The board recently took action at its regular July meeting – on July 21, 2014 – related to the downtown public elevator, which has been out of commission since this spring. The board authorized a $93,598 contract with Schindler Elevator Corp. to repair the elevator. Leaks had developed in the hydraulic piston, causing it to fail a weight test.

The July 21 resolution designated $57,988 for elevator repair, plus $35,610 for “well drilling (after-drill) of elevator hole in the existing hoistway and clean out of existing hole and casing.” The capital outlays line item in the 2014-2015 budget was increased by a total of $93,598, to be transferred from the library’s fund balance. As of June 30, the fund balance stood at $8.17 million. [.pdf of elevator contract and resolution]

The next opportunity to take up the Edwards Brothers item at a regular meeting will be at the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting.  The council had postponed the question at its Feb. 3, 2014 meeting.

The question is whether to move ahead with the purchase of the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street. The University of Michigan made an offer to Edwards Brothers to purchase the property for $12.8 million, but the city council is currently considering whether to exercise the city’s right of first refusal. The council will need to take action at its Feb. 18 meeting in order to meet the condition of a 60-day window after notification – or possibly convene a special meeting to consider the question.

The council will convene its work session on Feb. 10 at 7 p.m. as it had previously planned.

Action to extend the deadline took place at a special meeting of the city council at 4 p.m. on Monday, Dec. 9. The initial purpose of the special meeting was to hold a closed session on written attorney-client privileged communication and land acquisition. The item extending the task force deadline was added later.

The council voted to establish the pedestrian safety task force on Nov. 18, 2013. The pedestrian safety task force would consist of nine residents, including “representatives from organizations that address the needs of school-aged youth, senior citizens, pedestrian safety, and people with mobility impairments.” The original deadline for applications was Dec. 2, with the council originally expected to appoint the task force members on Dec. 16.

The task force is supposed to deliver a report by February 2015. That report would include recommendations for “improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

To add the item extending the task force deadline, the council needed a unanimous vote of all councilmembers under the city charter. The charter reads in relevant part: “Except by unanimous consent of all members of the Council, a matter shall not be acted upon at any special meeting unless it has been included in the notice of the meeting.” The council met that requirement.

The land acquisition component of the closed session likely relates to the pending sale of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street to the University of Michigan for $12.8 million, which was announced in a press release last week. A right of first refusal on the property is held by the city of Ann Arbor as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council almost three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

Under Ann Arbor’s city charter, a special meeting can be called on request of the mayor or by any three councilmembers. In the case of the Dec. 9 special meeting, it was Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) who signed the call for the special meeting.

The unusual 4 p.m. start time for the special meeting results from the fact that the council already had its annual budget planning work session scheduled to start at that time and to last as long as 11 p.m. The location of the budget planning session will be the jury assembly room in the Justice Center adjoining city hall. The special meeting will be held in city hall, however – under the city charter provision requiring that “Special meetings of the Council shall be held at the regular meeting place thereof …”

The sequence of a special city council meeting followed by the budget planning session was also played out last year in mid-December. That’s when the council convened a special meeting to take a vote protesting the establishment of the southeast Michigan Regional Transit Authority. Like last year, the council’s budget planning session will be led by Julia Novak of the Novak Consulting Group.

The board previously did not have a meeting scheduled for the month of July. But at the board’s June 20, 2013 meeting, CEO Michael Ford indicated that one might be convened, to handle some routine items as well as next steps related to the addition of Ypsilanti to the AAATA. The board had voted on June 20 to ratify changes to the articles of incorporation of the authority, which added the city of Ypsilanti as a member.

No agenda for the special July 23 meeting has been released.

The purpose of the special meeting is to go into closed session to discuss written attorney-client privileged communication. One possibility for the topic the council will cover in the closed session relates to a possible moratorium on site plan review for D1-zoned areas of the downtown, which the council has considered but postponed at its two most recent meetings.

The council already had a budget work session scheduled for the same time. So the budget work session will start at 7 p.m. instead.

The purpose of the special meeting is to hold a closed session to discuss labor negotiations strategy under the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

A budget working session had already been scheduled for the same time. That working session is now scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. The council is looking towards the latter part of May, when the fiscal year 2014 budget needs to be finalized.

