Ann Arbor city councilmembers Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). (Photos by the writer.)

Neither of the other two resolutions involving direction to staff got much support on the council. Failing on a 3-7 vote was a resolution that would have directed the city attorney to provide a written opinion on the transfer of funds from the city’s street millage fund to the public art fund. The resolution got support only from its sponsors, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who were joined by Mike Anglin (Ward 5). The council postponed a separate item that would have authorized $150,000 for a piece of art that the public art commission has recommended for the lobby of the new Justice Center.

Failing on a 4-6 vote was a resolution related to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. It directed city staff to “to review, analyze, and report on the compliance of the DDA provided TIF calculation and capture amount” – an issue that relates to excess capture of taxes identified last year. The three who supported the resolution requesting an opinion on public art were joined by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) in supporting the TIF resolution. Only 10 councilmembers attended the meeting – Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was absent. But even if Higgins had voted for the two resolutions, they still would have failed.

Generating some controversy were two items involving automobiles. The council gave final approval to changes in parking regulations that include a provision allowing the developer of a downtown project to meet minimum parking requirements without building parking spaces on site. The alternative is to make a payment in lieu of building parking spaces, or to sign a long-term contract to purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system. Anglin voted against the ordinance change as well as the specific policy governing the payments in lieu of parking.

On another automobile-related item, Anglin was joined by Lumm in opposing a resolution that made a formal request to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to convert a segment of Jackson Road between Maple Road and South Revena from four traffic lanes to three. That request will move forward. In another road-related item, the council unanimously approved a $3,647,344 construction contract for the first set of streets to be repaired in the 2012 program. That will be followed at the council’s next meeting, on April 16, by a second contract for an additional set of streets.

The council also gave approval to three different site plans – for Arbor Hills Crossing on Washtenaw Avenue, Les Voyageurs near Argo Pond, and Noodles & Co. on West Stadium Boulevard.

Public commentary at the end of the meeting featured several speakers who called the council’s attention to April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

Public Art Legal Opinion

In front of the council for its consideration was a resolution that would have directed the city attorney to provide a written legal opinion on the transfer of funds from the dedicated street millage fund for use in the city’s public art program. In a separate item, the council voted to approve the first part of the 2012 street resurfacing program, which is funded out of the street millage fund.

Public Art Legal Opinion: Background

The city’s Percent for Art ordinance stipulates that 1% of all capital project budgets be allocated for public art, up to a limit of $250,000 per capital project. The legal basis for the program, which relies on taking monies from dedicated millages and fees to serve the purpose of public art, has been sharply questioned.

Since being hired as city attorney, Stephen Postema has bypassed the Ann Arbor city charter requirement that written legal opinions be filed with the city clerk (thus making them public) by contending that his written opinions are “advice memos” and thus not technically opinions. The city responds to requests under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act for the content of such advice memos by asserting attorney-client privilege.

By Ann Arbor city charter, the city attorney is under the direct supervision of the city council. So the resolution considered by the council would have forced Postema to produce a written opinion. The resolution was brought forward by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and co-sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). [For additional background, see: “Council Preview: Marijuana, Art, TIF.”]

Public Art Legal Opinion: Deliberations

In his remarks introducing the resolution, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) proceeded to read it aloud in its entirety. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) wondered if that were necessary, but mayor John Hieftje indicated that if Kunselman wanted to use his time-limited speaking turn to read it aloud, he could do that. Kunselman asked Briere playfully, “Do you mind?” and indicated that he knew he just had five minutes. He then read the rest of the resolution.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) questioned whether the amount of time allotted to the city attorney was adequate to produce the opinion – the resolution specified delivering the opinion by April 16. Kunselman responded to Lumm by saying he felt that the attorney already had the material prepared.

Lumm said her concerns with the public art program were not so much legal concerns but rather a matter of steering capital dollars away from the projects they are supposed to be funding. She noted she wasn’t on the city council when the ordinance was approved [in 2007], but she believed that the city attorney was consulted and provided advice on the ordinance at the time.

Briere observed that for at least two years, the council has regularly heard concerns about whether the funding mechanism for the public art program is legal. The city attorney has said he can only provide a written opinion if the council requests one, she noted. So she was co-sponsoring the resolution – in order to put the issue to rest. “Let’s either ask him to give us a written opinion, or we vote this down,” she said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that he’d vote against the resolution. An opinion does not mean “the thoughts of an attorney.” In this context, he said, it’s intended for third-party reliance. In his view, the council had received advice from the city attorney on the topic, and he said he was satisfied with it. He felt there is no reason for having a formal opinion for third-party reliance. The notion of “jumping the gun” on something like this is not appropriate for the context, he said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) supported Taylor’s contention that the opinion was not necessary. He then went on to describe how there have been opinions before with respect to components of the ordinance. He said he was not on the city council when the ordinance was approved, but didn’t feel it was necessary to ask for “yet another opinion.” So he was going to oppose the resolution.

