The resolution authorizes the county administrator to sign a tax-sharing agreement with Pittsfield Township and the State Street CIA, which is overseen by an appointed board. [.pdf of agreement] The agreement would allow the CIA to capture 50% of any county taxes levied on new development within the corridor boundaries, not to exceed $3,850,464 over a 20-year period, through 2033. The purpose is to provide a funding mechanism for improvements to the State Street corridor between the I-94 interchange and Michigan Avenue, as outlined in the CIA development and tax increment financing plan. [.pdf of TIF plan]

The Pittsfield Township board of trustees held a public hearing on the CIA at its Oct. 9, 2013 meeting. That started the clock on a 60-day period during which any taxing entities within the corridor can “opt out” of participation. The Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission voted to support participation in the CIA at its Oct. 8, 2013 meeting. Other local taxing entities in the corridor are Washtenaw Community College, the Huron Clinton Metro Authority, and the Saline and Ann Arbor district libraries.

On Oct. 16, Dan Smith had moved a substitute resolution. It stated that the county would not participate in the CIA. [.pdf of D. Smith's substitute resolution] He said he supported the road improvement project, but objected to the TIF funding mechanism. He noted that the county had the ability to invest directly in the project using general fund money. He also pointed out that if the county participated in the CIA, the county would have no control over how its portion of the captured taxes are spent. In addition, the decision not to participate would not necessarily be permanent, he said, because the county board could rescind this resolution at any point. Rescinding his resolution would trigger participation in the CIA.

The Oct. 16 vote on D. Smith’s opt-out resolution failed on a 2-7 vote, with support only from D. Smith and C. Smith.

On Nov. 6, Pittsfield Township supervisor Mandy Grewal addressed the board during public commentary, thanking them for their support of the CIA. Several other township officials attended the meeting but did not formally address commissioners. One opponent to the CIA – former township official Christina Lirones – spoke during two opportunities for public commentary, urging the board to opt out of the CIA.

There was minimal discussion before the final vote on Nov. 6. Dan Smith pointed out that the board was voting on the tax-sharing agreement. Procedurally, it was not an “opt-in” vote, he noted.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor, where the board of commissioners holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6:52 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. About eight people are in the audience chambers now. No one from the city council has arrived yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Location of proposed Barton Drive sidewalk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The postponement was requested by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who said she had concerns about adding it to the master plan.

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]

Door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6:55 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Currently in chambers are mayor John Hieftje, city administrator Steve Powers, city attorney Stephen Postema. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) has just arrived. Audience is a bit sparse so far. Less than a dozen people are here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7:34 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Three public hearings are on the agenda. The first hearing is on an ordinance change that will change the definition of sidewalk in the city. The second would adopt the 2009 International Fire Code as part of the city’s ordinances. And the third public hearing is on the South State Street corridor plan, which is proposed to be adopted into the city’s master plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example of cross-lot sidewalk in Ann Arbor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8:42 p.m. Lumm thanks staff for their work in responding to questions.

8:42 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to adopt the 2009 International Fire Code.

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

8:55 p.m. The council is back from recess.

8:56 p.m. Ordinance: Video Privacy. This ordinance still hasn’t received an initial approval, as the council has delayed voting several times. It sets forth various conditions for the placement of public surveillance cameras. The most recent postponement came at the council’s June 17, 2013 meeting. The council seemed willing to postpone a vote on that occasion based on the fact that police chief John Seto was not available to answer questions about the impact on law enforcement activities. Some councilmembers indicated at that meeting a reluctance even to give the ordinance an initial approval.

9:01 p.m. Police chief John Seto is addressing the council from the podium. He’s reviewed many versions of the ordinance. He thanks everyone for their work. As chief, his responsibility is to provide service and protection for all. He says he wouldn’t apply technology that has negative implications for communications. He can’t predict the security concerns and policing needs of the future. Large crowds themselves create an added risk. He can’t support an ordinance that would limit his ability to monitor large crowds like those associated with the Ann Arbor marathon. To be able to use live monitoring only when there’s an imminent risk would be limiting, he says. Because he can’t know the policing needs of the future, there could be unintended consequences.

