briere, Elias doesn’t answer the question of whether the ordinance change would give the city an easement or title to the land. Elias says the ordinance would give “access.” Elias hasn’t looked at the issue of who the property belongs to.

Responding to Briere, Hupy says that if the ordinance doesn’t go forward, then the city doesn’t believe it can use sidewalk millage money to repair these cross-lot paths.

8:17 p.m. Briere asks Hupy if the city thinks it’s appropriate to place the burden for winter maintenance on adjacent property owners. Hupy says the schools were not interested in making the capital improvements. Some of the winter maintenance that the schools are doing, he says, is actually done out of convenience to the school – to find a good place to turn around, for example. The burden of winter maintenance, Hupy says, is the collateral damage associated with the city’s use of sidewalk millage funds for the capital repairs. Briere says her problem is with the redefinition of who’s responsible for the winter maintenance.

8:21 p.m. Higgins ventures that these paths could be defined as a subset of “sidewalks.” She floats the idea of postponing the ordinance. Warpehoski notes that many councilmembers have a desire to use the sidewalk millage to repair the paths. But he says there’s another problem in that non-motorized connections have been lost because there’s not a mechanism for accepting them for public use. He’s inclined to support the ordinance change, because it puts a mechanism in place to accept a path into public use. But that doesn’t mean that the council has to accept all 33 of the paths for public use. It might be a much smaller set, he says.

8:24 p.m. Lumm notes that not all 33 paths were found to be in current need of repair. Hupy indicates that last year there were four paths in dire need of repair that were not done, because they were not accepted for public use. Lumm doesn’t like the “no-man’s land” aspect of the situation. She sees it as a positive that the millage funds could be used. But the winter maintenance is a problem.

8:32 p.m. Lumm says that she agrees with one of the public hearing speakers, who said that if there’s to be a transfer of responsibility for the maintenance, then the land transfer should be done in a way that is “favorable” to the property owner. Lumm elicits from Elias the fact that under some circumstances, an owner of property adjoining a path could be required to mow grass in the summer, as well as clear snow in the winter.

Anglin says that the 33 paths should be looked at individually and judged on an individual basis. Hupy ventures that schools might be reluctant to participate – because they’re barred by state law from making investments in property off of land that they own.

8:41 p.m. Taylor summarizes the situation. He follows up on a possibility raised by Higgins: Can we find a way to use the sidewalk millage without causing the burden of day-to-day upkeep to shift? Elias traces the issue to the definition of “sidewalk.” Taylor floats the idea of tabling or delaying in some other way.

Lumm moves to postpone until the first meeting in October. Warpehoski asks how a postponement would affect the sidewalks that are in dire need of repair. Hupy says they wouldn’t get repaired this year. Hieftje ventures that if the city has muddled along all this time, three months wouldn’t hurt. Kunselman moots the idea of not using sidewalk millage funds to do the repair. He gives an example of a path that was repaired with park maintenance millage funds. He says if the city asked for the public paths in the first place, then the city should maintain them. Kunselman ventures that it might be necessary to research the history of the platting.

8:42 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to postpone the change in the definition of sidewalks until its first meeting in October.

8:42 p.m. Ordinance: International Fire Code Adoption. The council gave this ordinance change initial approval at its June 17, 2013 meeting. While the change is essentially administrative – changing the version of the International Fire Code adopted in the ordinance from 2003 to a more recent 2009 – some councilmembers on June 17 indicated an interest in exploring the question of frequency of fire inspections. They’ve heard complaints that fire inspections are being conducted too frequently – as a way to generate revenue.

On June 17, fire chief Chuck Hubbard indicated that some of the confusion could be attributed to re-inspections, which are done when a deficiency is found. Hubbard indicated on June 17 that fire inspections have increased. He’s increased the number of personnel assigned to fire inspections from three to seven.

Ann Arbor fire inspections: 2006-2012. (Data is from city financial records. Chart by The Chronicle.)

8:42 p.m. Lumm thanks staff for their work in responding to questions.

8:42 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to adopt the 2009 International Fire Code.

8:43 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess.

8:55 p.m. The council is back from recess.

8:56 p.m. Ordinance: Video Privacy. This ordinance still hasn’t received an initial approval, as the council has delayed voting several times. It sets forth various conditions for the placement of public surveillance cameras. The most recent postponement came at the council’s June 17, 2013 meeting. The council seemed willing to postpone a vote on that occasion based on the fact that police chief John Seto was not available to answer questions about the impact on law enforcement activities. Some councilmembers indicated at that meeting a reluctance even to give the ordinance an initial approval.

