The city council’s Dec. 16, 2013 decision to provide $64,550 in funding from the solid waste fund for the initiative comes in the context of the council’s recent adoption of an update to the city’s solid waste plan. When the city council adopted the solid waste plan update on Oct. 7, 2013, a modification was made during deliberations.

An inventory of a sample of contents of Ann Arbor garbage trucks showed that about half of the weight is due to food waste. (Chart from the city’s solid waste plan update.)

The amendment undertaken by the council at that meeting eliminated mention of a possible transition to bi-weekly trash pickup or pay-as-you-throw initiatives.

However, one of the recommendations that is thought possibly to lead to a reduction in curbside garbage pickup – which would have been the basis for any decision to reduce the frequency of trash pickup – was left in the plan.

That recommendation was to allow plate scrapings to be placed in residents’ brown composting carts that the city uses to collect yard waste for processing at the city’s composting facility. That facility is operated by a third-party – WeCare Organics. The goal is to reduce the proportion of the city’s landfilled solid waste stream that’s made up of food waste. A recent inventory of the contents of some city trash trucks showed that about half of the weight is made up of food waste.

[Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan.] [Appendices to Waste Less] [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Waste as Resource: Ann Arbor's Five Year Plan."]

The $64,550 allocation from the solid waste fund balance break down this way:

• $14,950 for an increased level of service from WeCare Organics at the compost processing facility (daily versus weekly grinding). The city is estimating no increased net cost for this increased service based on a reduction in landfill tipping fees. The city pays $25.90 per ton for transfer and disposal of landfilled waste. That’s $7.90 more than the city pays WeCare organics ($18 per ton) for processing compostable material. City staff is estimating that the program will divert 2,100 tons from the $25.90 category – for a savings of 2,100*$7.90=$16,590.
• $24,600 for the cost of 6,000 Sure-Close counter-top containers the city plans to give away to residents to encourage the initial separation of plate scrapings from garbage.
• $25,000 for a subsidy to sell an estimated 1,000 additional brown compost carts to residents at a cost of $25 per cart instead of $50 per cart. About 12,000 carts are already in use.

A Doppstadt slow speed grinder/shredder used by WeCare Organics. (Image provided by WeCare)

The city’s curbside compost collection program runs April through November. The Dec. 16 city council funding decision did not extend the timeframe for that program.

For details about the council’s deliberations on this item, see The Chronicle’s live updates from the Dec. 16 meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DDA Appointment: McWilliams

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

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

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

DDA Appointment: McWilliams – Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DDA Appointment: McWilliams – Sept. 16 Minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DDA Appointment: McWilliams – Attorney Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Ann Arbor city charter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DDA Appointment: McWilliams – Reconsideration

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

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

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

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

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

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

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

Other Appointments: Appleyard

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

Outcome: The council voted to appoint all the nominees.

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

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

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

From the city charter: [emphasis added]:

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

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

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

Solid Waste Resource Plan

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

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

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

Solid Waste Resource Plan: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Margie Teall (Ward 4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-Lot Walkways

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-Lot Walkways: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-Lot Walkways: Public Acceptance of Walkways

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

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

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

Traffic Calming Projects

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

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

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

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

Traffic Calming: Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traffic Calming: Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome on postponement: The motion to postpone failed.

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

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

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

Belle Tire Site Plan

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

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

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

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

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

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

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru

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

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

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

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru: Public Hearings

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

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

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru: Council Deliberations

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

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

New Liquor License Fees

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

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

New Liquor License Fees: Public Hearing

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

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

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

New Liquor License Fees: Council Deliberations

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

Lumm thanked the various staff who helped with the recommendation.

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

Ann Arbor: Resilient City?

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

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

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

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

Ann Arbor: Resilient City – Council Deliberations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Attendance

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

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

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

Comm/Comm: Michigan Association of Planning Conference

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

Comm/Comm: Crosswalk Ordinance

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

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

Comm/Comm: UM Football Game Street Closures

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

Comm/Comm: Thomas Partridge

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

Comm/Comm: Against Negative Perceptions of Muslims

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

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

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

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

Absent: Sally Petersen, Marcia Higgins, Christopher Taylor.

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

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

So the council passed two amendments eliminating those aspects of the plan during deliberations at it Oct. 7 meeting.

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

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

Even the inclusion of the idea of reducing trash pickup to just once every two weeks was a highlight of the plan to which some councilmembers objected. [Previous Chronicle coverage: Waste as Resource: Ann Arbor's Five Year Plan.] Voting against that amendment to the plan were Margie Teall (Ward 4) and mayor John Hieftje.

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

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

A resolution added to the agenda on Friday, Oct. 4 would, if approved, result in the waiver of attorney-client privilege with respect to a specific advice memo that has already been written by the city attorney’s office on the McWilliams appointment.

The memo responds to questions that were raised about the procedure used to appoint McWilliams to the DDA board. Mayor John Hieftje had asked the council to vote on McWilliams’ appointment after saying at a previous meeting that he was withdrawing the nomination. Under the council’s rules, an 8-vote majority is required for confirmation of an appointment when the nomination is made at the same meeting when the confirmation vote is taken. McWilliams was confirmed on a 6-5 vote.

It’s also possible that a motion could be put forward to reconsider McWilliams’ confirmation, in order to eliminate the procedural controversy. However, by the end of the weekend before the meeting, no such item had been added to the agenda.

The council will also be asked to adopt an update to its solid waste plan. [Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan] [Appendices to Waste Less] The update proposes a number of initiatives, including goals for increased recycling/diversion rates – both generally and for apartment buildings in particular. A pilot program would add all plate scrapings to the list of materials that can be placed in the brown carts used to collect compostable matter.

And if that pilot program is successful, the plan calls for exploring the possibility of reducing the frequency of curbside pickup – from the current weekly regime to a less frequent schedule. Also included in the draft plan is a proposal to relocate and upgrade the drop-off station at Platt and Ellsworth. The implementation of a fee for single-use bags at retail outlets is also part of the plan. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Waste as Resource: Ann Arbor's Five-Year Plan."]

The solid waste plan update could face opposition from some councilmembers who don’t think it would be feasible or desirable to reduce the frequency of curbside trash pickup to once every two weeks.

The council will be asked to give initial consideration to a new definition of a sidewalk, covering so-called cross-lot walkways. Such walkways aren’t really on the “side” of anything. They connect a street to a park or school, or two parallel streets. The item had been up for final consideration at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting, but it was postponed until Oct. 7.

In the meantime, the city’s approach to the cross-lot walkways has changed. Currently if an existing walkway meets the definition of a “sidewalk,” then the city bears responsibility for its repair for the duration of the sidewalk repair millage. All other things being equal, the adjacent property owner would be responsible for snow removal in the winter. The new approach, to be considered on Oct. 7, would allow the cross-lot walkways to qualify as sidewalks under the city’s ordinance, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners. This fresh look would mean that any action taken on Oct. 7 would be considered only an initial approval of the ordinance change.

Land use is on the agenda in the form of two developments and one annexation.

Returning to the council’s agenda is the planned unit development (PUD) zoning for the Shell/Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. The proposal for the 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building.

The council had given initial approval for changes to the project’s PUD supplemental regulations at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting. That’s when Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) objected to including the drive-thru as a public benefit in the regulations: “To say that somebody now doesn’t have to spend the 10 extra calories between getting out of their car to get their salt-sugar-fat fix?! I don’t see that as a public benefit and I don’t want us to list that as some big thing that we’re modifying our zoning for in our ordinance.” On that occasion, the council modified the PUD regulations to accommodate his objection. The final approval of the PUD zoning as well as the site plan is on the council’s Oct. 7 agenda.

Councilmembers will also be asked to approve a site plan for Belle Tire on the north side of Ellsworth, adjacent to and east of a different Tim Hortons – one that’s located near the intersection with South State. The currently vacant 1-acre site will become a one-story, 9,735-square-foot auto service facility with 49 parking spaces, including 10 spaces located in service bays.

The council will also be asked to vote on a standard annexation from Ann Arbor Township to the city of Ann Arbor – a 0.39-acre site at 2640 Miller Ave.

Also on the Oct. 7 agenda is an item to approve a change to fees associated with liquor licenses. Some fees are being eliminated – those related to licenses for which the state of Michigan doesn’t require local review.

Other Oct. 7 agenda highlights include an allocation for more traffic calming studies and a resolution that would direct the city administrator to apply for a Rockefeller Foundation grant to make Ann Arbor one of 100 Resilient Cities.

More details on other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network. The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article “below the fold.” The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

6:38 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. A handful of members of the public are here who are not usual suspects: “It looks bigger on TV, doesn’t it.”

6:51 p.m. About 20 people here now. Taxicab board member Michael Benson is here, as is Jack Eaton, who is the Democratic Party nominee in Ward 4, unopposed on the Nov. 5 ballot.

6:56 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers has been in and out of council chambers since about 6:30 p.m. Peter Eckstein is here. Councilmembers have started to arrive: Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Jeff Hayner, Ward 1 independent city council candidate, is also here. He has his motorcycle helmet in hand.

7:03 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) has arrived. Still missing several councilmembers. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are not expected to attend. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) has now arrived.

