The Ann Arbor Chronicle » sobriety court

June 16, 2014: Council Live Updates

Dave Askins — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:10:55 +0000

Editor’s note: This “Live Updates” coverage of the Ann Arbor city council’s June 16, 2014 meeting includes all the material from an earlier preview article published last week. The intent is to facilitate easier navigation from the live updates section to background material already in this file. Outcomes of council votes are also available in the Civic News Ticker.

The city council’s last meeting of the 2014 fiscal year, on June 16, 2014, features an agenda packed with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure like bridges (including art), the sanitary sewer system and the stormwater system, as well as several resolutions related to construction of new sidewalks.

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

Related to new sidewalk construction is a resolution that would authorize a $75,000 contract with the Greenway Collaborative, to support the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council in late 2013. Part of the task force’s responsibility is to create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling sidewalk gaps in the city.

The $75,000 cost for the pedestrian safety task force consultant is the same amount the council will be asked to allocate to support the work of Ann Arbor SPARK, a local economic development agency. The contract with SPARK is renewed annually, as is another contract on the June 16 agenda – for lobbying services from Governmental Consultant Services Inc. The GCSI contract is for $48,000.

Also on the council’s June 16 agenda are three items with a connection to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. One is the approval of an end-of-year budget adjustment that was already approved at the DDA board’s June 4, 2014 meeting. Another is approval of a $37,500 expenditure from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to help pay for an affordable housing needs assessment. At its June 4 meeting, the DDA board authorized a $37,500 grant for the same study.

In the final item with a DDA connection, the council will be asked to authorize $69,555 for the conversion of 223 mercury-vapor cobrahead streetlights to LED technology. This project would convert streetlights that are all outside the DDA district. The project is on the city council’s agenda because the DDA board recently declined to fund a similar LED conversion project – for streetlights inside the DDA tax capture district.

Several other June 16 agenda items relate to the downtown area, even if they don’t have an explicit DDA connection. Two of them involve changes to downtown zoning ordinances that have been recommended by the planning commission. The zoning question to be given initial consideration by the council is whether to downzone the southeast corner of William and Main streets from D1 to D2, but with a 100-foot height limit.

Other downtown items on the council’s June 16 agenda include site plan approvals for First Martin’s hotel project at Ashley and Huron, and the Bank of Ann Arbor expansion at Fifth Avenue and Washington Street.

A resolution to improve Liberty Plaza, a downtown park at the southwest corner of Division and Liberty streets, also appears on the agenda – sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Added as sponsors since its initial appearance on the agenda are Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

The council will be asked to approve four items related to supportive services for the criminal justice system: (1) a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services for mental health treatment services for the 15th District Court’s sobriety and mental health courts; (2) a $44,200 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court; (3) a $108,174 contract with Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services; and (4) a $40,000 contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants.

Recycling is the final topic with multiple items on the June 16 agenda. The council will be asked to approve funds for a $95,694 contract with Recycle Ann Arbor to create a multi-family recycling incentive pilot program. The council will also be asked to approve $39,480 to reimburse the city’s operator of its materials recovery facility for repair of a conveyor that feeds the baler. And finally, the council will be asked to approve $35,000 for Recycle Ann Arbor to provide solid waste services associated with student move-out activity.

The June 16 council meeting will also feature the annual historic district commission awards and the introduction of one of the Ann Arbor police department’s K-9 units, who won highest honors at a recent national certification trials event. 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.

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s June 16 agenda is heavy with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges

The council will be asked to approve a $187,184 contract with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the Fuller Road, Maiden Lane, and East Medical Center Drive bridges rehabilitation project. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes “re-painting of each bridge, repairing corroded structural steel, bridge abutment and pier (substructure) repairs, expansion joint removal and replacement, bridge deck patching, placing an overlay on the existing bridge decks, bridge railing repairs, guard rail upgrades, brush trimming and removal around the perimeter of the bridge structures, and other related work.”

Money for the design work is available in the approved FY 2014 public services area street millage capital budget. The state of Michigan’s local bridge program pays for 95% of eligible construction expenses up to $790,000. The project will also receive $1,373,440 in federal surface transportation funding, administered through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The federal program pays for 81.85% of eligible construction expenses. But neither the state nor the federal sources will pay for the design work that the council’s action will fund.

Physical Infrastructure: Stadium Bridges Art

This amendment to the contract on the June 16 council agenda adds art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services. This was one of the projects for which the city council left funding in place, when it voted on March 3, 2014 to transfer most of the unspent money from the now defunct Percent for Art funding program back to the funds from which the money was originally drawn.

By way of additional background, in early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for this public art project. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's original proposal] The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to the Ann Arbor public art commission and then later to the city council for approval.

Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback] The public art commission recommended the project’s approval at its April 23, 2014 meeting.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along the north side of East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining

The council will be asked to approve the award of a $1,566,121 construction contract with Lanzo Lining Services for the 2014 sewer lining project. According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the project includes the lining of about 18,028 lineal feet of sanitary sewer and 2,942 lineal feet of storm sewer at 16 locations throughout the city. The memo describes sewer lining as a “trenchless technology which enables the pipe to be repaired without disturbing the surface above.”

Physical Infrastructure: Manholes

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to award a $47,193 contract to Fonson Inc. for the Eighth Street sanitary sewer manhole replacement project. The manholes in question are described in the staff memo accompanying the project as “101 years old, composed of brick and … disintegrating.”

The deterioration of the manholes is attributed to corrosion from sewer gases, vibration from traffic, decades of freeze/thaw cycles and variations in hydrostatic soil pressures. The deteriorated condition includes spalling, weakened mortar, missing bricks and excessive groundwater infiltration, according to the memo.

Physical Infrastructure: Water Main

The council will be asked to award a $1,324,357 construction contract to Douglas N. Higgins Inc. for the Arbor Oaks Phase II water main replacement project. This project will replace the older water mains in the Bryant neighborhood. The water mains in the neighborhood are described in a staff memo as experiencing frequent breaks and in generally poor condition.

The project will install 1,100 feet of 12-inch water main and 2,360 feet of 8-inch water main along Santa Rosa Drive, Jay Lee Court, Lucerne Court, Burlingame Court, Blain Court, Hardyke Court, and Bryant Elementary School property. Included in the project is the resurfacing of the street, replacement of some curb and gutter, and reconstruction of some storm sewer structures.

Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms

The council will be asked to approve a $149,500 contract with Emergency Restoration Company for the renovation of restrooms and locker rooms in Fire Stations #3 and #4. The staff memo accompanying the item indicates that the project will renovate the existing restroom facilities to create two unisex restrooms and showers at each station. Facilities and ventilation in the locker room and restroom areas will be improved.

Fire Station #3 is located on the city’s west side, on Jackson Road. Fire Station #4 is located on the city’s southeast side, on Huron Parkway. [Google Map of all five fire station locations]

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater

The council will be asked to authorize transfer up to $157,264 in funds from the park maintenance and capital improvements millage fund to the stormwater fund – to authorize state revolving fund (SRF) debt payment and loan forgiveness for the stormwater and rain garden components of the skatepark project, located at Veterans Memorial Park.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, a state revolving fund loan is being used to fund the rain garden installation at the skatepark and to reimburse the city’s stormwater fund. Additional stormwater components were approved by the state for 50% loan forgiveness. The transfer of funds that the council is being asked to approve is necessary for the total debt payment of $118,632.00 plus 2% interest over 20 years. The skatepark is scheduled to have a grand opening on June 21 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Physical Infrastructure: Wastewater Study

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $62,800 contract with Black & Veatch Ltd. for a water & wastewater system capital cost recovery study. Background to this contract is June 3, 2013 city council action to change the calculation of the water and sanitary improvement charges for properties connecting to city water mains or sanitary sewers – but only for a two-year period, from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2015.

The effect of the council’s action was to reduce the connection charges considerably. It was understood at the time that the two-year period would allow for the hiring of a consultant to review the city’s fees and charges for connections to the water and sanitary sewer systems and make recommendations for revision. That’s why the Black & Veatch item appears on the council’s June 16 agenda. The principles at stake are described in the staff memo accompanying the item as follows:

When making future changes to improvement charges and connection fees, it is important that various competing elements are satisfied. The fees must be easy to explain and easy to understand to be accepted by the users. The fees must recover costs equitably. The fees must not result in either an undue burden on existing rate payers of the systems or an undue burden on new customers connecting to the systems. The fees must be easily understood and neither over recover costs nor under recover costs. Any under-recovery of costs would place undue and inequitable financial burdens on current rate payers. To meet these goals and gain the experiences of other utilities, it is desirable to contract with a consulting firm that has nationwide experience in this area.

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve the amendment of a purchase order for stormwater services with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. The request of the council is to increase the amount of the existing contract with the water resources commissioner by $30,000. The existing contract was approved for FY 2011 for $69,215 with a 3% annual increase, which would have put the amount for FY 2014 and FY 2015 at $75,633 and $77,902, respectively. The council is being asked to approve funding at $105,633 and $107,902, for FY 2014 and FY 2015, respectively.

Informational Infrastructure: HR and Payroll Software

The council will be asked to approve a $570,900 contract with NuView Inc. to replace the city’s human resource and payroll system. The staff memo accompanying the item explains why the existing software, acquired in 2007, is being replaced:

In 2007, the City installed a Human Resource and Payroll system called Ultipro, by Ultimate Software. The Ultipro system included modules for Recruiting, Benefits Administration, Human Resource Administration and Payroll. The City has experienced a variety of issues related to the underlying database architecture utilized by Ultimate Software. In addition, due to changes such as new legislative requirements, the increase in recruiting volume and the increase in manual data entry involved in benefits administration, the City has found the Ultipro system unable to meet its Human Resource needs.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians

The council’s agenda features several items related to special-assessed sidewalk construction projects, as well as funding for a pedestrian safety and access task force. Four different special-assessed sidewalk construction projects are on the agenda – two public hearings to be held at the June 16 meeting (for Scio Church and Barton Drive) and two resolutions to set public hearings for future meetings (for Pontiac Trail and Stone School Road).

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

Two resolutions appear on the agenda in connection with construction of a new sidewalk on Pontiac Trail – 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 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]

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk

The council has 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 requested action of the council on June 16 will be to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 7.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing

The sidewalk on Barton Drive 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.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing

Another public hearing based on previous council action at its May 19 meeting will be held at the June 16 meeting – on the special assessment to fund construction of a sidewalk on Scio Church Road. 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.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming

The council will be asked to approve a traffic calming project on Larchmont Drive at a cost of ~~$55,000~~ $8,800.

Larchmont traffic calming proposal: Three speed humps.

The action includes an appropriation for five other traffic calming projects, totaling $55,000.

The approval of this project comes in the context of the council’s budget deliberations last month, when an amendment was offered but rejected by the council that would have cut the FY 2015 budget allocation for art administration from $80,000 to $40,000 and put the $40,000 is savings toward traffic calming projects. The amendment got support only from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Traffic calming projects must undergo a neighborhood engagement process in which at least 60% of households support the designed project. In the case of the Larchmont project, 13 out of 15 households supported the project.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant

The council will be asked to approve a $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the work of the pedestrian safety and access task force as a facilitator. The task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

The group has begun to meet and has elected Feldt to chair the task force. The resolution on the council’s June 16 meeting agenda comes after the council voted down a resolution at on April 7, 2014 that included a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations was familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting.

But subsequently the city issued an RFP (requests for proposals) for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893] Task force members participated in the selection process from among three respondents to the RFP. Besides Project Innovations and the Greenway Collaborative, ENP & Associates responded to the RFP. ENP is the consultant the city used for the recent review of downtown zoning.

Business Services

On the council’s agenda are two contracts that are approved annually – one for business development services and one for lobbying services.

Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services. This is an annual contract. At its May 19, 2014 meeting, the council spent roughly five hours of deliberations on amendments to the FY 2015 budget, and just under 30% of that time was spent on two amendments involving SPARK – neither of which were approved by the council.

Ann Arbor city council budget deliberations FY 2015: 4 hours 45 minutes by amendment topic.

SPARK is also the entity with which the local development finance authority (LDFA) contracts for business accelerator services. One of the proposed amendments to the FY 2015 budget would have decreased the amount of funding to SPARK from the LDFA, resulting in an increase to the amount the LDFA would have reserved for future infrastructure projects. The second budget amendment debated on May 19 would have eliminated the $75,000 in the FY 2015 budget for the contract the council will be asked to approve as part of its June 16 agenda.

Ann Arbor SPARK also receives money from other governmental units in Washtenaw County. In 2013, the $75,000 paid by the city of Ann Arbor to SPARK accounted for more than half of the $132,888 total contributed by all governmental units besides Washtenaw County. The county levies a tax under Act 88, and out of that levy, last year the county contributed $200,000, according to the information provided to the city by SPARK. [.pdf of 2013 "return on investment" from Ann Arbor SPARK] [.pdf of 2013 Ann Arbor SPARK projects]

Business Services: GCSI Lobbying

GCSI is also supposed to monitor issues currently pending before the legislature and advocate for the city’s specific interests. GCSI has done this kind of work for the city of Arbor since 2001. GCSI also provides lobbying services for Washtenaw County, as well as other local municipalities. The city’s main liaison with GSCI is Kirk Profit, an Ann Arbor resident and former Michigan state legislator.

Downtown

The council will be handling several items on its June 16 agenda that relate to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority specifically, or the downtown area generally.

Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment

The council will be asked to approve a routine fiscal-year-end budget adjustment for the Ann Arbor DDA. The DDA board approved the adjustment at its June 4, 2014 meeting. The main part of the adjustment is a $1.6 million payment made for the First & Washington parking garage, which is part of the City Apartments project. The amount was budgeted by the DDA for last year, but not paid until this year.

The rest of the adjustment is attributable to expenditures out of the DDA’s housing fund – $500,000 of it to support Ann Arbor Housing Commission projects. The remaining $37,500 went to support a countywide housing needs assessment – an amount that was approved by the board at the same June 4 meeting in a separate vote. The DDA will end the fiscal year with $6,167,757 in fund balance. The breakdown of that total is: TIF ($619,571); Housing ($160,154); Parking ($2,161,676) and Parking Maintenance ($3,226,356).

Downtown: Affordable Housing Needs Assessment

The council will be asked to authorize $37,500 from the affordable housing trust fund to support the Washtenaw County housing needs assessment. The Ann Arbor DDA had approved the same amount at its meeting on June 4, 2014. Money from the city and DDA is being considered as “up to” amounts. Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of economic and community development (OCED), told the DDA board at its June 4 meeting that $75,000 from a HUD Sustainable Communities grant would be the first money spent toward the assessment.

The firm selected by the OCED to do the needs assessment is czb LLC out of Virginia. [.pdf of RFP for the needs assessment] The current needs assessment will update a report done in 2007. According to a memo from OCED staff to the DDA, the final report will “provide a clear, easy to understand assessment of the local housing market, identify current and future housing needs, and provide specific and implementable policy recommendations to advance affordable housing.

The goal for this update is to include an analysis that links transportation cost and accessibility, as well as other environmental and quality of life issues to the location of affordable housing.” The RFP for the needs study describes the timeline for the work as including a draft for review due at the end of October 2014, with a final presentation due in mid-December.

(Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a purchase agreement with DTE to convert 223 mercury-vapor cobrahead streetlights to LED technology. The up-front cost of the conversion will be $69,555 – but that amount will be reduced to $55,060 after rebates. The annual electric bill from DTE for the 223 streetlights is currently $45,128. After conversion, the projected annual cost will be $30,910. The savings would result in about a 3.1-year payback period on the net cost of $55,060.

None of the streetlights to be converted are in the DDA district. Streetlights in the DDA district were part of a similar proposal considered by the DDA board at its May 7, 2014 meeting, but postponed by the board at that meeting until June 4. By the time of the June 4 meeting, however, a decision had already been made that the DDA would not be funding an LED conversion this year. [DTE's program has an annual cycle, but is not necessarily offered every year.] If the DDA board had approved funding for converting lights in the DDA district, it would have affected 212 non-LED streetlights.

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

The project the DDA declined to fund this year would have included converting 100 watt MV (mercury vapor), 175 watt MV and 100 watt HPS (high pressure sodium) lights to 65 watt LED (light emitting diode). Further, 400 watt MV and 250 watt HPS lights would have been converted to 135 watt LED. Finally, 1000 watt MV and 400 watt HPS lights would have been converted to 280 watt LED. Currently, the city pays DTE $72,585 a year for the energy used by the 212 downtown streetlights. After conversion, the annual cost for the 212 lights would be expected to drop to $51,895, for an annual savings of $20,690.

In deliberations at the DDA board’s May 7 meeting, DDA board member Roger Hewitt opposed the grant, because the savings that would be realized accrues to the city of Ann Arbor, which pays the energy bills for the lights. Hewitt noted that the relationship between the city and the DDA includes a number of fund transfers to the city. Even though the amount is not huge, Hewitt said, the expenditure of several small amounts could eventually impair the DDA’s ability to pay for major infrastructure improvements.

Other board members joined Hewitt in their concerns, questioning what projects might be sacrificed if the DDA paid for the LED conversion. Concern was also expressed over the possibility that the result of a streetscape framework planning effort could result in a decision to replace all cobrahead lights in the downtown area with pedestrian-scale lampposts. And that would mean that the new LED fixtures would be used for only a short while.

Downtown: Zoning, Character District

The council will be asked to give initial approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Because these would be changes to the zoning code, which is expressed in city ordinances, any council action that might be taken would need a second and final vote at a future meeting, in order to be enacted.

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

Currently, a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

To be considered separately by the city council are votes that would: (1) change the zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) change the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to increase the D2 height limit from 60 feet to 100 feet. Assuming the zoning change is made for the parcel at 425 S. Main, it would be the only D2 parcel in the character district. The changes to the character overlay district also include upper story setbacks from any residential property. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

The planning commission recommended both the changes at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The planning commission’s vote on the basic zoning change was unanimous – 9-0. But the vote on the 100-foot height limit was only 6-3, with dissent coming from Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere also serves on city council, representing Ward 1. Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

The planning commission’s recommendations came in response to a city council directive given at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, which had been based on previous work the planning commission had done. The commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

The items on the council’s June 16, 2014 agenda are just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission. That set of initial recommendations from the planning commission to the city council – which the council then accepted and for which the council asked the planning commission to draft ordinance language – included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had also called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character overlay district – lower than the 100 feet put forward at the commission’s May 6 meeting.

The site’s current zoning allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height. At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Downtown: Hotel Site Plan

The city council will be asked to approve the site plan for First Martin’s proposed extended-stay hotel at 116-120 West Huron Street. The planning commission gave a recommendation of approval at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

Rendering of proposed hotel at the northeast corner of West Huron and Ashley. The One North Main building is visible to the east.

The proposal calls for a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels. The hotel will be operated by Marriott.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron includes a Greyhound bus depot and a one-story building that houses the Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau. Both of those buildings will be demolished. The bus depot facade will remain in place as part of the new building’s design. [.pdf of staff report]

First Martin has secured a letter of commitment from Zipcar, a car-sharing service, for two vehicles. Parking spaces for those cars are proposed at the northeast corner of the site. For purposes of the city’s parking requirement, the two Zipcars would count as eight off-street parking spaces, and would satisfy the requirement. The two existing curbcuts – on North Ashley and West Huron – will be closed, and access to the two parking spaces, loading dock and trash/recycling would be from the mid-block alley to the north. The alley is currently one-way, and will be converted to a two-way alley and repaved.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron, looking north. One North Main is the building on the right. The city’s Ann Ashley parking structure is visible in the background.

Streetscape changes will include curb bump-outs on North Ashley, on the north and south ends of the site for passenger drop-off. Nine bicycle parking spaces are required for the project, and would include two bike hoops in the North Ashley right-of-way and two in the West Huron right-of-way, for a total of eight bike spaces. Three more hoops are proposed for the Ann Ashley parking structure, with First Martin paying for labor and materials. The city of Ann Arbor and Downtown Development Authority would assume responsibility for maintenance of those hoops.

Construction is estimated to cost $13 million. In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo noted that the Greyhound bus depot has been at that location since 1940, and the site has been a transportation hub since 1898.

Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan

The city council will be asked to approve the site plan for an addition to the Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters at 125 South Fifth Avenue. The planning commission recommended approval of the project at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

The site plan involves reorienting the main entrance – moving it from the center of its South Fifth Avenue side to the southeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. Existing doors will be replaced with windows. A 9,179-square-foot third-floor addition would be constructed over the rear of the building’s east side. In total, the building would be 32,651 square feet after construction. The project is estimated to cost $4.2 million. [.pdf of staff memo]

Bank of Ann Arbor building at the northeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. The proposed renovations will create a “tower” entrance into the building at this corner.

According to the staff memo, the design “seeks to transform the current style from contemporary to traditional by replacing the yellow brick façade with brown and red-colored bricks and limestone-colored stone accents and trim and creating a brick and glass tower at the street corner to create a prominent entry.”

The original two-story building was constructed in 1965, which included the drive-thru window. An addition was completed in 1999. The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on Jan. 14. The board suggested making the entry structure taller and more closely aligning the bank’s design features with those of the adjacent Ameritech building to the east.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density in the downtown area. D1 zoning requires a special exception use for drive-thrus, which the planning commission considered on May 20 in a separate vote. Because the project is going through a site plan approval process, the requirement for a special exception use was triggered. Special exception uses do not require additional city council approval.

The bank has an existing drive-thru teller window on its north side. No changes are planned to that configuration, however. In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo said if the drive-thru were used more frequently, staff might suggest additional design features, like a more clearly marked crossing or differentiated surface materials. But because there are only 20-25 transactions per day at the drive-thru, and given the “successful history” of the existing drive-thru, staff was comfortable with it remaining as is, DiLeo said.

Modifications to drive-thru regulations are in the works, but not yet enacted. The planning commission approved new drive-thru regulations earlier this year. Amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus received initial approval at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting, and received final approval at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting.

Downtown: Liberty Plaza

Mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), joined by Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), are sponsoring a resolution that would direct the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

Funding for the collaborative work in the amount of $23,577 would come from the parks and recreation budget. In addition to a concept for a “re-imagined Liberty Plaza,” the effort is supposed to result in options for funding construction, to be provided by city staff. A report is to be provided to the park advisory commission by December 2014 and to the city council a month later in January 2015.

This resolution comes in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp. Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park.

The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Taylor, Hieftje, Teall and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Courts Human Services

On the council’s June 16 agenda are several items related to the criminal justice system, specifically for some of the specialty courts operated by the 15th District Court. As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve an amendment to a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services – for mental health treatment services to people who are participating in the sobriety court and the mental health court.

Also on the consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $44,200 amendment to a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court. The council will be asked to approve a $108,174 amendment to a contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services.

And finally, the consent agenda includes a resolution for a $40,000 amendment to a contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants.

Recycling

The council’s June 16 agenda includes three items related to recycling.

Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot

The council will be asked to approve a two-year $95,694 contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for a recycling incentive program for multi-family residential units. This item is based on the city’s solid waste plan, which the city council adopted at its Oct. 7, 2013 meeting.

The plan includes evaluating methods to increase recycling participation through pilot programs. Among those methods is the introduction of a recycling incentive program for multi‐family housing units. According to the staff memo accompanying this item, a manual sort of waste conducted in the fall of 2012 found that only 12% of the trash that single-family residents threw away was recyclable, compared to 26% of the trash that multi-family residents threw away. The completion of the pilot program is expected in December 2016. According to the memo, Recycle Ann Arbor’s proposal includes:

Gather information on best multi-family recycling practices in North America.
Survey and/or interview key multi-family constituencies in Ann Arbor to better understand the challenges and opportunities for recycling in this sector. Based on feedback received, develop 3 to 5 methodologies for further testing and analysis.
Identify pilot parameters and measurement protocols.
Identify pilot communities to involve in the pilot programs (ultimately targeting approximately 1,000 units) and ramp up pilot start-up.
Implement pilot programs.
Analyze results of pilot programs.
Provide detailed recommendations to the City on best practices and report results to participating multi-family communities.

Methodologies that will be tested as part of the pilot will include the following:

Recycling rewards program: Evaluate if a recycling rewards program would be effective in improving recycling participation rates in multi-family locations
Indoor collection bins: Most multi-family locations share outdoor recycling bins. Determine if the provision of indoor recycling bins would help increase recycling rates.
Multi-family recycling leader program: Determine if the use of recycling leaders at individual locations would help increase recycling rates.
300-gallon recycling cart: Determine if the use of 300-gallon carts instead of the standard 96-gallon cart would help increase recycling.

Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair

The council will be asked to approve a $39,480 reimbursement to Resource Recovery Systems – the city’s contracted operator of its materials recovery facility (MRF) – for repair of the baler infeed conveyor belt. According to a staff memo accompanying the item, the belt was last replaced in 2007, and has worn out. Such conveyors are described in the memo as lasting five to seven years.

Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $35,000 annual contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for services associated with the move-out of University of Michigan students.

According to the staff memo on the item, RAA’s proposal includes a staffed drop-off location at the corner of Tappan and Oakland streets during student fall and spring move-out periods. The site is also used to collect reusable items (through organizations such as the Salvation Army, Kiwanis, or the Reuse Center), bulky metal items, and recyclable materials.

4:10 p.m. Staff responses to councilmember questions about agenda items. [.pdf of staff responses to June 16, 2014 agenda questions]

6:14 p.m. Paul Fulton of the city’s IT department is setting up the laptop with the Historic District Commission awards presentation. Thomas Partridge has already arrived.

6:48 p.m. Eppie Potts, who’s receiving the Preservationist of the Year Award tonight from the Historic District Commission, has arrived. She quips: “Usually I’m here to yell at them!”

7:08 p.m. The only councilmember not yet arrived is Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). Mayor John Hieftje is here, but he seems to have stepped away for a bit. We’re basically ready to go.

7:09 p.m. Warpehoski is now here.

7:10 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Approval of agenda. All are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wants to note that there will be a resolution added on the settlement on the Goldstone case. City attorney Stephen Postema says it can go at the end.

7:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda.

7:13 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. Steve Powers is thanking Chief John Seto for the Ann Arbor police department and Ann Arbor fire department event on Saturday, recognizing public safety officers for their bravery and service. He thanked Seto for the open house, where equipment was demonstrated. He’s announcing the grand opening of the skatepark on June 21. He’s thanking residents for their patience as the city rolls out its street reconstruction projects for the season.

7:14 p.m. INT-1 Introduction of Ann Arbor Police K-9 Murray and Officer Pat Maguire. Murray, the dog, is named after Vada Murray, an Ann Arbor Police Department officer who passed away a few years ago. His wife and children are in attendance.

7:15 p.m. Chief Seto is introducing Officer Maguire and K-9 Murray. The pair earned distinction in a recent trials competition.

7:16 p.m. INT-2 Presentation of Historic District Commission annual awards. This is the 30th annual presentation of the awards.

7:18 p.m. Tom Stullberg, chair of the HDC, is giving the presentation.

7:18 p.m. Rehabilitation Awards are presented in recognition of substantial work that returned a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration, facilitating contemporary needs but respecting the features of the property that are significant to its historic and architectural values.

7:18 p.m. University of Michigan For East Quad. Details: Built in 1940; $116 million renovation; replaced slate roof, restored leaded glass, replaced window glazing, restored exterior walls; repaired wood paneling and fireplaces in main floor lounges.

7:19 p.m. University of Michigan for Munger Residences, formerly called the Lawyers Club. Details: Built between 1923 and 1933; $39 million renovation; upgraded infrastructure, replaced slate roof (reusing many original pieces), repaired exterior masonry; added two elevators without compromising historical integrity.

7:19 p.m. Jim Kosteva, UM director of community relations, is on hand to accept the awards on behalf of UM.

7:20 p.m. Preservation Awards are presented in recognition of superior maintenance of a significant property to preserve its essential historical, cultural or architectural value for a period of 10 years or more.

7:20 p.m. Susan and Martin Hurwitz for 1520 Cambridge 1520 Cambridge. Details: Built in 1913 for Max and Clemence Winkler; Colonial Revival; round topped windows, classical surround of pilasters and broken pediment, prominent modillions; owned and maintained by Susan and Martin Hurwitz since 1991.

7:20 p.m. Kappa Alpha Theta (Eta Chapter): 1414 Washtenaw. Details: Built in 1867 for Dr. Silas Pratt; Colonial Revival; remodeled by Louis H. Boynton when purchased by Kappa Alpha Theta in 1916; one of the first Greek letter organizations to locate on Washtenaw; received State of Michigan Historic Designation in 1983.

7:21 p.m. First Presbyterian Church for 1432 Washtenaw. Details: Built in 1938; Gothic Revival in the English Country style; renovations in 1956 and 1998; Lancet windows with stained glass, buttresses, steep slate roof; stand of mature trees leading to main entry are remnants of the “picnic grove” that surrounded home at the previously occupying site.

7:21 p.m. Ann Arbor City Club for 1830 Washtenaw. Details: Built in 1888 by Evart Scott as farmhouse; remodeled into Colonial Revival home by Louis H. Boynton when purchased in 1917 for Dr. R. Bishop Canfield; purchased by Ann Arbor Women’s City Club in 1951 and remodeled into clubhouse; 1962 addition designed by Ralph Hammett.

7:22 p.m. Ken Wisniski and Linda Dintenfass for 13 Regent Drive. Details: Designed by local architect David Osler in 1964 for William and Margaret Mundus; Mid-Century Modern; five levels, mostly hidden from public view; renovation by Stan Monroe in 2012 to change third level into master bedroom and rebuild five decks; owned and maintained by Ken Wisniski and Linda Dintenfass since 1999.

7:23 p.m. Howard Shapiro for 7 Regent Drive. Details: Designed by Alden Dow in 1964 for Joe Morris; three levels, views the Arb; flat roof with flared edges on the west, resembles three boxes with a hidden entry; influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright (Dow studied at Taliesin in the 1920s); owned and maintained by Dr. Howard Shapiro since 2002.

7:23 p.m. Margaret Bignall and Paul Hossler for 1448 Broadway. Details: Built in 1852 by John Lennon; Greek Revival; typical early 19th century settler house; 950 square feet, 1½ story, side gable; small, historic barn behind house; owned and maintained by Margaret Bignall and Paul Hossler since 1980.

7:24 p.m. Carol and Robert Mull for 1111 Fair Oaks. Details: Designed in 1916 by Fiske Kimball for James N. and Clara Petrie; inspired by Monticello and the White House; irregular floor plan: round rooms in center and rectangular rooms on sides; Ives Woods/Burns Park neighborhood; owned and maintained by Carol and Robert Mull since 1979.

7:25 p.m. Stone School Cooperative Nursery for 2811 Stone School. Details: Built in 1911 as a rural schoolhouse; incorporated materials from 1853 schoolhouse previously on site; original foundation stone and school bell and belfry; purchased and restored in 1995 by the Stone School Cooperative; listed on National Register of Historic Places in 1995.

7:25 p.m. John Hollowell for 844 W. Huron. Details: Built in 1872 by William H. Mallory; Gothic Revival; two porches, two bay windows, eared trim with elaborate scroll details; 1890s Victorian lamp posts from Belle Isle; Old West Side; owned and maintained by John Hollowell since 1970s.

7:26 p.m. Steve Sivak for 1158 Pomona. Details: Built in 1955 for Joseph and Emma Albano; Mid-Century Modern; long, low lines, prominent carport, exposed rafters, vertical cedar siding, flat roofs; large expanses of window glass on the sides, blank façade offering privacy from the street; owned and maintained by Steve Sivak since 1995.

7:27 p.m. Akhavan Rayhaneh for 2022 Delafield. Details: Built in 1958 by James P. Wong for Richard Hadden; “Bonnet house”; Mid-Century Modern; steeply pitched gable in front, floor to ceiling windows form part of façade, overhang has exposed rafters; owned and maintained by Akhavan Rayhaneh since 1989.