City attorney Stephen Postema was quick to jump in to disagree with Derezinski’s statement, saying that he hadn’t provided any opinions, but rather advice. [It's critical for the city attorney not to call his written advice an "opinion" because the Ann Arbor city charter requires that written "opinions" be filed with the city clerk's office, thereby making them public.]

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was satisfied with the material she’d received and the information she already had.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that as councilmembers they were involved with these issues, they understood the issues. But he said he’d wanted some backup for his support of the Percent for Art program. By voting for an opinion to be written, it was allowing the voters and taxpayers of the city to understand the Percent for Art program better. He felt that would be something the council should want to do.

In support of what Anglin said, Briere observed that often the public asks the council: Why did you make that decision? The reason for asking that an opinion be written is not that councilmembers are doing it for themselves – it’s for the public. Some things are more contentious than others, she said, and the public art funding mechanism has been contentious. Asking for a written opinion is not for the council, but rather for the public. A decision about whether to ask for an opinion should be based on two things, she said: (1) Does the council think it benefits our role as members of council? and (2) Do we think it benefits the public?

Kunselman said he wanted to make clear he didn’t recall ever receiving an advice memo on the transfer from a dedicated millage account to the public art fund. So for councilmembers who are saying they’re satisfied, he said, Tuscola County had publicized a document as part of a voter information program in advance of a millage stating that it wasn’t possible to transfer money out of a dedicated millage fund to any other account. Kunselman ventured it might be possible to pay for art out of the street millage fund, but you just can’t transfer it to another fund. He felt there are some fine details in there that should be clarified. The question of whether it’s legal or not to transfer money out of a dedicated millage account is a simple question, he said, and the public deserves an answer.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said the council had received clear input from the city attorney on issues surrounding public art and he said he was satisfied with that. The purpose of an opinion is nothing more than to give third parties a formal understanding of how they might be impacted by the city’s orientation to particular legal issues. Even if the issue were about reassuring the public, he said, “that ship has sailed.” That would have been an appropriate conversation to have when the council was considering implementing the Percent for Art program [in 2007]. He said that as he talked with people, he’s gotten a lot of reassurance from people when he’s told them that the council has received very clear advice on the public art.

Lumm said she’d come to this late, but that to a latecomer it was clear that the city attorney had been consulted. She felt that if it were considered illegal then the council would not have approved the ordinance. She felt like the issue had been addressed.

Outcome: The resolution failed on a 3-7 vote, with support from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Justice Center Art

The council was asked to vote on the use of $150,000 for a public art project in the lobby of the new municipal building called the Justice Center, located on the northeast corner of Huron Street and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The Justice Center, located next to city hall, houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department.

A rendering of Ed Carpenter’s proposed “Radius” sculpture in the southwest corner of Ann Arbor’s Justice Center lobby. This image was revised from earlier drawings by the artist to include more glass, at the request of a selection task force. (Links to larger image)

Because it houses the district court, the building features airport-style security measures at the entrance, and visitors must surrender electronic devices like cameras and cellphones to be locked in cubicles during their visit to the building.

Concern about accessibility by the public to the public art was the subject of councilmember deliberations. The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion.

At its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor public art commission had unanimously recommended selecting Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon for the $150,000 project in the Justice Center’s lobby. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists. It’s a sculpture called “Radius.”

Carpenter plans to create a hanging sculpture of dichroic glass, aluminum, stainless steel and lighting, including LED spot and flood lighting. Among the reasons for recommending Radius, the task force cited the sculpture’s metaphor: That the activities in the Justice Center have a “rippling” effect throughout the community, which echoes the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl that’s located in the plaza outside the building.

At the council’s April 2 meeting, public art administrator Aaron Seagraves described the piece of art.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) called the design “cool,” but she had concerns about the area not being accessible to the public. She wanted to know if the idea had been considered to move the security gates back into the building so more people can access the lobby.

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the ability to move the security gates is tied to the overall building project budget. There’ll be a report soon to the council’s building committee on the project budget, he said, and at that point there could be a more informed decision about moving the security systems. There are budgetary impacts to that. Craig Hupy, interim public services area administrator, described the financing information as close to being wrapped up and almost ready for discussion.