7:11 p.m. And we’re off.

7:13 p.m. Only eight councilmembers are present. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) are attending the International Downtown Association conference in New York City, which runs Oct. 6-9. A contingent of Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board members is also attending the conference. The Chronicle has not yet received a response from the DDA about which, if any, conference and travel costs are being covered by the DDA. City administrator Steve Powers responded with requested information about the council’s travel budget: $6,500 was budgeted for FY 2014 with $0 used to date. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) is also absent.

[Added on Oct. 8, 2013: Petersen responded to a Chronicle emailed inquiry by saying that the DDA is paying for her conference registration, but she is paying for her own airfare, hotel, meals, etc.]

7:16 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. Steve Powers announces an Oct. 8 meeting on WALLY station locations at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor Community Center. He also reports that tree removal has begun. Trees to be removed have been painted with a green dot. The report on University of Michigan football game street closures is now available, Powers says.

7:17 p.m. The report on football game day street closures has been attached to the agenda. [.pdf of UM football street closures report] Police chief John Seto gave a preliminary oral report at the council’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting.

7:17 p.m. Proclamations. The Concordia University football team is being recognized for volunteering in the Ann Arbor parks – specifically for participating in the city’s adopt-a-facility at Fuller Park pool.

7:17 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.]

All 10 slots have been reserved tonight, including two alternates. Thomas Partridge is signed up to promote his write-in candidacy for the Ward 5 city council seat and to call for the replacement of mayor John Hieftje, Gov. Rick Snyder and U.S. House speaker John Boehner. Signed up to speak on the amendment to the current fiscal year budget for traffic calming studies ($55,000) are: Diane Kreger, James Billingslea, Alissa Ruelle, Sheila Henley, Zoltan Jung, Lisa Richardson, and Ana Morgan (alternate). Signed up to speak on the resolution to waive attorney-client privilege are: Jeff Hayner, Peter Zetlin, Mary Underwood, and Rita Mitchell (alternate).

7:21 p.m. Diane Kreger is addressing the council. She loves living in Ann Arbor. She loves her neighborhood. She’s lived on Northside for many years, but she’s concerned about the lack of traffic calming. She calls it a “recipe for disaster.” She describes a situation where a car had come whipping down the street and almost hit a little girl. She reads a statement from a 10-year old girl, Ana Morgan, who writes that she’s not allowed to play in the front yard because the cars go faster than the 25 mph speed limit and there are no sidewalks. “Please help make my street safer for everyone,” the statement concludes.

7:25 p.m. James Billingslea notes that the traffic calming item has six of the 10 speaking slots. He says that there would have been more people who would have come to address the council, except for the limit on reserved slots. He stresses that these measures are not luxuries. He describes several of the specific locations where there are problems. He lives on Northside. It’s a short street, with 20 houses, eight of which have young children. He describes how cars often have taken out mailboxes or the stop sign. A short 25 mph street shouldn’t have to endure that, he says. There’s a blind rise and a blind corner, he says. Without the budget amendment, it would be 2017 before traffic calming measures would be implemented, he notes.

7:28 p.m. Jeff Hayner reads from the New York City charter, Chapter 68, on conflicts of interest. He asked why the council has no conflict of interest policy, citing the deliberations on Al McWilliams’ appointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. He says we can’t trust the national or the state government, or now the local government to make good appointments. It’s important to choose carefully. He said he’d asked to be appointed to the North Main Street Huron River task force, and the reply he’d received from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that the members of that task force had been pre-selected before the task force had been established.

7:31 p.m. Tom Partridge is now at the podium. He’s asking for write-in votes for the Ward 5 council seat. He’s a declared write-in candidate. He calls for a new attitude in Ann Arbor, one that’s family-friendly. The number of speakers in favor of traffic calming is a testament to the problem with the socio-economic environment, Partridge says. He calls for the end of crime and corruption. He calls for the replacement of mayor John Hieftje, Gov. Rick Snyder, and U.S. House speaker John Boehner. Ann Arbor and its families and college students suffer without a respectful set of attitudes, he says. Partridge calls for building affordable housing and ending homelessness in Ann Arbor.

7:34 p.m. Peter Zetlin is talking about community values related to Al McWilliams’ appointment to the DDA board. He’d looked at McWilliams’ blog and seen images of women that objectified them. He invites councilmembers to think about if the images had related to race or religion. If the images were appropriate, he asks, why did McWilliams take them down? He says McWilliams is immature. He alludes to the recommendation by Maura Thomson of McWilliams. Thomson, who’s executive director of the Main Street Area Association, declined to answer his question to her, he says: Did she still support McWilliams? Zetlin’s remarks get a smattering of applause.

7:37 p.m. Alissa Ruelle is representing residents who live on Pomona, a street that runs north-south from the water treatment facility down to Miller. Newport is a main road, but Pomona is a secondary road. Pomona winds downhill and has only one stop sign. Cars drive very fast down Pomona, she says. The neighborhood had petitioned back in 2009 for traffic calming measures. Her understanding is that the traffic calming measures are supposed to be implemented next year. Regarding the children who live on the street, she said she didn’t want their young mistakes to be their last mistakes. Residents are looking forward to traffic calming measures. Her remarks generate applause.

7:38 p.m. Sheila Henley is also representing Pomona. There are definitely kids in the neighborhood, she says. Her mother is 78 and there are Alzheimer patients. She signed the petition back in 2005, she said. She definitely supports the resolution. More applause.

7:41 p.m. Mary Underwood says that after all the “brouhaha” about the McWilliams appointment, she decided to look at his blog. She calls it third-grade level potty humor. She’s embarrassed for the mayor, the council, and downtown merchants. She questions the ability of McWilliams to exercise good judgment. She asks if he was the best candidate that could be found to represent the city. She refers to a phrase that she attributes to McWilliams about an ice cream promotion: “Hey everybody, don’t forget to shove an ice cream cone up your ass.”

7:43 p.m. Zoltan Jung is speaking on behalf of the Northside neighborhood in support of traffic calming measures. He characterizes the demographics as a bimodal distribution of very old and very young. Our kids run and play on this street, he says. Cars bounce off the neighbor’s tree and wind up in his yard, he reports.

7:46 p.m. Lisa Richardson lives on Wells, seven houses from Packard and Burns Park Elementary. Drivers routinely speed down the street, using it as a cut-through. Someone is going to be injured or killed, she says. Fourteen small children live on the street, she says. No one stops at the three-way stop, she says. When drivers turn onto Wells, they “gun it” to get to Packard, in order to make the light, Richardson reports. A traffic study was completed in 2010, she said, but it’s not scheduled for implementation until 2016. The city knows that a dangerous situation exists and results in liability for the city. The reaction time of drivers doesn’t allow them to react if they’re speeding. She thinks the city needs to look at speeding on all the city’s roads. Lots of applause follows her commentary.

7:46 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.

7:49 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) responds to Jeff Hayner’s remarks during public commentary about the task force appointments. Often a task force is appointed the same night they are established, she says. When the North Main Huron River task force was established, many people stepped forward and asked that additional seats be added. They’d tried to make the process open and transparent. Many of the non-members of the task force had attended meetings and helped the process.

Briere also reports that a public meeting will take place on Wednesday, Oct. 9 at 6:30 p.m. at Clague Middle School about the intersection of Dhu Varren, Green and Nixon roads. She also notes that she attended the Michigan Association of Planning conference in Kalamazoo the previous weekend.

7:52 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is talking about the crosswalk ordinance and the possibility of repealing the city’s ordinance and replacing it with the uniform vehicle code. It sounds like that proposal will be coming forward at a future meeting. On the topic of education about crosswalk safety, Lumm says there’s the possibility about posting signs for bicyclists to educate them about how to approach crosswalks. This is appropriate in the context of launching a bike sharing program next spring, she says. She wants the signs placed first at the busiest crosswalks. She also thanks city administrator Steve Powers for the announcement about tree removal.

7:54 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) says that as the city has less money, residents will come forward about public safety, health and welfare issues. He says that signs could work as traffic calming devices. He also suggests that concrete barriers be placed on streets. “Drivers will not go through impediments,” he says.

7:55 p.m. Appointments. The council will be asked to vote tonight on nominations that were made at the Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. Those include Brock Hastie to the employees’ retirement system board of trustees. That’s a re-appointment. Being appointed to the city’s energy commission tonight are Erik Eibert (replacing Cliff Williams), and Elizabeth Gibbons (replacing Josh Long). Being appointed to fill a vacancy on the housing and human services advisory board is Kyle Hunter, and to fill a vacancy on the recreation advisory commission is Katie Lewit.

7:57 p.m. There’s back and forth between Anglin and Hieftje on the nomination of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission. Appleyard’s nomination was not moved tonight, Hieftje says. Anglin responds that he doesn’t think it’s necessary to recruit people who don’t live in the city. Appleyard is not a city resident. Hieftje is now saying that he will probably bring the nomination forward at a later time.

7:59 p.m. Appleyard’s confirmation, as a non-city resident, would have needed seven votes, which he would likely not have received, given the short-handed council tonight. From the city charter: [emphasis added]:

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

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

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

7:59 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.