7:27 p.m. Special Merit Awards are presented in recognition of exceptional people, projects, landscapes or other unique preservation projects.

7:28 p.m. Susan Wineberg and Patrick McCauley: Authors of “Historic Ann Arbor: An Architectural Guide”; describes over 350 Ann Arbor buildings; includes 40 University of Michigan buildings; four years researching, documenting, photographing, and writing; valuable resource to anyone interested in architecture or history of Ann Arbor.

7:28 p.m. Preservationist of the Year is presented to an individual who has provided the city of Ann Arbor with exemplary services in the pursuit of historic preservation, incentives, and/or education.

7:28 p.m. Ethel K. Potts is the 2014 Preservationist of the Year. Details: attended the University of Michigan; served on city’s zoning board of appeals and the planning commission; advocate for historic preservation; mentor to future preservationists; “This city means a lot to me, its buildings and history must be maintained for generations to come.”

7:30 p.m. Potts is getting an enthusiastic ovation from the audience and councilmembers.

7:30 p.m. Recess. We’re in a short recess so that the awardees can exit.

7:37 p.m. We’re back.

7:37 p.m. Public Commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Two people are signed up to talk about the $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative to support the work of the pedestrian safety and access task force, both of them members of the task force: Vivienne Armentrout and Linda Diane Feldt. Three people are signed up to talk about the $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK: Kai Petainen, Jeff Hayner and Dave DeVarti. Hayner’s second topic is the East Stadium bridges art installation. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about improved affordable housing and economic development.

7:40 p.m. Vivienne Armentrout is a member of the pedestrian safety and access task force. She’s asking the council to approve the contract with The Greenway Collaborative. It’s already in the FY 2014 budget, so it’s “not new money,” she says. She says the task force is “itching” to take on its task. The task force needs the council’s support now, to continue its work – the task force has met three times so far. Armentrout is reviewing the responsibility the council gave the task force. She’s describing how some members of the task force participated in the selection of the facilitator, from the three who responded to the city’s RFP. [.pdf of Armentrout's remarks]

7:41 p.m. Kai Petainen is reading the following statement aloud: [Petainen public comment] [Ann Arbor SPARK 2013 annual report] and [21st Century Jobs Trust Fund 2013 Annual Report]

7:46 p.m. Linda Diane Feldt is a member of the pedestrian safety and access task force – and she was elected chair of the group. She’s thanking the council for appointing her to the task force. She’s asking for the council’s support – in the form of approving the $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative. She’d participated in the selection process of the consultant, she says. The process that will unfold will involve thousands of volunteer hours, she notes. The value of the work will far exceed the value of the contract, she says. The task force has already dived into its work. She’s noting that The Greenway Collaborative is a local firm with excellent qualifications.

7:49 p.m. Jeff Hayner says that the spirit of economic development is alive and well. There are many partners in this effort, including the UM Tech Transfer Office. He’s criticizing Ann Arbor SPARK for high salaries, but says they’re not using income for terrorist activities. He says that SPARK has misrepresented its results. He suggests revising the resolution to reduce the $75,000 to just 10% of that figure.

7:51 p.m. David DeVarti is a former city councilmember and former member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. He’s speaking against the funding for SPARK, asking the council to deny it or table it. He allows that as a DDA member he had voted for money for SPARK. He’d been disappointed by what SPARK had produced, but he’d gone along to get along with mayor John Hieftje and with Bob Guenzel. He points out that $75,000 could go a long way for a human services agency. He asks that the council hold Ann Arbor SPARK to the same kind of standards as it does the human services agencies it has contracts with. That would create a real sense for the council for what SPARK is failing to provide in terms of documentation.

7:54 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a resident of Ward 5 as well as recent candidate for various public offices. He calls for improved funding for affordable housing and economic development. He wants the council to take direct responsibility for funding the elimination of homelessness and measurably increasing the amount of funding available for affordable housing.

7:59 p.m. Communications from 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.

7:59 p.m. Sally Petersen says that the LDFA board will be discussing an independent audit of the SmartZone at its meeting tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. She also notes that the LDFA board has heard the council’s interest in seeing investments in infrastructure.

7:59 p.m. Kunselman is talking about the activity of the nuisance committee, of which he’s the only member. He’s also explaining his research on the DDA terms. Attached to the agenda are old DDA records Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) retrieved from the University of Michigan Bentley Library. [link]

8:03 p.m. Kunselman is now talking about the issue of TIF refunds that were made by the DDA in the early 1980s. He’s now talking about the DDA’s development plan and the requirements for that plan in the statute. He’s calling for the council to work with the DDA to work on a new development plan. He’s pointing out that the city administrator is the city’s representative on the DDA board. He said he’s told city administrator Steve Powers that he expects the DDA will be following the law.

8:04 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is alerting people to the removal of some stop signs on Nixon Road near Green and Dhu Varren. This is a temporary measure related to nearby construction. She asks people to be careful. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is now talking about the same stop sign removal issue. There will be additional police enforcement, she says.

8:05 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) announces that the Michigan Theater has agreed to purchase the State Theater.

8:07 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is announcing that the environmental commission had three vacancies. There were 10 applicants. He says that tonight Allison Skinner, Benjamin Muth and Mark Clevey are being presented as candidates to serve on the city’s environmental commission. The vote on their appointments will be at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting.

8:08 p.m. MC-1 Confirmation of June 2, 2014 nominations. Nominated at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting for reappointment to the city planning commission were Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan. Nominated at that meeting for reappointment to the commission on disability issues were Linda Evans and Larry Keeler. Those confirmations are being voted on tonight.

8:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm the appointments.

8:08 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Audrey Wojtkowiak is being nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission to fill the vacancy left by Christopher Geer. The vote on her confirmation will come at the council’s next meeting.

8:10 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje is reviewing the awards to firefighters and police officers that were made last Saturday.

8:12 p.m. Hieftje is reviewing the last winter and the work that human service agencies did. He’s worried about the capacity for that work if the winter is as back next year.

8:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm the appointments.

8:10 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje is reviewing the awards to firefighters and police officers that were made last Saturday.

8:12 p.m. Hieftje is reviewing the last winter and the work that human service agencies did. He’s worried about the capacity for that work if the winter is as bad next year.

8:14 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. On tonight’s agenda are five hearings:

PH-1 Anderson-Pebbles annexation. This is a standard annexation into the city from Scio Township. The zoning for the 0.22 acre parcel at 375 Glenwood Street will be handled after the annexation is complete.
PH-2 Bank of Ann Arbor addition. This is the site plan for the addition on the building at Fifth Avenue and Washington streets. [For additional background, see Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan above.]
PH-3 116-120 West Huron site plan. This is the site plan for First Martin’s hotel project. [For additional background, see Downtown: Hotel Site Plan above.]
PH-4 Scio Church sidewalk assessment. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing above.]
PH-5 Barton Drive sidewalk assessment. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing above.]

8:15 p.m. PH-1 Anderson-Pebbles annexation. Thomas Partridge says that the property should be required to have access to public transportation.

8:16 p.m. That’s it for this public hearing.

8:19 p.m. PH-2 Bank of Ann Arbor addition. Ray Detter is expressing support for this project. It takes a building that has been criticized as being “suburban” and making it an asset, instead of building something that is 180 feet tall, even though the site’s zoning would allow for that.

8:20 p.m. Thomas Patridge is advocating for a requirement that access for public transportation be provided at the site. The bank should be a good corporate citizen and give priority to considerations like that.

8:21 p.m. Edward Vielmetti is pointing out that the current site has Juneberry trees that are just now becoming ripe, and they are delicious. He hopes that the site after renovation will also have good landscaping.

8:22 p.m. PH-3 116-120 West Huron site plan. Ray Detter is expressing support for the project. He notes that a part of the project will preserve the facade of the bus depot.

8:22 p.m. PH-4 Scio Church sidewalk assessment. No one speaks during this public hearing.

8:26 p.m. PH-5 Barton Drive sidewalk assessment. Jeff Hayner says this is his neighborhood. He thanks everyone in the room and in the neighborhood who came together to get this done. It’s been at least 12 years in the works, he says. He encourages the pedestrian task force to take a look at the area. He’s questioning the cost for the project, however. It would have a long-term positive impact, he said. No offense to the public art commission, he says, but the council will be voting on $350,000 for decorative elements on the East Stadium bridges, when the approach to the bridge is in terrible shape.

8:26 p.m. Council minutes. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

8:26 p.m. Consent Agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

CA-1 Approve DTE LED Conversions ($69,555/$55,060 after rebates). [For additional background, see (Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion above.]
CA-2 Approve contract with Black & Veatch Ltd. ($62,800).
CA-3 Approve purchase of hydrofluorosilicic acid for water treatment from PVS Nolwood Chemicals (estimated $34,000/yr).
CA-4 Amend service purchase order for stormwater services with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner (increase of $30,000 for FY 2014 & FY 2015).
CA-5 Approve contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for solid waste student move-out services ($35,000/yr). [For additional background, see Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services above.]
CA-6 Award contract for 8th Street sanitary sewer manhole replacement to Fonson Inc. ($47,193). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Manholes above.]
CA-7 Approve a contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services ($75,000). [For additional background, see Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK above.]
CA-8 Approve amendment to contract with the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for mental health court ($44,200).
CA-9 Approve amendment to contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services for mental health treatment services to sobriety court and mental health court participants ($76,242).
CA-10 Approve amendment to contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court appointed counsel to indigent defendants ($40,000).
CA-11 Street closings for the Firecracker 5K (Friday, July 4, 2014).
CA-12 Street closings for Sonic Lunch (Thursday, July 10, 2014 and Thursday, July 31, 2014).
CA-13 Street closing for the 2014 Washtenaw Indie Awards, Saturday (June 28, 2014).
CA-14 Approve contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. for Lobbying Services ($48,000). [For additional background, see Business Services: GCSI Lobbying above.]
CA-15 Approve May 22, 2014 recommendations of the Board of Insurance Administration ($66,142).

8:27 p.m. Outcome: The council approved the consent agenda except for items CA-1, CA-7 and CA-10.

8:30 p.m. CA-1 Approve DTE LED conversions ($69,555/$55,060 after rebates). Kunselman says he’s happy this is coming along. He has a question about why the DDA is not funding the project for conversion of lights inside the DDA district. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy says that the general fund pays for streetlights.

Nate Geisler, the city’s energy programs analyst, is explaining that the DDA is undertaking a streetscape framework planning effort and that gave rise to hesitancy by DDA board members to pay for converting those lights at this time.

8:32 p.m. Kunselman questions whether the DDA will be able to implement its streetscape framework plan without council approval, because they are city streets. Kunselman points out that there are cobrahead lights that are out on Division Street. “Point taken,” Hupy says.

8:34 p.m. Hieftje says that DTE owns the lights, but the city pays the electric bill. The DDA had historically paid for conversion of the LED lights. Briere recalls taking a series of tours with downtown merchants to look at the lights and how the lights work. She asks if Hupy can provide information by the next council meeting about which lights in the downtown have been decommissioned and not removed, or are otherwise not working.

8:35 p.m. Lumm is talking about doing LED conversion when a repair is needed.

8:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve CA-1 on the consent agenda.

8:37 p.m. CA-7 Approve a contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services ($75,000). Kailasapathy notes that she’d requested some information about SPARK when the council had debated the FY 2015 budget. She has concerns about the job creation numbers. She’s not talking about LDFA money, just the $75,000 from the general fund. She’s now reviewing the contributions of other municipalities, compared to the $75,000 that the city of Ann Arbor contributes.

8:39 p.m. Relative contributions that she’s discussing are here: [link]

8:42 p.m. Kailasapathy is reviewing the tax rebate given to Mahendra. She says she will not support the SPARK contract.

8:44 p.m. Petersen says that the concerns about the presentation of metrics are valid, but these are the metrics that were chosen. SPARK doesn’t tell companies where to locate, she says. She compares SPARK to the Welcome Wagon. Large floor-plate office space doesn’t exist in Ann Arbor, she says, but it does in Pittsfield Township. SPARK is agnostic about there companies locate, and she allows that Pittsfield is getting a better deal than Ann Arbor. SPARK isn’t taking sole credit for job creation, she says. She’ll support this, because SPARK is the only economic development agency we have.

8:45 p.m. Eaton moves to table, and points out that such motions don’t allow debate.

8:47 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 6-5 to table this resolution. Voting to table were Kunselman, Kailsapathy, Eaton, Anglin, Briere, and Lumm.

8:48 p.m. CA-10 Approve amendment to contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court appointed counsel to indigent defendants ($40,000). Taylor, an attorney with Hooper Hathaway, provides legal services to this firm and asks the council to vote to allow him not to participate in the vote. They take that vote. He takes a seat in the audience.

8:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve CA-10 on the consent agenda.

8:48 p.m. C-1 425 S. Main Street rezoning of 1.1 Acres from D1 (Downtown Core Base District) to D2 (Downtown Interface Base District). The council is being asked to give initial approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Because these would be changes to the zoning code, which is expressed in city ordinances, any council action that might be taken would need a second and final vote at a future meeting, in order to be enacted. First up is the zoning. The next item will involve the character district overlay. [For additional background, see Downtown: Zoning, Character District above.]

8:49 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council’s representative to the planning commission, is reviewing the resolution. She encourages her colleagues to move it forward to a second reading.

8:51 p.m. Anglin is raising the question of heights in D2 – and ventures that D2 zoning is supposed to be 60 feet. Planning manager Wendy Rampson is now at the podium. She’s explaining the notion of “base zoning” – that’s D1 or D2 – and the character overlay districts. The height restrictions are not part of the base zoning, but rather the character overlay districts.

8:54 p.m. Kunselman elicits the fact that the Ashley Mews development, across the street, is a planned unit development (PUD) and is 110 feet tall.

8:55 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is glad to see this come forward, but he’ll have some questions about the character district resolution. He notes that the focus had been on the Huron Street corridor, but he’d asked that this parcel be included in the review of the downtown zoning. He says that D2 is the appropriate zoning, and he’s grateful that the parcel was included in the scope of the review as he’d requested.

8:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning of 425 S. Main from D1 to D2.

8:56 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

9:05 p.m. We’re back.

9:05 p.m. C-2 Main Street Downtown character overlay zoning districts building massing standards. This is the second of two downtown zoning items. The focus of the deliberations will likely be the 100-foot height limit the planning commission has recommended for the D-2 zoned area of the Main Street character area. All other D-2 areas of the downtown have a 60-foot height limit. [For additional background, see Downtown: Zoning, Character District above.]

9:07 p.m. Briere is reviewing the planning commission discussion on this item. She says the commission had heard from many members of the community on this issue. The commission had split on this 6-3. [Briere voted as one of the three dissenters.] She’s explaining the rationale for those in the majority – that it would be suitable to terrace a 100-foot building away from the neighborhood.

9:09 p.m. But Briere points out that the city council’s resolution stated D2 at 60 feet. The basic premise of the majority was that even in winter there would be available sunlight, but Briere didn’t think that was the main issue.

9:10 p.m. Lumm complains that there’s no minutes available from the planning commission’s deliberations on the 6-3 vote. [Deliberations are reported in detail in The Chronicle's report of the planning commission's May 6, 2014 meeting.] Lumm asks planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain why the planning commission changed the height from 60 feet to 100 feet.

9:13 p.m. Rampson is reviewing basis of the planning commission’s decision. The commission felt that a 100-foot height would provide some flexibility so that someone would not try to build out the site to 60 feet everywhere on the parcel as one massive building. Rampson says the minutes will be ready by the council’s next meeting, noting that the commission’s meeting was very long.

9:17 p.m. Anglin says this is a unique site. His fear is that the council will be asked to approve the change on a second reading at its next meeting. Now is the chance for the council to set the zoning correctly. He doesn’t want to start the ball rolling toward a second reading on a time schedule. He doesn’t want to approve this tonight.

9:18 p.m. Kunselman asks Rampson what the zoning was before the A2D2 process. It was C2-A or C2-AR, she thinks. There were no height limits. Kunselman notes that this would be the only D2 with a height limit of 100 feet. Why not just leave it D1 and reduce the allowable height from 180 feet to 100 feet?

9:21 p.m. Rampson tells Kunselman that the point of A2D2 was to provide certainty for a property owner about what could be built. He ventures that that never works, and that’s why he’d voted against the A2D2 zoning. He agrees with Anglin that he wouldn’t support moving it forward tonight. Warpehoski says he’s also concerned, but says that moving it to second reading would allow the setting of a public hearing, which would provide a chance for people to weigh in.

9:23 p.m. Petersen asks Anglin if he’s making a motion to postpone. Anglin is reiterating his point that it’s important to set the zoning the way the council wants. Briere says she’s reviewed The Chronicle’s report of the planning commission meeting. Those who spoke at the public hearing were not the adjacent neighbors, she says. She really wants to return it to the planning commission. She moves to refer it to the planning commission for reconsideration.

9:25 p.m. Hieftje says this would accomplish Anglin’s objective. Kunselman says he’ll support this. Lumm says she’ll support Briere’s motion. Lumm was surprised to see the recommendation from the planning commission, as it was different from the council’s direction.

9:26 p.m. Taylor says that moving something from first to second reading is a well-established way to solicit additional input, and he’d oppose the motion to refer it back to the planning commission as an unnecessary step.

9:28 p.m. Briere says Taylor is right about the procedure being well-established, but she appeals to an argument that Leigh Greden had made when he was on the council: He knew that he’d be voting against it at second reading, so it was a waste of time to vote to move it to second reading. Petersen is saying she supports referring it back to planning commission.

9:30 p.m. Hieftje asks Briere if there were people on the planning commission who were on the fence: Would she expect a different outcome from the planning commission? Briere says she thinks there were some people on the fence. She stresses that zoning is the council’s purview. She says there’s no harm and no foul in saying to the commission: This is not quite what we want.

9:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to refer back to the planning commission the the Main Street character district overlay for D2, after amending the height limit recommended by the planning commission – from 100 feet to 60 feet.

9:32 p.m. City attorney Stephen Postema whispers something in Hieftje’s ear. Hieftje points out that the zoning change to which the council had given initial approval is impacted by the council’s decision to refer the character district question back to the planning commission.

9:35 p.m. The council reconsiders item C-1.

9:35 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to table C-1.

9:38 p.m. The council is now reconsidering item C-2. Warpehoski is arguing for moving it along, based on the fact that the parcel is currently zoned D1 where a structure that’s 180 feet tall can be built. Taking a step toward rezoning it to D2 is a step forward. Kunselman suggests replacing the references to 100 feet to 60 feet.

9:39 p.m. Kunselman says if the public wants a height limit greater than 60 feet, the council will hear that.

9:40 p.m. Briere says that this seems simple, but there’s all kinds of other language in the character district that refers to stepped back construction. She says this is about by-right development, so it’s important that the council get it right.

9:43 p.m. Eaton is suggesting that the First Street character overlay language be swapped in. Rampson points out that the First Street character was designed for the industrial buildings abutting the Allen Creek corridor.

9:44 p.m. Warpehoski asks if council and planning commission need to be in concurrence on this. No, Rampson says. That’s just for the master plan.

9:45 p.m. Kunselman asks if the council approves the change to 60 feet, would the planning staff can clean up the other language before the second reading?

9:48 p.m. Based on Rampson’s response, Kunselman thinks the planning staff can deal with the other language, and describes not voting on a final change until October or November. Anglin is complaining about Stalinist architecture and how developers threaten to build those kinds of buildings.

9:50 p.m. Outcome: Kunselman’s amendment is approved over dissent from Taylor.

9:51 p.m. Outcome: The council has given initial approval to C-2 as amended.

9:51 p.m. C-1 The council now takes up C-1 off the table.

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to C-1.

9:52 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

9:58 p.m. We’re back.

9:58 p.m. DC-1 Improve Liberty Plaza. This resolution would direct the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…” Funding for the collaborative work in the amount of $23,577 would come from the parks and recreation budget. [For additional background, see Downtown: Liberty Plaza above.]

9:59 p.m. Taylor is explaining the background to the resolution. He says there’s been a good deal of discussion about people’s aspirations for downtown parks not at Liberty Plaza. But Liberty Plaza is already there, even though it does not meet our “collective aspirations,” he says. Ann Arbor needs a downtown park that is vibrant and has green space.

10:02 p.m. Petersen says she’d originally had a concern that the resolution didn’t incorporate Library Lane. She feels strongly that the entire block should be considered as a whole. Petersen moves to refer the issue to the park advisory commission. Hieftje suggests to Petersen that the council can talk about it a bit. He says that he sees this resolution as a reaction to work that PAC has already done in making recommendations on downtown parks.

10:06 p.m. Kunselman questions the funding allocation. He says that the city has just one park planner – Amy Kuras. So he was not sure he wanted to place that responsibility on her. He wondered why direction had to be given to staff and PAC, saying that PAC doesn’t need direction to act in this manner. He suggests that the University of Michigan landscape architecture students could be a partner on the design. He notes that Mike Martin is attending the meeting, but wouldn’t call him to the podium. [Martin is attending because of a resolution related to a hotel project by First Martin Corp., which comes later on the agenda.]

Kunselman has heard rumors that First Martin is planning to demolish the Michigan Square building (west of Liberty Plaza) in the next year, and he wants to know if that’s true before redesigning the park.

10:08 p.m. Kunselman said that the problem of people hanging out at Liberty Plaza wouldn’t be solved through redesign. But the UM had solved its problem with people hanging out at State and North University by doing the only thing that works – removing the seating. He says that it’s important to have downtown beat cops. He says he’ll support Petersen’s motion to refer it back to PAC.

10:10 p.m. Hieftje asks Powers to comment. Powers says the amount was the amount included in the “parks fairness” budget resolution. He doesn’t know if it’s enough money. Sumedh Bahl, community services area administrator, comes to the podium.

10:13 p.m. Briere is reflecting on her perceptions of Liberty Plaza. She was happy to see it on the agenda, and had added her name as a sponsor. She didn’t know if this was enough money. She supports it but doesn’t object to referring it to PAC.

10:15 p.m. Kunselman asks if this means that Liberty Plaza would jump ahead of developing a master plan for the Allen Creek Greenway. Hieftje says that if Kunselman can be a bit patient, there will be a master plan proposed soon.

10:18 p.m. Hieftje says that an Allen Creek Greenway master plan might be prepared before the end of the budget year. Kunselman asks if there’d been any council direction to start any of the activity that Hieftje has described. Yes, Hieftje says, there was a resolution involving 415 W. Washington. Kunselman reiterates the fact that staff has not been directed specifically to develop a greenway master plan. He’s reiterating the lack of resources for park planning. There are 157 parks in the city and he wonders why Liberty Plaza has become the most important one. Kunselman will support the referral to PAC.

10:21 p.m. Lumm says she’s going to propose some amendments to this resolution. She’s adding language about an “integrated plan for the Library Block.” She’s ticking through a number of amendments to various resolved clauses.

10:21 p.m. Taylor says that Lumm’s amendments are not “friendly,” so the council will need to vote on the amendments.

10:23 p.m. Hieftje says he’s been told by experts that without the newsstand downstairs and the restaurant adjacent to it, Liberty Plaza can’t succeed because it doesn’t have “eyes on the park.”

10:26 p.m. Hieftje is contrasting Liberty Plaza with Sculpture Plaza, at Fourth and Catherine. He says Liberty Plaza needs to be redesigned. He doesn’t mind postponing this, but wanted the council to talk about this tonight. He describes the resolution as providing seed money. Liberty Plaza has been “festering” there for quite some time. Petersen says there’s a shining light in Liberty Plaza, which is the sensory garden, and she hopes that if Liberty Plaza is redesigned, an alternate place can be found.

10:28 p.m. Teall says that Library Lane and Liberty Plaza are not connected. It’s asking too much of the resolution to expect it to connect the whole block.

10:29 p.m. Teall says that many people have responded to the Library Green Conservancy by saying that we should focus on improving Liberty Plaza, but no one has done that. This resolution would do that.

10:30 p.m. Warpehoski is sizing up how he sees the issue.

10:30 p.m. Lumm has now sent her amendments around via email.

10:35 p.m. Petersen reiterates the desirability of connecting Liberty Plaza and Library Lane, even if they are not currently connected. Taylor allows that integrated planning on a large scale does on occasion make sense. But he feels that a park that is already here and that has design challenges can be addressed. “These parks will not be connected,” he says, because there is private land between them.

10:36 p.m. Eaton is arguing for considering Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane lot at the same time, as they have many common traits.

10:37 p.m. Eaton will support Lumm’s amendments as well as Petersen’s motion to refer it to PAC.

10:39 p.m. Powers clarifies that the money in the resolution is in the FY 2015 budget. Anglin feels that it’s a budget amendment and might need 8 votes. Powers explains that it’s not a budget amendment, because the money is already there, so it doesn’t need 8 votes.

10:39 p.m. Briere says she’ll support the amendments.

10:41 p.m. Kunselman ventures that there’s an easement that connects the Liberty Plaza and Library Lane, and a gate that First Martin uses to periodically block off access so that there’s no opportunity for adverse possession.

10:42 p.m. Kunselman wonders if First Martin is interested in working with the city. Putting up a retaining wall, blocking the stair and back filling the area is essentially the basic option, Kunselman.

10:43 p.m. Hieftje says that there’s no easement, as Kunselman had contended. Mike Martin, from the audience, tells Hieftje that he’s right.

10:44 p.m. Hieftje says that if this resolution is attached to the Library Lane project, it will take years to accomplish anything, he cautions.

10:48 p.m. Here are Lumm’s amendments: [.pdf of Lumm's amendments]

10:49 p.m. Warpehoski is citing parliamentary procedure: a motion to refer takes precedence over a motion to amend. So he’s moving to refer the unamended resolution to PAC.

10:51 p.m. Lumm doesn’t want to refer the resolution without her amendments.

10:54 p.m. Kunselman asks Taylor why this was not brought up to PAC before bringing it to council. Taylor says it’s not necessary, as it’s the council’s prerogative to set policy. If passed as drafted, it would have established Liberty Plaza as a priority of the council. Hieftje notes that the referral is now the question before the council.

10:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to refer to PAC the unamended resolution allocating funds to move forward a process for the redesign of Liberty Plaza.

10:56 p.m. Closed Session. A vote to go into closed session fails. So the council votes instead to suspend the rule on a unanimous vote required for going into closed session after 11 p.m.

10:56 p.m. They’re still in open session.

10:56 p.m. DC-2 Approve 2014 Ann Arbor Jaycees Carnival. The event will take place at Pioneer High School June 25 to June 29, 2014.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Jaycees Carnival.

10:57 p.m. DC-3 Kids Day This resolution was added to the agenda just today, so it’s not a part of the consent agenda with other street closing resolutions. This would close State Street between William and Washington for Kids Day on Saturday, June 28, 2014 from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the street closing for Kids Day.

10:57 p.m. DB-1 Approve the Anderson-Pebbles annexation 0.22 Acre, 375 Glenwood Street. This is a standard annexation, from Scio Township.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Anderson-Pebbles annexation.

10:57 p.m. DB-2 Approve Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters addition. The council is being asked to approve the site plan for an addition to the Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters at 125 South Fifth Avenue. The site plan involves reorienting the main entrance – moving it from the center of its South Fifth Avenue side to the southeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. Existing doors will be replaced with windows. A 9,179-square-foot third-floor addition would be constructed over the rear of the building’s east side. [For additional background, see Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan above.]

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for the Bank of Ann Arbor addition.

10:57 p.m. DB-3 Approve 116-120 West Huron Street Site Plan and Development Agreement (First Martin hotel). The council is being asked to approve the site plan for First Martin’s proposed extended-stay hotel at 116-120 West Huron Street. The proposal calls for a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels. The hotel will be operated by Marriott. [For additional background, see Downtown: Hotel Site Plan above.]

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the First Martin hotel project.

10:57 p.m. DB-4 Approve Amendment to contract with Widgery Studio, LLC to fabricate and install public art at the Stadium Boulevard Bridges ($353,552). The council is being asked to approve a contract with Widgery Studio LLC to fabricate and install public art at the East Stadium Boulevard bridges. The city had already contracted with Widgery on May 20, 2014 for $8,248 to finalize the structural design of the artwork with an engineer. This amendment to the contract on tonight’s council agenda adds art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services. [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Art above.]

10:59 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the discussions the council has had in the past on the public art program and the return of much of the money to the funds of origin. She remains unconvinced that this is the optimal investment the city could make with the money. She’s thanking members of the art commission for their effort. “It is a nice project,” she says.

11:00 p.m. Teall is inviting John Kotarski and Bob Miller to the podium to give a presentation on the bridges art. They are vice chair and chair, respectively, of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

11:08 p.m. Lumm is asking about the approach to the bridge to the west. Bob Miller notes that the art is located at Rose White Park. At that location looking west, he doesn’t think it’s going to conflict. Kunselman is asking about the durability of the glass panels. Is it replaceable? Yes, explains Miller, they can be replaced one louver at a time.

11:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the funding for fabrication and installation of public art at East Stadium Boulevard bridges.

11:11 p.m. DB-5 Approve $37,500 for affordable housing needs assessment. Kailasapathy expresses concern that the trust fund should be used for capital construction. It’s a small amount, but the small amounts can chip away at the balance, she says. Briere reads aloud the policy, which allows money in the affordable housing trust fund to be used for analysis, which this is.

11:14 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support this. She allows that perhaps the policy on allocation could use some updating.

11:16 p.m. Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, has been asked to the podium to explain how the assessment will start. The policy on allocation of funds does need to be updated, Callan says. The housing & human services advisory board (HHSAB) is interested in working on that with the city, she says.

11:20 p.m. Kunselman asks CFO Tom Crawford to the podium. Kunselman ventures that there is no affordable housing trust fund, but rather just an account where the city keeps track. Crawford explains that for the city’s audit, the fund is folded into the general fund. It’s noted as a restricted line item. Kunselman is proposing to change the allocation from the affordable housing trust fund to the general fund. This is just a study, he says, and he doesn’t think the city should be using the affordable housing fund for that.

11:22 p.m. Lumm prefers to use the affordable housing fund. Hieftje agrees with Lumm. The needs assessment will guide the construction of affordable housing, he says.

11:24 p.m. Briere says that the existing policy does not specify only capital investment, so she wants to pay for it out of the affordable housing fund.

11:25 p.m. Outcome: Kunselman’s amendment fails, with support only from Kunsleman, Eaton, Warpehoski, Angin, and Kailasapathy.

11:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the $37,500 from the affordable housing trust fund to pay for the housing needs assessment.

11:26 p.m. DS-1 Approve a Contract with NuView, Inc. to replace the city’s human resource and payroll system ($570,900). The staff memo accompanying the item explains why the existing software, acquired in 2007, is being replaced:

In 2007, the City installed a Human Resource and Payroll system called Ultipro, by Ultimate Software. The Ultipro system included modules for Recruiting, Benefits Administration, Human Resource Administration and Payroll. The City has experienced a variety of issues related to the underlying database architecture utilized by Ultimate Software. In addition, due to changes such as new legislative requirements, the increase in recruiting volume and the increase in manual data entry involved in benefits administration, the City has found the Ultipro system unable to meet its Human Resource needs.

11:26 p.m. Lumm has asked a staff member from HR to explain this in detail.

11:27 p.m. The topic is recruitment of veterans. The goal is to make the “onboarding” of candidates paperless.

11:28 p.m. Not all the data will be migrated to the new system. The systems will run parallel for a month or more as a safety check.

11:29 p.m. Kailasapathy is pleased to see the five-year cumulative savings that was provided by the staff analysis.

11:30 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with NuView for the human resources and payroll system.