9:01 p.m. Police chief John Seto is addressing the council from the podium. He’s reviewed many versions of the ordinance. He thanks everyone for their work. As chief, his responsibility is to provide service and protection for all. He says he wouldn’t apply technology that has negative implications for communications. He can’t predict the security concerns and policing needs of the future. Large crowds themselves create an added risk. He can’t support an ordinance that would limit his ability to monitor large crowds like those associated with the Ann Arbor marathon. To be able to use live monitoring only when there’s an imminent risk would be limiting, he says. Because he can’t know the policing needs of the future, there could be unintended consequences.

9:08 p.m. Anglin asks Seto if he sees the ordinance as limiting what’s been done in the past. Seto said that he can’t recall a case where that’s been done. Kunselman asks if Seto is familiar with the West Willow neighborhood. Seto wasn’t able to provide definitive information.

Warpehoski ventured that former police chief Barnett Jones felt that video surveillance would never be accepted in this community. He asks if Seto felt that the ordinance would give him the regulatory framework that would allow the community concerns to be addressed. Briere says one of her concerns about crowd surveillance was that almost all of the footage that was useful in the Boston marathon bombing was from private cameras. She appreciated that the human rights commission, Warpehoski and Anglin had tried to find a balance. But she wondered if the balance had actually been found. Seto said he’s not advocating the use of cameras, but felt that if the need does arise, he wants to make sure that there’s flexibility.

9:11 p.m. Kunselman refers to the comments made during the public commentary about the possibilty of police misconduct in the use of cameras. Seto says that the in-car video cameras already used by officers are subject to departmental policies. Hieftje cites a memo written by Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, about the use of cameras in parking structures. Hieftje cites the issue of the perception of safety – saying that some people say they’d feel more comfortable in an underground parking garage if there was video surveillance.

9:19 p.m. Hieftje said that back in 2001-02 there were problems in Liberty Plaza, and the city had filmed from the building overlooking the park. Those cameras were hand-held, Hieftje said. Hieftje wanted to know if Seto felt that the ordinance would inhibit his ability to undertake necessary operations.

Kailasapathy wondered if the required sign stating the presence of a camera would undermine the point of the surveillance. For short-term use, Seto said, the sign would have an impact. Lumm discusses with Seto the requirements for installation of cameras. Lumm recounts how all the windows of her car were smashed in the Fourth & Washington parking structure, but there were no cameras in place to capture any footage.

Taylor says that this ordinance might be “a regulation too far.” But he notes that the chief’s job description was similar to the council’s job: Law enforcement should be consistent with community values. So he felt it should be voted forward to a second reading, which would provide an opportunity for a public hearing.

9:24 p.m. Kailasapathy ventures that the FBI would not have to adhere to the local ordinance, if the FBI wanted to conduct surveillance. Higgins brings up University of Michigan football games. She says that crowds are monitored for football games. Seto says that on a liberal interpretation, it might have an impact on his ability to use cameras for football crowd monitoring. But UM would be able to continue to do that, Seto says.

Kunselman inquires what the law is when a camera catches someone doing something illegal on their own property – if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. City attorney Stephen Postema says he has not researched the issue. Higgins ventures that if the city has been working on the ordinance for a long time, then surely the city has an understanding of what privacy in a home means.

9:28 p.m. Kailasapathy asks if it’s OK for a camera to be trained on a front door to monitor who is entering and leaving a residence. Postema says it depends on what is done with the footage. Briere brings up Google Street View cameras and how it blurs images of people’s faces. Briere agrees with Taylor that there should be a discussion in the community. Passive surveillance can be used well or not well, Briere says, adding that she wished it weren’t used at all.

9:36 p.m. Warpehoski says that placing a camera on a pole and pointing it into a neighborhood is an affront to privacy and the ordinance would prevent that affront. The ordinance tries to find a balance between privacy, property owner rights and law enforcement needs. He doesn’t want cameras to be put in over neighborhood opposition. Warpehoski says he put forward the best ordinance he knew how to put forward, but allowed that there were still things that could be worked on. He asks for support at first reading, but tells his colleagues not to vote for it on first reading just to please him – if they were definitely not going to vote for it on second reading.

Anglin says the ordinance is preemptive, and that the ordinance allows cameras to be installed as useful tools. He gives destruction of property in parks as a use case for the cameras. He doesn’t think it’s a solution looking for a problem, he says – a response to remarks from Kunselman at an earlier meeting.