Five public hearings are scheduled tonight. Separate public hearings are being held for PUD (planned unit development) zoning and site plan for the Shell/Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. The changes to the PUD supplemental regulations on the 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building.

The third public hearing is on a site plan for Belle Tire. The 1-acre site – currently vacant – is on the north side of Ellsworth, adjacent to and east of a new Tim Hortons. That’s a different Tim Hortons from the one that’s the subject of the Shell station PUD. The Belle Tire proposal calls for putting up a one-story, 9,735-square-foot auto service facility with 49 parking spaces, including 10 spaces located in service bays. The planning commission voted to recommend approval of the Belle Tire site plan at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting.

The fourth public hearing is on a standard annexation – from Ann Arbor Township to the city of Ann Arbor. It’s 0.39 acres, located at 2640 Miller Ave.

The final public hearing is on a change to fees associated with liquor licenses. Some fees are being eliminated – those related to licenses for which the state of Michigan doesn’t require local review. And the remaining license fee schedule is being revised to reflect actual costs:

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

8:01 p.m. PH: Shell/Tim Hortons PUD zoning. Thomas Partridge is holding forth. He says it’s a very busy location. He contends there’s no evidence of a traffic study being done, especially during rush hour. He asks that the proposal be referred back to the planning commission.

8:03 p.m. A resident who lives near the corner of Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline Road is speaking. A number of concerns had been voiced by residents, none of which had been addressed so far, he says. Because of the speed on Ann Arbor-Saline, bicyclists use the sidewalk. So he has concerns about pedestrians being impacted by this development. Planning staff contends that traffic would not increase, but he is skeptical. He asks that the project be referred to the planning commission for further review.

8:05 p.m. A resident of Pomona, who’s a practicing Muslim, wants to advocate against negative perceptions of Muslims. Hieftje explains that speakers must address the topic of the public hearing. The resident thanks the mayor for the explanation and leaves the podium.

8:06 p.m. PH: Shell/Tim Hortons site plan. Thomas Partridge is again criticizing the project based on traffic issues.

8:08 p.m. PH: Belle Tire site plan. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:11 p.m. PH: Rayer annexation. Thomas Partridge says he’s very concerned about the proliferation of zoning changes and annexations that are brought before the council without transparent information about them. He calls for this annexation proposal to be returned to the planning commission, so that an equal amount of acreage should be zoned for affordable housing and for businesses on public transportation routes.

8:14 p.m. PH: Liquor license review fees. Jeff Hayner is addressing the council on this issue. He’d just received a text message from a Ward 1 bar owner. The bar owner’s message says that lowering the fee for new licenses helps reduce the barrier to entry, but the owner is not in favor of the increase of fees for existing license holders. He appreciated the fact that the city wants to cover its staff costs.

8:17 p.m. Thomas Partridge is concerned about the loss of income to the city through the lowering of the fees. He calls for the proposal to be returned to the council’s liquor license review committee, to see if fees can be raised.

8:18 p.m. A young man is addressing the council based on free market principles. It should be easier to start businesses in all areas. We should make it cheaper to obtain liquor licenses, he says. He gets applause.

8:24 p.m. Minutes. Kunselman alludes to an updated version of the council minutes. He questions whether the minutes accurately reflect the McWilliams confirmation to the DDA board. Kunselman reviews the Sept. 3 meeting minutes. He now reviews the Sept.16 meeting minutes. He asks mayor John Hieftje to correct the characterization that the mayor gave on Sept. 16 when he said the nomination had been “postponed.” Kunselman notes that the nomination was crossed out after the Sept. 3 meeting. There’s a blow-by-blow here: “Column: How to Count to 8, Stopping at 6.”

8:24 p.m. Kailasapathy says she thought the nomination of McWilliams had been withdrawn on Sept. 3.

8:28 p.m. Kunselman asks that the minutes be amended to say that the mayor “pretended” the nomination had been postponed. Briere expresses no enthusiasm for discussing it. She asks for input from city attorney Stephen Postema. Postema says that it’s not a legal issue, and that what the council is being asked to do is approve the minutes. Anglin ventures that the minutes could be approved with an exception. There’s no interest in that from Kunselman.

8:28 p.m. Warpehoski says that Kunselman is proposing to falsify the historical record, and that he’s just engaging in political theater.

8:35 p.m. Lumm says that she thought McWilliams’ name had been withdrawn and was surprised to see it brought forward on Sept. 16. She says she wished she’d had better command of the parliamentary procedures. Teall says she thought the confirmation had been postponed on Sept. 3. She tells Kunselman that what he’s proposing isn’t accurate.

8:39 p.m. Kunselman says that others took the mayor at his word when he said he was withdrawing the nomination. There’s back and forth between Teall and Kunselman on the question of what Hieftje’s intent was. Briere raises a point of order, asking Hieftje to recognize each speaker in turn to regulate the speaking turns.

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

8:40 p.m. Outcome: The amendment on the minutes is unanimously approved, as are the minutes themselves.

8:40 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:

• Contract with TSP Services, Inc. for the demolition of farmhouse, barns and outbuildings at the Wheeler Service Center ($57,940)
• Purchase Order to Telvent USA for Fiber Optic Network (FON) asset management software ($41,520)
• Schedule 17 of interagency agreement for collaborative technology and services (Washtenaw County, Provider) ($80,643)
• Transfer Delinquent water utility, board up, clean up, vacant property inspection, housing inspection, fire inspection, fire alarm, police alarm and graffiti removal invoices to the December 2013 City Tax Roll
• Professional services agreement with The Azimuth Group, Inc. for organizational development ($53,010) This consultant is supposed to help the city over the next 18 months to develop “strategies and tactics to improve employee engagement, improve organizational alignment with the City’s mission statement, and foster a cohesive organizational culture.”
• Street closings for the Ann Arbor Thanksgiving Day Turkey Trot – Thursday, Nov. 28, 2013
• Purchase of a turf aerator and a thatcher/seeder from Spartan Distributors ($29,989)
• Purchase of a light rescue vehicle for the fire department from Red Holman GMC ($26,777)

8:41 p.m. Briere pulls out the Azimuth Group Inc. professional services agreement from the consent agenda, to be considered separately.

8:42 p.m. Briere asks city administrator Steve Powers to explain the item. Powers says the intent is to help improve the city government’s ability to organize among the departments and to align the staff with the priorities set by the council. He describes the involvement of the consultant as lasting about 12 months.

8:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the consent agenda.

8:42 p.m. Shell/Tim Hortons PUD zoning. The Shell/Tim Hortons is at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. The changes to the PUD (planned unit development) supplemental regulations on the 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building.

8:44 p.m. Teall invites city planning manager Wendy Rampson to address the traffic issues. Rampson indicates that the study concluded that most of the traffic that would be turning into the drive-thru would already be on the road.

8:44 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the changes to the PUD supplemental regulations for the Shell/Tim Hortons drive-thru on Ann Arbor-Saline Road.

8:45 p.m. Shell/Tim Hortons site plan. A request for approval of the site plan for this project is considered separately.

8:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the site plan for the Shell/Tim Hortons drive-thru on Ann Arbor-Saline Road.

8:45 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess.

8:54 p.m. Have been told by his elementary school principal from years ago, that the young man who addressed the council during the liquor license public hearing was Josh Nacht, David Nacht’s son.

8:56 p.m. We’re back.

8:56 p.m. Sidewalk ordinance changes. This ordinance change – to the definition of a sidewalk – was up for final approval on July 1, 2013. If an existing walkway meets the definition of a “sidewalk,” then the city bears responsibility for its repair for the duration of the sidewalk repair millage – which was approved by voters in November 2011 for a five-year period. All other things being equal, the adjacent property owner would be responsible for snow removal in the winter.

The change to the definition relates to walkways that aren’t really on the “side” of anything – walkways that connect a street to a park or school, or that connect two parallel streets. The city calls them “cross-lot” walkways. The ordinance change would allow such walkways to be “sidewalks” if the council votes to accept them for “public use.” A companion resolution later on the agenda would do that – for 34 cross-lot walkways.

If such walkways were added into the definition of “sidewalk” in this way, then the city would be responsible for repair. That’s a result welcomed by property owners. But all other things being equal, that would put the burden for snow removal on those property owners – a less welcome result. That was the sentiment that led the council to postpone final consideration of the change back in July.

But tonight the council will be asked to consider a different approach to that definitional change – one that would allow the so-called “cross-lot” paved pathways to qualify as sidewalks under the city’s ordinance, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners. This fresh look tonight would mean that any action taken would be considered only an initial approval of the ordinance change. Final enactment of the change would require a second vote at a subsequent council meeting.

8:59 p.m. Briere thanks the staff for responding to concerns of the council. The ordinance doesn’t just change the definition, but also makes clear that adjacent property owners are not responsible for winter snow clearance or mowing the grass. Historically, they’ve never been responsible, she says. She notes that this approach will eliminate the possibility that one of four property owners might be regarded as a “slacker.” Lumm also says she’ll support the ordinance tonight.

9:01 p.m. Lumm says the original intent was a good one – to allow the sidewalk repair funds to be used for these cross-lot paths. She compliments the staff for looking at other communities. The $7,000 cost to the city for repair and maintenance, she says, is “peanuts.” It’s just what local government should do, she says.