11:30 p.m. DS-2 Transfer funds to authorize State Revolving Fund (SRF) debt payment and loan forgiveness for stormwater and rain garden components of the skatepark project (Not To Exceed $157,264). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater above.]

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the the transfer of funds in connection with the skatepark rain garden.

11:31 p.m. DS-3 Approve contract with Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services ($108,174). [For additional background, see Courts Human Services above.]

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Dawn Farm.

11:31 p.m. DS-4 Set assessment roll for Pontiac Trail Sidewalk ($72,218) [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the assessment roll for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk.

11:31 p.m. DS-5 Set public hearing for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment project. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the public hearing on the Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment project – for July 21.

11:32 p.m. DS-6 Set public Hearing for the Stone School Road sidewalk project. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk above.]

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the public hearing on the Stone School Road sidewalk special assessment project – for July 7.

11:32 p.m. DS-8 Approve a contract with Emergency Restoration Company for the renovation of restrooms and locker Rooms in Fire Stations #3 and #4 ($149,500). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms above.]

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with ERC for fire station restroom renovation.

11:33 p.m. DS-9 Approve award of a construction contract to Lanzo Lining Services Inc. Michigan for the 2014 sewer lining project ($1,566,121). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining above.]

11:34 p.m. Lumm is asking what all is included. The answer from staff is that there could be additional locations where work could be done.

11:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Lanzo Lining Services.

11:34 p.m. DS-10 Award a construction contract with Douglas N. Higgins Inc. for the Arbor Oaks water main replacement project ($1,324,357). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Water Main above.]

11:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to award the construction contract with Douglas N. Higgins Inc.

11:34 p.m. DS-11 Approve installation of traffic calming devices on Larchmont Drive ($55,000). The project would install three speedhumps. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming above.]

11:35 p.m. Lumm says that the neighborhood is so excited – as the application went in five years ago. She’s thanking staff who worked on this.

11:38 p.m. Eaton notes that $60,000 had been budgeted for the whole year. Is this $55,000 taking up most of the whole year’s budget? Nick Hutchinson is explaining that the $55,000 that’s being brought forward is from FY 2014. The actual cost of this particular project is just $8,800, Hutchinson explains.

11:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the installation of traffic calming devices on Larchmont.

11:39 p.m. DS-12 Approve a contrast with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the Fuller Road, Maiden Lane, E. Medical Center Drive bridges rehabilitation project ($187,184) According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes “re-painting of each bridge, repairing corroded structural steel, bridge abutment and pier (substructure) repairs, expansion joint removal and replacement, bridge deck patching, placing an overlay on the existing bridge decks, bridge railing repairs, guard rail upgrades, brush trimming and removal around the perimeter of the bridge structures, and other related work.” [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges above.]

11:41 p.m. Briere wants to know if the amenities that would complete the Border-to-Border Trail are included in this work. Hupy explains that this resolution is for maintenance of existing bridge structures. Kunselman says it’s his understanding that there’s a lot of “human activity” near the location. He wants to know if assistance will be provided to those people who are living in tents. Hupy says there will be plenty of notice given before construction starts.

11:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the bridges rehabilitation project.

11:42 p.m. DS-13 Approve a contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the pedestrian safety and access task force ($75,000). This is a contract that had originally been recommended by staff to be awarded to a different vendor, but without issuing an RFP. After issuing an RFP, The Greenway collaborative was selected. The task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant above.]

11:42 p.m. Lumm thanks Powers and staff for listening to the concerns of council on this project.

11:43 p.m. Lumm is concerned that this effort could be expanded in its scope and could require additional funding.

11:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the pedestrian safety task force.

11:43 p.m. DS-14 Approve contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for multi-family recycling incentive pilot program ($95,694). This resolution is based on recommendations in the city’s solid waste plan. [For additional background, see Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot above.]

11:46 p.m. Kunselman asks RAA staff to come to the podium. Kunselman says that he’s heard it might be the last opportunity he has to ask Tom McMurtrie a question. “As a city employee,” that’s correct, McMurtrie says. Kunselman gets clarification that it’s city employees who do trash collection. He asks what kind of outcomes could be expected.

11:48 p.m. The RAA staff member says the point of the study is to understand the nuances of recycling in multi-family units: transience, language barriers, a willingness to go down from the third floor to put recyclables in container. They want to figure out what makes multi-family units tick. It’s a nut that no one nationally has cracked, he says.

11:50 p.m. Lumm is talking about Palo Alto and Seattle as benchmarks. She asks how much improvement McMurtrie thinks is possible. Based on the percentage of recyclables in the waste stream, McMurtrie thinks there’s potential for improvement.

11:53 p.m. Lumm asks why the work needs to be contracted out. Hupy indicates to Lumm that in him and McMurtrie she’s looking at the staff. Taylor says he thinks this is great – as it’s an area where improvement is needed. Hieftje ventures there’s a “gold mine” out there as far as how much additional material can be recycled in multi-familiy housing units.

11:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for a multi-family recycling incentives pilot program.

11:53 p.m. DS-15 Reimburse Resource Recovery Systems for repair of baler infeed conveyor at the Material Recovery Facility ($39,480). RSS operates the city’s material recovery facility under a contract. The typical pattern is for RSS to handle the replacement of equipment with reimbursement from the city. [For additional background, see Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair above.]

11:55 p.m. Teall invites McMurtrie to the podium to congratulate him on his retirement. Solid waste has changed so much in the time that Teall has been on the council. McMurtrie notes that it’s been almost 24 years and he finds it rewarding to do work that touches on every single resident.

11:56 p.m. Hupy says that there’s a new staff member who’ll be taking over for McMurtrie. McMurtrie’s retirement party will be held on July 1 from 3-5 p.m.

11:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the reimbursement to RSS for repair of the MRF baler infeed conveyor.

11:56 p.m. DS-16 Amend Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority budget for fiscal year 2014. This is a routine type of adjustment, which has been approved by the DDA board. [For additional background, see Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment above.]

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the amendment of the DDA budget.

11:59 p.m. DS-17 Goldstone vs. Warner settlement.

11:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve a $35,000 settlement.

12:01 a.m. Briere to planning commission. As a result of the background work by the city attorney’s office on terms of appointments to boards and commissions, it was determined that Briere needed to be reappointed in order to continue to serve beyond the end of June.

12:02 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve Briere’s appointment to the planning commission until Nov. 17, 2014.

12:02 a.m. Communications from council. Briere has now invited Ann Arbor SPARK CEO Paul Krutko to the podium because he had not had an opportunity to answer questions on the SPARK funding item, which was tabled earlier in the meeting. Krutko says that SPARK is a complicated organization. Krutko says that two reports that had been questioned by a member of the public were about two different activities – work for the state compared to work for Ann Arbor. There’s a variety of reports that SPARK has to provide. He’s sorry that it’s confusing, he says.

12:07 a.m. Krutko is now responding to more questions from Briere.

12:15 a.m. Lumm is telling Krutko that she shares the concerns about SPARK’s reporting. She doesn’t have a problem with the $75,000. She’s saying that more councilmembers wanted to table instead of postpone. She’s reviewing the importance of being good stewards of public funds. Now there’s back and forth between Lumm and Krutko. Lumm says that once a reconciliation of the numbers is achieved, then everyone will be comfortable.

12:16 a.m. Kunselman is now talking about the complexity of economic development. Kunselman asks if layoffs are computed as a part of the jobs numbers.

12:18 a.m. Krutko says there are 22 SPARK staff members. Responding to the lower unemployment figures in this area, Kunselman quips: Thank god for you!

12:21 a.m. Taylor expresses his concern about the tabling and calls it a “self-inflicted wound.” Ann Arbor had a reputation previously for being against growth, he says. That had changed. But now this was a step backward, Taylor says. He indicates that the council had not made a responsible, professional and temperate decision.

12:23 a.m. Warpehoski expresses his dismay that the council had tabled the SPARK resolution (without debate). Kunselman is now taking a turn, defending the tabling action as opposed to postponing.

12:24 a.m. Kailasapathy says she looks at it as a question of how much Ann Arbor taxpayers give – through Act 88 money, which is levied countywide.

12:25 a.m. Kailasapathy says that the council has not said that it won’t pay the $75,000. It’s a matter of getting the information and getting the numbers reconciled, she says.

12:27 a.m. Petersen regrets she used the term, “Welcome Wagon” to describe SPARK’s work – because SPARK is more complex than that. She says that when councilmembers had questions in advance of the FY 2015 debate, they’d had some additional questions and they were given answers within a week.

12:28 a.m. Petersen says that some of the questions have been asked only very recently and many of the questions about SPARK have been answered.

12:31 a.m. Lumm says she would have preferred to postpone instead of tabling, but she knew it would be taken up back up off the table. Briere says she plans to bring this back on July 1 [but the council's next meeting is not until July 7].

12:33 a.m. Teall says she is angry not just that the SPARK resolution was tabled but that there was a rush to table. She reiterates that she’s angry about the fact that the council has departed from the style of interaction that they’d agreed to at their planning retreat.

12:34 a.m. Hieftje is ticking through standard talking points in support of SPARK and economic development.

12:34 a.m. Hieftje says that the tabling was “over the top.”

12:35 a.m. Clerk’s Report. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the clerk’s report.

12:35 a.m. Public Comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:37 a.m. Kai Petainen says that the difference in the jobs numbers reported by Ann Arbor SPARK and the state stems from how the numbers are reported. He’s reading aloud a note about intent to hire as being recorded as a success, but in the other report there are actual jobs reported.

12:39 a.m. Edward Vielmetti is now addressing the council. He said he thought they tabled something earlier in the meeting, but had they then discussed it at length later. They can discuss whatever they like, but he calls it “not a stunning display of council effectiveness.”

12:40 a.m. Closed Session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation.

1:05 a.m. We’re back.

1:05 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

June 16, 2014: City Council Meeting Preview

Dave Askins — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:45:45 +0000

The city council’s last meeting of the 2014 fiscal year on June 16, 2014 features an agenda packed with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure like bridges (including art), the sanitary sewer system and the stormwater system, as well as several resolutions related to construction of new sidewalks.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the June 16, 2014 meeting agenda.

Related to new sidewalk construction is a resolution that would authorize a $75,000 contract with the Greenway Collaborative, to support the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council in late 2013. Creating a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling sidewalk gaps in the city is part of task force’s responsibility.

In the final item with a DDA connection, the council will be asked to authorize $69,555 for the conversion of 223 mercury vapor cobrahead streetlights to LED technology. This project would convert streetlights that are all outside the DDA district. The project is on the city council’s agenda because the DDA board recently declined to fund a similar LED conversion project – for streetlights inside the DDA tax capture district.

Several other June 16 agenda items related to the downtown area, even if they don’t have an explicit DDA connection. Two of them involve changes to downtown zoning ordinances that have been recommended by the planning commission. The zoning question to be given initial consideration by the council is whether to downzone the southeast corner of William and Main streets from D1 to D2, but with a 100-foot height limit.

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.

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s June 16 agenda is heavy with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges

Money for the design work is available in the approved FY 2014 public services area street millage capital budget.

The state of Michigan’s local bridge program pays for 95% of eligible construction expenses up to $790,000. The project will also receive $1,373,440 in federal surface transportation funding, administered through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The federal program pays for 81.85% of eligible construction expenses. But neither the state nor the federal sources will pay for the design work that the council’s action will fund.

Physical Infrastructure: Stadium Bridges Art

The council will be asked to approve a contract with Widgery Studio LLC to fabricate and install public art at the East Stadium Boulevard bridges. The city had already contracted with Widgery on May 20, 2014 for $8,248 to finalize the structural design of the artwork with an engineer. This amendment to the contract on the June 16 council agenda adds art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services.

This was one of the projects for which the city council left funding in place, when it voted on March 3, 2014 to transfer most of the unspent money from the now defunct Percent for Art funding program back to the funds from which the money was originally drawn.

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to the Ann Arbor public art commission and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

The public art commission recommended the project’s approval at its April 23, 2014 meeting.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along the north side of East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining

The council will be asked to approve the award of a $1,566,121 construction contract with Lanzo Lining Services for the 2014 sewer lining project.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the project includes the lining of about 18,028 lineal feet of sanitary sewer and 2,942 lineal feet of storm sewer at 16 locations throughout the city. The memo describes sewer lining as a “trenchless technology which enables the pipe to be repaired without disturbing the surface above.”

Physical Infrastructure: Manholes

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to award a $47,193 contract to Fonson Inc. for the Eighth Street sanitary sewer manhole replacement project.

The manholes in question are described in the staff memo accompanying the project as “101 years old, composed of brick and … disintegrating.” The deterioration of the manholes is attributed to corrosion from sewer gases, vibration from traffic, decades of freeze/thaw cycles and variations in hydrostatic soil pressures. The deteriorated condition includes spalling, weakened mortar, missing bricks and excessive groundwater infiltration, according to the memo.

Physical Infrastructure: Water Main

The council will be asked to award a $1,324,357 construction contract to Douglas N. Higgins Inc. for the Arbor Oaks Phase II water main replacement project.

This project will replace the older water mains in the Bryant neighborhood. The water mains in the neighborhood are described in a staff memo as experiencing frequent breaks and in generally poor condition. The project will install 1,100 feet of 12-inch water main and 2,360 feet of 8-inch water main along Santa Rosa Drive, Jay Lee Court, Lucerne Court, Burlingame Court, Blain Court, Hardyke Court, and Bryant Elementary School property. Included in the project is the resurfacing of the street, replacement of some curb and gutter, and reconstruction of some storm sewer structures.

Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms

Fire Station #3 is located on the city’s west side, on Jackson Road. Fire Station #4 is located on the city’s southeast side, on Huron Parkway. [Google Map of all five fire station locations]

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater

The skatepark is scheduled to have a grand opening on June 21 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Physical Infrastructure: Wastewater Study

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $62,800 contract with Black & Veatch Ltd. for a water & wastewater system capital cost recovery study.

Background to this contract is June 3, 2013 city council action to change the calculation of the water and sanitary improvement charges for properties connecting to city water mains or sanitary sewers – but only for a two-year period, from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2015. The effect of the council’s action was to reduce the connection charges considerably. It was understood at the time that the two-year period would allow for the hiring of a consultant to review the city’s fees and charges for connections to the water and sanitary sewer systems and make recommendations for revision. That’s why the Black & Veatch item appears on the council’s June 16 agenda.

The principles at stake are described in the staff memo accompanying the item as follows:

When making future changes to improvement charges and connection fees, it is important that various competing elements are satisfied. The fees must be easy to explain and easy to understand to be accepted by the users. The fees must recover costs equitably. The fees must not result in either an undue burden on existing rate payers of the systems or an undue burden on new customers connecting to the systems. The fees must be easily understood and neither over recover costs nor under recover costs. Any under-recovery of costs would place undue and inequitable financial burdens on current rate payers. To meet these goals and gain the experiences of other utilities, it is desirable to contract with a consulting firm that has nationwide experience in this area.

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve the amendment of a purchase order for stormwater services with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

The request of the council is to increase the amount of the existing contract with the water resources commissioner by $30,000. The existing contract was approved for FY 2011 for $69,215 with a 3% annual increase, which would have put the amount for FY 2014 and FY 2015 at $75,633 and $77,902, respectively. The council is being asked to approve funding at $105,633 and $107,902, for FY 2014 and FY 2015, respectively.

Informational Infrastructure: HR and Payroll Software

In 2007, the City installed a Human Resource and Payroll system called Ultipro, by Ultimate Software. The Ultipro system included modules for Recruiting, Benefits Administration, Human Resource Administration and Payroll. The City has experienced a variety of issues related to the underlying database architecture utilized by Ultimate Software. In addition, due to changes such as new legislative requirements, the increase in recruiting volume and the increase in manual data entry involved in benefits administration, the City has found the Ultipro system unable to meet its Human Resource needs.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

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 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]

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk

So the requested action of the council on June 16 will be to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 7.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing

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.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing

Another public hearing based on previous council action at its May 19 meeting will be held at the June 16 meeting – on the special assessment to fund construction of a sidewalk on Scio Church Road.

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.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming

The council will be asked to approve a traffic calming project on Larchmont Drive at a cost of ~~$55,000~~ $8,800.

Larchmont traffic calming proposal: Three speed humps.

The action includes an appropriation for five other traffic calming projects, totaling $55,000.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant

The council will be asked to approve a $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the work of the pedestrian safety and access task force as a facilitator.

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

The resolution on the council’s June 16 meeting agenda comes after the council voted down a resolution at on April 7, 2014 that included a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations was familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting. But subsequently the city issued an RFP (requests for proposals) for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893]

Task force members participated in the selection process from among three respondents to the RFP. Besides Project Innovations and the Greenway Collaborative, ENP & Associates responded to the RFP. ENP is the consultant the city used for the recent review of downtown zoning.

Business Services

On the council’s agenda are two contracts that are approved annually – one for business development services and one for lobbying services.

Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK

Ann Arbor city council budget deliberations FY 2015: 4 Hrs 45 Min by amendment topic.

SPARK is also the entity with which the local development finance authority (LDFA) contracts for business accelerator services.

One of the proposed amendments to the FY 2015 budget would have decreased the amount of funding to SPARK from the LDFA, resulting in an increase to the amount the LDFA would have reserved for future infrastructure projects. The second budget amendment debated on May 19 would have eliminated the $75,000 in the FY 2015 budget for the contract the council will be asked to approve as part of its June 16 agenda.

Business Services: GCSI Lobbying

As a part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. for lobbying services. According to the memo accompanying the item, GCSI has contributed to Ann Arbor’s efforts to increase state funding for fire protection, land-use planning, and parks and recreation projects. GCSI is also supposed to monitor issues currently pending before the legislature and advocate for the city’s specific interests. GCSI has done this kind of work for the city of Arbor since 2001.

GCSI also provides lobbying services for Washtenaw County, as well as other local municipalities. The city’s main liaison with GSCI is Kirk Profit, an Ann Arbor resident and former Michigan state legislator.

Downtown

The council will be handling several items on its June 16 agenda that relate to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority specifically, or the downtown area generally.

Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment

The council will be asked to approve a routine fiscal-year-end budget adjustment for the Ann Arbor DDA. The DDA board approved the adjustment at its June 4, 2014 meeting.

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

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

Downtown: Affordable Housing Needs Assessment

Money from the city and DDA is being considered as “up to” amounts. Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of economic and community development (OCED), told the DDA board at its June 4 meeting that $75,000 from a HUD Sustainable Communities grant would be the first money spent toward the assessment.

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

(Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion

The annual electric bill from DTE for the 223 streetlights is currently $45,128. After conversion, the projected annual cost will be $30,910. The savings would result in about a 3.1-year payback period on the net cost of $55,060.

None of the streetlights to be converted are in the DDA district.

Streetlights in the DDA district were part of a similar proposal considered by the DDA board at its May 7, 2014 meeting, but postponed by the board at that meeting until June 4. By the time of the June 4 meeting, however, a decision had already been made that the DDA would not be funding an LED conversion this year. [DTE's program has an annual cycle, but is not necessarily offered every year.] If the DDA board had approved funding for converting lights in the DDA district, it would have affected 212 non-LED streetlights.

Currently, the city pays DTE $72,585 a year for the energy used by the 212 downtown streetlights. After conversion, the annual cost for the 212 lights would be expected to drop to $51,895, for an annual savings of $20,690.

Downtown: Zoning, Character District

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

Those initial Dec. 3, 2013 recommendations from the planning commission had come in response to a previous direction from the city council, given at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. The council’s action in early 2013 came in response to the controversial 413 E. Huron development. The items on the council’s June 16, 2014 agenda are just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission.

That set of initial recommendations from the planning commission to the city council – which the council then accepted and for which the council asked the planning commission to draft ordinance language – included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had also called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character overlay district – lower than the 100 feet put forward at the commission’s May 6 meeting. The site’s current zoning allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height.

At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Downtown: Hotel Site Plan

Rendering of proposed hotel at the northeast corner of West Huron and Ashley. The One North Main building is visible to the east.

The main hotel entrance is proposed for the building’s west side, facing North Ashley, while the main entrance for the restaurant or retail space is proposed to face West Huron, on the building’s south side. The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest density development in the downtown. According to the staff memo, five off-street parking spaces are required. First Martin has secured a letter of commitment from Zipcar, a car-sharing service, for two vehicles. Parking spaces for those cars are proposed at the northeast corner of the site. For purposes of the city’s parking requirement, the two Zipcars would count as eight off-street parking spaces, and would satisfy the requirement.

The two existing curbcuts – on North Ashley and West Huron – will be closed, and access to the two parking spaces, loading dock and trash/recycling would be from the mid-block alley to the north. The alley is currently one-way, and will be converted to a two-way alley and repaved.

The current site at 116-120 W. Huron, looking north. One North Main is the building on the right. The city’s Ann Ashley parking structure is visible in the background.

Streetscape changes will include curb bump-outs on North Ashley, on the north and south ends of the site for passenger drop-off.

Nine bicycle parking spaces are required for the project, and would include two bike hoops in the North Ashley right-of-way and two in the West Huron right-of-way, for a total of eight bike spaces. Three more hoops are proposed for the Ann Ashley parking structure, with First Martin paying for labor and materials. The city of Ann Arbor and Downtown Development Authority would assume responsibility for maintenance of those hoops.

Construction is estimated to cost $13 million.

In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo noted that the Greyhound bus depot has been at that location since 1940, and the site has been a transportation hub since 1898.

Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan

Bank of Ann Arbor building at the northeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. The proposed renovations will create a “tower” entrance into the building at this corner.

The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on Jan. 14. The board suggested making the entry structure taller and more closely aligning the bank’s design features with those of the adjacent Ameritech building to the east.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density in the downtown area.

D1 zoning requires a special exception use for drive-thrus, which the planning commission considered on May 20 in a separate vote. Because the project is going through a site plan approval process, the requirement for a special exception use was triggered. Special exception uses do not require additional city council approval. The bank has an existing drive-thru teller window on its north side. No changes are planned to that configuration, however.

In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo said if the drive-thru were used more frequently, staff might suggest additional design features, like a more clearly marked crossing or differentiated surface materials. But because there are only 20-25 transactions per day at the drive-thru, and given the “successful history” of the existing drive-thru, staff was comfortable with it remaining as is, DiLeo said.

Downtown: Liberty Plaza

Mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are sponsoring a resolution that would direct the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

Courts Human Services

On the council’s June 16 agenda are several items related to the criminal justice system, specifically for some of the specialty courts operated by the 15th District Court.

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve an amendment to a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services – for mental health treatment services to people who are participating in the sobriety court and the mental health court. Also on the consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $44,200 amendment to a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court.

The council will be asked to approve a $108,174 amendment to a contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services. And finally, the consent agenda includes a resolution for a $40,000 amendment to a contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants.

Recycling

The council’s June 16 agenda includes three items related to recycling.

Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot

The council will be asked to approve a two-year $95,694 contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for a recycling incentive program for multi-family residential units.

This item is based on the city’s solid waste plan, which the city council adopted at its Oct. 7, 2013 meeting. The plan includes evaluating methods to increase recycling participation through pilot programs. Among those methods is the introduction of a recycling incentive program for multi‐family housing units.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, a manual sort of waste conducted in the fall of 2012 found that only 12% of the trash that single-family residents threw away was recyclable, compared to 26% of the trash that multi-family residents threw away.

The completion of the pilot program is expected in December 2016.

According to the memo, Recycle Ann Arbor’s proposal includes:

Gather information on best multi-family recycling practices in North America.
Survey and/or interview key multi-family constituencies in Ann Arbor to better understand the challenges and opportunities for recycling in this sector. Based on feedback received, develop 3 to 5 methodologies for further testing and analysis.
Identify pilot parameters and measurement protocols.
Identify pilot communities to involve in the pilot programs (ultimately targeting approximately 1,000 units) and ramp up pilot start-up.
Implement pilot programs.
Analyze results of pilot programs.
Provide detailed recommendations to the City on best practices and report results to participating multi-family communities.

Methodologies that will be tested as part of the pilot will include the following:

Recycling rewards program: Evaluate if a recycling rewards program would be effective in improving recycling participation rates in multi-family locations
Indoor collection bins: Most multi-family locations share outdoor recycling bins. Determine if the provision of indoor recycling bins would help increase recycling rates.
Multi-family recycling leader program: Determine if the use of recycling leaders at individual locations would help increase recycling rates.
300-gallon recycling cart: Determine if the use of 300-gallon carts instead of the standard 96-gallon cart would help increase recycling.

Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair

According to a staff memo accompanying the item, the belt was last replaced in 2007, and has worn out. Such conveyors are described in the memo as lasting five to seven years.

Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $35,000 annual contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for services associated with the move-out of University of Michigan students.

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

Nov. 7, 2013 City Council: Live Updates

Dave Askins — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 21:00:41 +0000

Editor’s note: This “Live Updates” coverage of the Ann Arbor city council’s Nov. 7, 2013 meeting includes all the material from an earlier preview article. We think that will facilitate easier navigation from live-update material to background material already in the file.

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

The Thursday meeting, shifted from its usual Monday slot due to the Tuesday elections, is the last one with the current composition of the 11-member council. The outcome of Tuesday’s elections left all incumbents in place except for Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), whose departure was decided in the August Democratic primary. Ward 4 primary winner Jack Eaton will be the single new face on the council at its Nov. 18 meeting. At the Nov. 7 meeting, Higgins will likely receive a customary parting gift from her colleagues, to acknowledge her 14 years of service on the council.

The agenda is relatively heavy, featuring at least 34 voting items. This preview includes a more detailed explanation of several of those items, but first provides a thematic overview.

The city’s downtown factors prominently on the agenda in at least three ways. The city council will be asked to consider passing a resolution to direct the city administrator to negotiate a sales agreement for the city-owned property along William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues, known as the old Y lot. The council will also be considering a revision to the city ordinance regulating the tax increment finance (TIF) capture of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That’s been on the agenda since February, but now a committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has put forth a competing recommendation, which will also be on the Nov. 7 agenda.

Also related to downtown, the council will be formally accepting a report completed by the city’s park advisory commission with recommendations related to downtown parks.

Non-motorized issues also factor prominently as a theme of the Nov. 7 agenda. In addition to an update of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, the council will consider establishing a pedestrian safety task force. The council’s agenda also includes the first of a series of resolutions for two separate sidewalk projects – one on Stone School Road and another on Scio Church Road. The council’s resolutions for those projects, directing the design work and detailed cost estimates, are the first actions necessary for some of the funding of the sidewalks to be special assessed to the adjacent property owners.

An additional project related to non-motorized issues, but not obviously so, is a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to resurface a portion of Huron Street from Main Street westward as Huron becomes Jackson Avenue on to I-94, as well as a section of South Maple. The intent is to re-stripe the roadway, reducing the lanes from four to three and adding bicycle lanes.

The sidewalk and street projects are among several capital improvement-related items on the agenda, including one that would help stabilize the earthen berm adjacent to Barton Dam. The council will also be considering a half dozen resolutions that will authorize applying for state grants that could fund capital asset projects for the city.

In addition to the items related to the city’s physical infrastructure, the council has several items that could be described as relating to the city’s social infrastructure. Those items relate to grants from the state and federal government to the 15th District Court for several of its specialty courts that focus on drug offenses, domestic violence, and veterans issues. The council will also be asked to approve a modified continuation of its coordinated funding approach to human services.

The agenda includes some council initiatives announced at the council’s previous meeting on Oct. 21. One of those is a resolution requesting that the University of Michigan decommission a recently constructed digital billboard near the football stadium.

Another one is a resolution directing the education of city officials on professional conduct. Related tangentially to those ethical considerations are the approvals of new bylaws for two of the city’s boards and commissions – the planning commission and the design review board.

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

Downtown

The agenda includes several items related to the downtown area.

Downtown: DDA Ordinance

On the Nov. 7 agenda are now two possible revisions to the city’s ordinance regarding how the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s TIF capture is regulated (Chapter 7). The first version has been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013.

The second version is the result of recommendations by a committee of DDA board members and city councilmembers that has met four times since Aug. 26, most recently on Oct. 30. That committee was established at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting – after the first version achieved initial approval at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. Representing the council on the joint committee are Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Representing the DDA are Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt, Bob Guenzel and Joan Lowenstein.

A range of possible parliamentary mechanisms are available to the council for handling the two competing versions of the ordinance amendment. One approach would be to put off deciding between the two versions at the Nov. 7 meeting – by postponing the first version and giving the second version an initial approval. That could move the debate to the council’s Nov. 18 meeting – after the new composition of the city council is seated.

Another parliamentary approach on Nov. 7 could be to amend the first version through substitution of the second. Or the council could vote down the first version and consider the second version. The council could also vote to give the first version final approval and not consider the second version when it’s reached on the agenda. The first version appears first on the agenda – but that order could be re-arranged at the start of the meeting.

The first version, which is in front of the council for final approval, would clarify the existing language of the ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF capture in a way that would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction on TIF revenue. The restriction that’s already expressed in the ordinance language is defined by reference to the amount of growth in taxable value in the DDA district that’s anticipated in the DDA’s TIF plan – a foundational document of the DDA. When those restrictions are applied to the DDA’s TIF revenue, then the amount of TIF received by the DDA would be roughly $4 million in FY 2015. By way of comparison, in the current fiscal year (FY 2014), under its preferred interpretation, the DDA looks to capture approximately $4.5 million of the taxes levied by other jurisdictions.

Under the first version revision, that roughly $0.5 million difference would be proportionally divided among the taxing jurisdictions, which together levy roughly 27.5 mills of taxes in the DDA district. Proportionally, that translates to: city of Ann Arbor (60%), Washtenaw County (21%), Washtenaw Community College (13%), and Ann Arbor District Library (6%). So out of a $500,000 return to other taxing jurisdictions, the city of Ann Arbor would receive $300,000. However, that $300,000 would be distributed proportionally to the funds generating Ann Arbor’s levy. Part of Ann Arbor’s levy is a transportation tax that is passed through to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. So of the $300,000 that would be returned to the city, about $40,000 of it would be passed through to the AAATA.

However, the total amount that would be returned on the first version revision is projected to rise each year from that roughly $0.5 million, to somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million in FY 2017 based on projects in the downtown under construction and in the approval process.

The second version, proposed by the committee, would set a cap on DDA TIF revenue that would not apply at all until FY 2017 and would result in roughly $6.1 million of TIF revenue to the DDA that year, with an estimated return of $300,000 total to the other taxing jurisdictions. The city’s portion of that would be roughly $180,000, distributed proportionally across all its funds that get income from a captured levy, including the general fund.

Another major difference between the first version and the committee-recommended version of the Chapter 7 ordinance change is that the first version includes revisions to governance of the DDA, which the committee-recommended version omits. Those governance revisions include (1) a two-term limit for service on the DDA board; (2) a prohibition against elected officials, other than the mayor, serving on the DDA board; and (3) service of the mayor on the board (a possibility explicitly provided in the DDA state enabling legislation) subject to annual approval by the city council. If the council did not approve the mayor’s service on the DDA board in a given year, then that spot would go to the city administrator.

Downtown: Y Lot Sale

A resolution added to the agenda on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013 would direct city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the purchase of the city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. Dahlmann has offered $5.25 million for the property, known as the Y lot. It had been listed at $4.2 million. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

If those negotiations are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). City sources report that city administrator Steve Powers won’t be altering his recommendation to negotiate first with Dahlmann, despite the CA Ventures increase of its offer to $5.35 million – because that increased amount was received after the deadline for offers, which was firm and clearly communicated to bidders. The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. [.pdf of summary page by broker Jim Chaconas]

The memo accompanying the Nov. 7 resolution states:

The offers from Dennis Dahlmann and CA Ventures are the strongest (cash, no contingencies, sales agreement, close in 2013) of the five proposals. Differences between the two offers are slight, but may be significant to city council. Dahlmann is proposing a purchase price of $5,250,000. CA Ventures is proposing $5,150,000. Dahlmann is proposing to build to less than the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning. CA Ventures’ offer assumes the ability to build to the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning.