9:08 p.m. Anglin asks Seto if he sees the ordinance as limiting what’s been done in the past. Seto said that he can’t recall a case where that’s been done. Kunselman asks if Seto is familiar with the West Willow neighborhood. Seto wasn’t able to provide definitive information.

Warpehoski ventured that former police chief Barnett Jones felt that video surveillance would never be accepted in this community. He asks if Seto felt that the ordinance would give him the regulatory framework that would allow the community concerns to be addressed. Briere says one of her concerns about crowd surveillance was that almost all of the footage that was useful in the Boston marathon bombing was from private cameras. She appreciated that the human rights commission, Warpehoski and Anglin had tried to find a balance. But she wondered if the balance had actually been found. Seto said he’s not advocating the use of cameras, but felt that if the need does arise, he wants to make sure that there’s flexibility.

9:11 p.m. Kunselman refers to the comments made during the public commentary about the possibilty of police misconduct in the use of cameras. Seto says that the in-car video cameras already used by officers are subject to departmental policies. Hieftje cites a memo written by Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, about the use of cameras in parking structures. Hieftje cites the issue of the perception of safety – saying that some people say they’d feel more comfortable in an underground parking garage if there was video surveillance.

9:19 p.m. Hieftje said that back in 2001-02 there were problems in Liberty Plaza, and the city had filmed from the building overlooking the park. Those cameras were hand-held, Hieftje said. Hieftje wanted to know if Seto felt that the ordinance would inhibit his ability to undertake necessary operations.

Kailasapathy wondered if the required sign stating the presence of a camera would undermine the point of the surveillance. For short-term use, Seto said, the sign would have an impact. Lumm discusses with Seto the requirements for installation of cameras. Lumm recounts how all the windows of her car were smashed in the Fourth & Washington parking structure, but there were no cameras in place to capture any footage.

Taylor says that this ordinance might be “a regulation too far.” But he notes that the chief’s job description was similar to the council’s job: Law enforcement should be consistent with community values. So he felt it should be voted forward to a second reading, which would provide an opportunity for a public hearing.

9:24 p.m. Kailasapathy ventures that the FBI would not have to adhere to the local ordinance, if the FBI wanted to conduct surveillance. Higgins brings up University of Michigan football games. She says that crowds are monitored for football games. Seto says that on a liberal interpretation, it might have an impact on his ability to use cameras for football crowd monitoring. But UM would be able to continue to do that, Seto says.

Kunselman inquires what the law is when a camera catches someone doing something illegal on their own property – if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. City attorney Stephen Postema says he has not researched the issue. Higgins ventures that if the city has been working on the ordinance for a long time, then surely the city has an understanding of what privacy in a home means.

9:28 p.m. Kailasapathy asks if it’s OK for a camera to be trained on a front door to monitor who is entering and leaving a residence. Postema says it depends on what is done with the footage. Briere brings up Google Street View cameras and how it blurs images of people’s faces. Briere agrees with Taylor that there should be a discussion in the community. Passive surveillance can be used well or not well, Briere says, adding that she wished it weren’t used at all.

9:36 p.m. Warpehoski says that placing a camera on a pole and pointing it into a neighborhood is an affront to privacy and the ordinance would prevent that affront. The ordinance tries to find a balance between privacy, property owner rights and law enforcement needs. He doesn’t want cameras to be put in over neighborhood opposition. Warpehoski says he put forward the best ordinance he knew how to put forward, but allowed that there were still things that could be worked on. He asks for support at first reading, but tells his colleagues not to vote for it on first reading just to please him – if they were definitely not going to vote for it on second reading.

Anglin says the ordinance is preemptive, and that the ordinance allows cameras to be installed as useful tools. He gives destruction of property in parks as a use case for the cameras. He doesn’t think it’s a solution looking for a problem, he says – a response to remarks from Kunselman at an earlier meeting.

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

9:47 p.m. Kunselman describes how the relationship between the police and young people has changed from the time when he was young. He returns to his idea of giving guidance through policy. Lumm says that it’s overly regulatory. The balanced approach that Seto would take would not result in the application of technology that would harm the community, Lumm says. She says she wouldn’t support such an ordinance unless it had Seto’s unequivocal support. So Lumm won’t support it at first reading.