Kunselman also says he supports this approach. He wants to know what happens if a renewal of the sidewalk repair millage does not pass.

9:01 p.m. Cresson Slotten, manager of the city’s systems planning unit, says that if that millage were not renewed, the property owners would still not have any responsibility.

9:07 p.m. Responding to a question from Anglin, Slotten indicates that the new ordinance makes clear that adjacent property owners do not have responsibility for repair and maintenance. Anglin wants it to be made clearer. Briere says she can understand Anglin’s confusion, because the two parts of the ordinance don’t appear to be related. But she reiterates Slotten’s point that the ordinance simply states that property owners don’t have responsibility for cross-lot walkways.

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

9:14 p.m. Warpehoski brings up subsection (B) and wonders if it voids existing agreements with neighborhood associations. Elias says that it’s an exception to the exception. Anglin wants the city to provide a document for residents that they can keep with their deeds. Kailasapathy questions whether the cross-lot walkways belong to the property owners. Elias is reluctant to record any documents with deeds, because the council can change the ordinance in the future.

9:17 p.m. Anglin says a resident has just handed him some communication he’d received from the city in 2009. That communication had stated that the resident now had responsibility for maintenance. Anglin suggests that a similar communication could be sent to state that people don’t have responsibility.

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

9:19 p.m. Kunselman asks about the dates in the ordinance that refer to the Ann Arbor DDA. Elias allows that the ordinance would need to be revised if the sidewalk repair millage is renewed. She explains that this is part of the ordinance that relates to ordinary sidewalks on the side of streets.

9:19 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to give initial approval to the inclusion of cross-lot walkways in the definition of sidewalk, but without the associated requirement that adjacent property owners are responsible for snow clearance.

9:20 p.m. Accept 34 sidewalks for public use (8 votes required). This is the companion resolution to the ordinance change that would broaden the definition of a sidewalk to include cross-lot walkways. The ordinance change – which was given initial approval earlier in the meeting – allows such walkways to qualify as sidewalks for purposes of spending from the sidewalk repair millage, without triggering a winter maintenance requirement by adjacent property owners. But to qualify, the walkways must be accepted for public use by the city council. This resolution would accept 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

9:20 p.m. Lumm moves to postpone. It will be considered at the second reading of the ordinance change. Steve Powers confirms it should be postponed.

9:21 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone acceptance of 34 different cross-lot walkways for public use until the council’s Oct. 21 meeting

9:21 p.m. Authorization of sewage disposal revenue re-funding bonds.

9:22 p.m. Lumm says she appreciates that all the costs associated with the bond issuance are included in the savings.

9:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the re-funding of the sewage disposal revenue bonds.

9:22 p.m. Liquor license fee changes. This item is coming forward from the liquor license review committee. Some fees are being eliminated – those related to licenses for which the state of Michigan doesn’t require local review. And the remaining license fee schedule is being revised to reflect actual costs:

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

9:24 p.m. Lumm is speaking on behalf of the council’s liquor license review committee. She explains that transfers don’t require review by the state, so those fees are being eliminated. She notes that the adjustments are meant to reflect the actual underlying city costs. The fees hadn’t been reviewed in a quite a while, she says.

9:25 p.m. Lumm thanks the various staff who helped with the recommendation.

9:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the changes to the liquor license fees.

9:25 p.m. 100 Resilient Cities Centennial challenge grant application. This resolution directs the city administrator to apply for the grant, which is sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. Each of 100 winning cities will receive three forms of support, according to the Rockefeller Foundation website:

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

9:26 p.m. Warpehoski says the resolution was recommended by the city environmental commission. He says it might be somewhat of a long shot, but the strength of the city’s application resides in the work that the city has already done. Staff effort to put together the application is not anticipated to be onerous, he says.

9:29 p.m. Kailasapathy asks Matt Naud, environmental coordinator for the city, to come to the podium. She asks about working toward rankings compared to actually approving the quality of life. Naud says that the amount of the grant would be $1 million, with the only requirement that the city name someone as the chief resilience officer. Kailasapathy asks about staff time. Naud says the city would be buying someone to work on this for the period of the grant. He says it would supplement the work that the city is already doing.

9:30 p.m. Kunselman asks what “resiliency” means in this context and what would the city be planning for. Naud’s first try gets this response from Kunselman: “You didn’t answer my question.” Naud says it’s being resilient to natural and made-made disasters. He refers to emergency management and climate action plans as examples.

9:32 p.m. Briere says that the environmental commission, on which she serves as a councilmember, has been talking about resiliency. It includes helping neighborhoods to make connections to the city to make sure that assistance can be provided – to deal with a tree that’s fallen down or a road that’s collapsed. The goal is to create the capacity to recover quickly when things go wrong, she says.

9:34 p.m. Briere says the issue has been studied in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, as well as in Chicago, studying how neighborhoods responded to economic downturns. Anglin wonders if these grants were intended for cities much larger than Ann Arbor.

9:35 p.m. Anglin says he thinks it’s a good idea to be prepared. Hieftje says he doesn’t see a reason not to apply. The reward could be great. He ventures that these kinds of grants tend to be awarded to cities that already have “a lot on the ball.” Ann Arbor is not immune from natural disasters, he says. He calls the departure of Pfizer as an economic storm that the city had weathered very well. He appreciates the environmental commission bringing it forward.

9:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to direct the city administrator to apply for the Rockefeller Foundation 100 Resilient Cities grant.

9:36 p.m. Street closure for University of Michigan Victors for Michigan Campaign. The Victors campaign is the university’s capital fundraising campaign. The proposed street closure would shut down North University from Thayer to Fletcher from noon to midnight on Friday, Nov. 8, 2013 for the launch of the campaign. The staff memo indicates that the activities will include live music, entertainment, activities, free food and drinks and giveaways. The event itself starts at 5 p.m.

9:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the street closure for the UM Victors campaign.

9:36 p.m. Amend FY 2014 general fund budget for traffic calming (speed bumps) projects ($55,000). (8 votes required). This resolution would add an additional five traffic calming projects to the work plan over this year and the next fiscal year. Starting in 2010, the city had reduced the number of traffic calming studies that it would fund to just one per year. Tonight’s resolution would transfer $55,000 from the city’s general fund to the local street fund, to pay for an additional two studies this year (FY 2014). In addition, the resolution directs city administrator Steve Powers to include three traffic calming projects in FY 2015.

The five projects mentioned in the resolution are: South Boulevard (Ward 3 – qualified for traffic calming in 2009); Pomona Road (Ward 5 – qualified in 2009); Wells (Ward 3 – qualified in 2009); Larchmont Drive (Ward 2 – qualified in 2010); Northside (Ward 1 – qualified in 2012). The resolution is being sponsored by Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

9:40 p.m. Briere says that her neighborhood had sought traffic calming measures back in about 2003. They’d first asked for stop signs and had been told they couldn’t have them. She recalled the confusion about the petitioning process. She’s describing her neighborhood’s experience in a fair amount of detail. Duck and mating season are a point of information. A porch was torn off by a speeding car. A stopped speeder told the police officer to just keep her driver’s license because she was in a hurry. Briere is now talking about the importance of addressing the traffic calming measures in other neighborhoods.

9:42 p.m. Kailasapathy says that cars speeding down quiet streets is not the kind of Ann Arbor we want to see. Traffic calming helps make neighborhoods livable, she says. She’s contrasting the importance of funding projects like this, with the constant push to focus on the downtown area.

9:46 p.m. Lumm says she’s happy to co-sponsor the resolution, and thanks Briere and Kailasapathy. She asks Nick Hutchinson, senior project manager, some questions. He says that the five petitions mentioned in the resolution are the only petitions currently active.

Lumm wants to know if the money allocated for the State Street corridor study could be used for the FY 2014 traffic calming. City administrator Steve Powers indicates that the State Street corridor study is complete. There’s also a State Street traffic study, he says. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl explains that the study in the FY 2014 budget is for traffic and transportation in the State Street area.

9:47 p.m. Lumm says she’s supportive of the resolution and is glad to see it move forward. Kunselman says he’s also supportive.

9:48 p.m. Kunselman says he’s concerned about a future backlog. He says he’d hate to have a backlog in FY 2016. He wants to know who makes the decisions about opening up the petitioning process.

9:51 p.m. Nick Hutchinson says the FY 2014 would need to be done by June 30, 2014. The other two would need to be done after July 1, 2014. Kunselman says there are a number of street projects coming up in FY 2014. Kunselman wants to know if the traffic calming project would impact the staff’s ability to complete those projects. The design, Hutchinson says, is not complicated. It’s more the public engagement process that requires effort. He says the 2010 decision to suspend acceptance of petitions was made by the public services area administrator at the time [Sue McCormick].

9:54 p.m. Kunselman is pressing for details about the program. He wants to know why more money wasn’t already budgeted n FY 2014. Powers says it was a question of priority. Kunselman wants to know why the council would now amend the budget. Briere ventures that the reason that the city council didn’t ask for more traffic calming is that they had forgotten that such projects were done. She says the neighborhoods might not have pestered councilmembers about it.