The Nov. 7 resolution directs the city administrator to provide a purchase agreement for the property for the council’s consideration at its Nov. 18 meeting. That purchase agreement is supposed to include protections against the property not being developed.

While the council’s Nov. 7 meeting follows the Nov. 5 city council elections, the Nov. 18 meeting is the first meeting of the newly constituted council. There will be only one new councilmember – Jack Eaton, who defeated incumbent Marcia Higgins in the August Ward 4 Democratic primary. The Nov. 7 resolution is sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The city had hired Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale, as the city faces a $3.5 million balloon payment this year from the purchase loan it holds on that property. The city has owned the land for a decade.

If the sale is not completed by the end of the year when the balloon payment is due, the Bank of Ann Arbor would, according to city sources, maintain the existing interest rate on the loan (3.89%) and extend it for up to a year to allow for the city to finalize a sale.

Downtown: Parks

A subcommittee of the park advisory commission (PAC) has been meeting since early 2013 to explore the possibilities for a new downtown park. The subcommittee delivered its recommendations at the Oct. 15, 2013 meeting of PAC. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report] On Nov. 7, the city council will be asked to formally accept the subcommittee’s report.

Ingrid Ault chaired the subcommittee, which also included Julie Grand, Alan Jackson and Karen Levin. The subcommittee’s work is also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project.

The subcommittee’s work was guided by this mission statement:

To determine whether and what additional parks are wanted and/or needed in downtown Ann Arbor, focusing on city-owned parcels in the DDA district while maintaining awareness of additional nearby properties, for example: Liberty Plaza, 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington. The “deliverable” will be a set of recommendations for the City Council.

The eight recommendations are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process. The AADL board and staff discussed this recommendation at their Oct. 21, 2013 meeting.

Downtown – and Citywide: Park Fee Waiver

The council will be giving initial consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs could be conducted in city parks without incurring a fee for park use. The proposal is not restricted to downtown parks, but the idea originated from an issue that emerged in connection with Liberty Plaza, which is a downtown park.

The recommendation for the ordinance change came from the city’s park advisory commission at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting. This broader policy change comes three months after the Ann Arbor city council waived all rental fees for the use of Liberty Plaza during a one-year trial period, based on a PAC recommendation. That city council action came at its July 15, 2013 meeting.

The Liberty Plaza fee waiver was approved in response to a situation that arose earlier in the spring, when the city staff considered applying fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church. The proposal recommended by PAC on Sept. 17, and on the council’s Nov. 7 agenda, would amend Chapter 39, Section 3:6 of the city code. [.pdf of revised ordinance language]

It would be a permanent fee waiver for this specific purpose – the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs – but it would still require that organizations get a permit to use the park, and follow permitting procedures, including clean up obligations.

Non-Motorized Issues

Several items on the council’s Nov. 7 agenda relate to non-motorized issues.

Non-Motorized Issues: Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Update

The council is being asked to adopt an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, which is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

The update will be an amendment to the main non-motorized transportation plan, which was adopted in 2007. The new document is organized into three sections: (1) planning and policy updates; (2) updates to near-term recommendations; and (3) long-term recommendations.

Examples of planning and policy issues include design guidelines, recommendations for approaches like bike boulevards and bike share programs, and planning practices that cover education campaigns, maintenance, crosswalks and other non-motorized elements for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For example, the update recommends that the city begin developing a planning process for bike boulevards, which are described as “a low-traffic, low-speed road where bicycle interests are prioritized.” Sections of West Washington (from Revena to First), Elmwood (from Platt to Canterbury) and Broadway (from its southern intersection with Plymouth to where it rejoins Plymouth about a mile to the northeast) are suggested for potential bike boulevards.

Near-term recommendations include lower-cost efforts like re-striping roads to install bike lanes and adding crossing islands. Longer-term projects that were included in the 2007 plan are re-emphasized: the Allen Creek Greenway, Border-to-Border Trail, Gallup Park & Fuller Road paths, and a Briarwood-Pittsfield pedestrian bridge.

Non-Motorized Issues: Pedestrian Safety

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) announced at the council’s Oct. 21 meeting that they’d be bringing forward a proposal to establish a pedestrian safety task force. At the Oct. 21 meeting, Warpehoski stated that the effort was not meant as an alternative to the efforts that other councilmembers are making to bring forward a repeal of the city’s pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

The city’s ordinance differs from the Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) in two respects: (1) requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians, not just to slow as to yield; and (2) requiring motorists to take action to accommodate pedestrians standing at the curb at a crosswalk, not just those pedestrians who have already entered the crosswalk. The resolution establishing the task force acknowledges that many residents are concerned that current city policies create an unsafe environment for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

The pedestrian safety and access task force would consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.” Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application] The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting.

The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

Some of the recent community conversation has included the fact that traffic crashes involving a pedestrian have shown an increase in the last two years, the period during which Ann Arbor adopted its local ordinance that requires more of motorists than the UTC. The charts below are by The Chronicle using data from Michigan Traffic Crash Facts.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: Ann Arbor

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG region.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG Region by County

Pedestrian Crashes by Year: Washtenaw County Outside Ann Arbor

Capital Projects

The Nov. 7 city council agenda includes a number of resolutions involving capital projects and expenses, some of which relate to non-motorized issues.

Capital Projects: I-94 Business Loop ($301,600)

This project would resurface the section of Huron Street from Main Street westward as Huron becomes Jackson Avenue on to I-94. The project will include a re-striping to reduce the number of lanes from four to three and add bicycle lanes. An agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is required because the city must contribute 12.5% of the funding for the resurfacing. That accounts for $198,700. Additional funding is needed to pay for the resurfacing of the portion of South Maple Road, as part of the project. South Maple is a city-owned street. MDOT has agreed to include the South Maple resurfacing as part of the project, but it will be funded by the city of Ann Arbor for $102,900.

Capital Projects: Stone School Road Sidewalk

On the council’s agenda is the first of a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Stone School Road for constructing sidewalks, curbs and gutters as part of a road reconstruction project. The resolution simply directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed.

Capital Projects: Scio Church Sidewalk

Also on the council’s agenda is the first in a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Scio Church, west of Seventh Street, for constructing a sidewalk there to eliminate a gap. The resolution directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed. The Scio Church resolution appropriates $35,000 for the design work. [For Chronicle coverage of a neighborhood meeting on the Scio Church sidewalk, see "Sidewalks: Build, Repair, Shovel"]

Capital Projects: Barton Dam Repair

The council will be asked to approve a contract with Catskill Remedial Contracting Services Inc. to install a “drainage blanket” for the earthen berm adjoining Barton Dam ($123,685). A drainage blanket is a pervious but stable layer of material installed directly at the base of a structure to facilitate drainage. The installation is meant to repair a “boil” that has surfaced in the drainage ditch at the base of the right embankment at the dam. The boil has been identified as a potential cause of failure for the embankment by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – which is responsible for regulating the dam, because the dam generates electric power.

The contract is recommended to be awarded to Catskill, even though Pranam GlobalTech provided the lowest bid. The staff memo cites “substandard performance” by Pranam GlobalTech on two other city projects, which led to the disqualification of their bid. The cost of the project will be split between the water fund (as the dam creates a pond from which the city draws the majority of its drinking water) and the general fund (for the hydroelectric operations).

The council had been alerted to the need for this project earlier this year, at a Feb. 11, 2013 work session on the FY 2014 budget. From The Chronicle’s report of that session:

In addition to the concrete and steel part of the dam, a roughly 3/8-mile long earthen embankment is part of the structure that forms Barton Pond, [public services area administrator Craig] Hupy explained. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) has required the city to do some investigative work, and the city thinks there’ll be some follow-up work required when that investigative work is completed. [FERC is involved as a regulator because the Barton Dam generates electricity.]

Responding to a question from [Ward 3 councilmember Christopher] Taylor about the anticipated cost of the additional work, Hupy indicated that it would be “six figures.” The city is putting about $400,000 total in various parts of the budget for it. But until the study work is completed later this spring, the amount can’t be more precise, Hupy indicated. Because Barton is a federally controlled dam, whatever the work the city does will be what the regulator demands that the city does or doesn’t do. “Stay tuned,” Hupy told Taylor.

Capital Projects: Technical Engineering Services

The council will be asked to approve two different contracts that resulted from a bid it put out in June 2013 – for technical engineering services to support the water treatment services unit with capital, operation, and maintenance project support for the water system, dams, and hydroelectric generating stations. One of the contracts is with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. ($250,000). The other contract is with Tetra Tech of Michigan ($250,000).

Capital Projects: Ozone

The council will be asked to approve a purchase order with Ozonia for ozone generator dielectrics ($68,209). The city uses ozone in the disinfection process for its drinking water. The city is currently out of spare dielectric units, which are the components that convert oxygen gas to ozone gas. So this resolution would allow the city to have replacement parts on hand if the units fail.

Capital Projects: State Funding of Water Asset Projects

Six resolutions appear on the council’s agenda related to state legislation passed in 2012 that forms the statutory framework of the Stormwater, Asset Management and Wastewater (SAW) program – a grant program. The legislation funds grants and loans for what the staff memo accompanying the resolutions describes as “funding for grants and loans for asset management plan development, stormwater management plan development, sewage collection and treatment design plan development, and state-funded loans to construct projects identified in the asset management plans.” [.pdf of FAQ by the State of Michigan on the SAW program] [PA 511 of 2012] [PA 560 of 2012] [PA 561 of 2012] [PA 562 of 2012]

Although communities that are awarded grants can receive a maximum of $2 million in total grant funds through the SAW program, the city of Ann Arbor is applying for the following six grants, on the idea that it will maximize its chances if the state uses a lottery type system. The first $1 million has a 10% local match requirement, and the second $1 million of grant money has a 25% local match requirement.

The city is applying for funding for some projects that have already been started, because money awarded through the SAW program can be spent retroactively as early as Jan. 2, 2013. The council will be considering six resolutions corresponding to grant requests from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for the following projects.

Asset Management Plan for the Sanitary System ($1.1 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($25,000) for a total of $125,000.
Asset Management Plan for the Stormwater System ($1.1 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($25,000) for a total of $125,000.
Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Evaluation Project (retroactive) ($1.2 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($50,000) for a total of $150,000.
Stormwater Model Calibration Project (retroactive) ($750,000): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($75,000) or 25% of second million ($187,500) for a maximum of $187,500.
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Asset Management Program ($350,00): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($35,000) or 25% of second million ($87,500) for a maximum of $87,500.
Asset Management Plan for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Sanitary Sewer System ($1.5 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($125,000) for a total of $225,000.

Social Infrastructure

In addition to physical infrastructure items, the council’s Nov. 7 agenda also includes several pieces of business that could be described as related to social infrastructure.

Social Infrastructure: 15th District Court

The council will be asked to consider authorizing five grant-related items involving the specialty court functions of the 15th District Court. [For background on the 15th District Court and some of its functions, see Chronicle coverage: "Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court"]

Accept three-year $300,000 supplemental grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to enhance countywide efforts to prevent domestic violence, effective Sept. 12, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2016. Of the grant total, $181,000 will reimburse the city for the salaries for a full-time domestic violence probation officer, a half-time system coordinator, and a part-time data entry clerk. Another $5,000 will reimburse the city for training expenses required by the U.S. Dept. of Justice. The remaining $114,000 will reimburse the city for a contract with SafeHouse Center to provide domestic violence prevention services.
Authorize contract with SafeHouse to provide domestic violence prevention services ($114,000). Under terms of the contract, SafeHouse Center will provide confidential support, information and referrals for victims of domestic violence cases in the 15th District Court, 14A District Court and 14B District Court; monitor court and probation activity as it relates to victim safety; work collaboratively to enhance victim safety; and offer advice and training to judges, magistrates, probation and compliance officers and community partners.
Accept Michigan Supreme Court drug court grant ($144,000). The 15th District Court’s sobriety court is “hyper-intensive probation,” which follows sentencing. The court assigns a full-time probation officer to the sobriety court for a program that lasts 18-24 months and includes monitoring of participants’ attendance at treatment programs, their progress in treatment, how they’re spending their time at work and doing community service. Reporting requirements are extensive. Participants must take frequent portable breath tests (PBTs) and urine tests. The majority of sobriety court participants are second-offender DWI cases, but offenses need not be driving-related. Also eligible to participate in sobriety court are, for example, retail fraud (shoplifting) offenders and misdemeanor drug possession offenders. Some of that grant money will fund a contract with Dawn Farm.
Authorize contract with Dawn Farm ($88,000). The contract is for out-patient drug abuse counseling as part of the 15th District Court’s sobriety court.
Accept Michigan Supreme Court veterans treatment court program grant ($92,279).

The council will be asked to authorize the basic approach that it has taken to human services funding in the past, but with some modifications. The funds would continue to be managed through Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development, using the coordinated funding approach.

The county is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are city of Ann Arbor, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010; this is the second time that the program has been extended.

The coordinated funding process has three parts: planning/coordination, program operations, and capacity-building. The approach targets six priority areas, and identifies lead agencies for each area: (1) housing and homelessness – Washtenaw Housing Alliance; (2) aging – Blueprint for Aging; (3) school-aged youth – Washtenaw Alliance for Children and Youth; (4) children birth to six – Success by Six; (5) health – Washtenaw Health Plan; and (6) hunger relief – Food Gatherers.

Last year, TCC Group – a consulting firm based in Philadelphia – was hired to evaluate the process. As a result of that review, several changes were recommended. One of those changes is that funding would not necessarily be allocated to the six priority areas based on the proportion of funding allocated in the past. Instead, allocations among the six priority areas would be based on identified community-level outcomes, the strategies that align with them, and how each are prioritized. An additional change would broaden the pre-screening process so that smaller nonprofits could be accommodated.

Recommendations for specific funding allocations will be made in spring 2014. In addition, the RNR Foundation – a family foundation that funded TCC Group’s evaluation of the coordinated funding approach – will now be an additional funder in this process. One of the goals of coordinated funding is to attract more partners, such as private foundations.

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners gave initial approval to the continued use of the coordinated funding approach at its Oct. 16, 2013 meeting.

Ethics

The council’s agenda includes a couple of items that relate to ethics.

Ethics: Professional Standards of Conduct

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) is bringing forward a resolution that does not include “ethics” in the title, but addresses the kind of issues that could be described under the general rubric of “ethics.” The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute.

A final “resolved” clause directs the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor. The final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard that’s recommended by the council rules committee and it’s strictly followed – would end any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government.

Ethics: Consent Agenda – Planning Commission Bylaws

The Nov. 7 consent agenda includes approval of new bylaws for two entities – the city’s design review board and the city planning commission.

The planning commission had given approval to changes in its bylaws at its July 16, 2013 meeting. Those changes related to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations, such as sign language interpreters. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws on Nov. 7 city council agenda]. The design review board has not had bylaws up to now.

Not the subject of a revision, but still the source of some recent community interest, is the following clause from the planning commission bylaws, which imposes a limitation on the ability of a councilmember to address the city planning commission:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.

That part of the bylaws surfaced recently, when councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy on separate occasions sought to address the planning commission – Warpehoski on July 16, 2013 and Kailasapathy on Aug. 13, 2013.

Based on an analysis in the Michigan Municipal League’s “Handbook for Municipal Officials,” it may be problematic for a city councilmember to address a body like the planning commission. That’s not based on having a property interest in a matter, but rather because the council is the appointing body for the commission. The handbook presents the following scenario as an ethical exercise – using the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). From the MML Handbook:

Situation #2 Before you were elected to the city council you served on your city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), so you know the ZBA procedures very well. A few months after your election to council, your neighbor and campaign manager files a petition with the ZBA seeking a variance. Since you know how the ZBA works, he asks you to accompany him to the ZBA and to speak on his behalf. Should you do it?

The analysis offered by the handbook is the following:

No. The Michigan Court of Appeals has labeled this situation as “patently improper” and an abuse of public trust for the reason that the person making the argument to the ZBA is also one of the people charged with appointing the ZBA. This creates duress on the ZBA, raising doubt about the impartiality of the ZBA’s decision. Any decision made by the ZBA under these circumstances is void. See Barkey v. Nick, 11 Mich App 361 (1968).

The implication of the Ann Arbor city planning commission bylaw is that it’s permissible for a city councilmember to address the commission exactly when the councilmember is not the petitioner or does not have an interest in the matter. That situation appears to be explicitly deemed unethical by the MML Handbook, if the handbook’s analysis is extended from the ZBA to the planning commission.

Ethics: Consent Agenda – Rental Housing Inspection

A consent agenda item increases the amount of a contract the city has with the accounting firm Plante Moran for a thorough review of the city’s permitting processes. That review comes in the context of the discovery that some rental housing permits had not been properly verified, according to city sources. Steps taken by the city staff to correct the problems included a review of all questionable permits. That included site visits to eight residential properties, six of them occupied, to ensure no one was living in unsafe conditions.

Re-inspection continues of residential and business properties to verify issued permits, to ensure the accuracy of the city’s records. Property owners are not being charged additional costs for re-inspection. The city anticipated that over 80 properties would be re-inspected as of Oct. 30. The permits for those 80 properties compare to a total number of 10,000 building and rental permits issued annually.

Miscellaneous

A number of other items appear on the agenda. Here are a few highlights.

Misc: Consent Agenda

Three other consent agenda items include a $60,000 contract with Utilities Instrumentation Service for electrical and instrumentation support services. According to a staff memo, the scope of UIS work will include “transformer testing, infrared testing of switchgear, testing of medium voltage breakers at City substations and generators, programming and calibration of instrumentation, Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) support and troubleshooting, Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) programming, and tuning and testing of dam and hydroelectric generator controls.”

A fourth item on the consent agenda sets a public hearing for establishing an industrial development district (for potential tax abatements) at 1901 E. Ellsworth. That hearing will be held on Dec. 2, 2013.

Misc: Church Site Plan

The council will be asked to approve a site plan for the expansion of the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. The city planning commission recommended approval of the project at its Oct. 1, 2013 meeting.

Aerial view of site for the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway.

The site plan proposal calls for tearing down five existing buildings and constructing a 12,850-square-foot, two-story addition to the rear of the church. The addition would be used for educational activities at the church, which is located on a 4.3-acre site in Ward 1, southwest of Broadway’s intersection with Plymouth Road.

According to a staff memo, only minor changes are proposed for the existing 142-space parking lot. Additional sidewalks will be added, including a roughly 20-foot extension of the public sidewalk along Broadway Street, which currently stops short of the south property line.

Because the church is located in an area zoned for single-family residential use (R1C zoning), a special exception use approval was needed from the planning commission. The city’s planning staff noted that the church has been located there for about 50 years. The church has a capacity of 126 seats, which will remain unchanged. At their Oct. 1 meeting, planning commissioners unanimously voted to grant approval for a special exception use.

The project is estimated to cost about $3 million. No approval is required from the city council for the special exception use, but the council must consider the site plan for approval.

6:50 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. Several people are here in support of the ordinance revision to waive fees for park usage if the purpose is to distribute goods to address basic human needs.

6:55 p.m. Fox 2 News is here to cover homelessness issues.

6:58 p.m. Based on overheard conversation, Tom Wall is reportedly going to address the council in his cape and tights as Captain Driver Ed.

7:02 p.m. Councilmembers are signing cards for Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is here. She’d called in sick to the planning commission meeting last night. Most councilmembers are now here, but we seem to be a few minutes away from starting the meeting.

7:04 p.m. Confirmed sighting of Tom Wall as Captain Driver Ed. He’ll be addressing the city council during public commentary reserved time about pedestrian safety. He has a guitar with him.

7:09 p.m. Marcia Higgins has just arrived. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:12 p.m. Approval of agenda. Margie Teall (Ward 4) wants to move coordinated funding (DS-19) to after the consent agenda. That appears amenable to everyone. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) wants to move B-1 (DDA ordinance) after C-2 (DDA ordinance – joint subcommittee version).

7:14 p.m. Communications from city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers thanks the Ann Arbor police department for their work in arresting three suspects in Paul DeWolf homicide. He also says that the Main Street lightpoles have been inspected and that he’ll bring a proposal to the council at their Nov. 18 meeting.

7:14 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 to talk about the ordinance change that would waive the park permitting fee for distribution of goods to address basic human needs: Timothy W. Green, Ray Gholston, Stephan Pate, Ryan Sample, Andrew Mutschler, and Raytheon Jones as well as an alternate speaker, Chris Mckeown.

Ingrid Ault is signed up to speak on the resolution accepting the park advisory commission’s downtown parks report. And two people are signed up to talk about the resolution establishing a pedestrian safety task force – Tom Wall and Kathy Griswold. Dina Kurz is signed up to talk about the Y lot sale. The second alternate speaker is Emily Tondreau, who’s signed up to talk about the evictions of homeless people from their camp sites and the capacity of the shelter.

7:16 p.m. Timothy W. Green introduces himself as a member of Camp Take Notice. He’s been a part of the demonstration in front of city hall on behalf of the homeless community. In response to the count of 165 homeless people, he contends there’s at least triple that number. If you find yourself in a camp, it’s not safe, because AAPD tells you they have to go, he says. If you’re being run off, he asks, where do you go? You pack up and walk around the streets all night, he says. He took the podium to applause and his remarks conclude with applause. He refers to the amount spent on the Dreiseitl fountain next to their protests.

7:18 p.m. Ingrid Ault is addressing the council on behalf of the park advisory commission. She’s chair of that group and was chair of the subcommittee on downtown parks. She describes how the committee met several times over several months. She describes the survey the committee conducted that received over 1,600 responses. She highlights the eight recommendations in the committee’s report.

7:23 p.m. Ray Gholston invites everyone to stand who supports more support for homeless people. Almost everyone in the middle section of the chambers is standing in support. The way Ann Arbor treats the homeless is a human rights violation, he says. He says that if there were a pack of dogs out on Huron Street, people would go make sure they had shelter, but Ann Arborites won’t do the same for the homeless. There’s not enough space in the shelter, he says.

7:25 p.m. Dina Kurz, a member of the city’s energy commission, is addressing the council on the topic of the sale of the old Y lot. She wants the city to negotiate additional features of development on the site that are in line with the climate action plan and sustainability framework. It could become a shining example of what can be done to have less impact on the environment and offer greater sustainability. LEED Gold and the AIA 2030 standards are some of the covenants that the city could instruct the city administrator to write into the legal agreement, she says. She wants the council to “seize this moment.”

7:27 p.m. Stephan Pate introduces himself as a member of the homeless community. AAPD are running people off of property without giving them enough time to gather up their belongings, he says. He asks for enough time to gather up their belongings and live in peace.

7:29 p.m. Kathy Griswold is telling the council about the Ann Arbor Public Schools’ transportation safety committee, which is described on the AAPS website as “Advisory Committee to the Board of Education, the Ann Arbor City Council and, in a less formal manner, other governmental units including the Pittsfield Township Trustees and the Washtenaw County Road Commission.” [Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is listed on Legistar as the council's representative to the committee.]

Griswold is essentially arguing for the expansion of the existing committee, which includes representatives of the University of Michigan, the Center for Independent Living and the Washtenaw Biking and Walking Coalition. Griswold thanks Warpehoski and Briere for their work to bring forward the task force resolution. The TSC was established in 1969, she says. She was a consultant for the TSC back in 2001, she says. It’s time to reassess the situation. She describes legislation in Lansing in the works that would make the Uniform Traffic Code the state law.

7:31 p.m. Andrew Mutschler introduces himself as a member of the Camp Misfit homeless community who are protesting out in front of city hall. He describes how he’d come back to his encampment to find all his belongings gone. He emphasizes that everyone needs stability, a place to call home – even if it’s just a 6×6 roof over your head.

7:34 p.m. Tom Wall is addressing the council as Captain Driver Ed. His son wasn’t allowed to introduce him on account of the speaking rules. He offers to the city, once they’ve decided what to do, his driver ed school, saying it’s very good at education. He’s now singing “Captain Driver Ed, Captain Driver Ed …” People are sort of singing along. “Don’t get distracted, it’s not attractive.” He tells people to clap for him. They do.

7:37 p.m. Raytheon Jones is speaking on behalf of the homeless. It’s a serious problem, he says. “Many of us are troubled, with nowhere to go,” he says. He’s speaking for the disenfranchised, the poor, the homeless and the people who have no voice. He first arrived in Ann Arbor in July a few months ago. He was sitting in a park, not being boisterous, he said. But AAPD had called him over and asked him what he was doing. They’d told him there were people there with their families and he needed to find somewhere else to go. There was no room in the shelter, he said. The homeless need somewhere to go, he says.

7:37 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.

7:40 p.m. Briere is talking about the parking situation at Argo Cascades. The result of the city’s work was to put parking at Longshore Park. The neighborhood was not impressed with that, she says, and it had stopped after one weekend. On Nov. 21, at 7 p.m. the city is holding a public meeting on the parking needs at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Traverwood branch.

7:42 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) responds to the public commentary. She asks if the city administrator can contact the churches that provide a rotating shelter to see if that can be started earlier this year. Mayor John Hieftje says that it’s handled through the Shelter Association center. The warming center will open on Nov. 18, Hieftje says. He’d been in communication with the Shelter Association.

7:44 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) acknowledges that four AAPD officers were honored as officers of the year by the Washtenaw 100 Club. Oct. 24 was the date of this year’s event, she says. She lists off the names of the four officers. They’d entered a burning building and saved woman’s life on Jan. 13, 2013, she reports.

7:48 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) also responds to the public commentary. He points out that there are not only churches but also synagogues. What triggers an eviction? he asks. City administrator Steve Powers says that by ordinance, camping is not allowed in city parks. Warpehoski confirms that it’s complaint driven. Powers also indicates there’s a 48-hour orange notice that’s posted saying: Please move. Powers indicates that he’s discussing the issue with the members of Camp Misfit and with Chief Seto.

Warpehoski says we don’t solve the problem of homelessness just by moving people around. He calls for upholding our laws with maximum humanity. He’s concerned about people’s belongings being respected.

7:49 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) gives an update on the Safety on Seventh campaign. There’ll be a community meeting on possibly more traffic calming. He’s disappointed that two elementary schools have discontinued their walk-to-school programs. He wonders if Bach and Eberwhite ended their program because of the traffic on Seventh Street.

7:51 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) says she wants to change the tone. She recognizes that it’s the last meeting for Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). Higgins is presented with a crown, which she puts on. She indicates she’ll be wearing it for the duration of the meeting.

7:53 p.m. Nominations. Nominations tonight include Peter Greenfield to the airport advisory council replacing Wilson Tanner, and Anthony Ramirez to be re-appointed to the cable communications commission. On the housing and human services board, Eleanor Pollack and Thaddeus Jabzanka are being nominated to fill the vacancies left by Ned Staebler and Anthony Ramirez, respectively. Mohammad Issa and Linda Winkler are being nominated for re-appointment to the city’s human rights commission.

On the Ann Arbor housing commission, Christopher Geer is being re-appointed to correct the end date of his term. On Jan. 7, 2013 the council confirmed his appointment for a term ending May 5, 2014. Tonight’s confirmation, which is taking place in one step and needs eight votes to be approved, corrects the end date of his term to May 1, 2017.

7:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve Geer’s re-appointment to the Ann Arbor housing commission.

7:54 p.m. Appointments. The council is being asked tonight to confirm appointments for nominations that were made at the council’s previous meeting on Oct. 21. Nominated to fill the remaining vacancy on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board – due to the resignation of Nader Nassif – was Cyndi Clark, owner of Lily Grace. The business is described on its website as a luxury cosmetics boutique in downtown Ann Arbor.

To fill a vacancy left by Leigh Greden on the Ann Arbor housing commission board, Tim Colenback was nominated on Oct. 21. Greden’s nomination had been made, but was never put forward for a confirmation vote. Colenback also serves on the city’s housing and human services advisory board. Colenback has told mayor John Hieftje that he won’t be able to serve on both bodies.

A replacement for Julie Grand on the park advisory commission was nominated at the Oct. 21 meeting – David Santacroce. He’s a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and he chaired the North Main Huron River corridor task force, which worked for a year and delivered its report recently to the council on recommendations to the corridor. Grand attended her last meeting of PAC on Oct. 15, 2013, after completing the maximum two terms of service. Amy Shepherd was nominated to serve on the city’s commission on disability issues. Shepherd is president of the Michigan Parents of Children with Visual Impairments. On the energy commission, Shoshannah Lenski was nominated to replace Mike Delaney, and Mike Shriberg was nominated for reappointment.

7:56 p.m. Hieftje describes Colenback’s credentials as assistant dean at the UM school of social work. Hieftje describes Cyndi Clark as having expertise in retail, in the cosmetics industry, on an international level. Hieftje also praises Santacroce’s work leading the North Main Huron River corridor task force.

7:58 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) highlights the energy commission appointment of Shoshannah Lenski, who works with DTE. Kunselman points out there are some issues with the timely repair of streetlights, citing some near Mary Beth Doyle Park that have been out for quite a while.

7:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the appointments.

8:01 p.m. Hieftje is now talking about the various services that the city of Ann Arbor offers for the homeless community. He recalls running for city council at the time when the building of the Delonis Center was being debated. [The shelter is located at 312 W. Huron, near the downtown.] He reiterates that the warming center is opening on Nov. 18. Hieftje describes how sometimes the AAPD posts notices and after the 48-hour period they return and they find no on there but possessions left behind. It’s something the AAPD is working on, he says.

8:03 p.m. Briere says the opening of the warming center is happening on about the same schedule as in the past. It’s not unusually late, she says. She asks Hieftje if the council will be asked for financial support for the warming shelter. She ventures that because she and Lumm serve on HHSB, they’d have occasion to meet with city and county staff and other nonprofits so that if there’s a need for funding, it can be brought back on Nov. 18.

8:03 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Two public hearings are scheduled: (1) The council is being asked to adopt an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, which is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update]; (2) a site plan for the expansion of the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. The city planning commission recommended approval of the project at its Oct. 1, 2013 meeting.

8:04 p.m. PH-1 Adopt 2013 update to non-motorized plan. Kathy Griswold says it’s an exciting night because there’s more than one item on the agenda involving pedestrian safety. She urges the council to not adopt the update to the plan. It fails to identify funding for all the improvements. The plan alludes to funding improvements with federal Safe Routes to Schools funding and she is “absolutely disgusted” by it because Ann Arbor can afford to fund that itself without tapping federal funds.

8:06 p.m. PH-2 Site Plan: Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:06 p.m. Approval of minutes for previous meeting.

8:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

8:07 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. Tonight’s consent agenda includes approval of new bylaws for two entities – the city’s design review board and the city planning commission. [For more background, see Ethics: Consent Agenda – Planning Commission By-laws above.]

Three other items include a $60,000 contract with Utilities Instrumentation Service for Electrical and Instrumentation Support Services. According to the staff memo, the scope of UIS work will include “transformer testing, infrared testing of switchgear, testing of medium voltage breakers at City substations and generators, programming and calibration of instrumentation, Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) support and troubleshooting, Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) programming, and tuning and testing of dam and hydroelectric generator controls.”

A fourth item on the consent agenda sets a public hearing for establishing an industrial development district (for potential tax abatements) at 1901 E. Ellsworth – for Dec. 2, 2013. And a final consent agenda item increases the amount of a contract the city has with the accounting firm Plante Moran for a thorough review of the city’s permitting processes. That review comes in the context of the discovery that some rental housing permits had not been properly verified, according to city sources. Steps taken by the city staff to correct the problems included a review of all questionable permits. [For more background, see Ethics: Consent Agenda – Rental Housing Inspection above.]