Kunselman responds to the idea of a “regulatory framework” and wonders why the council is not providing guidance on policy to the administration. Ordinances are passed to regulate behavior, and there are punishments for violating them. He wondered if Seto violated the ordinance, would he be fired? Kunselman said he would support giving policy direction. In any case, the city can do what it needs to do, he says. If Seto needs to use a camera to catch a suspect, Kunselman says, then, “By golly, let him do it!”

9:47 p.m. Kunselman describes how the relationship between the police and young people has changed from the time when he was young. He returns to his idea of giving guidance through policy. Lumm says that it’s overly regulatory. The balanced approach that Seto would take would not result in the application of technology that would harm the community, Lumm says. She says she wouldn’t support such an ordinance unless it had Seto’s unequivocal support. So Lumm won’t support it at first reading.

Briere said generally she’s inclined to advance an ordinance to a second reading. She doesn’t like the ordinance, because she sees it as giving permission for surveillance. She distinguishes between speculative surveillance versus a situation where there’s a targeted deployment. But she’s still inclined to hear from the public. That will help the council make better decisions.

Hieftje says he likes the idea of a policy – alluding to Kunselman’s proposal that policy guidance would be better than an ordinance. Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor is host to events that have the spotlight of the nation on the city. He couldn’t say he’d support it at second reading, but he was willing to support it at first reading.

9:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 5-4 to give the video privacy ordinance initial approval, so it failed. Voting against it were Kailasapathy, Kunselman, Lumm and Higgins.

9:49 p.m. Ordinance: Rezoning for car dealership. The council is being asked to give initial approval to a rezoning of 2271 South State Street from M1 (limited industrial district) to M1A (limited light industrial district). The owner would like to be able to sell automobiles on the site. The city planning commission’s vote on the recommendation was taken at its May 21, 2013 meeting. The vote was 1-8, with only Eric Mahler supporting it. So the planning commission’s recommendation was for denial.

9:58 p.m. Briere points out that the council in the past has put off rezoning decisions based on the pending work on the South State Street corridor plan. Planning manager Wendy Rampson responds to Higgins by giving the example of the Biercamp property, which was not approved because the South State Street corrdidor study was just getting started at that time. There was also a request across the street from Biercamp, so that a property could be used as a medical marijuana dispensary.

Higgins ventures that the city council has the final say on the South State Street corridor plan – to which Rampson says, “kinda sorta.” The planning commission and the city council have to concur, Rampson says. Higgins felt like the property owner had been in the pipeline for a while before the South State Street corridor study was under way. Rampson and Higgins engage in back-and-forth on timing of the citizen participation meetings for the corridor plan and the proposed project requiring rezoning.

Kunselman draws out a letter of support from McKinley for the corridor plan. Kunselman notes that the adjoining bus parking lot might no longer be a factor – as the school district may not continue to offer transportation.

10:01 p.m. Kunselman wonders if it’s good policy to get rid of manufacturing zoning. Rampson explains that the planning commission had also grappled with that. She points to Areas 1C in the plan that recommends maintaining the current uses, which include manufacturing. The area around the parcel that’s requested to be rezoned, Rampson says, has already seen some transition to office use.

10:01 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to deny initial approval to the rezoning of 2271 S. State Street.

10:01 p.m. Ordinance: Kerrytown Place rezoning. There are two items on the agenda related to the zoning that would be necessary for Kerrytown Place – the project that Tom Fitzsimmons is planning to build instead of The Gallery, on the site of the former Greek Orthodox church on Main Street. The rezoning would be from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district).

The first rezoning item affects the parcels with Main Street frontage. The second rezoning item affects the parcels on Fourth Avenue. The city planning commission gave a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting. On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth. The council is just being asked to consider an initial vote on the rezoning tonight, not the site plan. Rezoning requires a second and final vote – at a meeting when the site plan is likely to be presented as well.

10:03 p.m. Briere introduces the items and briefly recites the history of the previously proposed project by a different owner. Kunselman says he’s pleased to support it. He reminds his colleagues that when the property was in the hands of the Washtenaw County treasurer, he’d proposed doing something similar – rezoning the property on the council’s initiation.

10:03 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to give initial approval to the rezoning changes necessary for the Kerrytown Place project.

10:03 p.m. Bond Re-Funding: Sewage. This item refinances $21,500,000 worth of sewage disposal system revenue bonds, which were issued in 2004. The expected savings, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, is more than $2 million over an 11-year term.

10:04 p.m. Lumm commends staff for staying on top of these issues. She notes the savings of $2 million.

10:04 p.m. The council has voted to approve the sewage disposal bond re-funding.