Smith said she didn’t feel really strongly about tying approval of the art to the moving of the security gates, but wondered if there were any harm in postponing until that discussion is held? Hupy said he didn’t think so. The art was anticipated to be completed by the end of December. At some point the artist’s proposal would have to be reviewed for changes due to inflation. If it’s a matter of 30-60 days, he didn’t think it would have an impact. Because Smith felt the discussion was fairly imminent, she was inclined to delay for a month. Seagraves didn’t have a problem with that.

Mayor John Hieftje agreed with taking the time to think about it some more. He’d looked at the location with Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and while he felt that the public art commission had done a good job in designing something that would be visible from outside the building, it would be nicer if the lobby could be opened up to the public. That should be investigated, he said. The issue of the placement of security should be revisited, he concluded.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) also supported the postponement. She felt that going forward, public art decisions should include the idea of access to the public.

Briere said she supported the postponement but really supported the opportunity to review the security checkpoint. She reminded the council that people who’d selected the art believe that it’s to be viewed from outside the building, rather than from within the building. It’s a beautiful open space that should be used for meetings, weddings, parties, and receptions – the things that civic spaces should be used for. But because of measures that are there to protect the community, the public had lost access to the space.

Hieftje said it did muddy the issue of the art, which was being delayed while the council took a look at the security issue, but he stressed that the public art commission and the task force for the piece of art had done a good job.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated support for the postponement, but said she’d had very complete discussions with the building’s architect about what the security would entail. She felt it was already decided that there wasn’t a lot that could be done. She was on the committee to select the art and the placement. The committee felt that the corner of the building needed to be enlivened from the outside. She said that if people want to see the art, they can go through security and view it, or stand outside and look at it. She didn’t want people to get their hopes up about moving the security checkpoint or tying that to the art.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) clarified that it’s possible to get buzzed into the lobby by the police after hours, and ventured that once they let you in, it’s “unsecured.” Hupy said he didn’t know if people were tracked once they came in. Teall supposed that at night the best place to see it would be from outside.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who also serves on the public art commission, said he felt there was a consensus about the validity of the art project. He felt that it’s important to convey that message back to the public art commission, and he’d support the postponement because it wouldn’t hurt the project. He felt the artwork would add beauty to the building.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’d also support the postponement. But he responded to the talk about how the sculpture will be viewed from outside by wondering if the artist could show the etched glass on the window as part of the nighttime rendering. He didn’t feel it would be visible with the clarity that was being portrayed, and that it would be obscured.

Lumm said she’d support postponement, but said she was not comfortable with siting it in the Justice Center building, even with adjustment of the security checkpoint. She described the spending on the building as extravagant. She was troubled that “we’re spending it on ourselves.” She wondered if this is the best use of public dollars. She wanted some clarification about how much of the artwork’s budget was going to fabrication and whether the fabrication would be done locally, given that the selected artist is from Portland.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the vote on the $150,000 Justice Center artwork. The postponement will be until May 7.

DDA TIF Capture

The council was asked to consider a resolution that would have directed city staff to verify the compliance of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority with the city’s ordinance that governs how the DDA’s tax capture works.

DDA TIF Capture: Background

When city financial staff pointed out the implications of the city ordinance in May 2011, the result was a computation of excess TIF (tax increment finance) capture of over $1 million. The city of Ann Arbor waived its share, which amounted to $712,000, but the other taxing authorities in the district (Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College and Washtenaw County) received a total of $473,000 in reimbursement for last year and previous years.

The DDA board’s current legal position, subsequently adopted, is that it had not been necessary to return the money to the other taxing authorities in its district, but the board has not pressed for return of that money to the DDA.

For this year and into the future, the interpretation of the ordinance and the method of calculation will have an impact of several hundred thousand dollars a year in the amount of taxes the DDA could rightfully capture from other taxing authorities in its district. [See “Column: Tax Capture Is a Varsity Sport”]

In relevant part, the ordinance passage from Chapter 7 reads [emphasis added]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units. Only after approval of the governmental units may these restrictions be removed. [.pdf of Ann Arbor city ordinance establishing the DDA]

By way of general background, a tax increment finance (TIF) district is a mechanism for “capturing” certain property taxes to be used in a specific geographic area – taxes that would otherwise be received by the entity with the authority to levy the taxes. So in the DDA’s TIF district, the DDA doesn’t levy taxes directly. Rather, a portion of the property taxes that would otherwise be collected by taxing units (like the library, community college and the county) is instead used by the Ann Arbor DDA for improvements within its boundaries, covering about 66 city blocks downtown.