8:07 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Briere wants to pull out CA-2, the planning commission bylaws. Briere says that the planning commission is discussing an additional change to the bylaws, so she wants to postpone until Dec. 16.

8:09 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the consent agenda items, except for the planning commission bylaws, which have been postponed until the second meeting in December.

8:13 p.m. DS-19 Adopt FY 2015-16 human services funding process. The council is being asked to authorize the basic approach that it has taken to human services funding in the past, but with some modifications. The funds would continue to be managed through Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development (OCED), using the coordinated funding approach. The city is one of five partners in the coordinated funding approach. Other partners are Washtenaw County, United Way of Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Urban County, and the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation. It began as a pilot program in 2010; this is the second time that the program has been extended. This resolution does not allocate any funds, but rather authorizes the process for allocation. [For more background, see Social Infrastructure: Coordinated Funding above.]

8:15 p.m. OCED director Mary Jo Callan is fielding questions from Teall and Lumm.

8:17 p.m. Callan stresses that there’s no “pooling of funds” and that each entity maintains control over the designation of its own funding.

8:18 p.m. Warpehoski asks how the model doesn’t just cherry-pick the easy-to-serve kids and leave out the hardest-to-serve. Callan notes that the targeted population are selected by “let’s start with the poorest folks first.” The funds are in fact for the hardest-to-serve kids, she says.

8:19 p.m. Callan is talking about the best evidence-based practices and that’s what will be funded.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the coordinated funding process.

8:20 p.m. B-1 DDA Ordinance. On the Nov. 7 agenda are two possible revisions to the city’s ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s TIF (tax increment financing) capture (Chapter 7). This is the first version, which has been under consideration by the council since Feb. 19, 2013. In summary strokes, this version is different from the competing version on the agenda in the following two ways. This version more nearly enforces the existing language in the ordinance with respect to the amount of TIF revenue the DDA would receive. It also proposes governance changes for the DDA board, which include term limits. [For more background, see Downtown: DDA Ordinance above.]

8:21 p.m. Kunselman asks that it be tabled. That puts it off to a date uncertain. It could be brought back as an option.

8:21 p.m. Kunselman describes how he’s planning to go talk to the other taxing jurisdictions about the council’s efforts. So he moves to table.

8:24 p.m. Teall says “I don’t get it,” saying that it’s been postponed several times. If the alternative proposal from the committee were to pass (the next agenda items) she wants to know what would happen. Kunselman explains the difference between the versions. This current version says that any changes to the restriction would need the approval of the other taxing jurisdictions. So Kunselman wants to discuss the second version with the other governmental entities.

8:24 p.m. Teall wants to know what would cause Kunselman to bring back the first version off the table. “Hopefully nothing,” he says.

8:25 p.m. Kunselman says that he hopes there will be no complaints and no whining.

8:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to table the DDA ordinance change.

8:25 p.m. C-1 Ordinance: Exemptions to park permit requirements. The council is giving initial consideration to a change to the city’s ordinances so that charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs could be conducted in city parks without incurring a fee for park use. The recommendation for the ordinance change came from the city’s park advisory commission at its Sept. 17, 2013 meeting. [For more background, see Downtown (but not only): Park Fee Waiver above.]

8:27 p.m. Taylor is introducing the resolution. He recalls the Pizza in the Park issue in Liberty Plaza downtown. This extends the scope to all parks, not just downtown. Taylor notes that the proposal has been vetted by the park advisory commission.

8:28 p.m. Teall thanks Taylor for meeting with her and the representatives of Camp Take Notice and “taking the ball and running with it.” She thanks the CTN people. She encourages everyone to vote for it.

8:28 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to give initial approval to the ordinance change that would allow for distribution of humanitarian aid in city parks without incurring a fee.

8:28 p.m. C-2 Alternate DDA ordinance revision. This is the second of two versions of the DDA ordinance revision. It’s the result of a joint DDA board and city council committee. It does not include any governance changes. And it would not propose any restriction on DDA TIF revenues until FY 2017. [For more background, see Downtown: DDA Ordinance above.]

8:31 p.m. Kunselman describes the alternative as much “cleaner” and it addresses just the TIF capture. Key stat: The TIF cap would have a basis $224 million taxable value in tax year 2016 with an increase of 3.5%.

8:32 p.m. Kunselman describes the amount of the DDA’s TIF capture as capped at around $6 million for the 2016 tax year. He invites CFO Tom Crawford to the podium.

8:34 p.m. By 2033 there would be “millions and millions” of dollars going back to the taxing authorities, says Kunselman. Crawford says he’d project that within a few years after the cap, more than $1 million would be distributed to the other governmental units.

8:35 p.m. Crawford is now describing the bonding capacity that the cap would allow: $59 million for the next 10 years. If they chose not to bond, the capacity for projects would be smaller.

8:37 p.m. Kunselman says he’ll have a couple of amendments. The point is not to hamstring the ability of the DDA to undertake capital improvements, Kunselman says. Part of the point is to improve the ability of the DDA to budget.

8:40 p.m. Kailasapathy notes that there’s two variables in the TIF plan: escalator and the basis. Crawford has chosen 3.5% which is from the TIF plan to avoid changing the TIF plan. Crawford concedes that the basis for the taxable valuable in the committee’s proposal is not from the TIF plan. Kailasapathy concludes that this is a change to the TIF plan. Crawford says there’s room for differing views on this.

8:41 p.m. Lumm asks about the clause in the existing ordinance that says that the restrictions in the ordinance can’t be removed except by approval of the other governmental units.

8:42 p.m. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales says it’s not possible for the city to abdicate its fiduciary responsibility to another entity.

8:48 p.m. Kunselman forwards an amendment by email to his colleagues about affordable housing.

8:48 p.m. Kunselman notes that the council had revised the DDA’s budget earlier in the year to transfer $300,000 of TIF to the DDA’s housing fund. He moves that the DDA be required to budget $200,000 for the DDA housing fund, starting in 2014, adjusted at the same rate of increase as the TIF income – to be spent on projects that meet the income guidelines of the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Kailasapathy wants the amount to be $300,000. Kunselman agrees. Briere notes that generally there’s an implied expectation that the city would match whatever the DDA does. She wants that on the record. Taylor asks if the proposal is enforceable. Fales says the council has the ability to approve the budget.

8:49 p.m. Briere wants to know if 2014 is tax year, calendar year, or fiscal year. Kunselman says it should be 2016 anyway.

8:54 p.m. Hieftje says he doesn’t think the DDA objects to funding affordable housing. But the DDA’s suspension of transfers to its housing fund was a function of having the obligations of building the underground parking structure, he says.

8:57 p.m. Executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay is fielding questions from the council. Warpehoski says he likes the idea of making sure the DDA’s housing fund is actually an affordable housing fund. But he’s not sure that Kunselman’s approach is right. Kunselman suggests that the requirement for projects to meet the Ann Arbor housing commission’s standards could be tied only to the $300,000 in the ordinance. Warpehoski asks if the HHSAB can simply exercise oversight. Kunselman doesn’t think HHSAB has enough teeth as an advisory body.

9:00 p.m. Kunselman now is amending his own amendment to restrict just the funds mandated by the ordinance to be in support of housing projects that meet the Ann Arbor housing commission’s income standards. Hieftje thinks there needs to be more flexibility. Kunselman amends to cite 50% AMI (area median income) as the standard.

9:03 p.m. Higgins thanks Kunselman for his work. [2016 year refers to the tax year.]

9:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved Kunselman’s amendment.

9:09 p.m. Kunselman is putting forth another amendment involving the capital improvement plan (CIP). This is an amendment from the first version of the ordinance that had received initial approval. Responding to Warpehoski’s question, city administrator Steve Powers says that the amendment would not pose a problem. Briere reviews how the CIP is put together.

9:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved Kunselman’s amendment on the CIP.

9:10 p.m. Lumm is proposing an amendment to add term limits. This is language from the first version.

9:14 p.m. Petersen notes that the bylaws approved by the council that night for the design review board also include term limits. She counters the argument that you lose someone’s expertise if term limits are imposed by saying that you don’t lose their expertise because that can be tapped on an informal basis.

9:15 p.m. Kailasapathy likes the portion of the amendment that restricts elected officials from serving on the DDA board.

9:21 p.m. Briere says that she’s not impressed with the value of term limits for elected officials. She says she might be willing to consider a limit of three consecutive terms instead of two. She argues for that by saying that the planning cycle for DDA projects is 10 years. She doesn’t like the part that says that elected officials of other jurisdictions can’t serve on the DDA board. She opposes term limits on a philosophical basis.

Kunselman replies by saying, “Oh my, look what I’ve started!” He had wanted to leave the governance issues aside because they can be addressed at any time. As far as the mayor’s appointment to the board, Kunselman says that the council could simply choose to appoint the city administrator instead of the mayor, when the council makes its annual committee appointments.

9:22 p.m. Kunselman doesn’t have a problem with elected officials from other jurisdictions serving on the DDA board but wants them all represented – the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, the Ann Arbor District Library, and Washtenaw County. He doesn’t have a problem with term limits.

9:26 p.m. Teall asks how the joint committee had felt about term limits. Lumm says she missed the last joint committee meeting but she’d said at an earlier meeting that she’d wanted the term limits included. Kunselman says his focus had been on the financial picture. He stresses that there be consensus with the body that is being regulated so that they don’t feel “beaten down.” He didn’t want the discussion to be bogged down about feelings. The discussion had been going on for quite some time. “I’m tired of it, and the community is tired of it,” Kunselman says.

9:28 p.m. Teall won’t support the governance amendments including term limits. She wants it to pass with a large majority. Hieftje says he won’t be mayor after 2014. He wants to wait and see if the state legislature takes action requiring the representation of the other governmental units on the DDA board. Term limits have been a disaster with the Michigan legislature, Hieftje says. There is adequate turnover as it is, he says. He won’t support term limits.

9:31 p.m. Kailasapathy offers an amendment that would require representation of all the jurisdictions on the DDA board. Petersen echoes Hieftje’s sentiments, saying that the state legislature may act. Hieftje says the state legislature might act in a way that would allow the addition of representatives from other jurisdictions more swiftly. Discussion of different amendments to amendments.

Hieftje calls for a recess to sort it all out.

9:34 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

9:48 p.m. And we’re back.

9:52 p.m. Lumm is amending her amendment. It would be effective for the first appointment to the board after the date of the ordinance’s enactment. It’s constrained to term limits.

Taylor says term limit are pernicious. It removes the discretion of the appointing body to appoint someone who is actively engaged and serving well. “We’re sapping our boards … of useful engaged knowledgeable” board members, he says. Petersen comes back to the point that the council has just approved bylaws for bodies that include term limits. Taylor says, “I have no drive for perfection.”

9:55 p.m. Kailasapathy says there’s a difference between the Michigan legislature and an appointed body. She says that for elected officials, she doesn’t see the need for term limits. But for appointed boards, the more you get people involved, the more vibrant it becomes and the more perspectives it brings in. Look at the DDA board, she says: Do you want to keep this or do you want more diversity, she asks.

Hieftje says that he can’t recall that a person of color has applied to the DDA. He points to the fact that there are four DDA board members who are in their first terms. He says he’s gone away from nominating developers and has selected representatives from small businesses to serve on the board. He says there is diversity of viewpoint on the DDA board.

9:57 p.m. Lumm says, “You can Google it” to find that term limits are a nonprofit board best practice. It’s a healthy thing. She argues there should be consistency on all the boards and commissions. She argues that opportunities should be opened up for others to serve.

10:00 p.m. Lumm says it’s not difficult to recruit people to serve on the DDA board. Warpehoski says on the broader issue of whether term limits are good or bad, he can find examples of each. Given the small size of the DDA staff, he’s concerned about the preservation of the DDA’s institutional memory. He’d voted to put Russ Collins on the DDA board for a third term, so by the argument of consistency he couldn’t support this amendment. But he rejects the idea of consistency as the main consideration.

10:03 p.m. Kunselman argues that turnover is good when money is at stake. He thinks that two four-year terms is more than most councilmembers serve. As far as his vote for Russ Collins for a third term, he says he likes Russ and used to work for him at the Michigan Theater. But he wouldn’t vote for him again. It’s a core group of people who seem to hang around, he says. He points out that the city charter imposes term limits on certain kinds of boards and commissions. If it’s that big of an issue, a future council can bring it back, Kunselman says.

10:05 p.m. Hieftje proposes a compromise of a limit to three terms, not two.

10:05 p.m. Lumm says “That’s not the kind of revitalization I was looking for.” She says she’ll continue to work on the issue for all boards and commissions, but for tonight she’ll go along with three terms as the limit.

10:07 p.m. Briere challenges Petersen’s assertion that the bylaws of the design review board and the planning commission contain term limits. Higgins says she’d have supported the two-term limit, but will support three. She laments the disparagement of members of a sitting board, some of whom are sitting in the audience. Talking about a changeover and alluding to a “core group” of people is hurtful, Higgins says. That discourages people from stepping forward to serve.

10:08 p.m. Petersen thanks Briere for the correction on the bylaws, and apologizes to Taylor. Hieftje wants to move it along to a vote.

10:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the three-term limit. Teall and Taylor dissent.

10:09 p.m. Warpehoski asks for clarification of the TIF cap. It grows by 3.5%, is the explanation.

10:13 p.m. Taylor says that even though the stated intention is not to harm the DDA, the buying power of the DDA would be reduced by half over the next 10 years. That’s an incredible harm to the downtown, Taylor says. Only half of the excess would come to the city of Ann Arbor, he says. Lumm replies that the amount of TIF the DDA would receive would grow “handsomely” over the next few years.

10:13 p.m. Lumm says that she appreciates the work that has been done on this. She laments the fact that the discussion had become a litmus test of whether someone supports the DDA.

10:13 p.m. Lumm says Higgins was wise to create the joint DDA council committee.

10:16 p.m. To be clear, the council is now discussing the main motion. Hieftje says he is glad that the previous version was not pursued. Hieftje says that if the city is going to survive under Michigan’s funding system, it needs growth. Ann Arbor is fortunate to have UM as a job magnate. The park system attracts people, he says. AAPS also has high quality schools. The vibrant downtown is also an attractant. The DDA is a prime factor for success, says Hieftje.

10:19 p.m. Kailasapathy asks Crawford about the Justice Center bond repayment schedule. She’s referring to the $8 million mentioned in the DDA’s 2008 resolution that goes to the bond repayment. Crawford gives an explanation in terms of the “present value of money.” She points out that the DDA ends in 2033, which goes five years past the end of the DDA’s TIF plan.

10:20 p.m. Kunselman thanks the DDA board members for going through this with him. He makes further conciliatory remarks.

10:21 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the DDA ordinance revision.

10:21 p.m. DC-1 Digital billboard on E. Stadium Blvd. At the council’s Oct. 21 meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) announced the intent to bring forward the resolution, which requests that the University of Michigan decommission the $2.8 million digital billboard that it’s constructed on E. Stadium Blvd. The city’s fallback position is a request that the university operate the billboard (marquee) only around the time of major events at the football stadium or the Crisler Center. The resolution cites the city’s own recently enacted sign ordinance, which constrains the deployment of digital technology for outdoor signs.

According to the resolution, the marquee inflicts the same harms on the community that the city’s newly amended ordinance sought to prevent. [Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) – who co-sponsored the resolution with Taylor, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) – voted against that ordinance.] Those harms are described in the resolution as “distract[ing] motorists and substantially degrad[ing] the community viewshed…”

10:26 p.m. Hieftje asks that the council not spend a whole lot of time on this. [UM head of community relations Jim Kosteva is in the audience.] Taylor reads aloud some remarks. Teall thanks Taylor for putting it all together. She’d heard comments that the city shouldn’t be bothered because the sign is across from the golf course. She points out that it does face the drivers.

Warpehoski describes the negotiation theory of wish-want-walk. He thinks the absolute minimum the UM should adhere to is FHA (Federal Highway Administration) rules – no animation. He wonders if someone can ask if the brightness of the sign can be adjusted. Kosteva says that the sign complies with the brightness standards. Except for videos shown on game day, he says, the animation does comply with federal standards. Warpehoski says he doesn’t think it’s acceptable to say “We follow the law most of the time.”

10:32 p.m. Higgins says in the interest of sustainability, it doesn’t make sense to have the sign lit at midnight. Kunselman wonders if anyone asked a UM regent about the issue when the marquee was in the planning stages. Kunselman says that he doesn’t want to have the university and the city “lobbing” resolutions back and forth. He doesn’t want to get a resolution from the regents saying, Why don’t you pave the road in front of the stadium?

10:33 p.m. Teall blames the university for not reaching out to the city. Kunselman asks Kosteva why the city wasn’t informed. Kosteva responds by saying his intent was to be present, to be a listener and to take the council’s concerns back to the university.

10:36 p.m. Lumm thanks Kosteva for being there. She’s reading aloud a statement.

10:38 p.m. Anglin says it’s the same drivers who go past it, so he questions what effect it has.

10:41 p.m. Taylor counters Kunselman’s contention that the resolution is heavy-handed, saying that it was open and temperate communication. Petersen wonders if the UM would consider showing public service announcements from the city on the marquee.

10:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the resolution requesting the University of Michigan decommission its $2.8 million billboard.

10:41 p.m. DC-2 Accepting PAC downtown parks subcommittee report on downtown parks. This resolution would accept the report of a subcommittee of the city’s park advisory commission, which studied the question of the need and best location for additional downtown parks. The subcommittee delivered its recommendations at the Oct. 15, 2013 meeting of PAC and PAC voted to recommend them to the city council for adoption. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

10:42 p.m. Taylor is introducing the resolution.

10:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted over dissent from Mike Anglin (Ward 5) to accept the report on downtown parks.

10:43 p.m. DC-3 Ethics resolution The resolution does not include “ethics” in the title, but addresses the kind of issues that could be described under the general rubric of “ethics.” The resolution directs an educational effort on Public Act 317 of 1968, which is the state’s conflict-of-interest statute. A final “resolved” clause direct the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor. The final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard that’s recommended by the council rules committee and it’s strictly followed – would end any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government.

10:43 p.m. Petersen, who is the sponsor of the resolution, asks for postponement.

10:44 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone direction for education on professional standards and tasking the rules committee with drafting standards of conduct.

10:44 p.m. DC-4 Pedestrian safety task force. The resolution establishing the task force acknowledges that many residents are concerned that current city policies create an unsafe environment for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. The pedestrian safety and access task force would consist of nine residents. Applications from interested citizens should be turned in to the mayor’s office by Nov. 22, 2013. [.pdf of standard city board and commission task force application]

The intent is to appoint the task force at the Dec. 2, 2013 city council meeting. The task force would deliver a report by early September 2014. [For more background, see Non-Motorized Issues: Pedestrian Safety above.]

10:53 p.m. Briere is introducing the resolution. She responds to Griswold’s suggestion during public commentary that the AAPS transportation safety committee be adapted to this purpose. But Briere notes that the TSC is not a city committee. Briere gives the rationale for the creation of the committee.

Warpehoski explains that there’s been a lot of interest in participation but the size of the task force was intended to provide focus and to allow the group to operate efficiently. Powers says that the task force won’t staff itself and would depend on any budget the council might approve. A budget is not a part of tonight’s resolution. Briere says she’s received positive communication from the University of Michigan about participation, and thinks that some of the cost could be offset by the UM.

10:57 p.m. Kunselman wonders if the timeline isn’t too aggressive. He questions if it’s realistic. Kunselman ticks through some of the items in the cost analysis, and wonders if it really would be $100,000. Kunselman asks where the funding would come from.

Public services area administrator Craig Hupy confirms it would be on the order of $100,000. [.pdf of Nov. 7 memo on pedestrian safety] It would have to come from the general fund. Kunselman questions what the goal of the task force would actually be. Warpehoski says if people want to put it off and take more time, he’s willing to postpone. Kunselman comes back to the point of an aggressive timeline. Staff resources are limited, he says, and there are other issues that might need to be focused on.

11:06 p.m. Kunselman isn’t sure the resolution is really ready. He doesn’t think the work is going to be done by September 2014. It took 8 months just to get a DDA ordinance passed, he notes. Briere argues for the establishment of a task force. Hieftje wonders if Warpehoski and Briere would be amenable to postponement. Briere says she will support that, but wants her colleagues to focus on recruitment of volunteers for the task force. Petersen will support postponement, but wonders if this task force shouldn’t be a standing committee, instead.

11:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone the creation of the pedestrian safety task force.

11:07 p.m. DC-5 Y Lot sales agreement. The resolution would direct city administrator Steve Powers to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the purchase of the city-owned property north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues in downtown Ann Arbor. Dahlmann has offered $5.25 million for the property, known as the Y lot. It had been listed at $4.2 million. The city has a $3.5 million balloon payment on a loan it took out to purchase the property, which it has now owned for 10 years. [.pdf of Dahlmann offer 10.17.13]

If negotiations with Dahlmann are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings). The bids from Dahlmann and CA Ventures were judged to be the two best out of the five bids on the property the city received by the Oct. 18 deadline. [.pdf of summary page by Jim Chaconas] The resolution directs the city administrator to present to the council a sales agreement – with Dahlmann or CA Ventures – for consideration at the council’s Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. [For more background, see Downtown: Y Lot Sale above.]

11:08 p.m. From the audience, Donald Salberg asks if he could comment. No, says Hieftje.

11:11 p.m. Taylor says he has been concerned all along about the use of the property. He says that the city and the community should understand more clearly what the property would be used for. He says that he’s forwarded an amendment to his colleagues. The resolution would direct how the sales agreement would be structured – with an obligation that a structure be built, and that the building be energy efficient and that the AAATA be involved in the conversation.

11:16 p.m. Taylor is now reading aloud the amendment. There’s a minimum 400% FAR including mixed use on the bottom floor, office space on the mid-floors and residential on the top floors. The uses are essentially those that are described in Dahlmann’s letter. The deadline for building something is January 2018. There’s a prohibition against sale to another third party except that the city has a right of first refusal.

11:17 p.m. Taylor continues with reading aloud the amendments on requirement for energy efficiency and the required conversation with the AAATA.

11:19 p.m. Petersen checks the arithmetic on 400% FAR. She confirms that Taylor is rounding 350% FAR to 400%. Briere contends that D1 requires 400% at a minimum anyway.

11:21 p.m. Teall says she’s concerned about the future use. She thinks that a hotel would be suitable for that parcel. She feels that visitors to the downtown are an economic generator. She appreciates the amendments.

11:25 p.m. Hieftje invites broker Jim Chaconas to the podium. He compliments Chaconas on his good work. Hieftje wants to pay off the debt. He doesn’t want to roll the dice and refinance. He asks Chaconas if the additional requests might cause Dahlmann or CA Ventures to balk. Chaconas says some of the requests make sense. But he doesn’t want to put too many restrictions on it. Dahlmann is offering a lot of money for the property, he says. Hieftje ventures that there’s an opportunity for negotiation.

11:26 p.m. Lumm says that the resolution is not written like a negotiation. She wants to “pound through” the amendments with Chaconas.

11:28 p.m. On the 400% FAR minimum, Chaconas contends that it’s a part of D1 zoning.

11:31 p.m. Kailasapathy asks Chaconas about the energy efficiency clauses. Briere stresses that Dahlmann would need to seek premiums to build more densely than 400%. Chaconas says that the amendments are items that have mostly been discussed with councilmembers.

11:33 p.m. Warpehoski says that he’s breaking council rules to disseminate Taylor’s amendments to the press. Kunselman thanks Chaconas. Kunselman says use can’t be controlled. What the council wants is a really nice building. He doesn’t think the amendments overload the property with use requirements.

11:36 p.m. Petersen points out that there are other city-owned properties that could be developed – responding to the possibility that the council doesn’t get the use it wants for this parcel.

11:37 p.m. The vote on the amendments is unanimous. [.pdf of Taylor's amendments.]

11:37 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the resolution, as amended, directing the city administrator to negotiate a sales agreement with Dennis Dahlmann for the sale of the former Y lot in downtown Ann Arbor.

11:37 p.m. DC-6 “Eat the Street” temporary food sales. The council is being asked to grant approval, under Chapter 55 (Zoning), Section 5:10.15(h) of the city code, for temporary sales of food at the vacant property at 1215 South University. The request is being made of the council by the South University Area Association (SUAA), which is planning a special event from Nov. 8, 2013 through Jan. 8, 2014. SUAA wants its “Eat the Street” event to include outdoor food cart sales at the location.

11:38 p.m. Lumm is thanking the South University Area Association and everyone’s hard work.

11:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the temporary sales of food for “Eat the Street.”

11:38 p.m. DC-7 Amicus brief on abortion clinic protest buffer zones. This resolution was added to the council’s agenda at around 4 p.m. today. It would list Ann Arbor as a “supporting municipality” in an amicus brief to be filed with the United States Supreme Court in a case to be heard by the court in McCullen v. Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The plaintiff in that case is challenging a law creating a 35-foot buffer zone around Massachusetts abortion clinics, where people cannot demonstrate.

The city of Ann Arbor would be weighing in to support the idea that laws can be enacted establishing buffers around abortion clinics where people cannot demonstrate. Tangentially related to buffer zones for protest, in 1990 Ann Arbor voters agreed to amend the city charter to establish the city as a “zone of reproductive freedom.” From Chapter 20 of the Ann Arbor city charter: “No person within the City of Ann Arbor shall violate any law, rule, or regulation of this state which restricts or prohibits the right of any woman to an abortion, or which restricts or prohibits the right of a person to perform an abortion, as such right existed on January 20, 1981.” The resolution is co-sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

11:39 p.m. Taylor invites city attorney Stephen Postema to explain the background.

11:43 p.m. Postema argues for his position based on the need for local authorities to exercise appropriate authority to balance time, place and manner considerations with First Amendment rights. He assures Taylor that it would not be a burden of city attorney resources, saying he merely needs to inform the filers of the amicus brief of the council’s vote.

11:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve placing the city of Ann Arbor as a supporting municipality signing on to the amicus brief.

11:43 p.m. DB-1 Non-motorized transportation plan. The council is being asked to adopt an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, which is part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission adopted the plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update] [For more background, see Non-Motorized Issues: Non-Motorized Plan Update above.]

11:44 p.m. Briere asks Hupy to the podium. He defers to transportation program manager Eli Cooper and city planning manager Wendy Rampson.

11:51 p.m. Lumm says that with so many items on the agenda, she hasn’t had time to read through the plan. She wonders if there’s support for postponement. Hieftje allows that Lumm is right about it being an important document. There’s been a tremendous amount of work on the plan, Hieftje says. It’s already been through an extensive process. Surrounding municipalities have reviewed it, and it has been adopted by the planning commission. Hieftje is not inclined to postpone.

Kunselman asks if the plan has implications for grant eligibility. Yes, says Cooper. He gives an example of a non-motorized bridge across US-23 that was funded because it was indicated in the city’s non-motorized plan. Anglin says the council has heard a request from Lumm for more time. Lumm now moves for postponement.

11:54 p.m. Hieftje indicates that he’s already expressed his opinion. Briere allows it’s possible to be overloaded during campaign season. But she’s followed the plan in its development and now she’s ready to vote on it. There were no surprises in the update, she says. She feels that there are times when the council postpones beyond what’s reasonable. The item was on the agenda on Thursday. Kunselman says that postponing won’t hurt anything. It won’t cause any problems, he says. Teall says she’s ready to vote.

11:55 p.m. Lumm alludes to the solid waste plan, which the council had decided it needed to amend.

11:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the update to the non-motorized plan. Voting for postponement were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Lumm, Kunselman, Higgins and Anglin.

11:57 p.m. DB-2 Site plan: Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church. The council is being asked to approve a site plan for the expansion of the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway St. The city planning commission recommended approval of the project at its Oct. 1, 2013 meeting. The site plan proposal calls for tearing down five existing buildings and constructing a 12,850-square-foot, two-story addition to the rear of the church. The addition would be used for educational activities at the church, which is located on a 4.3-acre site in Ward 1, southwest of Broadway’s intersection with Plymouth Road.

11:58 p.m. A representative of the project is giving a description of the project at Briere’s request.

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church on Broadway.

11:58 p.m. DS-1 through DS-6 MDEQ for SAW. The next six resolutions are grant requests, related to state legislation passed in 2012 that forms the statutory framework of the Stormwater, Asset Management and Wastewater (SAW) program – a grant program. The legislation funds grants and loans for what the staff memo accompanying the resolutions describes as “funding for grants and loans for asset management plan development, stormwater management plan development, sewage collection and treatment design plan development, and state-funded loans to construct projects identified in the asset management plans.”

Although communities that are awarded grants can receive a maximum of $2 million in total grant funds through the SAW program, the city of Ann Arbor is applying for the following six grants, on the idea that it will maximize its chances if the state uses a lottery type system. [For more background, see Capital Projects: State Funding of Water Asset Projects above.]

11:59 p.m. Hieftje is putting the six resolutions before the council all in one go.

11:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to approve all of the MDEQ grant requests through the SAW program.

12:00 a.m. DS-7 Barton Dam repair ($123,684). The council is being asked to approve a contract with Catskill Remedial Contracting Services Inc. to install a “drainage blanket” for the earthen berm adjoining Barton Dam ($123,685). A drainage blanket is a pervious but stable layer of material installed directly at the base of a structure to facilitate drainage. The installation is meant to repair a “boil” that has surfaced in the drainage ditch at the base on the right embankment at the dam. The boil has been identified as a potential cause of failure for the embankment by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – which is responsible for regulating the dam, because the dam generates electric power. [For more background, see Capital Projects: Barton Dam Repair above.]

12:00 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the contract with Catskill to install the drainage blanket.

12:00 a.m. DS-8 I-94 Business Loop and South Maple Road resurfacing project ($301,600). This project resurfaces the section of Huron Street from Main Street westward as Huron becomes Jackson Avenue on to I-94. The project will include a re-striping to reduce the number of lanes from four to three and add bicycle lanes. On the agenda is approval of an agreement with MDOT, which is required because the city must contribute 12.5% of the funding to the resurfacing. That accounts for $198,700. The additional funding is needed to pay for the resurfacing of the portion of South Maple Road, as a part of the project. South Maple is a city-owned street. MDOT has agreed to include the South Maple resurfacing as part of the project, but it will be funded by the city of Ann Arbor $102,900. [For more background, see Capital Projects: I-94 Business Loop ($301,600) above.]

12:00 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to approve the MDOT contract.

12:00 a.m. DS-9 Sidewalk special assessment resolution – Stone School Road. This is the first of a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Stone School Road for construction of sidewalks, curb and gutter as a part of a road reconstruction project. The resolution simply directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed. [For more background, see Capital Projects: Stone School Road Sidewalk above.]

12:02 a.m. Kunselman reports that there was a good public meeting on the topic. An issue that had arisen was the desire for more streetlights. He says it’s significant that there’s an 80% federal grant supporting the assessed costs.

12:02 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct the design and cost estimates for the Stone School Road sidewalk project.

12:02 a.m. DS-10 Sidewalk special assessment resolution – Scio Church. This is the first in a series of resolutions that could lead to special assessment of property owners on Scio Church, west of Seventh Street for construction of a sidewalk there to eliminate a gap. The resolution directs the city administrator to prepare plans and specifications for the sidewalk improvement project, determine an estimate of the cost, and make a recommendation on what portion of the cost should be special assessed. The Scio Church resolution appropriates $35,000 for the design work. [For more background, see Capital Projects: Scio Church Sidewalk above.]

12:03 a.m. Teall says it’s another very exciting project. She thanks neighborhood resident Peter Houk for his work.

12:04 a.m. Higgins has a question for Craig Hupy. Scio Church Road is coming up for reconstruction, she ventures. Hupy says it’s on the radar but was pretty far off.

12:04 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to direct preparation of sidewalk design for Scio Church.