Briere said generally she’s inclined to advance an ordinance to a second reading. She doesn’t like the ordinance, because she sees it as giving permission for surveillance. She distinguishes between speculative surveillance versus a situation where there’s a targeted deployment. But she’s still inclined to hear from the public. That will help the council make better decisions.

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

9:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 5-4 to give the video privacy ordinance initial approval, so it failed. Voting against it were Kailasapathy, Kunselman, Lumm and Higgins.

9:49 p.m. Ordinance: Rezoning for car dealership. The council is being asked to give initial approval to a rezoning of 2271 South State Street from M1 (limited industrial district) to M1A (limited light industrial district). The owner would like to be able to sell automobiles on the site. The city planning commission’s vote on the recommendation was taken at its May 21, 2013 meeting. The vote was 1-8, with only Eric Mahler supporting it. So the planning commission’s recommendation was for denial.

9:58 p.m. Briere points out that the council in the past has put off rezoning decisions based on the pending work on the South State Street corridor plan. Planning manager Wendy Rampson responds to Higgins by giving the example of the Biercamp property, which was not approved because the South State Street corrdidor study was just getting started at that time. There was also a request across the street from Biercamp, so that a property could be used as a medical marijuana dispensary.

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

Kunselman draws out a letter of support from McKinley for the corridor plan. Kunselman notes that the adjoining bus parking lot might no longer be a factor – as the school district may not continue to offer transportation.

10:01 p.m. Kunselman wonders if it’s good policy to get rid of manufacturing zoning. Rampson explains that the planning commission had also grappled with that. She points to Areas 1C in the plan that recommends maintaining the current uses, which include manufacturing. The area around the parcel that’s requested to be rezoned, Rampson says, has already seen some transition to office use.

10:01 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to deny initial approval to the rezoning of 2271 S. State Street.

10:01 p.m. Ordinance: Kerrytown Place rezoning. There are two items on the agenda related to the zoning that would be necessary for Kerrytown Place – the project that Tom Fitzsimmons is planning to build instead of The Gallery, on the site of the former Greek Orthodox church on Main Street. The rezoning would be from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district).

The first rezoning item affects the parcels with Main Street frontage. The second rezoning item affects the parcels on Fourth Avenue. The city planning commission gave a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting. On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth. The council is just being asked to consider an initial vote on the rezoning tonight, not the site plan. Rezoning requires a second and final vote – at a meeting when the site plan is likely to be presented as well.

10:03 p.m. Briere introduces the items and briefly recites the history of the previously proposed project by a different owner. Kunselman says he’s pleased to support it. He reminds his colleagues that when the property was in the hands of the Washtenaw County treasurer, he’d proposed doing something similar – rezoning the property on the council’s initiation.

10:03 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to give initial approval to the rezoning changes necessary for the Kerrytown Place project.

10:03 p.m. Bond Re-Funding: Sewage. This item refinances $21,500,000 worth of sewage disposal system revenue bonds, which were issued in 2004. The expected savings, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, is more than $2 million over an 11-year term.

10:04 p.m. Lumm commends staff for staying on top of these issues. She notes the savings of $2 million.

10:04 p.m. The council has voted to approve the sewage disposal bond re-funding.

10:04 p.m. 2013 City Council Rules. For Chronicle coverage on these changes, see “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.” Highlights include adding public commentary to council work sessions, but reducing public speaking time to two-minute turns. A “frequent flyer” rule would prevent people from signing up for reserved time at the start of a meeting two meetings in a row. The total time that each councilmember could speak on an item of debate would be reduced from eight minutes to five minutes. The council postponed a vote from its previous meeting on these changes.

10:05 p.m. Higgins says she wants to postpone the issue, in light of the absence of Petersen and Teall, who wanted to be a part of the conversation.

10:06 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to postpone the rule amendments until the July 15 meeting.

10:06 p.m. Resolution: Re-establish the mutually beneficial committee. The phrase “mutually beneficial” in connection with the sorting out of issues between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority was first mooted in a Jan. 20, 2009 resolution. The main issue at that time was the contract under which the DDA administers the city’s public parking system. Subsequently, committees for both organizations were appointed, but they did not achieve any results. The following year, new committees were appointed and those committees met over the course of several months, culminating in a new parking agreement ratified in May 2011. The council formally disbanded its “mutually beneficial” committee at the end of 2011.