For additional background specific to the current situation, see “Council Preview: Marijuana, Art, TIF.”

DDA TIF Capture: Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) summarized the background on the DDA TIF capture issue. After describing the situation, he then ventured that having the DDA verify its own compliance was like having the fox guard the henhouse.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that sometimes she and Kunselman did agree on things, and in this case it looked to her like this was a matter of “Show your math.” She felt that it would not make a difference to the DDA, and given that she didn’t think it would make a difference to the DDA, it will be a reassurance that nothing has been forgotten this year. She said she was okay with asking that the math be shown.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who also serves on the DDA board, said it seemed to her like the council was doing a lot of directing of staff through resolutions when staff can do it through a request by email. She said she was just confused about the “litany of demands” that the staff perform something when they hadn’t simply been asked whether or not they’d do it. She looked at it as a time-waster and wondered if there weren’t something else that the council should be doing instead – she introduced the possibility of changing the relevant ordinance [Chapter 7]. That would be legitimate, Smith said. She found that if a simple request [not through a resolution] were made of staff, they’d be good at providing the information to the council.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she’d support the resolution, but distanced herself from Kunselman’s general view of the DDA’s role in the city.

Outcome: On a 4-6 vote, the resolution failed with support only from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Street Resurfacing Program

A resolution on the April 2 agenda asked the council to award a $3,647,344 construction contract for its 2012 street resurfacing program to Barrett Paving Materials Inc. The engineer’s estimate for the project was $3,850,835. Barrett’s was the lowest of three bids. Ajax Paving Industries Inc. had bid $3,757,748 and Cadillac Asphalt LLC had bid $4,029,089. The money for the project comes primarily from the city’s street resurfacing millage. This is the first of two contracts that the council will be asked to approve – the next one with additional streets will be presented to the council at the April 16 meeting.

Ann Arbor 2012 street resurfacing program. Image links to Google Map.

The 2012 resurfacing program includes the following major streets: Huron Parkway (Hubbard Street to Glazier Way); Fifth Avenue (Huron Street to Liberty Street); Liberty Street (Seventh Street to First Street); Glen Street (Huron Street to bridge over railroad tracks); and Geddes Avenue (Awixa Road to Apple Way).

The 2012 resurfacing program also includes the following local streets: Pineview Court (Riverview Drive to the end of Pineview); Canal Street (end to end); William Street (Fourth Street to Ashley Street); N. Fifth Avenue (Depot Street to Beakes Street); Fourth Street (William Street to Liberty Street); Third Street (William Street to Liberty Street); David Court (Traver Boulevard to end); and Hatcher Crescent (Miller Ave to Hatcher Street).

Street Resurfacing: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) led off the deliberations by asking Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management for the city, how the streets were selected for inclusion in the program. Pirooz described a rating system used by the field services department – from 1-100 – but he said no street was ever at the very bottom of the scale. Any street less than 70 was put on a list and around October of each year, the streets rated less than 70 are driven to confirm that they need to be included. Around this time of year, in the spring, the staff might recognize that a street rated 71 or 72 might also need to be added to the list. After publication of the list this year, he said, they’d heard from members of the public and added some streets to the list on that basis.

Jones Drive was one that wasn’t on the list initially, but had been added. There was a plan to replace the water main and after contacting the water utilities department, they’d learned that plan had changed, so it could be resurfaced. He’d also had a request to look at Forest, Pirooz said. That street also seems to need the work, and a decision will be made in the next few days. The contract they’d vote on that night was Group A. In two weeks, there’d be another 20 streets in Group B.

Lumm asked if the city was biting off a big chunk of those that are rated less than 70. Pirooz said that by 2013, after this current cycle, there would be additional streets that are rated less than 70. Overall, he said, over the last eight or nine years, the city is gradually improving the condition of its streets. But right now, he said, the city is not resurfacing many of its streets that are rated more than 70.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked for confirmation from Pirooz that the money being spent on resurfacing this year would have been spent on the East Stadium bridges project, if the federal money had not come through. Pirooz explained that for the last two or three years, the city had been very careful about expending money from the street millage, just in case the city had to undertake the Stadium bridges repair by itself, with no federal aid. That turned out not to be the case. The city had received $13 million in federal aid, so the city was able to accelerate its street repair project.