12:05 a.m. DS-11 Tech engineering services ($250,000). The council will be asked to approve two different contracts that resulted from a bid that the city put out in June 2013 – for technical engineering services to support the water treatment services unit with capital, operation, and maintenance project support for the water system, dams, and hydroelectric generating stations. One of the contracts is with Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc. ($250,000). The other contract is with Tetra Tech of Michigan ($250,000). First up is Stantec.

12:05 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Stantec.

12:05 a.m. DS-12 Tech engineering services ($250,000). This is the second of two contracts related to the same RFP put out by the city. This one goes to Tetra Tech of Michigan.

12:05 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Tetra Tech.

12:05 a.m. DS-13 Purchase ozone generator dielectrics ($68,209). The council is being asked to approve a purchase order with Ozonia for ozone generator dielectrics. The city uses ozone in its disinfection process for its drinking water.

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of ozone generator dielectrics.

12:06 a.m. DS-14 Domestic violence grant ($300,000). The resolution accepts a three-year $300,000 supplemental grant for the 15th District Court from the U.S. Department of Justice to enhance countywide efforts to prevent domestic violence, effective Sept. 12, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2016. [For more background on this and the next five resolutions, see Social Capital: 15th District Court above.]

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the domestic violence prevention grant.

12:06 a.m. DS-15 Drug court grant ($144,000). The resolution accepts a Michigan Supreme Court drug court grant for the 15th District Court. The 15th District Court’s sobriety court is “hyper-intensive probation,” which follows sentencing.

12:06 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the drug court grant.

12:06 a.m. DS-16 Dawn Farm contract ($88,000). The resolution authorizes a contract with Dawn Farm for out-patient drug abuse counseling as part of the 15th District Court’s sobriety court ($88,000).

12:07 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the contract with Dawn Farm.

12:07 a.m. DS-17 Veterans court grant ($92,279). The resolution accepts the Michigan Supreme Court veterans treatment court program grant.

12:07 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the veterans court grant.

12:07 a.m. DS-18 SafeHouse Center contract ($114,000). This resolution authorizes a contract with SafeHouse to provide domestic violence preventions services ($114,000), using funds accepted under DS-14. Under terms of the contract, SafeHouse Center will provide confidential support, information and referrals for victims of domestic violence cases in the 15th Judicial District Court, 14A Judicial Court and 14B Judicial District Court; monitor court and probation activity as it relates to victim safety; work collaboratively to enhance victim safety; and offer advice and training to judges, magistrates, probation and compliance officers and community partners.

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the contract with SafeHouse.

12:08 a.m. DS-20 Accept public utilities easement. The property is located at 490 Huron Parkway owned by Johnson Building Group LLC.

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the easement.

12:08 a.m. DS-21 Accept public utilities easement. The property is located at 1500 Pauline Ave., owned by Pauline Apartments Limited Dividend Housing Association Limited Partnership.

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the public utilities easement.

12:09 a.m. DS-22 Vacate a public utilities easement. The property is located at 3100 Washtenaw Ave. (Arbor Hills Crossing).

12:09 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to vacate the easement.

12:12 a.m. Council communications. Warpehoski says that with the Y lot resolution, there was a step towards having more money in the city’s affordable housing trust fund. He’d had conversations with some Washtenaw County commissioners about a county site on Platt Road. One of the possible uses for that county-owned property is affordable housing. He says that the city might want to be a partner with the county on the issue of affordable housing.

12:13 a.m. Briere is talking about affordable housing.

12:14 a.m. Hieftje says that in his experience the only way you get anything done on the issue of affordable housing is when you have partners.

12:14 a.m. Public commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:21 a.m. Seth Best from Camp Take Notice thanks the council for their action on the park permitting ordinance. He shares his experience as a homeless person in Ann Arbor. While the warming shelter will be opening on Nov. 18, there’s not sufficient capacity, he says. Ed Vielmetti is now addressing the council. He’d followed the meeting for a while on CTN tonight, and had come down to address the council. He asks the council to be more clear about the outcome of votes. He notes that it’s difficult to watch the meetings at local establishments like bars and laundromats without closed captioning. He gives a plug for the civic technology meetup group that he’s started.

12:25 a.m. Caleb Poirer thanks Higgins for her service. He thanks Kunselman for his efforts on affordable housing. He thanks Briere for bringing up the possibility of the city matching the DDA’s contribution to affordable housing. He regretted some of the comments of public speakers at the start of the meeting that had characterized the leadership of Ann Arbor negatively. But he was going to join those who spoke in support of their advocacy.

12:28 a.m. Farewell to Higgins. Teall leads off by saying, “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.” She calls Higgins a great friend and a mentor. Teall tells Higgins her institutional memory has been very valuable. Hieftje has left his seat. Higgins is invited to take the seat as mayor pro tem. Taylor is now praising Higgins for her hard work.

12:29 a.m. Taylor says Higgins is good at taking care of slow, important things.

12:29 a.m. The beauty of Higgins’ being permeates the room and makes him joyful, Kunselman says. He praises her for her firmness and her longevity.

12:34 a.m. Lumm says Higgins has so many magnificent qualities. Higgins is going to blaze new trails, Lumm says. She calls Higgins a “class act.” She thanks her for her many years of service. Petersen thanks Higgins for welcoming Petersen to the council. She says she’ll miss her phone conversations with Higgins. Briere says she figures Higgins must get tired of all the praise. She recalls the time that the council used the county board room when city hall was being renovated, and Higgins had suggested that councilmembers sit next to different people.

12:38 a.m. Briere thanks Higgins for her body language. Kailasapathy says that she’d received some stares so she jokes she must not have been behaving. Anglin tells Higgins that Ann Arbor is a better town for her service. Warpehoski says he appreciates Higgins’ experience. On a lighter note, Warpehoski says he now feels less pressure to change his name to something that begins with “M” – alluding to Margie Teall, Mike Anglin, and Marcia Higgins.

12:39 a.m. Hieftje is now delivering his remarks. He thanks Higgins for her service. He reminds everyone that she’s not leaving town and that you can still have a beer with her.

12:41 a.m. Higgins is reviewing all the councilmembers she’s served with. It’s been “an amazing journey,” she says. Each and every person who’d previously sat there had helped her, so it was gratifying to hear people say that she’d helped them. She calls the current administrator the best of those she’d served with. “Thank you all,” she concludes. She gets a round of applause.

12:44 a.m. Teall brings up a bag with a city of Ann Arbor jacket and presents it to Higgins. City administrator Steve Powers has lost his balance and has fallen out of his chair. [See clarifying comment below that "... Powers actually rolled the wheel of his chair off the elevated platform where the mayor and administrator sit."]

12:44 a.m. Powers is unscathed.

12:44 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

Nov. 7, 2013 Ann Arbor City Council: Preview

Dave Askins — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 05:51:58 +0000

The Nov. 7, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor city council is the last one with the current composition of the 11-member council. The agenda is relatively heavy, featuring at least 34 voting items. This preview includes a more detailed explanation of several of those items, but first provides a thematic overview.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor online agenda management system. Image links to the Nov. 7 meeting agenda.

The city’s downtown factors prominently on the agenda in at least three ways. The city council will be asked to consider passing a resolution to direct the city administrator to negotiate a sales agreement for the city-owned property on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues, known as the old Y lot. The council will also be considering a revision to the city ordinance regulating the tax increment finance (TIF) capture of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That’s been under consideration by the council since February, but now a committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has put forward a competing recommendation, which will also be on the Nov. 7 agenda.

Also related to downtown, the council will be formally accepting a report completed by the city’s park advisory commission with recommendations on downtown parks.

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

Downtown

The agenda includes several items related to the downtown area.

Downtown: DDA Ordinance

The first version, which will be in front of the council for final approval, would clarify the existing language of the ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF capture in a way that would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction in the ordinance. The restriction on TIF revenue that’s already expressed in the ordinance is defined by reference to the amount of growth in taxable value in the DDA district that’s anticipated in the DDA’s TIF plan – a foundational document of the DDA. When those restrictions are applied to the DDA’s TIF revenue, then the amount of TIF received by the DDA would be roughly $4 million in FY 2015. By way of comparison, in the current fiscal year (FY 2014), under its preferred interpretation, the DDA looks to capture approximately $4.5 million of the taxes levied by other jurisdictions.

Downtown: Y Lot Sale

If those negotiations are not successful, then the resolution directs the city administrator to negotiate with CA Ventures (Clark Street Holdings).

The memo accompanying the Nov. 7 resolution states:

The offers from Dennis Dahlmann and CA Ventures are the strongest (cash, no contingencies, sales agreement, close in 2013) of the five proposals. Differences between the two offers are slight, but may be significant to city council. Dahlmann is proposing a purchase price of $5,250,000. CA Ventures is proposing $5,150,000. Dahlmann is proposing to build to less than the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning. CA Ventures’ offer assumes the ability to build to the maximum density allowed by D1 zoning.

While the council’s Nov. 7 meeting follows the Nov. 5 city council elections, the Nov. 18 meeting is the first meeting of the newly constituted council. The Nov. 7 resolution is sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The city received five bids on the property by the Oct. 18 deadline. [.pdf of summary page by Jim Chaconas]

Downtown: Parks

Ingrid Ault chaired the committee, which also included Julie Grand, Alan Jackson and Karen Levin. The committee’s work is also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project.

The subcommittee’s work was guided by this mission statement:

To determine whether and what additional parks are wanted and/or needed in downtown Ann Arbor, focusing on city-owned parcels in the DDA district while maintaining awareness of additional nearby properties, for example: Liberty Plaza, 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington. The “deliverable” will be a set of recommendations for the City Council.

Downtown – and Citywide: Park Fee Waiver

Non-Motorized Issues

Several items on the council’s Nov. 7 agenda relate to non-motorized issues.

Non-Motorized Issues: Non-Motorized Transportation Plan Update

Map identifying geographic areas for improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, as noted in the 2013 non-motorized transportation plan update.

Non-Motorized Issues: Pedestrian Safety

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: Ann Arbor

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG region.

Pedestrian Traffic Crashes by Year: SEMCOG Region by County

Pedestrian Crashes by Year: Washtenaw County Outside Ann Arbor

Capital Projects

The Nov. 7 city council agenda includes a number of resolutions involving capital projects and expenses, some of which relate to non-motorized issues.

Capital Projects: I-94 Business Loop ($301,600)

Capital Projects: Stone School Road Sidewalk

Capital Projects: Scio Church Sidewalk

Capital Projects: Barton Dam Repair

The council had been alerted to the need for this project earlier this year, at a Feb. 11, 2013 work session on the FY 2014 budget. From The Chronicle’s report of that session:

In addition to the concrete and steel part of the dam, a roughly 3/8-mile long earthen embankment is part of the structure that forms Barton Pond, [public services area administrator Craig] Hupy explained. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) has required the city to do some investigative work, and the city thinks there’ll be some follow-up work required when that investigative work is completed. [FERC is involved as a regulator because the Barton Dam generates electricity.]

Responding to a question from [Ward 3 councilmember Christopher] Taylor about the anticipated cost of the additional work, Hupy indicated that it would be “six figures.” The city is putting about $400,000 total in various parts of the budget for it. But until the study work is completed later this spring, the amount can’t be more precise, Hupy indicated. Because Barton is a federally controlled dam, whatever the work the city does will be what the regulator demands that the city does or doesn’t do. “Stay tuned,” Hupy told Taylor.

Capital Projects: Technical Engineering Services

Capital Projects: Ozone

Capital Projects: State Funding of Water Asset Projects

Asset Management Plan for the Sanitary System ($1.1 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($25,000) for a total of $125,000.
Asset Management Plan for the Stormwater System ($1.1 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($25,000) for a total of $125,000.
Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Evaluation Project (retroactive) ($1.2 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($50,000) for a total of $150,000.
Stormwater Model Calibration Project (retroactive) ($750,000): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($75,000) or 25% of second million ($187,500) for a maximum of $187,500.
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Asset Management Program ($350,00): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($35,000) or 25% of second million ($87,500) for a maximum of $87,500.
Asset Management Plan for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Sanitary Sewer System ($1.5 million): Local match requirement is 10% of first million ($100,000) plus 25% of second million ($125,000) for a total of $225,000.

Social Infrastructure

In addition to physical infrastructure items, the council’s Nov. 7 agenda also includes several pieces of business that could be described as related to social infrastructure.

Social Infrastructure: 15th District Court

Accept three-year $300,000 supplemental grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to enhance countywide efforts to prevent domestic violence, effective Sept. 12, 2013 through Sept. 30, 2016. Of the grant total, $181,000 will reimburse the city for the salaries for a full-time domestic violence probation officer, a half-time system coordinator, and a part-time data entry clerk. Another $5,000 will reimburse the city for training expenses required by the U.S. Dept. of Justice. The remaining $114,000 will reimburse the city for a contract with SafeHouse Center to provide domestic violence prevention services.
Authorize contract with SafeHouse to provide domestic violence prevention services ($114,000). Under terms of the contract, SafeHouse Center will provide confidential support, information and referrals for victims of domestic violence cases in the 15th District Court, 14A District Court and 14B District Court; monitor court and probation activity as it relates to victim safety; work collaboratively to enhance victim safety; and offer advice and training to judges, magistrates, probation and compliance officers and community partners.
Accept Michigan Supreme Court drug court grant ($144,000). The 15th District Court’s sobriety court is “hyper-intensive probation,” which follows sentencing. The court assigns a full-time probation officer to the sobriety court for a program that lasts 18-24 months and includes monitoring of participants’ attendance at treatment programs, their progress in treatment, how they’re spending their time at work and doing community service. Reporting requirements are extensive. Participants must take frequent portable breath tests (PBTs) and urine tests. The majority of sobriety court participants are second-offender DWI cases, but offenses need not be driving-related. Also eligible to participate in sobriety court are, for example, retail fraud (shoplifting) offenders and misdemeanor drug possession offenders. Some of that grant money will fund a contract with Dawn Farm.
Authorize contract with Dawn Farm ($88,000). The contract is for out-patient drug abuse counseling as part of the 15th District Court’s sobriety court.
Accept Michigan Supreme Court veterans treatment court program grant ($92,279).

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners gave initial approval to the continued use of the coordinated funding approach at its Oct. 16, 2013 meeting.

Ethics

The council’s agenda includes a couple of items that relate to ethics.

Ethics: Professional Standards of Conduct

A final “resolved” clauses direct the council’s rules committee to draft standards of conduct for local officials based on Public Act 196 of 1973, which applies to state employees of the executive branch and appointees of the governor. The final resolved clause – if it’s approved, and if the council adopts a standard that’s recommended by the council rules committee and it’s strictly followed – would end any unauthorized leaks of information from the city government.

Ethics: Consent Agenda – Planning Commission Bylaws

The Nov. 7 consent agenda includes approval of new bylaws for two entities – the city’s design review board and the city planning commission.

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.

Situation #2 Before you were elected to the city council you served on your city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), so you know the ZBA procedures very well. A few months after your election to council, your neighbor and campaign manager files a petition with the ZBA seeking a variance. Since you know how the ZBA works, he asks you to accompany him to the ZBA and to speak on his behalf. Should you do it?

The analysis offered by the handbook is the following:

No. The Michigan Court of Appeals has labeled this situation as “patently improper” and an abuse of public trust for the reason that the person making the argument to the ZBA is also one of the people charged with appointing the ZBA. This creates duress on the ZBA, raising doubt about the impartiality of the ZBA’s decision. Any decision made by the ZBA under these circumstances is void. See Barkey v. Nick, 11 Mich App 361 (1968).

Ethics: Consent Agenda – Rental Housing Inspection

Miscellaneous

A number of other items appear on the agenda. Here are a few highlights.

Misc: Consent Agenda

Misc: Church Site Plan

Aerial view of site for the Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church at 1717 Broadway.

The project is estimated to cost about $3 million. No approval is required from the city council for the special exception use, but the council must consider the site plan for approval.

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!

Friction Emerges Between Council, Court

Dave Askins — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:03:07 +0000

Ann Arbor city council meeting (June 17, 2013): Budget items for the 15th District Court drew more attention than any other single topic, taking up more than an hour of the council’s deliberations. The council also devoted more than a half hour to an item related to a Department of Energy grant that could lead to the installation of a wind generator on the property of Pioneer High School.

From left: 15th District Court judge Christopher Easthope – a former Ann Arbor city councilmember – and 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft at the council’s June 17 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

The main court-related item was part of an annual adjustment to the current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2013), which ends on June 30. The adjustment is made on a routine basis in order to bring the budget in line with actual expenditures. The general fund budget adjustment that was eventually approved by the council increased it by $567,000.

And of that amount, a significant part was attributable to the 15th District Court – including $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000. None of the salary increases went to judges, whose compensation is set through state statute.

The council was essentially being asked to approve the accounting adjustment for money that had already been spent this year.

The city’s budget for the next fiscal year – approved by the council last month, on May 20, 2013 – already incorporated the court workers’ salary increases going forward, and councilmembers had been apprised of the raises before their budget deliberations in May. The council’s deliberations on May 20 had not focused on those raises, but rather on the possibility of reducing the court’s budget in order to fund additional police officers for the city.

At the June 17 meeting, all three judges of the court plus the court administrator were on hand – as some councilmembers drew out a disagreement regarding how the wage increases should have been approached. At least some councilmembers felt the court should have asked the council before awarding wage increases to its workers.

Tom Crawford, the city’s chief financial officer, indicated at the meeting that if the council had not approved the budget adjustment for the court, it would likely have generated a note in next year’s audit.

Other court-related items on the council’s agenda included a new $240,000 annual flat-fee contract with Nassif and Reiser – the firm that provides indigent representation for the court. The council also approved a $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, the building next to city hall that houses the 15th District Court.

The council approved two items related to the court’s special Sobriety Court, one of which was a $65,000 grant program contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm to provide in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants. It was approved over the dissent of Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who objected to the accompanying provision that waived a requirement that Dawn Farm adhere to the city’s living wage ordinance.

The wind generator item was originally on the consent agenda, but was pulled out for separate consideration. The council had previously voted unanimously at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting to accept a roughly $950,000 U.S. Department of Energy grant for installation of the wind generator. The council was asked on June 17 to spend about $50,000 of the grant proceeds on an initial environmental assessment, required before the project can move forward. Three councilmembers balked at the request, but the resolution was ultimately approved.

In business related to revisions of local laws, the council gave final approval to an ordinance change that limits use of fireworks to between the hours of 8 a.m. and midnight. And the council gave final approval to the city’s outdoor sign ordinance that limits the incorporation of digital technology into outdoor signs – in a way that prohibits such use for billboards. However, the council again delayed taking an initial vote on an ordinance that would regulate how local law enforcement officials can use public surveillance cameras. The council did give initial approval to adopt the new fire code into the city’s ordinances.

In land use and development business, the council approved a revised development agreement for The Varsity. The agreement now incorporates a total of seven monthly parking permits that will be purchased at a premium cost under the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The council also gave approval to site plans for two projects: the State Street Center and 544 Detroit St. The 544 Detroit St. project included a brownfield plan, which was also approved. Another brownfield plan was on the council’s agenda – related to the Packard Square development on the site of the former Georgetown Mall. That plan had previously been approved, but an additional council vote was needed to change the set of activities that are eligible for reimbursement.

In connection with government-controlled land, the council approved $382,000 in additional operating support for the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. The council also passed a resolution committing up to $750,000 in general fund money to convert city-owned property at 721 N. Main to a greenway park. However, if the grants that the city expects to be awarded are actually received, none of that $750,000 would need to be spent on the project.

The council again heard public commentary about a homelessness outreach ministry in one of the city’s established parks – Liberty Plaza in downtown Ann Arbor, at Division and Liberty streets.

The council also approved revisions to collective bargaining agreements with the six unions in the police department, which gave members a 2% wage increase.

In a symbolic effort, the council voted to oppose expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County – a proposal that’s part of SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan with an estimated cost of $4 billion. SEMCOG subsequently adopted the plan.

The council put off voting on proposed changes to its internal rules, which could result in adding public commentary time at the council’s work sessions, but reducing the time allowed per turn from three minutes to two minutes. The council is expected to vote on the full set of rule changes at its July 1 meeting.

The proposed changes to the rules would move nominations and confirmation of appointments to a slot near the start of the meeting, instead of its current position near the end. For the June 17 meeting, the council’s confirmations came after midnight – and included reappointment of Bonnie Bona to the planning commission, and LuAnne Bullington to the taxicab board.

15th District Court

A number of items on the June 17 agenda related to the 15th District Court – either directly or indirectly.

15th District Court: City FY 2013 Budget Adjustment

The council was asked to make changes to the FY 2013 budget – which ends on June 30 – totaling $567,000 for the general fund. Much of that stemmed from additional expenses incurred by the 15th District Court. [.pdf of proposed amendments]

The 15th District Court’s portion of that adjustment stemmed from $112,000 in salary increases based on an interest in retaining employees, $203,000 due to a “catch up” payment to the law firm that provides indigent representation, and a back-bill for security from Washtenaw County for two fiscal years for $110,000.

General information about the court’s wage increases – authorized by chief judge Libby Hines in October 2012 and the focus of council inquiry at the council’s June 17 meeting – was known to the council before its May 20, 2013 meeting, when councilmembers voted to approve next year’s FY 2014 budget. [.pdf of May 13, 2013 memo on 15th District Court expenses] That FY 2014 budget incorporated the wage increases going forward.

As it related to the court, the council’s May 20, 2013 deliberations on the FY 2014 budget were in the context of reducing the court’s budget in order to fund three police officer positions – a proposal put forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2). 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft was present at that meeting and took questions about the salary increases at that time. However, Lumm’s FY 2014 budget amendment failed on a 5-6 vote.

15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) before the June 17 meeting started.

Subsequently, Zeisloft provided a memo to the council in advance of its June 17 meeting, giving a more detailed explanation of the salary increases. The judges, magistrate and Zeisloft were excluded from the increases. The majority of other staff received a 0-3% increase. Administrative staff received an average 4.85% increase based on the conclusion that they were under-compensated compared to their peers in other courts.

The case management staff received an average of 4.22% raises based on increased supervisory responsibilities. Judicial staff averaged a 4.76% increase based on increased specialty court responsibilities. The highest increases, averaging 18.15%, were given to probation officers who were found to be significantly under-compensated compared to their peers, and who had increased multi-jurisdictional, specialty court responsibilities. [.pdf of responses from 15th District Court to councilmember inquiries]

The block of items related to the 15th District Court were moved up on the agenda at the start of the meeting, in deference to the fact that three judges and the court administrator were in attendance.

15th District Court: City FY 2013 Budget Adjustment – Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the discussion by proposing an amendment that eliminated the $112,000 budget adjustment for the 15th District Court salary increases – which had been approved by chief Judge Libby Hines in late 2012. Briere contended that the regular processes weren’t followed for the wage increases, venturing that the chief judge had overstepped her bounds. Briere was not satisfied with the mechanism by which the wage increases were approved, saying they were “not properly done.”

The overall tone of the ensuing interaction between the three judges and the council was consistent with the language Zeisloft had provided in his memo. Responding to a question about the ability of the city council to control the court’s spending decisions, the memo states:

Although City Council has authority to establish a total annual budget for the Court, and with all respect due to Council, the Court declines to accept that City Council has authority to direct, control, approve or disapprove specific expenditures, including but not limited to compensation of judicial employees. However, legalities aside, the Court has always sought a respectful and cordial relationship with Council and City Administration, and the Court’s budget history demonstrates that the Court has been a prudent and careful custodian of public funds, at times even to the disadvantage of the Court’s own interests.

At the meeting, Zeisloft generally deferred questions to the judges of the court, who were all in attendance: Judges Chris Easthope, Libby Hines and Joe Burke are all standing at the podium. However, Zeisloft also responded to particular items.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) followed up on the salary increases – which were implemented in October 2012 – asking for a breakdown of the $112,000. Relying on figures from the city’s finance department, Zeisloft gave the breakdown as follows: compensation ($115,000), overtime ($10,000), temporary pay ($19,000) and vacancies (-$32,000) for a total of $112,000. The annual cost going forward was calculated at $193,000. Zeisloft had prefaced his remarks by saying that the information hadn’t been distributed to councilmembers because he didn’t have the information earlier. Lumm asked for the information to be provided in writing.

Hines told the council she respects the separation of powers, but she asserted the authority of the chief judge to increase salaries. The court has never asked the city for permission to do that in her 22 years on the bench. She pointed out the money that the court has managed to return to the city in past years when it has come in under budget. Zeisloft’s memo put the figures as follows: for FY 2002 through FY 2012, the council had budgeted a total of $41,865,240 from the general fund for court operations. Over that period, the court spent only $40,435,613, for a net return to the city budget of $1,429,627.

Hines put the salary increases in the context of retaining employees. She described past pay cuts and freezes. She also described a gross disparity in pay between the probation officers in the 15th District Court compared to other courts. And she added that while the court had worked with the city’s HR department, the court had not asked permission to implement the raises. The court is not overpaying its employees by any means, she said, concluding that she felt the pay raises were only reasonable.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) disagreed with the narrative of the “honorable judges,” citing the decrease in cases handled by the court. The workload has come down, Kailasapathy contended. She was relying on the data that the court had provided to the council earlier in the year:

By way of background, Ann Arbor’s caseload downward trends are in line with the overall trend for other comparable courts [.pdf of caseload trends for 15th District Court]:

               Misdem       Civil Inf    Gen Civil
D15 Ann Arbor  3,109 ‐31%   13,894 ‐49%  1,742 ‐16%

Easthope said the 15th District Court was trying to be in the lead in reducing its costs. He allowed that the caseload had gone down, but the number of employees had also gone down, he contended.

The city’s comprehensive financial reports show 41 FTEs (full-time equivalents) for the court in 2007 compared to 36 in 2012:

15th District Court historical FTE count. (Data from city records, chart by The Chronicle)

Hines said that the kind of cases that had gone down – civil infractions – were not the kind that reduce judge and staff time. Hines returned to her earlier point about the basis for the salary increases – the challenge of retaining employees.

Briere said she’s not unsympathetic to the situation. But she felt the salary increases should have been considered as part of the standard budgeting process. The money should have been built into the FY 2013 budget, Briere contended. She agreed with the need to compensate the court staff – but a standard increase in salary should have been included in previous year’s budget.

Burke offered his perspective of the newest judge of the court, telling the council that when he became a judge, Hines and Easthope had sat him down and talked to him about the employees and the need for retention. He said that in making the salary increases, they had followed the normal procedures that anyone would in determining the amounts of the increases – gathering comparative data and the like. The one thing that they had not done was ask the city council. Responding to Briere’s point about budgeting, Burke said the court had calculated that the salary increases would come in within the court’s FY 2013 budget – but they had been wrong. It was a point to which Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) returned later in the deliberations, telling Burke that he appreciated the fact the court had acknowledged that its math was off.

Kailasapathy then cited a Michigan Supreme Court administrative order. It appears to say that if the court uses a line item budget, there are restrictions on what the court can do.

From Administrative Order No. 1998-5, which applies to district courts, among others.

II. COURT BUDGETING If the local funding unit requests that a proposed court budget be submitted in line-item detail, the chief judge must comply with the request. If a court budget has been appropriated in line-item detail, without prior approval of the funding unit, a court may not transfer between line-item accounts to: (a) create new personnel positions or to supplement existing wage scales or benefits, except to implement across the board increases that were granted to employees of the funding unit after the adoption of the court’s budget at the same rate, or (b) reclassify an employee to a higher level of an existing category. A chief judge may not enter into a multiple-year commitment concerning any personnel economic issue unless: (1) the funding unit agrees, or (2) the agreement does not exceed the percentage increase or the duration of a multiple-year contract that the funding unit has negotiated for its employees. Courts must notify the funding unit or a local court management council of transfers between lines within 10 business days of the transfer. The requirements shall not be construed to restrict implementation of collective bargaining agreements.

Zeisloft responded to Kailasapathy by saying that the court submits a budget in a line item form only as a courtesy. It’s a function of the city’s financial software. Tom Crawford, the city’s CFO, followed up with the additional explanation that the city requires all the component units to submit line item budgets, but the city council authorizes the budgets by fund. Kailasapathy returned to her question about the administrative order.

Easthope, a former city councilmember, stated that the council has the authority to set a lump sum budget for the court. But the council doesn’t have the ability to change line items, he said. Easthope reiterated the description of the court as a separate branch of government. There was some unclarity expressed about where the comparative salary data had come from and who had gathered it. About the comparative salary data and its source, Easthope stated that the Supreme Court administrative office had provided all the comparative data. Hines had not simply said, “You get a raise and you get a raise …”

Considerable back-and-forth ensued between Kailasapathy and Zeisloft on the way the HR department of the city had been involved in the compensation adjustment amount. No formal report had been requested from HR, Zeisloft confirmed.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked for clarification of the administrative order on line item budgeting. and what happens if the council doesn’t approve the adjustment. That is, what happens if Briere’s amendment passes? Crawford indicated that the city would probably receive a formal note from the city’s auditor next year. The money has already been spent, Warpehoski ventured. Crawford indicated agreement that it would be difficult to stop the expenditures before the fiscal year ends on June 30.

Lumm then confirmed with Crawford that court employee checks are processed through the city. In describing the fact that the court had exceeded its budget this year (FY 2013), Lumm said that the court’s budget seems to be “optional.” But picking up on Warpehoski’s point – that the council essentially needs to approve the budget adjustment or accept a negative note on the audit of its financial statements next year – Lumm ventured that there doesn’t seem to be an option not to make the adjustment. Easthope contended that the court was actually under the budget by $99,000. Lumm wanted to follow up later on that, indicating that Easthope’s remarks weren’t consistent with the information the council had received.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman asked what Burke thought the consequence should be: Should the council just cover the amount of the salary increases? In the short term, Burke replied, yes. He said the court doesn’t spend money like drunken sailors. Burke indicated that there is a clear understanding on the court’s part that the council would not want to hear next year at this time that the court had the same issue.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventured that the council had engaged in a full conversation, but it’s a simple question. The court had diligently determined that their line workers’ wages were below market, Taylor concluded. And the council has already approved the increases going forward, he noted, when it approved the FY 2014 budget. So Taylor indicated he’d vote against Briere’s amendment. Mayor John Hieftje confirmed with Crawford that the budget resolution basically recognizes reality.

Briere indicated that her intent was not to force the court into a deficit. The court’s staff should not be penalized for the actions of their supervisors. So she’d withdraw her amendment. But she said the court should have done a better job of communicating, and she stated she would remember the situation without fondness. Kailasapathy, who seconded the amendment, hesitated for several seconds before agreeing with Briere to withdraw it.

With that amendment withdrawn, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) moved on to the indigent representation and the security services issue. Zeisloft characterized those as an unusual circumstance, that should not arise again in the future. Easthope noted that the special docket courts are operated at no cost to the city.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) returned to the issue of the salary increases, picking up on the historical pattern that Hines had cited of the court coming in under budget and returning money to the city. Why were salary increases not undertaken during the period when the court was returning money to the city? If the court had the ability to give raises without asking permission from the city, why didn’t the court give the raises at that time – when the court had the money?

As far as the idea that the court was trying to mirror the city organization’s approach of not giving raises during the period of the economic downturn, Higgins pointed out that the city had not given its employees the kind of raises the court had implemented over the last year. So she didn’t see the mirroring play out.

Burke ventured that unfortunately the court did not get the opportunity to come before the council to say that it was returning money to the city. It was only when more money was needed that court officials came to the council. Higgins complained that she felt blindsided, because the court did not come to the council and communicate that to the council about a major increase.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Briere ventured that it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Burke responded by saying he felt Briere’s remark was “[holding his fingers apart to indicate an increment] this much of a cheap shot.” Briere told Burke it was OK that he felt that way, because she felt the other way – that in years past when the court knew it had outstanding debts to the county for security services, for example, but had returned money to the city, to her that was a problem. Briere also alluded to the issue with the court’s math, which Kunselman had also noted. Briere indicated that she had great respect for the court and the work that it did. But it was a “big chunk” to come to the council with at the last meeting in June.