10:00 p.m. Teall says that the rerouted traffic from the East Stadium bridges project had led a neighborhood to delay a request for traffic calming. Lumm says she now has a list of streets where people have said they want traffic calming for their streets. She suggests that the $237,000 of street funds in the public art fund could be tapped for additional traffic calming projects. She wants information from the city attorney about how to proceed with that. That seems like a logical and appropriate source for funding traffic calming.

Briere says she appreciates the reminder about the public art fund. She notes that the public art ordinance would need to be amended in order to return those public art funds to the street fund.

10:04 p.m. Kunselman says he doesn’t think that the street millage fund can be used for traffic calming. But he wants more information about how to fund it for a much longer duration. He doesn’t want a stop-and-go approach for the funding of the program. As much as he’d like to spend the money, he says he still wants to be careful. It would open up the door for other safety projects – streetlights, crosswalks and the like.

10:04 p.m. Kunselman wants a postponement. [As a budget amendment, the resolution needs eight votes and any one of the councilmembers could effectively "veto" the resolution.] Kunselman moves for postponement.

Anglin is holding forth. Teall raises a point of order, saying that Anglin should be speaking to the postponement. Anglin replies that he’s speaking about a reason for the postponement – he wants a more scientific way of looking at it. Lumm understands the intent of the postponement, but won’t support it. The resolution tonight is modest, she says.

10:09 p.m. Briere says she appreciates Kunselman goal in postponement. She feels it’s an infrastructure improvement, so it’s a resolution consistent with the council’s priorities. It focuses on Kunselman’s regular critique of the council, she notes – that the council doesn’t focus on health, safety and welfare. Briere says she appreciates the need for more data, but thinks a lot of the data already exists.

Teall says she won’t support the postponement, but appreciates what Kunselman’s goal is – to look at the issue more comprehensively.

10:09 p.m. Outcome on postponement: The motion to postpone fails.

10:12 p.m. Kunselman says he’ll support the resolution. It brings forth a new era of projects supporting safety in neighborhoods, he says. Lumm reiterates her support of the resolution.

Hieftje recalls being around when the traffic calming program started. During the recession, many things were cut, he says. He warned there is pushback on these kinds of projects, because some people don’t support traffic calming.

10:12 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to add five traffic calming projects.

10:12 p.m. Waive attorney-client privilege. If approved, the resolution would result in the waiver of attorney-client privilege with respect to a specific advice memo that has already been written by the city attorney’s office. The memo responds to questions that were raised about the procedure used to appoint Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at the council’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting.

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

The advice memo likely establishes that it’s doubtful a successful court challenge could be brought – partly because it’s not clear who might have standing to bring such a suit. A “whereas” clause in the waiver resolution states that “the public good will be best served by releasing this advice to the public.” The first of two “resolved” clauses makes clear that the waiver of the attorney-client privilege is confined to a narrow circumstance: “The Council waives privilege in this specific circumstance, as the waiver of privilege does not expose the City to material legal risk and disclosure of the legal issues raised in this memo would not unduly constrain future Council actions.”

10:18 p.m. Warpehoski explains that the resolution was developed before the city attorney’s advice memo was written. The city attorney’s advice is generally confidential for a good reason, he says. Warpehoski proposes four tests: (1) legal risk should be small; (2) public interest is wide; (3) release of information doesn’t unduly constrain future council action; and (4) it doesn’t blindside the city attorney. Based on conversations with Christopher Taylor and the city attorney, Warpehoski says, the idea is to ask that an opinion, for a third party, be written as opposed to waiving privilege for an existing document.

10:21 p.m. Warpehoski is explaining the difference between the first draft of the resolution and the revised one: “That City Council requests that the City Attorney draft an opinion by October 16, 2013 for the benefit of the public that answers whether the September 16, 2013 vote to appoint Al McWilliams to the DDA can be challenged on the grounds that the confirmation motion should have required 8 votes…”

10:23 p.m. Postema says that it would make no sense for him to prepare an opinion for an audience outside the council in the ordinary course of business. But this resolution is an action taken by the council, his client, so he’s prepared to draft the opinion.

10:27 p.m. Kailasapathy addresses the issue of the public’s interest. Postema says that the vote was taken and the vote was announced. The legal significance of that is the only thing he’s going to put in his opinion, and the answer is going to be fairly easy.

Kailasapathy is not satisfied: “People are really upset.” She’s really troubled that the legal opinion will be so narrowly focused. She’s concerned about the integrity of the entire confirmation process. Briere says that the city attorney has suggested that the rules be revised to make the appointment process clear. She says she’s not sure how to change the outcome of the vote. She doesn’t know how Kailasapathy’s goal can be realized – which Briere thinks is to rescind McWilliams’ nomination.

10:31 p.m. Kunselman says he finds the resolution bizarre, because the provision in the charter already sets forth the procedure for filing the opinion. Kunselman reviews the arguments regarding the procedural requirement of 8 votes. He reviews his email correspondence with the city clerk. Kunselman says that the clerk has asked the city attorney for advice, which Kunselman says triggers the charter requirement for when an administrative head requests advice. Postema says that he responds only to council requests.

Hieftje says he’s happy to support the resolution.

10:36 p.m. Anglin says that anyone who voted in favor could bring it back now. Warpehoski asks Kailasapathy what she was looking for in the resolution. She says she doesn’t have the exact verbiage. She feels that justice was not served. It was not just the council feeling blindsided, but also the public. Warpehoski says he hears that, and as he reads Roberts Rules, he doesn’t see a motion to reconsider as being in order – based on the DDA Act that states that a member can only be removed after a public hearing. He was ready to move forward with a motion to reconsider, but doesn’t think it’s in order under parliamentary rules.

10:39 p.m. Kunselman says that city clerk Jackie Beaudry was due a response. Postema says she was not due a response. Kunselman asks Postema if Warpehoski could bring back the motion for reconsideration. Postema says that’s up to Warpehoski to answer. Warpehoski says that the outcome of the confirmation vote has been partially executed, and for that reason Roberts Rules would prohibit it.

10:41 p.m. Kunselman asks Hieftje if he would allow Warpehoski to bring a motion to reconsider. Hieftje appeals to the DDA Act and what’s required for removal of a DDA member. Kunselman says that the entire board has engaged in willful neglect. So that would be the “cause” that could be used to remove members of the DDA board.

10:46 p.m. Lumm says it’s important to clear the air on this. Postema says that the question is the legal effect of the vote. Lumm says that that doesn’t clear the air. She discusses various council rules.

10:46 p.m. Anglin says that the councilmembers who are “hiding behind” legal consideration should move for a reconsideration.

10:47 p.m. Outcome: The council voted over dissent from Mike Anglin to direct the city attorney to draft an opinion on McWilliams’ appointment.

10:48 p.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss land acquisition.

11:08 p.m. We’re back from closed session that was followed by a recess.

11:08 p.m. Adopt solid waste resource plan. The council is being asked to adopt a plan that includes a number of initiatives, including goals for increased recycling/diversion rates – generally and for apartment buildings in particular. A pilot program would add all plate scrapings to the materials that can be placed in the brown carts used to collect compostable matter. And if that pilot program is successful, the plan calls for the possibility of reducing the frequency of curbside pickup – from the current weekly regime to a less frequent schedule.

Also included in the draft plan is a proposal to relocate and upgrade the drop-off station at Platt and Ellsworth. The implementation of a fee for single-use bags at retail outlets is also part of the plan. Previous Chronicle coverage: Waste as Resource: Ann Arbor’s Five Year Plan[Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan.] [Appendices to Waste Less]

11:12 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 5) is explaining the background of how the plan was developed. The goal is to reduce the amount of material that is thrown away, she says. Solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie is at the podium explaining that there was a lot of participation from various parts of the community to develop the plan. There’s a big item that the plan includes, he says – reduced organic waste. It’s the next big “frontier,” he says, to expand organics collection for composting.

11:16 p.m. Briere is now asking questions of McMurtrie. When the manual sorting of the waste in a truck had been done, she said, it was hard to estimate how much food waste could be diverted. McMurtrie explained that it was hard because it was mixed in with all the other material, and he asked councilmembers to imagine “ripping open garbage bags pawing through material.”

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

11:19 p.m. Briere asks McMurtrie to address the issue of some items that could not be composted – like diapers. McMurtrie described the plan as directing the evaluation of reduced frequency, not to implement it. He gives Portland as an example. Briere ventures that the food waste collection could be implemented and then be evaluated for the potential. She says that reduced frequency could voluntarily be implemented by people simply not setting out their carts if they’re not full.

11:23 p.m. Lumm thanks all those involved. She understands that the plan doesn’t commit the city to particular actions, but is concerned about some that are mentioned – like the reduced frequency of trash pickup. People can’t believe that the solid waste millage, which generates $12 million annually, she says, isn’t enough to pay for weekly trash pickup. She calls this the most basic and fundamental service to residents. She moves an amendment to the solid waste plan, to remove all references to every-other-week curbside pickup. Kailasapathy also wants “pay as you throw” to be deleted from the plan.