10:04 p.m. 2013 City Council Rules. For Chronicle coverage on these changes, see “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.” Highlights include adding public commentary to council work sessions, but reducing public speaking time to two-minute turns. A “frequent flyer” rule would prevent people from signing up for reserved time at the start of a meeting two meetings in a row. The total time that each councilmember could speak on an item of debate would be reduced from eight minutes to five minutes. The council postponed a vote from its previous meeting on these changes.

10:05 p.m. Higgins says she wants to postpone the issue, in light of the absence of Petersen and Teall, who wanted to be a part of the conversation.

10:06 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to postpone the rule amendments until the July 15 meeting.

10:06 p.m. Resolution: Re-establish the mutually beneficial committee. The phrase “mutually beneficial” in connection with the sorting out of issues between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority was first mooted in a Jan. 20, 2009 resolution. The main issue at that time was the contract under which the DDA administers the city’s public parking system. Subsequently, committees for both organizations 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.

10:06 p.m. The current source of friction between the DDA and the city concerns the interpretation of Chapter 7 of the city code, which regulates the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The DDA has chosen to interpret the Chapter 7 language in a way that does not recognize the cap on TIF revenues that is set forth in Chapter 7. That led to a proposal by some councilmembers earlier this year to revise the ordinance so that the DDA’s alternate interpretation is clearly ruled out. The council gave the ordinance change initial approval on April 1, 2013. But later, on May 6, 2013, the council chose to postpone the vote until Sept. 3, the council’s first meeting that month.

In this resolution, the mutual beneficial committee is tasked with coming up with a recommendation for Chapter 7 revised language with a deadline of Sept. 2. The council will be represented by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The DDA’s July 3 meeting agenda also includes its appointments to a mutually beneficial committee.

10:10 p.m. Briere introduces the item by saying that back in May, several people had said that the staff should be working on the issue. Whatever changes might come to Chapter 7, she felt councilmembers should have a voice. The mechanism for that was proposed to be to “reinvigorate” the mutual beneficial committee. Kunselman says that when the council approved the ordinance at first reading, he and Petersen had begun having conversations with DDA board members and staff. He sees the resolution tonight as solidifying a process that’s already underway.

However, Kunselman doesn’t like the label “mutually beneficial.” It’s now changed to the “joint DDA-council committee.” Higgins wants to add a member – for a total of four councilmembers. Higgins wants Lumm to be on the committee, saying that Lumm has put a lot of work into the issue. That proposal is accepted as friendly.

10:11 p.m. Kailsaspathy brings up the existing DDA partnership committee.

10:12 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to appoint a joint DDA-council committee.

10:12 p.m. R4C Committee. The planning commission had voted at its April 16, 2013 meeting to send recommendations to the city council for revisions to the R4C zoning areas – but without the actual wording of the ordinance changes. Any affirmative action by the council at this point would be to direct the planning commission to develop ordinance language that would reflect the recommendations. At that point, the planning commission would need to approve the proposed ordinance language, with final action still required by the council.

The zoning change recommendations resulted from work done by a citizens advisory committee that was established in the summer of 2009. Due to dissatisfaction about how the recommendations were handled, the council is reconstituting the citizens advisory committee. On the committee, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will represent the planning commission. Chuck Carver will represent rental property owners. From the wards: Ilene Tyler and Ray Detter (Ward 1); Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2); Ellen Rambo and Michelle Derr (Ward 3); Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4); Eppie Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5). Weatherbee will chair the group.

10:14 p.m. Higgins introduces the resolution, alluding to a neighborhood meeting that had taken place the previous week. Lumm thanks Higgins for her work. She wonders when the council might be asked to act on the recommendations. Higgins said that the committee would meet only two or three times. She said that before the council acts on the planning commission recommendations, the committee should be able to weigh in.

10:14 p.m. The council has voted to re-establish the R4C citizens advisory committee.

10:16 p.m. Appointment of Jean Cares to the greenbelt advisory commission as the agriculture landowner representative. Taylor, who also serves on GAC, introduces the resolution. He mentions that Cares owns the Dexter Mill. Hieftje says that it’s a difficult slot to fill.

10:16 p.m. The council has voted to postpone the appointment. This is a standard procedure, as this initial consideration is considered the nomination by the council. GAC is one of the few boards and commissions for which the council, not the mayor, makes the nominations.

10:16 p.m. South State Street Corridor Plan. This resolution would adopt the South State Street corridor plan into the city’s master plan. The city planning commission voted unanimously to adopt the plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting.

10:19 p.m. Higgins says she has concerns about adding the corridor plan to the city’s master plan. She asks for postponement.