Burke said that if his mathematical competence was being questioned, then he could live with that. But if Briere was saying that the court didn’t come to the council even though it knew that it should have, then “I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong about that. We are separate branches of government and what you’re talking about is an integrity issue.”

City administrator Steve Powers shared his perspective as a former county administrator working three different courts. Prior to his taking the city administrator position in September 2011, he felt there hadn’t been enough consultation and communication between the city and the 15th District Court. So he’d met with the chief judge and the court administrator. He accepted responsibility for not bringing the communication back from the court and not updating the council. Going forward, the consultation with the court would be important so that these issues don’t arise in the future, Powers said. He stressed the importance of the two branches of government doing things in consultation, not confrontation.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the FY 2013 budget adjustments, over the lone dissent of Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

15th District Court: Indigent Representation

Two agenda items related to the law firm that provides indigent representation for defendants in the 15th District Court.

Nader Nassif with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C., which does business as Model Cities Legal Services. Nassif also serves on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. In the foreground is 15th District Court judge Chris Easthope.

The 15th District Court is required to provide representation to those who cannot afford an attorney, if a conviction would result in jail time.

The council was asked to approve a $240,000 flat-fee contract for representation of indigent defendants – with Nassif and Reiser, P.L.L.C. (f/k/a Funkhouser and Nassif, P.L.L.C.), d/b/a Model Cities Legal Services (“MCLS”). The contract covers FY 2014, which begins July 1.

The reason the contract was structured as a flat fee is that MCLS had customarily delayed billing for services until a defendant’s case was completely closed or additional court action was deemed unlikely.

Even after a guilty verdict, defendants remain under court supervision and can be subject to other court orders.

Delayed billing resulted in another agenda item requesting that the council cover $203,000 of fees to “catch up” the billing.

15th District Court: Indigent Representation – Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated that the contracting party is a client of his law firm. He asked the council to vote to excuse him from voting.

They did so, and Taylor took a seat in the audience.

Lumm asked Zeisloft if the court had considered issuing an RFP (request for proposals) for the service. Zeisloft described the negotiation between the court and the law firm. He indicated that the court had not considered issuing an RFP, but it would be possible. Model Cities, however, provides the service at a very competitive cost, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) sat in the audience as the contracts for indigent representation were discussed.

Easthope explained that Model Cities doesn’t just stand in court – they provide far more than that. There’s a value that’s hard to represent, and it doesn’t have to do with just the lowest price. Model Cities has a personal connection to all the social services agencies, Easthope explained.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the two resolutions related to Model Cities for legal services.

15th District Court: Security Billing

In addition to an FY 2013 budget adjustment that included back-billing for security services, the council was asked to approve next year’s $160,000 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office for weapons screening at the Justice Center, which houses the 15th District Court. The estimated annual cost is based on $25.25 per hour per court security officer. The estimated maximum annual cost of $160,000 is $27,000 less than last year. The money comes from the 15th District Court’s budget.

During deliberations, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) got clarification on the way the cost of the contract was estimated. Zeisloft explained that it’s based on a wage rate of $25.25 per hour. The reduction from the $187,000 for the previous year was due to a reduction in the projected number of hours that would be worked, he said, not a reduction in the wage rate.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the weapons screening contract.

15th District Court: Specialized Courts

Two other items related to the 15th District Court appeared initially on the council’s consent agenda, a group of items considered routine and voted on as a group. The council was asked to approve $30,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO) to provide mental health treatment to 15th District Court defendants. And the council was asked to approve $65,000 for a Sobriety Court grant program contract with Dawn Farm for in-patient and out-patient drug abuse counseling to 15th District Court defendants.

At Sabra Briere’s (Ward 1) request, the Dawn Farm item was pulled out for separate consideration, because the item included a request for a waiver of the city’s living wage ordinance. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Dawn Farm employs 70 people, including 15 employees who are paid less than $12.52 per hour with health care coverage, and 18 people who are compensated at rates less than $13.96 per hour without health care coverage. Those are the rates specified in the city’s living wage ordinance.

Last fall the council engaged in a vigorous discussion of a living wage ordinance waiver for Community Action Network (CAN), which ultimately resulted in the granting of a waiver for that nonprofit at the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

Briere led off the discussion saying she wasn’t satisfied with the answers she’s received to questions she had asked about the living wage ordinance exemption that had been requested by Dawn Farm. She wanted to know if the item could be postponed so that adequate answers could be given.

Judge Joe Burke, who runs the Sobriety Court, explained to Briere that the court’s application for a grant was due on Friday, June 21 – so postponement would be difficult. Burke indicated that he was the one who’d asked for the living wage ordinance exemption – and that was based on communication from Jim Balmer, executive director of Dawn Farm, who’d reported that Dawn Farm can’t comply with the living wage.

Burke said he couldn’t speak for Dawn Farm but could speak about Dawn Farm. Briere interrupted Burke, apologizing for doing so, but stressed that her concern was not with Dawn Farm but rather with the living wage compliance: “I just don’t want you to spend too much time telling us what we all agree are the virtues of Dawn Farm as an entity and the work they do for the Sobriety Court.” Burke stressed that Balmer agreed with the city’s living wage ordinance, but was not in a financial position to comply, and Balmer had wanted to be honest about that. Burke then went on to explain the importance of the work that Dawn Farm does in support of the Sobriety Court.

Briere indicated that she didn’t see a process in the application for the living wage exemption that would eventually lead to compliance. Just as working toward sobriety has steps, Briere said, working toward financial solvency also has steps. Her problem was with the exemption, not the contract.

By way of background, the point Briere was raising related to conditions on the exemption that the council can grant under the ordinance. The Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance reads in relevant part [emphasis added]:

… provided further that the otherwise covered non-profit employer shall provide a written plan to fully comply with this Chapter within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed three years, and the City Council then agrees that granting a partial or complete exemption is necessary to ameliorate the harm and permit the non-profit organization sufficient time to reach full compliance with this Chapter.

Briere wanted that process to be included in the application for the exemption.

Outcome: The Dawn Farm contract, with the three-year exemption from the city’s living wage ordinance, was granted by the council over dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1). She did not insist on a roll call vote.

Wind Energy

The council had previously voted unanimously at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting to approve the acceptance of a roughly $950,000 U.S. Department of Energy grant for installation of a wind generator project. On June 17, the council was asked to spend about $50,000 of the proceeds of that grant on the initial environmental assessment, required before the project can proceed. The specific item on which the council was asked to vote was a contract with CDM Smith to perform an environmental analysis (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which includes public engagement.

The wind generator item was on the consent agenda, but was pulled out for separate consideration.

Wind Energy: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off discussion by saying that she’d learned that day that the proposal is to place a wind turbine at Pioneer High School. She felt it was unfortunate that an initial decision had been made to place the generator on the high school property, without more community outreach – but she allowed that part of CDM Smith’s scope of work would include public engagement.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) followed up on Lumm’s remarks by reporting that she’d received a letter from a University of Michigan physics professor – Gregory Tarlè – on the topic of the wind generator. She read aloud some concerns outlined by him in his message:

I am currently teaching a class “Energy for our Future” at the University of Michigan. One of the first things we learn when studying wind power is that the power you can get from a wind turbine goes as the cube of the wind velocity. Effective wind turbines must be sited in places where the wind velocity is high and steady or where there are frequent high velocity gusts. Attached is a map of US Wind Resources from the Department of Energy. As you can see, wind resources are marginal at best in Ann Arbor but are excellent offshore in the Great Lakes. Winds increase with altitude (because of wind shear) and that is why large towers are needed. It is not educational to site wind turbines at sites selected for non scientific reasons.

Kailasapathy summarized Tarlè’s remarks by saying that the only thing this turbine would teach students is that if you place a windmill where there’s no wind, then it won’t move. She didn’t think that’s worth $1 million. She regretted voting for the project earlier, but it’s not too late, she said. She allowed that it was federal dollars, but that’s still taxpayer money and it’s the council’s duty to be a good steward, she said.

City utilities engineer Brian Steglitz, who’s managing the wind generator project, and public services area administrator Craig Hupy were on hand to answer questions. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Steglitz to explain why it’s a good project. He characterized it as a demonstration program for wind energy in an urban environment. The city went through a competitive process with the Department of Energy to obtain the grant, he said. The partnership the city is working on with Wind Products – the company that will install the wind generator – would include a guarantee that the turbine will produce a minimum amount of energy. Wind Products had also looked at wind maps, Steglitz said, and looked at the cut-in speeds for the turbines to evaluate how much of the time the windmills would actually be spinning. Based on that analysis, Wind Products was willing to guarantee a minimum amount of power. The project is also part of the city’s goal to generate alternative energy, Steglitz said.

Briere indicated she’d heard from others that there’s no way the wind generator could produce enough electricity to pay for itself. Steglitz noted that the data provided by Wind Products indicated that the 60kW turbine would not generate a tremendous amount of power, but it would offset some of the power needs of the high school. Wind Products would subsidize any possible shortfall in power generation. The power that the school would purchase from the developer will cost less than conventional power, Steglitz said, which is part of the school district’s incentive to participate in the program – to realize a few thousand dollars worth of electricity savings per year. The city’s role is more like a broker between Wind Products and the school district.

Later in the meeting, Kailasapathy asked if the estimates for energy production were independently verified by a third party. Hupy explained that they had not been verified, but that the estimates would be tied to a financial commitment from Wind Products – that it would subsidize any shortfall in power production.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for more information about the Ann Arbor Public Schools participation in the project. Once the generator is installed, who takes over from there? If AAPS cuts its budget, will it possibly cut support for the turbine? Steglitz indicated that the AAPS will lease the space for the turbine and purchase the power. That’s the extent of AAPS participation. Wind Products would maintain and operate the generator, he explained. Later in the council’s deliberations, information in the staff memo accompanying the resolution was drawn out – that the city would eventually own the generator:

It is anticipated that the wind turbine(s) will be located on AAPS property, that the wind turbine(s) will be owned or purchased by the City, that the developer will construct the wind turbine(s), and that the AAPS will purchase the power from the wind turbine(s) under a power purchase agreement. While the City, AAPS and Wind Products have been meeting and continue to work to come to terms on the several agreements so that they can be ready to be brought forward for review and approval once the NEPA EA and public engagement process are completed and accepted by the DOE.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Petersen ventured that AAPS will have a financial upside, which Steglitz confirmed.

Hupy explained that the item the council was being asked to approve provided funding to look at the environmental impact of the turbine. In arguing against the approval, Lumm cited the same letter from Tarlè that Kailasapathy had mentioned.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked how the public would be notified about the public engagement process. Steglitz explained that the intent would be to broaden the scope beyond the standard requirement that residents within 500 feet be notified. He described how the process would include the city’s public engagement “toolbox.” The intent, Steglitz said, was to conduct public engagement and environmental review over the next six months, and to have the review and assessment finished by the end of the 2013 calendar year.

Higgins ventured that it’ll be a lively debate about whether a wind turbine should be placed at Pioneer High School. Responding to a question from Higgins about the city’s financial commitment, Steglitz described it as around $18,000 worth of staff time. Higgins said she was willing to let the debate unfold and not get in the way of it. She confirmed with Hupy that before any further city commitment is made, the council would have to approve it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked for a refresher on the height of the pole where the wind-turbine would be mounted. Steglitz explained that it’d be about 120 feet tall with a 60-foot diameter blade. Kunselman concluded it’s not really a “turbine” but rather just a “generator.” [Kunselman's day job at UM is as energy liaison with Planet Blue.] He felt that the generator will actually be generating a decent amount of electricity given its educational, demonstration purpose. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) also expressed his support for the project based on its educational impact.

Lumm allowed that she had voted to accept the federal grant back in January. But she’d learned a lot since that vote was taken, she said. She wouldn’t support taking the next step based on the idea that it would be sited in a location that doesn’t have much wind.

As a partial counter to Lumm’s complaint that there had not been community outreach on the siting of the generator, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that public outreach wouldn’t happen unless the city hired CDM Smith to do the public outreach, which the council was being asked to approve. That process would help determine whether this is an appropriate site, she ventured. Steglitz confirmed that’s correct. Briere wondered what the alternative locations are. Steglitz indicated that there aren’t really any alternative sites. Hupy confirmed that the city has looked extensively, even as far north as East Lansing – where it might be sited with a maize-and-blue pole, he quipped. City administrator Steve Powers subsequently assured the council that Hupy was not joking about the idea of trying to find a location in East Lansing.

Petersen wanted to know if anyone from AAPS was at the council meeting to talk about the educational component – no one was. Kailasapathy questioned the idea that there could be an educational benefit, if the generator were to be located in East Lansing. Hupy explained how utility regulations require that the power be consumed on the site where it’s generated. Transmission over lines to be used in other locations isn’t allowed except with permission of the electric utility.

Kailasapathy raised a question about noise created by the generator. Steglitz explained that the noise issue would be part of the environmental assessment.

From left: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

In the course of the council’s discussion, the email from Tarlè had been sent to all councilmembers, and Kunselman took the opportunity to comment on it in more detail. He stressed that Tarlè seemed to be talking about wind-farm sized turbines – not the size of the generator that the city is considering. What the city is considering, he said, is a 60 kW wind generator that will be running about 30% of the time. And part of that time, students would have the opportunity to look at a data center that shows all the data. That’s the educational component of the project, he said. And the money is Dept. of Energy grant money, not city money, Kunselman added. He concluded that the city should move forward with the project.

Mayor John Hieftje weighed in for the resolution, saying it’s worth exploring the next stage of the project. Hieftje said he wants to follow the lead of the DoE. Lumm responded to Hieftje’s argument based on the DoE, by questioning whether the DoE is aware of the power generation estimates. Hieftje ventured that DoE is aware of the educational nature of the project.

Outcome: The contract with CDM Smith to conduct an environmental assessment for the wind generator project was approved over dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Video Privacy Ordinance

The council was asked to give initial approval to an ordinance regulating the use of public surveillance cameras in the city.

The council had previously postponed the item at its May 20, 2013 meeting. Before that, the council had postponed the item at its April 15 meeting – due to the length of that meeting – and again on May 6. [.pdf of ordinance as presented to the council on April 15, 2013]

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 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 is to address a specific criminal problem.

The council’s consideration of the topic dates back a few years. 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. And a year before that she’d indicated the city’s human rights commission would be working on the issue.

Video Privacy Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) introduced the ordinance. He noted that while Chief John Seto was out of town and not available to answer questions about the potential impact of the ordinance on law enforcement activity. Still, Warpehoski asked his colleagues to move the change forward to a second reading. He characterized the ordinance as striking a balance between the right to privacy and the interests of law enforcement. In light of the full agenda that night, Warpehoski suggested a more in-depth discussion when it came back for second and final reading.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for a clarification of some of the changes that had been made to the proposed ordinance. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Warpehoski for his work, but said that this ordinance was not her favorite idea.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she was hoping it would be postponed, citing Seto’s absence. She also noted that new revisions had been given to the council only last night. She didn’t think the council should pass ordinances at the first reading just to get them to the second reading. So she said she wouldn’t be supporting it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) appreciated Warpehoski’s work to bring the ordinance forward. But he felt it’s a solution in search of a problem. He knew he wouldn’t support it when it came to the second reading – because he felt it tied the city administrator’s hands. Privacy is already protected, he contended. And surveillance cameras do work, he said, giving the West Willow neighborhood as an example. He asked: Where’s the budget for this? Asking the city administrator to run around getting permissions from residents didn’t seem sensible, Kunselman said.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated support for postponement and made a motion to postpone. Warpehoski seconded that motion. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated support for the postponement, but said he’d have probably been inclined to support it at first reading.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the video privacy ordinance until July 1, when police chief John Seto will be available.

Fire Code

The council was asked to give initial approval to an amendment to Chapter 111 (Fire Prevention) of the city code so that it refers to the 2009 International Fire Code instead of the 2003 version.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated that he’d support the ordinance at first reading, but he had some concerns about the inspection of certain areas. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked fire chief Chuck Hubbard about the frequency and cost of fire inspections. Hubbard contrasted inspections with re-inspections. If there are violations found, then an inspector will return to confirm that the violation has been corrected – and that’s a re-inspection. Hubbard allowed that inspections have been stepped up. It’s being done for the benefit to the property owners, he said.

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

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the performance of the fire inspection program is being reviewed. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the building department is already using the 2009 code, but the fire department is using the 2003 code. What are the differences? Kunselman got confirmation that the council’s approval is more or less a formality. It’s like “housekeeping.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked how many staff are allocated to fire inspections. Hubbard told Anglin it’s been increased from three people to seven. Anglin felt the overall safety of the community was being improved through that effort.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he’s delighted that the city is conducting more fire inspections.

Outcome: The council voted to give initial approval to the adoption of the 2009 fire code.

Billboard Ordinance

The council was asked to give final approval to an ordinance change that would restrict the way that digital technology could be incorporated into outdoor signs. It would also prevent any digital technology retrofitting of existing billboards, and prohibit billboards generally – although the 28 existing billboards citywide would be allowed to continue as non-conforming structures. The change had been given initial approval by the council and had been up for final action twice before – most recently, on May 6, 2013. Action on May 6 was to postpone a final decision – until the council’s June 17 meeting. [.pdf file of map showing billboard locations in the city]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) introduced the agenda item, describing it as enforcing the status quo. He described some changes that had been made to the proposed ordinance revisions, compared to those already given initial approval by the council. One is an exception for churches and schools. The definition of “changeable” copy had also been revised. Taylor said it’s important that billboards not expand beyond their current status.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) reported that he’s heard close to zero support for expanding billboards to use digital technology – other than from those in the outdoor sign industry. He’d heard no support for digital signs to the point where he felt there was a clear consensus for that point of view.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) argued that if Ann Arbor wants to be a tech town, then preserving the status quo is too conservative. She cited the possible negative impact on economic development. The ordinance changes promote blight by not allowing existing billboards to be removed and replaced with new ones, she contended. So she’d oppose the ordinance change. She pointed out that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) relies on digital technology to convey messages along the highways. She called for a more comprehensive look at the ordinance. It’s way too conservative for a town that wants to move forward with technology, she said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that the Ann Arbor Public Schools district is unlikely to go ahead with a proposal to contract with Adams Outdoor Advertising on school property. She said that two of the digital signs proposed by Adams Outdoor Advertising were in Ward 1 – which she represents. The idea of having digital signs there didn’t make her happy, but she conceded she was perhaps an old fogey.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked the city staff for all their research and their work on the ordinance. She thought the proposed changes were reasonable, so she’d be supporting the ordinance change.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked the staff for their work. He said it’s clear that the community doesn’t want any more visual intrusion. He characterized the ordinance change as not an anti-business proposal, but rather a pro-community move.

Outcome: The council voted to give final approval to the billboard ordinance, over dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Fireworks Ordinance

The council was asked to consider a revision to the city ordinance on fireworks. The impact on the upcoming July 4 holiday would be that fireworks use would be limited in Ann Arbor to the time between 8 a.m. and midnight. A necessary revision to state law, in order to make the city’s action legal, had already been passed by the Michigan House and Senate when the council met. It awaited only signature by the governor’s office, which it subsequently received two days later on June 19.

The revision to the city’s fireworks ordinance was given initial approval at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. The impact of the ordinance change is to restrict the use of fireworks on July 3-5 to the period between 8 a.m. and midnight on those days. The ordinance change applies to other national holidays as well. On New Year’s Day, however, the time extends to 1 a.m.

The local ordinance change is made possible by the change to state law, which previously did not allow local governments to regulate fireworks for a continuous 72-hour period – for the day preceding a national holiday, the national holiday, and the day following the national holiday. The statutory change makes it possible for a local government to regulate the time of fireworks use around the time of national holidays.

Fireworks Ordinance: Public Hearing

Two people spoke at the public hearing on the fireworks ordinance change. Thomas Partridge said that July 4 should be a celebration of civil rights and human rights. He objected to celebrating the holiday with fireworks. Michael Benson asked the council to consider allowing people to apply for a permit to use fireworks on other days. He wondered what other costs could be imposed by the ordinance language “plus costs” that are mentioned in connection to a $500 fine.

Outcome: After a brief introduction by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council voted to give final approval to the fireworks ordinance.

CIL Parking for The Varsity

The council was asked to approve a change to the development agreement between the city and The Varsity – a 13-story, 177,180-square-foot apartment building containing 181 dwelling units (415 bedrooms). The council’s requested action was essentially a confirmation of an Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority decision to award the right to purchase a total of seven monthly permits, at a 20% premium cost.

The Varsity is located at 425 E. Washington St. in downtown Ann Arbor. Based on zoning requirements, 76 off-street parking spaces are required. Only 69 were provided on site. The others were provided through the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The seven spaces were approved by the Ann Arbor DDA at its June 5, 2013 meeting. It falls to the DDA to make a decision on the CIL spaces, because the DDA administers the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city.

Outcome: After a recitation of the situation’s background by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council voted to approve the revision to the development agreement.

Site Plans, Brownfield Plans

At its June 17 meeting, the city council was asked to give approvals in connection with three developments.

Site Plan: State Street Center

One request was a site plan approval for the State Street Center, near the intersection of South State and Ellsworth. The project calls for demolishing a vacant 840-square-foot house on this site. In its place, the developer plans a one-story, 1,700-square-foot drive-thru Jimmy John’s restaurant facing South State Street. A one-story, 6,790-square-foot retail building will be built behind the restaurant. The rezoning of the parcel for this site plan was given final approval at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to approve the State Street Center site plan.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St.

The council was also asked to approve the site plan for 544 Detroit St. – a three-story building with offices on the first floor and residences on the upper two floors. It’s a “planned project” to allow an additional 3.5 feet of building height for a “decorative parapet” on the building’s north end and a stair enclosure to access a roof deck.

A rendering that shows the proposed design for 544 Detroit St., at the corner of Detroit and North Division.

For the 544 Detroit St. project, the council was also asked to approve a brownfield plan. According to a staff memo, the brownfield component – which allows tax increment financing (TIF) to reimburse the developer for eligible costs – includes a total of $698,773 in eligible activities. Some of those eligible activities include soil remediation ($174,620), infrastructure improvements ($70,350), and vapor mitigation ($32,000).

The planning commission gave the 544 Detroit St. project a recommendation of approval at its Dec. 18, 2012 meeting.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St. – Public Hearing

Jeff Crockett spoke in favor of the 544 Detroit St. project. He called it a responsive development. The site plan demonstrates serious consideration of citizen input, he said – and he knew of no one who opposed this project. He called for zoning laws that are not driven just by statistics, but rather are value-driven. Thomas Partridge also spoke on the 544 Detroit St. project, criticizing the fact that there was no attached requirement that the site provide affordable housing or access to public transportation.

Site Plan, Brownfield Plan: 544 Detroit St. – Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) mentioned briefly that this was one of the better brownfield projects the committee had seen. She serves on the city’s brownfield committee.

Outcome: The council voted to approve both the site plan and the brownfield plan for 544 Detroit.

Brownfield Plan: Packard Square

Finally, the council was asked to approve an amendment to a previously-approved brownfield plan for Packard Square, at the former site of the Georgetown Mall. The amendment adds to the list of eligible activities – including underground parking and urban stormwater management. The total cost of eligible activities is not changed. Demolition at the site began a few weeks ago.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked about payment of back taxes – the project is located in Ward 4. Nathan Voght of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development, which manages the county’s brownfield redevelopment program, fielded Higgins’ questions. The indication was that the back taxes would be paid.

Higgins noted that the demolition is in progress, so Voght gave an update. May 28 was the start of demolition. The Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) indicated that additional asbestos mitigation was needed. Soil excavation to remove contamination is ongoing and a vapor barrier will probably need to be installed, Voght said. He thought by mid-July the demolition will be done. The developer indicated that construction would begin as soon as possible after that.

Higgins said that residents are pleased to see the project going forward. Mayor John Hieftje thanked Higgins for her efforts.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Packard Square brownfield amendment.

$382K for Housing Commission

The council was asked to provide $382,000 of operational support to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

The resolution was held over from the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. That’s when the council took several steps to move the Ann Arbor Housing Commission forward along a path to converting the properties it manages to project-based vouchers. A similar operations funding resolution had appeared on that meeting’s agenda, but was withdrawn.

The additional funding, according to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, is needed to mitigate against the impact of federal sequestration. The memo puts that impact at about $300,000 less for public housing and $50,000-$75,000 less for capital funding.

Of the total amount, $159,000 is appropriated from the city of Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund, and $223,000 would be appropriated from the general fund. The city’s housing and human services advisory board had voted to recommend the $159,000 be appropriated from the affordable housing trust fund.

$382K for Housing Commission: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) introduced the resolution, noting that it will empty the affordable housing trust fund – but that fund will receive $100,000 on July 1, because of the budget allocation the council passed as part of the FY 2014 budget. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked city CFO Tom Crawford if there were sufficient funds in the general fund reserve to cover the allocation. Crawford projected a fund balance of $13.9 million at the end of the fiscal year. That’s about 17% of operating expenses. But he did have some concerns, Crawford said. At the end of FY 2015, based on the council’s recent action, the fund balance would be around 13%. In general, he has some concerns about how the fund balance is being used.

City administrator Steve Powers noted that the current council policy is to maintain 8-12% of operating expenses in the fund balance.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Jennifer Hall, executive director of the AAHC, for her work.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the AAHC allocation.

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main

The council was asked to make a commitment of up to $750,000 from the city’s general fund – to undertake planned improvements to the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. The commitment is a requirement for a grant application that the city is making to the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund for $300,000.

If the city’s plan unfolds as it expects, then none of the $750,000 in general fund money would be needed.

The improvements to 721 N. Main have resulted from work done by a North Main Huron River corridor task force that has been working at the direction of the city council since the summer of 2012 to make recommendations for the corridor.

Of the $1.2 million estimated cost for the planned trail and stormwater improvements to the site, the city plans to use $150,000 from the city’s stormwater fund. To cover part of the remaining $1.05 million, the city hopes to use $600,000 from a grant it has applied for from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) – through SEMCOG’s transportation alternatives program (TAP).

The council approved the application for the SEMCOG grant at its April 15, 2013 meeting. To cover the remaining $450,000, the city hopes to use $150,000 from a Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Connecting Communities grant and $300,000 from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) grant. The council approved the application for those last two grants at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

The council’s resolution considered on June 17 came in response to an MNRTF grant requirement that the council commit the city to funding the other grants itself – from general fund money – if those grants fail to materialize. The $750,000 figure comes from adding the $600,000 SEMCOG grant to the $150,000 Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation grant.

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main: Public Commentary

During public commentary time at the start of the meeting, Bob Galardi addressed the council on the MDNR grant application in connection with the city-owned property at 721 N. Main. He’s a member of the city’s park advisory commission, but spoke on behalf of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. He’s president of the conservancy’s board. Galardi asked the council for their support of the resolution that commits the city to as much as $750,000 of general fund money for the project. The conservancy, he said, is confident that the grant funding for which the city has applied will materialize. [That would mean that the city wouldn't need to spend that money.]

Commitment of $750,000 for 721 N. Main: Council Deliberations

When she introduced the item, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) stressed that the commitment the council was being asked to make is not an expenditure.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked Briere for her service on the North Main Huron River task force. Lumm indicated support for the resolution. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if any park millage dollars would be spent on this project. Briere noted that the property is not yet a park. When will it be a park? asked Kunselman. That’s a decision for the park advisory commission (PAC), not for her, Briere responded.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as an ex officio member of PAC, noted that park staff are sensitive to the funding requirements of maintaining existing parks. Mayor John Hieftje described the general context of two city-owned properties – 415 W. Washington and 721 N. Main – and how those properties fit into the context of greenway planning. Hieftje talked about the need to focus on the provision for long-term maintenance.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said it’s important that this resolution commits money. Anglin said a chain of parks through the city – like the greenway – would have a positive economic impact.

Outcome: The council voted to commit the funds for the 721 N. Main site.

Pizza in the Park

Several speakers addressed the council in connection with a petition they delivered to the city – a copy of which was attached to the council’s electronic agenda. The petition asked the council to take action to ensure that no fees are required to be paid by organizations that are providing humanitarian aid in the city’s parks.

The general petition stemmed from concerns about protecting a specific event – Pizza in the Park, a homelessness ministry of the Vineyard Church that includes distribution of food and other aid at Liberty Plaza, located at Liberty and Division streets in downtown Ann Arbor. A few months ago, the parking of a vehicle in a private driveway and the subsequent application of a park shelter rental fee by the city led to protests raised during public commentary at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. Assurance was given at that meeting that the Pizza in the Park event could continue. That was affirmed when speakers again addressed the issue at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting.

Speakers on those occasions – many who are affiliated with Camp Take Notice, a self-governed homeless community – asked for a written assurance of the city’s commitment. During council communications time on June 17, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who serves as one of two city council ex officio representatives to the city’s park advisory commission (PAC), announced that PAC would be considering a related resolution at its meeting the next day. And on June 18, 2013 PAC considered and passed a resolution recommending the waiver of rental fees associated with Liberty Plaza – a waiver that would apply to any group. That recommendation will need the approval of the city council.

First to address the council on the topic during June 17 public commentary was Peggy Lynch, who took the podium to applause. She described an unmet and tragic humanitarian need in Ann Arbor. She thanked the council for the eliminating the fee that was being applied to Pizza in the Park at Liberty Plaza. But she was hopeful that the gentleman’s agreement could be replaced with something in writing. David Williams echoed the request for a written commitment.

Thomas Partridge assured the council that if he were elected mayor or councilmember, he would be giving voice to the concerns of the residents of Camp Take Notice. He called for the advancement of Dr. Martin Luther King’s civil rights agenda. He recalled King’s “I have a Dream” speech.

Jose Galofre addressed the council through a sign language interpreter, calling for the passage of an ordinance – put down in writing for the future to ensure that fees would not be applied to Pizza in the Park. Michael Ramirez told the council he has medical issues that require him to go to the University of Michigan health system, and he spoke in support of Pizza in the Park ministry. Christine Kern told the council she lives on the street with her boyfriend. They’d be sleeping outside that night. She recited a definition of basic human rights, and asked the council to enact an ordinance that protects the right to distribute humanitarian aid on public land.

At the end of the meeting during public commentary time, Seth Best and Peggy Lynch again addressed the council on the idea of the fee waiver for Liberty Plaza. They wanted something in writing – and they wanted it to be possible for humanitarian aid to be distributed in any park.

Caleb Poirer quipped that it felt wonderful staying up late with the council. [By that point, it was about 12:30 a.m.] It reminded him of staying up late as a kid, but with adults – just without “the blankets and the socks with the bottoms.” He allowed that there was a concern that someone could drive a semi-trailer truck through the loophole of the phrase “humanitarian aid.” But he asked the council to wrestle with the language that would make an ordinance work to allow humanitarian aid to be distributed. There are a lot of people who want to do kind things, he said, and urged the council not to let fees get in the way.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Millage Rate Correction

The council was asked to correct a .0031 error in the specification of the rate of the FY 2014 tax levy for the city’s park maintenance and capital improvements millage. The FY 2014 fiscal year begins on July 1.

The millage rate that was listed in the FY 2014 budget resolution – approved by the council at its May 20, 2013 meeting – was 1.0969 mills. The park maintenance and capital improvements millage should have been listed as 1.10 mills. The corresponding correction from the total millage rate was from 16.4470 to 16.4501 mills. Measured in dollars, the correction is estimated to bring in an additional $14,460 in revenue.

Outcome: After a brief introduction from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), the council approved the correction to the millage rate.

Police Unions Wage Bump

The council was asked to approve contracts with city police unions that award 2% and 1% wage increases.