11:26 p.m. Lumm considers Kailasapathy’s suggestion friendly. Lumm recalls her previous tenure on the council when pay-as-you-throw proposals had been studied. Briere tells McMurtrie that she recalls him saying that not everything the city has done in the last 10 years has been included in the plan. She ventures that even if mention of the frequency reduction is omitted, it’s still possible that it could be implemented. McMurtrie says yes, but not without approval of the council.

11:34 p.m. Kunselman brings up RecycleBank. He also questions whether Portland should be used as an example, since that region doesn’t deal with freezing weather. Kunselman says that he supports the amendments. He says that if you leave a baby diaper in a cart for more than a week, it will be pretty “rank.”

Teall won’t support the amendments. You have to study an issue, she said, to find out if it will work. She’s grateful that we live in an environment where “poop freezes,” Teall says. Warpehoski teases Teall that the council will not appoint her – a reference to the McWilliams appointment to the DDA.

11:41 p.m. Hieftje says that Portland is generally regarded as a model city in the U.S. Briere says that it’s possible to track how often people set out their refuse carts, so the city could measure the impact of its efforts. Briere points out that Portland has privatized its trash collection, so its approach can’t be compared directly.

Kunselman says that Briere’s point is an important piece of information. He asks if Portland has a “dumping problem.” McMurtrie says that hasn’t been researched. Briere says she couldn’t find anything on that topic. Responding to Teall’s point that there’s a lot of citizens who really like to reduce, reuse, and recycle, Kunselman says he’s one of them. But it’s important to give residents confidence that the city is staying on track with weekly trash collection.

11:47 p.m. Hieftje wants to have the amendments on pay-as-you-throw and on every-other-week trash collection separated out again. Lumm and Kailasapathy agree to that. Hieftje says that on his block, many people don’t put out their trash every week. Warpehoski says he understands Teall’s frustration about not being leaders. But he’ll support the amendment on the mention of every-other-week. There’s other lower hanging fruit than food waste – like improving multi-family recycling rates – which offer less angst, he says.

11:50 p.m. Kunselman says there’s nothing he likes more than “talking trash,” apparently completely aware of the pun. He was responding to Hieftje’s effort to move the council along to a vote on the amendment. Lumm says she supports the amendment.

11:51 p.m. Outcome on the every-other-week amendment: The council has approved the amendment over dissent from Hieftje and Teall.

11:52 p.m. Kailasapathy is now arguing for her amendment that would remove mention of pay-as-you-throw from the five-year solid waste plan. Hieftje says he’ll support the amendment and hopes it’ll move along quickly.

11:53 p.m. Outcome on the pay-as-you-throw amendment: The council has unanimously approved the amendment removing mention of pay-as-you-throw as a possibility.

11:57 p.m. Anglin has raised the question of how dangerous materials are disposed of, like fluorescent light bulbs. Lumm says she’ll support the solid waste plan. Kunselman reads a headline out of Portland indicating that when Portland switched to every-other-week pickup, dirty diapers started piling up in recycling bins.

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to adopt the solid waste plan as amended.

11:58 p.m. Belle Tire site plan. The planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting. The site is located at 590 W. Ellsworth – just east of the intersection with South State Street.

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

The 1-acre site – currently vacant – is on the north side of Ellsworth, adjacent to and east of a new Tim Hortons. A restaurant building formerly located on the property was demolished.

The proposal calls for putting up a one-story, 9,735-square-foot auto service facility with 49 parking spaces, included 10 spaces located in service bays. An existing curb cut into the site from Ellsworth would be closed, and the business would share an entrance with the Tim Hortons site. The project includes a new sidewalk along Ellsworth.

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Belle Tire site plan.

11:58 p.m. Rayer annexation. This is a standard annexation into the city of Ann Arbor. It’s 0.39 acres, located at 2640 Miller Ave.

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the Rayer annexation.

11:58 p.m. Annual purchase order for U.P.M. high performance cold patch material (pothole repair) Barrett Paving Materials Inc. ($116,500). UPM seems to stand for “universal patching material.”

11:59 p.m. Briere says it’s always good to see it on the list of things the city is doing.

11:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the purchase of cold patch material.

11:59 p.m. Easement for water main from the University of Michigan at 2850 South Industrial Highway (8 votes required). The easement is needed in connection with the construction of a bus storage facility at the adjacent Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority headquarters at 2700 South Industrial Hwy.

11:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the easement for a water main from the University of Michigan.

12:08 a.m. Open agenda. Warpehoski wants to open the agenda to reconsider the McWilliams nomination. Agenda is now open.

Warpehoski moves reconsideration of the nomination. He says that whether it took six or eight votes, the ruling of the meeting made at the meeting should stand, saying that it’s too late to raise a point of order. A point of order has to be made at the time of breech breach. So he feels the vote stands.

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

12:11 a.m. Kunselman says he really supports Warpehoski’s leadership. He offers the assurance requested by Warpehoski. Now Warpehoski moves for postponement – but the council hasn’t voted on the motion to reconsider. Hieftje indicates the motion to reconsider will be moved to the next meeting. If that vote is successful, then the council will debate the confirmation.

12:13 a.m. Hieftje says he’ll support the effort. He apologizes for using the wrong word – “nomination” versus “motion.” Briere says she appreciated Warpehoski’s work on the effort. They’d worked together on the issue of the attorney’s opinion as well.

12:13 a.m. Outcome: The council has postponed until Oct. 21 the motion to reconsider the vote on the Al McWilliams appointment to the DDA board.

12:13 a.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:17 a.m. The Muslim speaker from earlier has waited until the end of the meeting. He invites councilmembers to the Islamic Center of Ann Arbor to learn more about their community. His name is Eldred Bruce Meadows.

12:17 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.

The Recycle Ann Arbor booth at the annual Mayor’s Green Fair held this year on June 14. The relative size of the containers reflects the goals for the amount of compostables, recyclables and material to be landfilled. (Photos by the writer.)

The council will be asked to adopt a draft plan that includes a number of initiatives, including goals for increased recycling/diversion rates – generally and for apartment buildings in particular. A pilot program would add all plate scrapings to the materials that can be placed in the brown carts used to collect compostable matter.

And if that pilot program is successful, the plan calls for the possibility of reducing the frequency of curbside pickup – from the current weekly regime to a less frequent schedule. Also included in the draft plan is a proposal to relocate and upgrade the drop-off station at Platt and Ellsworth. The implementation of a fee for single-use bags at retail outlets is also part of the plan.

City staff had originally intended to place the adoption of the solid waste plan on the council’s legislative agenda much earlier than this fall. The work on updating the plan had already begun over 18 months ago, in January 2012. And a bit more than a year later, on Feb. 28, 2013, the city’s environmental commission had voted to recommend that the city council adopt the plan.

This article begins with a look at one reason for the delay – which was not related directly to the plan itself. That’s followed by a brief look at the solid waste fund, which pays for the collection of trash, recyclable materials and yard waste.

Revenue to the fund is then considered in terms of the idea that solid waste is a resource, something that’s reflected in the title of the proposed update to the city’s solid waste plan: “Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan.” In particular, this report looks at a recent $2.50/ton negative impact the fund recently needed to absorb – due to the cancellation of a contract with the company that was purchasing the recycled glass product from Ann Arbor’s materials recovery facility (MRF).

Even though prospects for replacing the contract with a different buyer appear good, the cancellation of that contract highlights a significant consideration: Waste collection services in a local municipality depend in part on revenues that are subject to market forces that can lie beyond the direct control of that municipality.

So one section below takes a look at prospects for developing more influence on the markets – at the level of state economic development efforts. That includes the unintended negative impact that an expansion to the state of Michigan’s bottle bill could have on revenues to local MRFs. One argument for the bottle bill’s expansion is that it will reduce litter from newer types of containers. That’s also one argument for the possible local plastic bag fee recommended in the draft solid waste plan.

Beyond financial viability, success is also defined in the five-year plan partly as increased “diversion rates.” So this report also looks at that statistic and what it actually means.

Delay in Presentation to the City Council

On Feb. 28, 2013 – after more than a year of work by an advisory committee, which divided further into subcommittees – the city’s environmental commission voted to recommend the plan’s adoption by the city council.

The original timeframe for the council’s consideration of the updated solid waste plan included a scheduled May 13 work session on the topic – with the intent that the adoption of the plan would come to the council vote on June 17. However, the council’s focus this spring was occupied with controversial downtown planning and development issues, which led to a meeting on April 15 that lasted until 3 a.m. And at that meeting, the council postponed a significant number of items until its May 6 meeting.

The extra-long May 6 agenda led the council to recess that meeting before it handled all the agenda items, and resume it on May 13. That made the May 13 work session on the solid waste plan a casualty of the council’s focus on downtown development issues. And that led to the omission of the solid waste plan from the council’s published agenda on June 17.

About the Solid Waste Fund

Despite the cancellation of the May 13 council work session on the solid waste plan, solid waste featured prominently in the council’s May 20 budget deliberations a week later. That came in the context of a proposal brought forward by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to restore a loose leaf collection program, which the city had previously discontinued. The proposal failed on a 5-6 vote.

At the May 20 meeting, city solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie was asked to outline budget implications for a loose leaf collection system. A major risk to the solid waste fund identified by McMurtrie on that occasion was the need to replace and relocate the drop-off station, as it slowly sinks in its current location atop a former landfill. That’s one of the recommended actions in the draft five-year solid waste plan.