10:06 p.m. The current source of friction between the DDA and the city concerns the interpretation of Chapter 7 of the city code, which regulates the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The DDA has chosen to interpret the Chapter 7 language in a way that does not recognize the cap on TIF revenues that is set forth in Chapter 7. That led to a proposal by some councilmembers earlier this year to revise the ordinance so that the DDA’s alternate interpretation is clearly ruled out. The council gave the ordinance change initial approval on April 1, 2013. But later, on May 6, 2013, the council chose to postpone the vote until Sept. 3, the council’s first meeting that month.

In this resolution, the mutual beneficial committee is tasked with coming up with a recommendation for Chapter 7 revised language with a deadline of Sept. 2. The council will be represented by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The DDA’s July 3 meeting agenda also includes its appointments to a mutually beneficial committee.

10:10 p.m. Briere introduces the item by saying that back in May, several people had said that the staff should be working on the issue. Whatever changes might come to Chapter 7, she felt councilmembers should have a voice. The mechanism for that was proposed to be to “reinvigorate” the mutual beneficial committee. Kunselman says that when the council approved the ordinance at first reading, he and Petersen had begun having conversations with DDA board members and staff. He sees the resolution tonight as solidifying a process that’s already underway.

However, Kunselman doesn’t like the label “mutually beneficial.” It’s now changed to the “joint DDA-council committee.” Higgins wants to add a member – for a total of four councilmembers. Higgins wants Lumm to be on the committee, saying that Lumm has put a lot of work into the issue. That proposal is accepted as friendly.

10:11 p.m. Kailsaspathy brings up the existing DDA partnership committee.

10:12 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to appoint a joint DDA-council committee.

10:12 p.m. R4C Committee. The planning commission had voted at its April 16, 2013 meeting to send recommendations to the city council for revisions to the R4C zoning areas – but without the actual wording of the ordinance changes. Any affirmative action by the council at this point would be to direct the planning commission to develop ordinance language that would reflect the recommendations. At that point, the planning commission would need to approve the proposed ordinance language, with final action still required by the council.

The zoning change recommendations resulted from work done by a citizens advisory committee that was established in the summer of 2009. Due to dissatisfaction about how the recommendations were handled, the council is reconstituting the citizens advisory committee. On the committee, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will represent the planning commission. Chuck Carver will represent rental property owners. From the wards: Ilene Tyler and Ray Detter (Ward 1); Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2); Ellen Rambo and Michelle Derr (Ward 3); Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4); Eppie Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5). Weatherbee will chair the group.

10:14 p.m. Higgins introduces the resolution, alluding to a neighborhood meeting that had taken place the previous week. Lumm thanks Higgins for her work. She wonders when the council might be asked to act on the recommendations. Higgins said that the committee would meet only two or three times. She said that before the council acts on the planning commission recommendations, the committee should be able to weigh in.

10:14 p.m. The council has voted to re-establish the R4C citizens advisory committee.

10:16 p.m. Appointment of Jean Cares to the greenbelt advisory commission as the agriculture landowner representative. Taylor, who also serves on GAC, introduces the resolution. He mentions that Cares owns the Dexter Mill. Hieftje says that it’s a difficult slot to fill.

10:16 p.m. The council has voted to postpone the appointment. This is a standard procedure, as this initial consideration is considered the nomination by the council. GAC is one of the few boards and commissions for which the council, not the mayor, makes the nominations.

10:16 p.m. South State Street Corridor Plan. This resolution would adopt the South State Street corridor plan into the city’s master plan. The city planning commission voted unanimously to adopt the plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting.

10:19 p.m. Higgins says she has concerns about adding the corridor plan to the city’s master plan. She asks for postponement.

10:20 p.m. The council has voted to postpone the South State Street corridor plan for two weeks.

10:21 p.m. The council has voted to go into a closed session to discuss pending litigation, which is one of the reasons allowed by the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

10:40 p.m. The council has emerged from closed session.