Re-openers for the final year of their contracts resulted in new contracts with six police department unions: Teamster Civilian Supervisors, Teamsters Local 214; Police Professional Assistants, Teamsters Local 214; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association – Police Service Specialists; Command Officers Association of Michigan; Ann Arbor Police Officers Association; and Deputy Chiefs, Teamsters Local 214.

Membership in these unions breaks down as follows: Deputy Chiefs (2); Teamster Civilian Supervisors (35); Teamster Police Professionals (5); AAPOA (90); COAM (22); and Police Service Specialists (5).

Common to all the contracts is a 2% wage increase starting July 1, 2013 and a 1% increase starting Jan. 1, 2014.

Also common to the contracts is the acceptance of the change in pension board composition, which was approved by voters on Nov. 8, 2011 with a 68% majority. The change retained the body as a nine-member group but distributed the membership differently, as follows: (1) the city controller; (2) five citizens; (3) one from the general city employees; and (4) one each from police and fire employees. Eliminated from the mix was the city administrator.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) thanked the staff for their work. It’s the first time since she’s been on council that all the contracts have been resolved before expiration, she said. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked the staff and recited the nature of the agreements.

For the AAPOA an administrative correction was made to the phone allowance – $600, instead of $550.

The council voted to approve all the police department union contracts.

Resolution on SEMCOG Highway Plan

The council considered a resolution opposing the proposed expansion of I-94 in Detroit and I-75 in Oakland County.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

The Washtenaw County board of commissioners had passed a similar resolution at its June 5, 2013 meeting. The interstate highway expansion is a part of SEMCOG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan with an estimated cost of $4 billion.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) stated that there are a lot of good elements in the SEMCOG plan. But there are not forecasts for additional traffic and population, so it didn’t make sense to expand the highways instead of maintaining them.

Warpehoski then quoted Picasso in explaining where the text for the resolution had come from: “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” He’d copied much of the resolution from resolutions that have been passed by other municipalities.

Outcome: The council voted to pass the resolution opposing SEMCOG’s 2040 plan. SEMCOG’s general assembly subsequently voted to adopt the plan.

Annual Contracts: SPARK, Lobbyist

As part of its consent agenda, the council was asked to approve two annual contracts for services at its June 17 meeting. One was a $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. (GCSI) for lobbying services with the state legislature. The council also approved a $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for business support services.

Items on the consent agenda are considered routine, and include contracts for less than $100,000. They’re voted on as a group.

The contact with the economic development agency Ann Arbor SPARK is one that has been renewed annually since the Washtenaw Development Council and Ann Arbor SPARK merged in 2006. Previously, Ann Arbor had contracted with the WDC for the business support services for which it now contracts with SPARK. On June 20, 2005, the city council authorized that one-year contract with WDC for $40,000. The resolution authorizing the $75,000 contract with SPARK again this year describes the organization’s focus as “building our innovation-focused community through continual proactive support of entrepreneurs, regional businesses, university tech transfer offices, and networking organizations.”

Ann Arbor SPARK is also the contractor hired by the city’s local development finance authority (LDFA) to operate a business accelerator for the city’s SmartZone, one of 11 such districts established in the early 2000s by the Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC). The SmartZone is funded by a tax increment finance (TIF) mechanism, for a TIF district consisting of the union of the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti Downtown Development Authority districts.

Revenue is generated only in Ann Arbor’s district, and the LDFA is a component unit of the city’s budget. In the FY 2014 budget, the LDFA is expected to receive $1,655,647 in revenue. The specific taxes on which the increment since 2002 is captured are the school operating and state education taxes, which would otherwise be sent to the state and then redistributed back to local school districts.

GCSI’s Kirk Profit, an Ann Arbor area resident and former member of the state House of Representatives, typically makes an annual presentation to the council with an update on state-level legislative issues relevant to the city’s budget situation. Written updates to councilmembers on legislative activity are sent on a weekly or daily basis.

Outcome: As part of the consent agenda, councilmembers approved contracts with GCSI and Ann Arbor SPARK.

Council Rule Changes

The June 17 agenda included an item related to changes in the council rules. Possible changes include adding a period of public commentary to the council’s work sessions, but reducing public speaking time per turn from three minutes to two minutes. [.pdf of draft rules changes]

The procedure for reserving one of the 10 reserved speaking slots at the start of the meeting is also proposed to be revised. Only people who did not address the council at its immediately previous meeting would be eligible to reserve a slot. And of the 10 slots, eight would be designated for people who want to address the council on agenda action items. Two slots would be provided for those who want to address the council on any topic.

Councilmember speaking time is also proposed to be reduced. Councilmembers are allowed two speaking turns per agenda item. Under the current rules, time limits for those speaking turns are five minutes for the first turn and three minutes for the second turn. Under the proposal, those times would be reduced to three minutes and two minutes, respectively.

The proposed addition of an opportunity for public commentary at council work sessions would ensure that councilmembers could freely deliberate toward public policy decisions at those sessions and still conform to Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

The proposed rules changes would move mayoral communications from the end of the meeting to a spot closer to the start of the meeting. That would give nominations to boards and commissions – which are a part of those communications – somewhat greater prominence.

[For previous Chronicle coverage, see: "Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes."]

Council Rules Changes – Frequent Speakers

A consequence of reducing the speaking time limit from three minutes to two minutes is that the total speaking time a single speaker could take at a meeting would be reduced by one-third. It’s not unusual for a meeting to include a half dozen or more formal public hearings, in addition to the public commentary slots on the agenda. The June 17 meeting, for example, featured seven public hearings. With a three-minute time limit, it’s not uncommon that one person could have a total of about a half hour available to address the council.

Thomas Partridge typically reserves one of the 10 slots at the start of the meeting and speaks at most of the public hearings at any given meeting of the council – generally connecting his remarks to the topic of the hearing with general themes of affordable housing, transportation and education, as well as calls for social justice. Occasionally mayor John Hieftje, who presides over the council’s meetings, will deem Partridge’s remarks to be insufficiently related to the topic of the public hearing and admonish Partridge to stay on topic. The June 17 meeting featured one occasion when Hieftje offered that admonishment to Partridge.

And at the conclusion of the meeting’s seventh public hearing – on the brownfield plan for Packard Square – after Partridge had held forth several times at previous hearings, Ann Arbor resident Todd McWilliams addressed the council, but not on the topic of the brownfield plan for Packard Square. He told the council he’d attended several of the council’s meetings over the last six months and wanted to address Partridge. McWilliams told Partridge that Partridge was doing an injustice to the public hearings, and was abusing the council’s time. At that point, McWilliams earned an admonishment from Hieftje to speak to the topic of the hearing.

Partridge responded to McWilliams from the audience by accusing McWilliams of abusing Partridge’s civil rights. McWilliams said: “There’s got to be another way of doing this; because this isn’t the right way to do it.” Partridge’s rejoinder was: “See you in court.”

Council Rules Change: Public Comment

During public commentary time at the conclusion of the meeting, two people addressed the council on the topic of the rules changes.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and resident Michael Benson. Benson serves on the city’s taxicab board.

Michael Benson thanked the council for staying late. He commended the rules committee, saying that the proposed rules represent a step forward. He suggested that reducing the speaking time from three minutes to two minutes might not be so bad, given that when people hand over written remarks to the clerk, those documents can eventually be added to the agenda. He told the council they should consider constraining their own question time during the meeting – as that was where the council spent the majority of its time. He also suggested that reserved time at the start of the meeting be confined to true action items.

Jeff Hayner thought it’s great that someone talked about the rules. He agreed with Benson’s point about the ability to submit written remarks. He suggested, however, that some of the time saved through a reduction in speaking time be re-allocated to council discussion of items that sometimes didn’t receive much discussion – like the appointments to boards and commissions.

Council Rules Changes: Deliberations

Council conversation was scant. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the council’s rules committee, said she’d like to see the item postponed. By way of background, the council’s current meta-rule on changing the rules requires that the council be notified of changes at the meeting prior to a vote on the changes – which had not happened yet. The proposed rules revisions include a change to that meta-rule.

Outcome: With no further discussion, the council voted to postpone the rules changes until July 1.

Appointments

The June 17 agenda included several items regarding appointments to city boards and commissions.

The council was asked to confirm the extension of Sabra Briere’s (Ward 1) appointment as the councilmember representative to the planning commission. She’s served in that capacity since November 2012. The council was asked to extend the term through Nov. 7, 2013. At that point the membership on the new, post-election city council will be settled. Briere is unopposed in the Democratic primary. An independent candidate, Jaclyn Vresics, has taken out petitions for that seat but has not yet filed them with the city clerk’s office. The deadline for independent candidates to submit petitions is Aug. 7.

Later, toward the end of the meeting, the council was asked to confirm Bonnie Bona’s reappointment to the planning commission.

Although Tony Derezinski had appeared on the list distributed to the council at its June 3 meeting as a nomination to the city planning commission – and was reported (mistakenly) by The Chronicle as having been nominated – Derezinski’s name was not actually read aloud that evening. The Chronicle learned that there was pushback on the council about Derezinski’s nomination for reappointment. He was filling out the remainder of Evan Pratt’s term – through June 30, 2013. Pratt was elected as Washtenaw County water resources commissioner in November 2012 and resigned from the planning commission at that time.

At the council’s Nov. 8, 2012 meeting, councilmembers had voted – over dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) – to appoint Derezinski to that partial planning commission term. Up to that point, he’d served as the city council’s representative to the planning commission. However, he did not prevail in the August 2012 Democratic primary in his Ward 2 race against Sally Petersen.

On June 17, Jeremy Peters was nominated to replace Derezinski on the planning commission. Peters works in creative licensing and business affairs with Ghostly Songs. A council vote to confirm his appointment will occur on July 1.

Other appointments the council was asked to confirm on June 17 included members of the downtown area citizens advisory council: John Chamberlin, Ray Detter, Joan French, Jim Kern, Sue Kern, Kathleen Nolan, Herbert Kaufer and Hugh Sonk. They had been re-nominated at the council’s June 3 meeting, having first appeared on the council’s May 13 meeting agenda for reappointment. The names had not been presented to the council for confirmation on May 20. The terms of all the members had expired.

Also at its June 17 meeting, the council was asked to confirm LuAnne Bullington’s nomination to the taxicab board, having been nominated on June 3. Bullington had submitted an application to serve on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority earlier this year, which resulted in a divided vote by the council on the nomination that was put forward by mayor John Hieftje – Eric Mahler. Mahler was confirmed on a 7-4 vote as the AATA board appointment at the council’s May 13, 2013 meeting. He recently ended his service as a planning commissioner.

Other reappointments confirmed on June 17 were: Barbara Clark to the cable communications commission; Paul Fontaine and Chester Hill to the design review board; and Tom Stulberg to the historic district commission.

In the last few months, the council has taken an increased interest in mayoral appointments. That’s reflected in a change recommended by the council’s rules committee – to move the mayor’s communications time closer to the start of the meeting, instead of near the end. The mayor’s communications include nominations to boards and commissions and the council’s confirmation votes.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to confirm all the appointments.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Public Safety

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) alerted her colleagues that a resolution regarding a public safety task force that she wants to form will be on the council’s July 1 agenda.

Comm/Comm: Stop Signs

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) called for a focus on safety as people move around the city during the summer. He called for the installation of stop signs to slow traffic on streets over which the city has control.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Housing

Thomas Partridge expressed disappointment with the council and the mayor for leaving the city without sufficient affordable housing. He said they lack the courage to stand up and bring the facts to the voters for support of tax increases to fund what’s needed.

Comm/Comm: AAHC Complaint

Diane Chapman introduced herself as a resident of Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. She reported that she’s been physically attacked on the property and complained about the lack of response by AAHC staff.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, July 1, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

Round 1 FY 2014: 15th District Court

Dave Askins — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:34:38 +0000

Ann Arbor city councilmembers were briefed on the 15th District Court as part of a Feb. 11 work session. Last Monday’s meeting kicked off a series of such sessions that will provide information to the council as it looks toward its second meeting in May, when councilmembers will set the budget for the next fiscal year.

From left: 15th District Court administrator Keith Zeisloft, Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers, 15th District Court judge Joe Burke. Before the meeting, the men were setting up a slide presentation. (Photos by the writer.)

All three judges of the court attended the session and addressed the council: Elizabeth “Libby” Hines, Chris Easthope and Joe Burke. Court administrator Keith Zeisloft also attended the session, but did not formally address the council.

At around $3.7 million, the 15th District Court’s budget makes up roughly 4.5% of the city’s general fund – which is in the range of $80 million. The budget for the 15th District Court has decreased from a high of $4.2 million in 2009. Staffing levels of the court, according to the city’s comprehensive annual financial reports, have decreased from 41 in the early to mid-2000s to 36 FTEs for the FY 2012 budget year.

The district courts handle all civil claims up to $25,000, including small claims, landlord-tenant disputes, land contract disputes, and civil infractions. Washtenaw County has three district courts – 15th District Court for the city of Ann Arbor, 14B District Court for Ypsilanti Township, and the 14A District Court (with four physical venues) for the rest of Washtenaw County. Ann Arbor’s 15th District Court also handles preliminary exams for felony cases – which do not show up in official court statistics.

Part of the basis for the court’s presentation to the council was a recent report from the State Court Administrative Office. It includes metrics on the number and kinds of cases handled by the court, as well as collection rates. The judges focused their remarks, however, on the “problem-solving” programs of the courts – those that address sobriety, homelessness, veterans issues and domestic violence. This article includes vignettes from a session of the sobriety court attended by The Chronicle.

Other topics covered during the Feb. 11 work session included the city’s capital budget and the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. Presentations on those topics will be covered in separate Chronicle reports.

The substantive conversation about the budget and its relation to the council’s established priorities is expected to begin to unfold at the council’s March 11 work session. Before then, a second work session is scheduled for Feb. 25, with an additional session slated for March 25, if necessary.

City administrator Steve Powers is required by the city charter to submit his proposed budget to the council by the second council meeting in April, with any council amendments required by the second meeting in May. The city’s fiscal year begins July 1.

15th District Court: General Background

Judge Elizabeth “Libby” Hines began her remarks by saying that the court works with Ann Arbor police chief John Seto.

Judge Elizabeth “Libby” Hines.

They try to schedule court proceedings to minimize overtime by officers. Court officials meet regularly with city administrator Steve Powers, and city attorney Stephen Postema works closely with the court as well, Hines said.

The court had recently implemented a new system for bringing jurors in. The jurors are brought in only when the court is as sure as possible that the trial will move forward, she said, so thousands of dollars have been saved in jury expenses. Equally importantly, she said, is that the court is not wasting citizens’ time as jurors unnecessarily.

By way of additional background, data from the city of Ann Arbor’s A2OpenBook confirm that the 15th District Court’s jury and witness expenses do show downward movement from FY 2011 to FY 2012 and are on pace to continue that trend this year:

Jury & Witness Expenses
YEAR    BUDGETED        SPENT 
2013	$21,000		$3,835 [YTD, 7.5 mo. into fiscal yr.]
2012    $21,000		$11,682	
2011	$20,000		$18,016

-
Hines referred to the report from the state court administrator’s office about how the 15th District Court is doing. She noted that the report is unredacted – saying it is exactly the same report that the state court administrator’s office gave the 15th District Court.

It’s a “report card” on how the court is doing, she said. “As you can see, according to the report, I think we’re doing well.”

She offered some clarifications to the report. The section that lists out data by judge is not quite accurate because it includes former judge Julie Creal. When Creal left the court, her cases were not re-assigned, Hines explained. Judges Chris Easthope and Joe Burke covered those cases. [Creal's resignation took effect in January 2012, but she had been on medical leave since mid-2011.]

Also as a clarification, Hines mentioned that the court is not given credit for hundreds of felony cases that the court also handles. There is a special system in Washtenaw County, she explained, where cases that are normally filed in other counties as district court filings, are filed here as circuit court actions. The 15th District Court does not get credit for those. The court kept count last year and tallied 933 hearings related to felony cases in the last year. In the state’s report, she said, that category is recorded as zero or seven. The state court administrator’s office is aware of the situation, she said.

Hines said the report shows that the 15th District Court is a very busy court but has no backlog. She showed the council a slide on collection rates, comparing the 15th District Court to other comparable courts in the region and statewide. “We do a really good job at collecting,” Hines noted. But what she was especially proud of, she said, is that the court collects money in a humane way. The court doesn’t put people in jail who can’t pay, she said.

15th District Court collection rates for 2010 assessments for civic infractions. Collection rates for other categories in other years show a similar pattern: The 15th District Court does a somewhat better job at collection of assessments than other courts statewide or in its region.

But the numbers don’t tell the whole story, Hines continued. She told the council that the judges wanted to spend the rest of their time describing in more detail how their “problem-solving courts” work.

Three of the programs operated by the 15th District Court are unique, Hines told the council. “We do not just process cases. We actually try to address the underlying issues that bring people to court before us – such as mental health, addiction, substance abuse, PTSD, and domestic violence and homelessness.”

Domestic Violence Court

Hines highlighted two different courts over which she presides. She handles all the domestic violence and intimate partner stalking cases. She also handles the homeless court. Hines explained that since 1998 the 15th District Court has had the good fortune of receiving large grants from the Department of Justice office for programs dealing with violence against women.

For five years the court had several million dollars to undertake a massive project, Hines told the council. The Department of Justice had selected three sites in the United States – Boston, Milwaukee, and the district courts in Washtenaw County. The goal of this study was to determine what works best in the case of domestic violence. The money was used to do lots of things, she said – to develop best practices that are used all over the state and all of the country. There is a grant-funded specialized domestic violence probation officer, who offers support for both victims and defendants.

Hines didn’t go into detail, but wanted to say that at the end of probation, she brings people back from the long-term batterer intervention program to which they were ordered. She tells them they can say anything they want. Almost every one of them says something like: I wish they’d offer this information in the high schools – because if they did, I’d never have been here. Hines concluded: “The bottom line is that most of us who handle domestic violence cases feel that it’s really homicide prevention, if we do our job right.”

Homeless Court

Hines also wanted to touch on the homeless court, which was created in the community with numerous social service agencies and criminal justice players, including: police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and social service providers. It’s called a “street outreach court,” she said. She alluded to an article written by Jo Mathis, editor of the Washtenaw Legal News, that profiled two of the participants. ["Clean Slate: Street outreach court offers fresh start for those at risk of homelessness"] The court actually helps people who are experiencing homelessness help themselves get back on their feet and off the street, Hines said.

Many people don’t go to court if they are homeless, Hines said, because they might have all their belongings in a bag. They might not have received notice that they have to appear in court – because they’re moving from place to place. And they might have other things on their mind, she ventured, like: Where can I stay tonight and what can I do with my kids?

So many times homeless people don’t show up in court and as a result they receive a misdemeanor charge. That means there’s a warrant out for their arrest, Hines said. She alluded to a study from years ago in San Diego, on Vietnam veterans who are homeless, which concluded that the No. 1 barrier for getting them off the street was not food, clothing, or shelter. Rather, it was misdemeanor bench warrants. They’re always looking over their shoulder, she said, and they can’t get jobs, benefits, or treatment if they have a warrant.

Hines described the court as an incredible collaborative approach in which someone works with a social service agency, and if they are really working hard they can create an action plan, and get credit for what they have done. She tells participants in the homeless court that they are just paying their fine with a different form of currency. Rather than paying $150, which the court could never collect, they might do weeks and months of mental health treatment, or substance abuse treatment – and they leave the court with a “clean slate” and a fresh start.

Hines then invited judge Chris Easthope – a former Ann Arbor city councilmember – to talk about the newest problem-solving court: the veterans treatment court.

Before talking about that court, Easthope took the opportunity to praise Hines. He pointed out that she is a nationally known expert on domestic violence. “You have somebody in your midst who is well-known across the country, who is sought after across the country,” he told the city council.

All three of the judges of the 15th District Court are members of the American Judges Association, Easthope said. That group had recently named an award after Hines, for her expertise and excellence in domestic violence work. Last year Hines was the first recipient of the AJA’s annual Judge Elizabeth Hines Award, to honor judges who have developed innovative strategies to reduce domestic violence. Also, the Michigan District Judges Association started an outstanding jurist award last year – and the very first recipient of that award was Hines, he said.

Veterans Court

Moving to the topic of the veterans treatment court, Easthope told the council that because of all the wars that the U.S. had fought, a lot of veterans are returning from those conflicts. Immediately following the Vietnam War, he said, there was a lot of criticism of the U.S. Veterans Administration and how it hadn’t reached out to returning veterans. Now they try to do a better job of that, he said.

Judge Chris Easthope.

In 2008, a judge in Buffalo, New York, started the very first veterans court, Easthope told the council. The idea is to recognize veterans for the service that they have given to the country and to make sure that they are not “lost in the shuffle.” It’s important that nobody who voluntarily put themselves on the line becomes lost in the criminal justice system, Easthope said. “It doesn’t mean we give them breaks,” he cautioned.

The purpose of the court is to recognize that something about a veteran’s service might have caused them to go astray. Veterans who saw combat, he said, may suffer high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries. Veterans suffer from a high level of depression and have a high suicide rate, he said. That’s caused by their service, he said – because they didn’t go into the service that way.

Easthope reported that the 15th District court is now the fourth court in Michigan to start such a program – which includes treatment of veterans in coordination with the Veterans Administration hospital. It involves mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, housing, and life skills. There’s a regular team meeting, he said, where each veteran’s case is reviewed, and a plan is formulated about how to best serve them.

The veterans court docket is “veterans only,” he said. It can involve any war or peacetime veteran, as long as that person was honorably discharged. Easthope also described how it’s possible in Washtenaw County to accept veterans who’ve been dishonorably discharged – even though the Veterans Administration itself can’t provide services to those individuals. The court was just started in November 2012, he said, and already has 20 participants. Generally the term of probation is 18 months, but you can get up to 24 months, he said.

The court’s activity focuses on keeping the veterans drug- and alcohol-free and getting the treatment they need. Through the court, two homeless veterans had recently received housing vouchers and had moved into housing here locally.

Easthope told the council there are not currently any grants available to fund the veterans court. But the veterans court service is being provided at no cost to the citizens of Ann Arbor, he said. Every veteran who is diverted from the county jail is “a dollar saved” for local governments, Easthope said. Of the 20 participants in the program so far, only two have had to spend any time in jail, he said. “That’s real money saved for local municipalities,” he said.

The program runs based on volunteers in the probation department, internships done by students at Eastern Michigan University and Cooley Law School, Easthope said. The 15th District Court was very fortunate to be able to run the veterans court at no cost to taxpayers. Easthope said he expected the program to grow a lot, based on the initial response.

The veterans court convenes every other Wednesday, Easthope said. The team meets at 9 a.m. in the jury assembly room and then goes to his courtroom at 10 a.m. for the docket.

Easthope recalled how he used to scour the city budget as a city councilmember. He said that mayor John Hieftje used to make fun of him for “over-scouring” the budget – for items like vehicle purchases. Easthope concluded his remarks by saying: “We get it, in terms of the budget. We all are really budget conscious … I assure you we are not trying to spend money that we don’t have.”

Sobriety Court

Judge Joe Burke was appointed about a year ago to replace Julie Creal. He subsequently won election to the job in November 2012. He was unopposed in that election. He led off his remarks to the council by saying: “Of the many lucky things that happened to me last year, sobriety court is one of them.”

Sobriety Court: Remarks by Judge Burke

Burke described how former judge Julie Creal had started the sobriety court in the mid-2000s. He described the court as up and running – and running wonderfully – when he took it over about a year ago. It runs much along the same model as the court that Easthope had described. “If you walk into one of our court sessions, you’d be wondering whether you’re watching Oprah, or whether you’re in court,” he ventured. He elaborated on that description by saying the sessions include a lot of back-and-forth conversation.

In a follow-up interview with The Chronicle, Burke described the sobriety court as “hyper-intensive probation,” which follows sentencing. The full-time probation officer assigned to the sobriety court is Steve Hill. The program lasts 18-24 months and includes monitoring of participants’ attendance at treatment programs, their progress in treatment, how they’re spending their time at work and doing community service. Reporting requirements are extensive. Participants must take frequent portable breath tests (PBTs) and urine tests. The majority of sobriety court participants are second-offender DWI cases, but offenses need not be driving-related. Also eligible to participate in sobriety court are, for example, retail fraud (shoplifting) offenders and misdemeanor drug possession offenders.

Participation in sobriety court provides an alternative to incarceration in the Washtenaw County jail. Based on the statistics provided to the court by the state court administrative office, from January through November 2012, DWI offenders in the 15th District Court’s sobriety court wind up spending an average of about 7 days in jail, compared to almost 15 days statewide. That’s balanced against a greater number of sanctions (punishments handed out that are less severe than jail time) – an average of almost 12 in the 15th District Court compared with about 2 per participant statewide.

But the stat that Burke is proudest of, he told The Chronicle, is that 88.2% of sobriety court participants are discharged from the program with full-time or part-time employment. That’s not a credit to the 15th District Court, he noted, but rather to the Ann Arbor community of local businesses – like Zingerman’s or Blimpy Burger – who are willing to support employees as they make their way through recovery. The required treatment program, sessions with the probation officer and drug-testing mean that supervisors have to be willing to schedule workers around those obligations.

Comparing his work in the sobriety court to his 30-year legal career before he was appointed to the bench – most of which was spent in prosecution – Burke told the city council at their Feb. 11 work session: “I like this a lot more.”

The numbers speak for themselves, he said. There is a far lower rate of recidivism, and less jail space being used up. The court does receive a grant, he said, and this year it was $95,000. The team meetings take place on Thursday afternoons, with about 10 people. Participants include workers from the nonprofit Dawn Farm, juvenile court workers, mental health workers, court staff, police, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. You really get to know all the people as they come through the court, he said.

Recidivism rate for 15th District Court sobriety court: New conviction of any kind within two years.

Burke highlighted the rate of recidivism for people who don’t go through a sobriety court. He described the 15th District Court’s sobriety court as “doing very well,” but not quite as well sobriety courts statewide. The reason for that, he explained, is that the 15th District Court doesn’t operate a “strict” sobriety court, but rather a “hybrid court.” So the 15th District Court’s sobriety court includes not just drunk driving offenders, but also drug offenders, if they are nonviolent.

The previous Friday, Burke told the council, the court had graduated a heroin user – a 50-year-old man who’d been using the drug for 20 years. He’s now been clean for two years and wants to stay clean, Burke said. So if the 15th District Court’s sobriety court numbers on recidivism are a little bit higher, the reason is that it accepts a broader range of offenders.

Burke invited anyone to visit the sobriety court on a Thursday or Friday, to observe how the proceedings work.

Sobriety Court: Court Visit

Until he was appointed to the bench by Gov. Rick Snyder, replacing the retiring Julie Creal, Burke had worked as chief assistant prosecuting attorney for Washtenaw County under prosecutor Brian Mackie. Mackie attended the Feb. 15, 2013 sobriety court session on behalf of the county. Assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom was there on behalf of the city of Ann Arbor, along with probation officer Steve Hill and other court officials.

Judge Joe Burke.

The hour-long session of sobriety court on Feb. 15 fell on the one-year anniversary of Snyder’s announcement that he had appointed Burke as judge on the 15th District Court. It was not a milestone that was observed Friday morning.

But milestones that were recognized included 11 months of sobriety, when two different participants announced that achievement during their one-on-one interactions with Burke. That recognition took the form of spontaneous applause by the roughly two dozen sobriety court participants who were in attendance.

Sobriety court on Friday morning was filled with longer-term participants – like those with 11 months of sobriety behind them – as well as first-time participants. Burke greeted a first-timer by saying, “Welcome to your first trip to the podium. You look a little scared. Chill.”

The young woman told Burke she’d had a tough week of school, and it had been hard to cram in all of her treatment meetings – but she’d managed to do it. She told him that when she found herself really not wanting to go to a meeting, that meeting would turn out to be the most helpful. Responding to her balancing of school and treatment, Burke told her to not let anything be put ahead of recovery – not even school. He also encouraged her to follow the advice that the court’s staff and her treatment groups gave her – even if it seemed stupid to her. “Just do it,” Burke said.

Most of the interactions between Burke and the participants were briskly upbeat, as Burke generally tried to separate the good news from any bad news. After imposing a sanction of one day in the jail work program on one young woman – for turning in some documentation late – Burke moved to the positive: “Let’s get on to the better things. What are you up to?” Her initial reply: “I’m alive!” She told him about surviving a harrowing ride on US-23 during a recent heavy snow.

For one participant, Burke wasn’t able to find much positive to talk about. As he reviewed recent updates to the participant’s file, Burke described several bad decisions made by the young man, including one to quit his job – without informing probation officer Steve Hill about it. Documentation of his participation in his treatment program was missing and Burke characterized the young man’s behavior as not entirely honest. Burke felt like he’d had the same conversation with the young man two weeks earlier. Burke told him he felt like the young man was ignoring everything Hill was telling him. Burke invited the young man to give a different side to the story: “Argue with me, if I’m wrong.” But no argument was registered. So Burke imposed a sanction of three days in jail.

Another young man narrowly escaped a jail-time sanction for arriving late to court that morning – because he’d communicated by text with Hill. It was a case of sleeping through his alarm. Burke told the young man he’d been ready to issue a bench warrant for his arrest. But because he’d texted Hill and eventually arrived before the session ended, the young man needed only to serve a day in the jail’s work program.

Burke led off another interaction by telling a young man, “Welcome back to regular clothes [not jail-issued] – it’s good to see you this way.” The man then responded to Burke’s queries by telling him that he’d been attending his Alcoholics Anonymous meetings every day and he’d been doing a lot of homework for his sponsor: writing out 10 examples of how he was powerless; writing out 10 examples of how he’d hurt other people; writing out his life story.

Burke’s interactions were based the review of each participant’s case the previous day by the sobriety court team. And Burke’s conversations with participants seemed to be looking for confirmation or refutation of the most recent reports in their file. “Things seem to be going very well with you. Tell me about it.” Given the opportunity, many participants elaborated beyond summary statements. After telling Burke that things were “fairly normal,” one participant described how he’d been trying to be more honest when he participates in his support group, saying he understood it was not helpful just to say always, “Things are great.”

Strict compliance with all the objective requirements of the program isn’t always enough to satisfy Burke. Burke allowed that one young woman was faithfully compliant with all the requirements, but still had a lot of friction with the court’s supporting staff. He noted she’d had a very difficult session with Hill recently. He ventured that she ignored the supports around her and didn’t show the kind of gratitude that was appropriate: “I think you need to try to be a nicer person.”

She told Burke that she was, in fact, grateful, and ventured that she could try to be more welcoming of the support around her. Burke assigned her to write out a list of four gratitudes every day – then quipped that she could make it five, by listing one for the fact that she didn’t have to appear before him every day. She clarified with Burke she didn’t really have to list that fifth item.

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

Council OKs 15th District Court Grants

Chronicle Staff — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 04:32:26 +0000

At its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council authorized receipt of a total of $512,898 in grants for programs associated with the 15th District Court.

The largest of the grants – $399,898, from the U.S. Dept. of Justice – is provided over the course of two years and is intended to help prevent domestic violence. The money will be used to fund an existing program. Of the grant amount, $217,696 will pay for one full-time domestic violence probation officer, and four other part-time positions to support the program. Another $90,000 will pay for a contract with SafeHouse Center for domestic violence prevention services. And $77,202 will pay for a contract with the 14A District Court for domestic violence probation services and domestic violence data entry services. Training costs amount to $15,000.

Smaller grants come from the Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Office (SCAO) – for $63,000 and $50,000 – that will help fund the 15th District Court’s sobriety court. The council also approved a $75,000 contract with Dawn Farm to provide in- and out-patient drug abuse counseling for defendants in the sobriety court program.

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]