Together with A mandated accounting change that has to be implemented in FY 2015 (GASB 68) [$4.5 million], together with the replacement of the drop-off station [$4.9 million], could require as much as $9.4 million. That’s more than the current unrestricted (available) balance in the solid waste fund, which comes to $8.6 million. [.pdf of financial breakdown of solid waste fund provided to city council in spring 2013]

Solid Waste Fund: Tax Levy

At the May 20 city council meeting, Lumm argued that given its $11 million revenue stream from the solid waste tax, the solid waste fund surely could absorb the costs of offering the loose leaf collection service: a one-time cost of $395,000 (to purchase street sweepers) and an ongoing annual cost of $285,000. Historically, residents had been invited to sweep their leaves into the streets based on a set schedule in the fall. The city staff would use modified street sweepers to push the leaves into large piles, and front-end loaders were used to fill dump trucks. That service was last offered in 2009.

The $11.4 million that the solid waste fund is expected to receive in FY 2014 tax revenues is the result of a millage levied at a rate of 2.467 mills on real property. A mill is $1 for every $1,000 of taxable value. By way of comparison, Ann Arbor property owners pay a bit more than 2 mills to support public transportation, about 2 mills for street repair, a bit more than 1 mill for parks maintenance and capital repair, and almost 0.5 mill for open space preservation. The general operating millage for the city of Ann Arbor is a little more than 6 mills.

The solid waste millage is levied under the Garbage Disposal Plants Public Act 298 of 1917. It allows a city council to levy up to 3 mills of tax for the purpose of “collection and disposal of garbage in the city.” The amount has decreased from 3 mills due to the Headlee Amendment, according to city assessor David Petrak, and has been levied at least since 1980 – which is as far back as his records go.

Solid Waste Fund: Commodity Sales

In addition to the revenue from the solid waste tax levy – which shows up as “CITY REFUSE” on tax bills – the solid waste fund receives revenue from the sale of recycled commodities that are collected through the city’s recycling program. The revenue is conveyed to the city under terms of a contract between the city and ReCommunity, the private contractor who operates the city’s materials recovery facility (MRF).

At their Feb. 25, 2013 work session, council members had been presented with a breakdown of all the city’s major funds, including the solid waste fund – which included the revenue picture for recyclable commodities. Expressed in millions of dollars, here’s the breakdown.

       
                     FY10  FY11  FY12  FY13  FY14  FY15
Rcyclng Prcssng Crdt  0.3   1.2   1.4   0.6   0.6   0.6

-

McMurtrie was asked at the council’s May 20 meeting to account for the revenue drops in the sale of recycled commodities from the city’s MRF. He explained the decline as stemming from two factors. First, the market has dropped. That is, the price per ton of recycled product has decreased.

The second factor is related to the terms of a contract under which ReCommunity operates the city’s MRF. ReCommunity can pursue additional revenue for itself by accepting recyclables from other communities – but the city receives a share of that additional revenue. In FY 2011 and FY 2012, ReCommunity was able to add significantly to its non-city tonnage, which resulted in a four-fold increase in revenue compared with FY 2010. But as competition with other facilities increased, McMurtrie explained, recyclables that the city’s MRF previously processed from Lansing and Toledo were not being sent to Ann Arbor.

In chart form, the tonnages processed by the MRF (Chart 1) show a clear increase in non-city tons followed by a decrease, while the total tons processed from the city has remained relatively flat. [City tons include amounts from the curbside recycling program, a business dumpster program and a downtown recycling route.]

The fluctuation in revenue, due to changing prices in the market for recyclables, is evident in Chart 2 – as the revenue from city recyclables showed an increase followed by a significant decrease, even though tonnages were relatively constant.

Chart 3 illustrates why the total revenue to the city for its recyclable material is roughly comparable to non-city revenue – even though total tonnage is significantly less. Under terms of the city’s contract with ReCommunity, the city receives less revenue per ton for non-city materials than it does for materials collected under the city’s programs.

Chart 1: Ann Arbor MRF tonnage from July 2010 through April 2013. City tons are indicated in blue. Non-city tons are indicated in red. The total tonnage is charted in yellow. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor)

Chart 2: Ann Arbor MRF revenue from July 2010 through April 2013. Revenue from city recyclables is indicated in blue. Revenue from non-city recyclables is indicated in red. Total revenue is indicated in yellow. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor)

Chart 3: Ann Arbor MRF per ton revenue from July 2010 through April 2013. Revenue per ton for city recyclables is indicated in blue. Revenue per ton for non-city recyclables is indicated in red. (Chart by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor)

Commodity Markets

The overall numbers presented in Charts 1-3 make clear that the commodity markets for recyclable materials fluctuate.

Commodity Markets: ReCommunity’s Glass

This spring, the city’s MRF experienced a specific negative impact to revenue, due to the loss of its contract with its purchaser of recycled glass – Reflective Industries. In an early June conversation with The Chronicle, city solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie and environmental coordinator Matt Naud described how the recycled glass material is now being sold to the landfill where the city tips its garbage. It’s used as daily cover for the other trash and for construction of landfill road bed.

The economics of that scenario work out as follows. Previously, Reflective Industries was paying $4 per ton for recycled glass. The landfill used by the city, Woodland Meadows in Wayne, Michigan, is paying $1.50 per ton, a loss of $2.50 per ton. Under this arrangement, the city is still saving the $26/ton tipping fee charged by the landfill. So instead of a $30/ton net gain compared to simply throwing all the glass away, the city is only seeing a $27.50/ton net.

The Chronicle spoke by phone with Mike Csapo, chair of the Michigan Recycling Coalition’s policy committee and general manager of the Resource Recovery and Recycling Authority of Southwest Oakland County, which operates a MRF. The interview covered a range of issues, including fluctuating commodities markets. Csapo indicated it’s not uncommon that a MRF will periodically have to resort to selling recycled glass to a landfill, or even paying someone to take it away.

The Chronicle was not able to confirm a specific reason for the decision by Reflective Industries to drop the Ann Arbor glass contract. However, ReCommunity – which operates Ann Arbor’s MRF – is currently in talks with Strategic Materials Inc. about picking up the contract.

In a mid-June email responding to a query from The Chronicle, Strategic Materials chief operating officer Curt Bucey indicated optimism about reaching an agreement, but wrote that nothing would be finalized until the glass mixture from ReCommunity’s Ann Arbor MRF is assessed for quality. “[Glass] is highly variable when it comes out of a MRF. Some do a good job cleaning up the glass and some MRFs count on us cleaning it up. … ReCommunity does a better job than most.”

Commodity Markets: Sourcing Glass Walkways

Strategic Materials is set up to process recycled glass from municipal MRFs. But other companies are looking to source material of a quality and shape that a municipal MRF would have difficulty achieving. For example, FilterPave is a Columbia, Missouri firm that uses relatively finely ground recycled glass, in combination with an organic polyurethane made by BASF, to create pathways for pedestrian and light vehicles. The result is a porous surface that can help in applications where stormwater management is a concern.

Close-up of FilterPave installation at Leslie Science and Nature Center in Ann Arbor.

The FilterPave product was used in last year’s capital improvements to the walkways at Leslie Science and Nature Center (LSNC) in Ann Arbor.

FilterPave product manager Tim Killday told The Chronicle in a phone interview that the glass for the LSNC project was likely sourced from either California or Wisconsin. Why not from Ann Arbor’s MRF? Killday indicated that the end product from any municipal MRF would likely not be suitable for a FilterPave application – without a significant additional capital investment by that MRF.

It’s an ongoing interest, Killday said, for FilterPave to establish more regional connections, so that the recycled glass component of the product can be obtained from a source that is closer geographically to the project site.

Commodity Markets: Glass Countertops and State Strategy

It can be difficult currently for companies to identify where in Michigan recycled feedstocks for manufacturing are being produced in adequate quantity and quality. In a telephone interview with The Chronicle, chair of the Michigan Recycling Coalition’s policy committee Mike Csapo recounted a situation a few years ago when a California company that makes countertops from recycled glass had considered establishing a Michigan operations. The company had tried to identify possible sources of recycled glass in Michigan, Csapo said, but as he’d tried to provide some assistance it proved difficult to get comprehensive data.

In general, Csapo said, data on the availability of recycled material is not collected at the state level. That contrasts with data collection in other areas of solid waste management, he said, which is actually done fairly well. For example, landfills report their intakes in detail, as do registered composting sites. Michigan’s bottle bill means that part of the container waste stream is very well tracked. But there’s no systematic reporting at the state level from municipal MRFs, Csapo said.

Csapo contrasted the amount of detail that economic development agencies typically can provide in other areas compared to recyclable resources. Any economic development agency “worth its salt,” he said, could tell a company looking to locate on a property what liens might exist, what the access to utilities and other infrastructure is like, or what the average disposable income is in the area. But typically they aren’t able to say anything about the availability of recyclables as feedstocks for industry, he ventured.

Commodity Markets: Roads and State Strategy

While Csapo calls data collection “just Management 101,” another angle, besides information gathering, is to look at various specifications in Michigan industries – for example, road building – that might pose barriers to creating markets for recyclable products.