The purpose of the special meeting is related to a pending lawsuit against the AATA – for refusing to allow an anti-Israeli advertisement to be placed on the sides of its buses. Based on the timeline set forth in a recent court order, the board’s meeting will likely include a closed session to evaluate the previously rejected advertisement under the terms of a newly revised advertising policy. The board adopted the revised ad policy in late November. By Jan. 4, the day after the special meeting, the AATA must notify the plaintiff in the case, Ann Arbor resident Blaine Coleman, of its decision on the advertisement.

In the Dec. 17, 2012 court order, judge Mark Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority had to reconsider an advertisement it had previously rejected for placement on the sides of its buses. [.pdf of Dec. 17, 2012 court order] The ad included the text “Boycott ‘Israel’ Boycott Apartheid.”

In the course of the lawsuit, which was filed over a year ago, the court has ruled in favor of Coleman on his request for a preliminary injunction, based on a finding that the original advertising policy had unconstitutional portions. But Goldsmith left the question of appropriate relief to be determined. Since that initial ruling, the AATA board, at its Nov. 29, 2012 meeting, revised its advertising policy. [For detailed coverage, see “AATA Adopts New Advertising Policy.”] So the court’s order on Dec. 17 required the AATA to reconsider the advertisement under its new policy.

Crucially, the new policy omits a “good taste” provision, which the court found to be unconstitutional. The policy also includes a revised provision that previously disallowed ads supporting or opposing political candidates or ballot propositions. The new policy more broadly bans “political or political campaign advertising.”

The court’s order established a timeline: (1) By Dec. 21, 2012, Coleman had to resubmit the ad – either the original version of the ad or a revised version. (2) By Jan. 4, 2013, the AATA reconsiders the ad under the revised advertising policy and notifies Coleman. (3) On Jan. 9, 2013 a status conference with the court will be held to discuss whether additional preliminary injunctive relief is proper and what will happen next.

According to Coleman’s ACLU attorney, Dan Korobkin, the ad that would be re-submitted to the AATA was the original ad.

The change of location was motivated by a desire to make the meeting more accessible to the public – because the Justice Center location would have required people to undergo airport-style security checks and would have prevented people from bringing electronic devices, including cell phones, into the building. A budget planning session, originally scheduled for 4 p.m. in the Justice Center, will still take place in the Justice Center, following the conclusion of the special session.

From the text of the email sent by city staff: “The room location of the Special Session will be moved to the Council Chambers. The room location change of the Special Session will be posted in City Hall and the Justice Center. Signs will be posted. The Council Planning Session will start in the Jury Assembly Room of the Justice Center as soon as the Special Session ends. Staff will be in both buildings to help guide anyone looking for one or both of the meetings. CTN’s [Community Television Network] availability for the Special Session is being determined and we will advise as soon as we receive confirmation.”

Updated at 12:35 p.m.: CTN coverage is now indicated to be available.

City hall is located at 301 E. Huron, at the corner of Huron and North Fifth Avenue.

The board’s meeting comes in the context of a legal case that’s pending against the AATA for refusing to run an advertisement on the sides of its buses that states, “Boycott ‘Israel.’” The initial substantive ruling in the case went against the AATA, when the judge granted a motion for injunctive relief. But the nature of that relief – which could include forcing the AATA to run the ad – has not yet been determined.

After the initial ruling, the court asked both parties to file briefs with arguments on the nature of the injunctive relief. The AATA’s position is that it should be allowed to develop an advertising policy that’s constitutional in the opinion of the court and apply that policy to the ad – which was proposed by plaintiff Blaine Coleman. The ACLU, which is representing Coleman in the case, has argued that the injunctive relief should force the AATA to run the ad. A status conference with the court and the two parties is scheduled to take place on Dec. 6.

The AATA board’s apparent strategy will be to have a revised advertising policy in place for the Dec. 6 status conference, so that it’s in a position to argue the constitutional merits of that already-enacted policy. One significant part of the revision to the advertising policy that the board will be asked to vote on is the deletion of a clause that refers to poor taste: “All advertising must be in considered in good taste and shall uphold the aesthetic standards as determined by AATA.” The clause factors crucially in the court’s initial determination that the AATA’s advertising policy is likely not constitutional.

Updated: The Chronicle’s report on the Nov. 29 meeting of the AATA board is available here: [link]