10:41 p.m. Box hangar bonds for airport. This is a notice of intent to issue up to $900,000 of bonds to fund construction of a new box hangar at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

10:41 p.m. The council has voted to give notice of intent to issue the bonds for the box hangar construction.

10:41 p.m. Miller Avenue assessment for sidewalk curb and gutter. The special assessment would apply to 18 private property owners, who would pay an average of $365 apiece. The total construction cost of the project is stated in the table of assessment as $42,860 – with about 75% of that to be paid for with federal funds. This resolution is the fourth and final one in the process. A public hearing was held at the council’s previous meeting.

10:41 p.m. The council has voted to approve the special assessment for Miller Avenue improvements.

10:41 p.m. Arbor Oaks Rain Gardens. This item would award a $149,925 contract to Erie Construction LLC for construction of rain gardens.

10:41 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to award the rain garden construction contract.

10:41 p.m. Accept 33 sidewalks for public use. Under the city charter, a land transaction requires an eight-vote majority, and this qualifies as a land transaction. The item relates to the ordinance change that was postponed earlier in the meeting, which would have changed the definition of “sidewalk” in the city code. The staff summary of the result of a meeting with adjoining property owners includes this: “There was a general consensus amongst attendees at the public meeting that City Council should postpone voting on these items until further discussion can be had and more details can be worked out.” For many of the specific paths, there was a reluctance to accept the responsibility of snow removal during the winter.

10:42 p.m. The council has voted to postpone the acceptance of the sidewalks for public use until its first meeting in October.

10:42 p.m. Fair Food Network grant to Ann Arbor farmers market. This item accepts $36,000 in funding from the Fair Food Network to administer the Double Up Food Bucks program at the Ann Arbor farmers market. The program provides a match of up to $20 per person per day to people using BSNAP (Bridge Cards/EBT/Food Stamps) to purchase produce at Michigan farmers markets.

10:42 p.m. The council has voted to accept the $36,000 grant.

10:43 p.m. Precinct 2-8 polling place relocation. This would change the polling place for Precinct 2-8 from St. Paul Lutheran School, 495 Earhart Road, to First United Methodist Church, 1001 Green Road. According to a letter sent earlier this year by school principal Brad Massey to the city, the decision to stop offering St. Paul Lutheran Church and School as a polling place to the city was based on “recent events affecting the safety of school children.” [.pdf of April 16, 2013 letter]

10:43 p.m. Lumm thanks St. Paul for allowing the city to use the facility as a polling location for many years.

10:43 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to change the Precinct 2-8 polling location to the First United Methodist Church.

10:44 p.m. Appointments. The council is being asked to confirm tonight the nominations put forward at the council’s June 17, 2013 meeting. Among them is Jeremy Peters to the planning commission. Also on the agenda for confirmation are Eric Jacobson to the local development finance authority (LDFA) board and Jan Davies McDermott to the economic development corporation board.

10:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm all the appointments.

10:46 p.m. Nominations. Russ Collins was nominated for a re-appointment to the board of the DDA. The nomination actually came chronologically before the confirmation votes.

10:47 p.m. Council communications. Taylor updates the council on the park advisory commission’s action at its June 18, 2013 meeting to recommend a waiver of fees for Liberty Plaza – in response to a request from Camp Take Notice to make sure that Pizza in the Park can continue at that location.

10:48 p.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:54 p.m. Seth Best addresses the council, beginning by thanking everyone. He’s speaking on behalf of Camp Take Notice’s advocacy for humanitarian aid generally, not just for Liberty Plaza. He was concerned that humanitarian aid was being excluded because of concern for music, bands and art. He tells his story of becoming homeless in Texas, eventually making his way to Ann Arbor. Pizza in the Park had allowed him to be human again, he said – at least for an hour.

10:57 p.m. An EMU faculty member and MISSION board member is now addressing the council in support of the Camp Take Notice advocacy for Pizza in the Park. Caleb Poirer speaks next, and quips that this is too early to end a council meeting. He characterizes the PAC resolution as an attempt to address the concerns that Camp Take Notice had raised, but says that it doesn’t actually address their concerns. That’s why they’re continuing to push for a more general ordinance. He allows that the homeless are not natural constituents of any politician. So he was grateful that the council had been willing to give them “the time of day.”

10:57 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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