Matt Flechter, Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality’s recycling/composting coordinator, told The Chronicle in a phone interview that he’s working with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) to look at road building specifications, with the idea of allowing material from rubber tires to be included in the specifications. It’s possible that recycled glass and shingles might be considered as road-building materials in the future.

That way, county road commissions would be able to incorporate recyclable material into local road projects.

Commodity Markets: Executive, Legislative Roles

Flechter also indicated that besides data gathering and removal of barriers to market creation, he’s also looking at the fact that only 24 of Michigan’s 83 counties offer home recycling programs that are classified as “convenient.” There aren’t enough drop-off stations or enough curbside recycling programs statewide, he said.

Flechter and other MDEQ staff are working under the direction of a special message from Gov. Rick Snyder on energy and the environment to improve the situation [emphasis by The Chronicle]:

When we can redirect trash to productive use, we reduce the impact on our lands, air and water. And that’s why this is an area in which we need to do better. As a state, we have one of the lowest recycling rates in the Midwest. We need to look beyond our recycling of cans and plastic bottles and creatively figure out what we can do to reduce our waste overall. This year, my administration will examine possible options to get Michigan to where it needs to be on recycling, and I’ll be coming back to you with a comprehensive plan in 2014.

But some legislative efforts may in fact have counter-intuitive impacts on recycling programs.

For example, Michigan Sen. Rebekah Warren, whose 18th District includes Ann Arbor, recently sponsored a proposal (SB 0432) to expand Michigan’s bottle bill. Currently, consumers pay a deposit when they purchase beverages in certain types of containers. The deposit is returned when the container is returned to a store selling that type of beverage. Warren’s proposal would expand the types of containers included in the system – to include those for bottled water. Michigan Rep. Jeff Irwin, whose 53rd District includes most of Ann Arbor, is helping to sponsor a similar piece of legislation (HB 4198) in the state House.

In a comment left on Warren’s website, as well as in a phone interview with The Chronicle, Mike Csapo argued that expanding the bottle bill could have a negative impact on municipal recycling programs: “If you want to harm curbside recycling and municipal programs in Michigan, expand the bottle bill. That will take valuable materials away from our curbside programs.”

Csapo told The Chronicle that based on numbers he’d looked at a few years ago for the MRF he manages, clear plastics like those that go into bottled water containers make up 2% of the recycling stream, but account for 6% of revenue. If a bottle return law starts diverting those containers from local recycling facilities to a different stream, that would have a negative financial impact on the viability of local recycling programs.

In a June phone interview, Irwin said he gave more weight to the argument for the expanded bottle bill based on scenic beauty and the need to reduce litter from bottled water containers. The original bottle bill had been very effective in reducing litter – on roadsides and beaches. And he felt that the increasing prevalence of bottled water containers could be stemmed with a bottle bill expansion. Still, he acknowledged that it’s worth considering how to integrate that additional plastics stream into a more general state economic development strategy.

One of the recommendations in Ann Arbor’s draft solid waste plan is also based in part on a desire to reduce litter – specifically from single-use plastic bags. The recommendation is to implement some kind of fee that consumers would have to pay for a single-use bag.

That recommendation differs from an ordinance that appeared on the Ann Arbor city council’s agenda several times four years ago – which would have imposed a ban. The proposal had been brought forward by then-Ward 2 councilmember Stephen Rapundalo, but did not receive even an initial vote by the council:

• July 21, 2008: Plastic bags ordinance postponed at first reading.
• Oct. 6, 2008: Plastic bags ordinance postponed at first reading.
• March 2, 2009: Plastic bags ordinance postponed at first reading.
• June 1, 2009: Plastic bags ordinance postponed at first reading.
• Sept. 21, 2009: Plastic bags ordinance tabled at first reading.

Diversion Rates

A central goal of the draft five-year solid waste plan is to increase the “diversion rate.” The diversion rate is the total of recyclables and yard waste collected, divided by recyclables, yard waste and garbage:

For single-family residential, the goal is to increase the diversion rate from 50% to 60%. For the last six fiscal years starting in FY 2007, here’s what the single-family diversion rate looks like:

07    08    09    10    11    12

41%   54%   43%   50%   50%   49%

-

From the formula, it’s clear that one way to increase the diversion rate is to move materials represented in the denominator to the numerator: Get more of the material that can be recycled out of the garbage stream and into the recycling part of the equation.

Diversion Rates: Less Garbage, More Recyclables

According to the draft five-year plan, based on a sorting of trash from 96 randomly selected households in the fall of 2012, about 12% of the content of garbage trucks collecting residential routes could be placed in recycling carts instead.

That means there’s room for improvement – beyond the increase in recycling that the city’s numbers show after the city implemented a single-stream system in September 2010. That program replaced two tote bins with a single, large wheeled cart.

In Charts 4 and 5 below, the blue area covers a period preceding the single-stream system. The pink area covers the first two years of the single-stream system, which included a coupon incentive program administered by RecycleBank. The city council did not appropriate funding for the RecycleBank contract when it set the FY 2013 budget at its May 21, 2012 budget meeting. So the RecycleBank contract ended as of September 2012. The period after the cancellation of the contract is shown in gray. The horizontal bars are the average for each period.

There was some concern that discontinuing the RecycleBank incentive coupon program could lead to the erosion of gains made since the introduction of single-stream recycling. But the numbers so far don’t appear to show any erosion of the increase.

Chart 4: Ann Arbor Curbside Recycling Tonnages. The blue area represents a time period before single-stream recycling was implemented. The pink area is the two-year period of single stream plus a RecycleBank coupon incentive program. The gray area represents single stream after the RecycleBank contract was cancelled. (Chart by The Chronicle, from data provided by the city of Ann Arbor.)

Chart 5: Ann Arbor Curbside Trash Tonnages. The blue area represents a time period before single-stream recycling was implemented. The pink area is the two-year period of single stream plus a RecycleBank coupon incentive program. The gray area represents single stream after the RecycleBank contract was cancelled. (Chart by The Chronicle, from data provided by the city of Ann Arbor.)

Diversion Rates: Less Garbage, More Compostables

Another way to move material in the diversion rate equation is to take it out of the garbage and move it to compostables.

That’s the approach another recommendation in the five-year draft solid waste plan would take – by expanding the range of materials that are accepted as part of the brown compostable cart collection system. The recommendation is to include all plate scrapings in the compostables program. Based on a sorting of trash from 96 randomly selected households in the fall of 2012, about 50% of the material Ann Arborites put in the garbage is food waste.

A Doppstadt slow speed grinder/shredder used by WeCare Organics. (Image provided by WeCare)

Moving that material into the compostables category would have a positive impact on the diversion rate. If that move proves to be successful, it could also set the stage for reduced frequency in garbage collection – if the recommendations in the five-year plan are followed.

Can plate scrapings be accommodated into the city’s compost processing operation? That operation is managed by WeCare Organics, a private company under contract with the city. The Chronicle spoke by phone with Mike Nicholson, senior vice president at WeCare Organics, who indicated optimism that WeCare was already well positioned with the equipment needed to allow successful composting of plate scrapings as a part of the Ann Arbor operation.

Nicholson pointed to two pieces of equipment that WeCare now deploys on the site – a Doppstadt grinder and a Komptech windrow machine – that would ensure that plate scrapings would decompose as they should, along with the rest of the mix. A key to the speed of a composting process, like any chemical reaction, Nicholson pointed out, is increased surface area. That’s achieved through the kind of grinding done by the Doppstadt machine.

Komptech composter used by WeCare Organics. (Image provided by WeCare).

In giving a positive outlook on WeCare’s ability to incorporate plate scrapings into its current operation, Nicholson also pointed to the relatively small amount of the total composting stream that food waste would make up – perhaps 5-10% of it.

Taking plate scrapings out of the garbage and putting them into the compost cart would clearly have a positive impact on the diversion rate. But what if a resident started adding leaves and grass clippings to the brown cart that were previously mulched into the grass as it was mowed or composted on site in a backyard? Wouldn’t that scenario also have a positive impact on diversion rate?

In his phone interview with The Chronicle, Mike Csapo allowed that the statistic could be influenced upwards if people put grass clippings into the brown carts that they previously mulched in place. In the industry it’s assumed that resident behavior with respect to how they treat yard waste is likely to remain fairly stable or change only slowly. The idea behind the statistic, he said, is to make some attempt at standardizing for the sake of comparison across communities – but he cautioned that a pure apples-to-apples comparison is very difficult.

The diversion rate still measures success in terms of the basic question, Csapo noted: If we’re going to pick something up at the curb, are we just going to bury it, or will we utilize it for something?

Coda

Although the solid waste plan update was in some sense “buried” under the council’s spring work load this year, it will be unearthed again in the fall. It’s unlikely that the contents of the draft plan and its accompanying appendices will have decomposed much by then.

It’s worth noting that adopting the plan would not authorize the implementation of recommendations in the plan. The council would need to vote separately on any funding or legislation to implement specific aspects of the plan.

[Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan.] [Appendices to Waste Less]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of the ins and outs of solid waste. 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!