10:20 p.m. The council has voted to postpone the South State Street corridor plan for two weeks.

10:21 p.m. The council has voted to go into a closed session to discuss pending litigation, which is one of the reasons allowed by the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

10:40 p.m. The council has emerged from closed session.

10:41 p.m. Box hangar bonds for airport. This is a notice of intent to issue up to $900,000 of bonds to fund construction of a new box hangar at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

10:41 p.m. The council has voted to give notice of intent to issue the bonds for the box hangar construction.

10:41 p.m. Miller Avenue assessment for sidewalk curb and gutter. The special assessment would apply to 18 private property owners, who would pay an average of $365 apiece. The total construction cost of the project is stated in the table of assessment as $42,860 – with about 75% of that to be paid for with federal funds. This resolution is the fourth and final one in the process. A public hearing was held at the council’s previous meeting.

10:41 p.m. The council has voted to approve the special assessment for Miller Avenue improvements.

10:41 p.m. Arbor Oaks Rain Gardens. This item would award a $149,925 contract to Erie Construction LLC for construction of rain gardens.

10:41 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to award the rain garden construction contract.

10:41 p.m. Accept 33 sidewalks for public use. Under the city charter, a land transaction requires an eight-vote majority, and this qualifies as a land transaction. The item relates to the ordinance change that was postponed earlier in the meeting, which would have changed the definition of “sidewalk” in the city code. The staff summary of the result of a meeting with adjoining property owners includes this: “There was a general consensus amongst attendees at the public meeting that City Council should postpone voting on these items until further discussion can be had and more details can be worked out.” For many of the specific paths, there was a reluctance to accept the responsibility of snow removal during the winter.

10:42 p.m. The council has voted to postpone the acceptance of the sidewalks for public use until its first meeting in October.

10:42 p.m. Fair Food Network grant to Ann Arbor farmers market. This item accepts $36,000 in funding from the Fair Food Network to administer the Double Up Food Bucks program at the Ann Arbor farmers market. The program provides a match of up to $20 per person per day to people using BSNAP (Bridge Cards/EBT/Food Stamps) to purchase produce at Michigan farmers markets.

10:42 p.m. The council has voted to accept the $36,000 grant.

10:43 p.m. Precinct 2-8 polling place relocation. This would change the polling place for Precinct 2-8 from St. Paul Lutheran School, 495 Earhart Road, to First United Methodist Church, 1001 Green Road. According to a letter sent earlier this year by school principal Brad Massey to the city, the decision to stop offering St. Paul Lutheran Church and School as a polling place to the city was based on “recent events affecting the safety of school children.” [.pdf of April 16, 2013 letter]

10:43 p.m. Lumm thanks St. Paul for allowing the city to use the facility as a polling location for many years.

10:43 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to change the Precinct 2-8 polling location to the First United Methodist Church.

10:44 p.m. Appointments. The council is being asked to confirm tonight the nominations put forward at the council’s June 17, 2013 meeting. Among them is Jeremy Peters to the planning commission. Also on the agenda for confirmation are Eric Jacobson to the local development finance authority (LDFA) board and Jan Davies McDermott to the economic development corporation board.

10:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm all the appointments.

10:46 p.m. Nominations. Russ Collins was nominated for a re-appointment to the board of the DDA. The nomination actually came chronologically before the confirmation votes.

10:47 p.m. Council communications. Taylor updates the council on the park advisory commission’s action at its June 18, 2013 meeting to recommend a waiver of fees for Liberty Plaza – in response to a request from Camp Take Notice to make sure that Pizza in the Park can continue at that location.

10:48 p.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:54 p.m. Seth Best addresses the council, beginning by thanking everyone. He’s speaking on behalf of Camp Take Notice’s advocacy for humanitarian aid generally, not just for Liberty Plaza. He was concerned that humanitarian aid was being excluded because of concern for music, bands and art. He tells his story of becoming homeless in Texas, eventually making his way to Ann Arbor. Pizza in the Park had allowed him to be human again, he said – at least for an hour.

10:57 p.m. An EMU faculty member and MISSION board member is now addressing the council in support of the Camp Take Notice advocacy for Pizza in the Park. Caleb Poirer speaks next, and quips that this is too early to end a council meeting. He characterizes the PAC resolution as an attempt to address the concerns that Camp Take Notice had raised, but says that it doesn’t actually address their concerns. That’s why they’re continuing to push for a more general ordinance. He allows that the homeless are not natural constituents of any politician. So he was grateful that the council had been willing to give them “the time of day.”

10:57 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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