Lumm responded to the political point Teall was making by recalling her prior service on the council, when the city had set aside money to repair the two Broadway bridges and did work on the Huron Parkway bridges plus a lot of streets. She said that the city was able to do that with federal money, state money and local street millage dollars – because that’s the way it’s typically done. What’s being done with Stadium bridges is not unique – it’s a matter of making it a priority, she contended. All along the city could have done both, she said.

Pirooz responded to Lumm by saying there was a lot less transportation available now than five or ten years ago. When the Broadway bridges were in the planning stage, he said, he thought the city had received close to $19.5 million through the state’s local bridge program. For the Stadium bridges, the city had receive only around $2 million. There’s been a substantial change in the amount of money the state had available. Lumm allowed it was a point well taken.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) complimented city staff on their responsiveness on the Jones Drive issue. On the Stadium bridges issue, Briere said she remembered reading how some people felt the city should go ahead and take on the reconstruction using local dollars, but the city had instead pursued federal dollars. The city was ultimately successful but it took time – time during which the public became impatient. It was desirable, she said, for the staff to conserve the street millage dollars for the last few years as a contingency for the possibility that federal dollars didn’t materialize.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he vaguely remembered the city missing out on the first round of TIGER grants because the city did not have a shovel-ready project for which it could apply. Pirooz said that wasn’t entirely true. The city did have a shovel-ready project, but the federal government had other priorities, he said. Kunselman expressed interest in adding to the list some streets in “my neck of the woods.” Pirooz said that the city likely had the money, but perhaps not the time. Kunselman told Pirooz he was referring to the Springbrook subdivision.

Mayor John Hieftje then reviewed the same historical material on the Broadway and Stadium bridges that Lumm, Briere and Pirooz had already reviewed.

Related to that, Pirooz reported that the Stadium bridges project is about a month ahead of schedule.

Outcome: The Group A contract for the 2012 street repair program was unanimously approved.

Jackson Road: From Four to Three Lanes

The council considered making a request to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation to convert the segment of Jackson Road between Maple Road and South Revena from four traffic lanes to three.

Jackson Road: Background

The request to MDOT will be shared with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). If the FHWA were to approve the proposed lane conversion, it would be implemented by MDOT, when the length of Jackson Road is resurfaced by MDOT from the I-94 interchange to Main Street in downtown Ann Arbor. That project is scheduled for 2013 or 2014.

Segment of Jackson Road recommended for 4-to-3 lane conversion. Image links to Google Map.

Benefits of the lane conversion cited in a staff memo accompanying the resolution include: (1) safe deceleration in the middle lane for left turns; (2) elimination of lane weaving; (3) uniform speeds and the resultant traffic-calming effect; (4) reduction in number and severity of crashes in a number of categories; (5) potential extra width for bicycle lanes; and (6) potential creation of additional marked pedestrian crossings.

The memo mentions several successful 4-to-3 lane conversions in Ann Arbor: South Main (Ann-Arbor Saline to Eisenhower); Platt (Packard to Ellsworth); Packard (Stadium to Jewett); Huron Parkway (Nixon to Plymouth); West Stadium Boulevard (Seventh to Pauline); and Green (Plymouth to Glazier Way). All of those segments have an average daily traffic (ADT) flow of less than 15,000.

Roadway segments with greater than 15,000 ADT, like Jackson Road with 15,500, require a greater level of analysis and public involvement. And to that end MDOT held a public meeting at Slauson Middle School on Feb. 2, 2012.

Jackson Road: Deliberations

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that the project would not be done until 2013 or 2014. He said it had been described to him as simply changing the painted lines on the street. He contended that public input was limited. He said that Liberty had been reworked and reduced in size but characterized it as “not a major carrier.” Once you exceed the 15,000 ADT threshold, a 4-to-3 lane reduction requires more analysis, he noted, and the section of Jackson in question is right on the limit – with 15,500 ADT. He pointed out that there would be buses on the street.

Anglin noted that Dexter Avenue was being redone this year with bicycle lanes and that Miller Road was scheduled to be done with bicycle lanes next year, so he felt there will be enough entrances and exits into the city for bicyclists within two blocks. He described Jackson as an extremely dangerous road due to the number of vehicles. He allowed that he was initially in favor of the lane change, but as he thought more about it, he was afraid it would result in putting people into situations that aren’t as safe as he’d like. It would be asking drivers to be acting quickly to reduce lanes. He contended that the more challenging a road layout is, the more difficult it is for drivers to maneuver and to watch for cyclists.

He floated the idea of postponing the motion. The road won’t be wider, he said. He criticized what he called not enough public input on the project.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Homayoon Pirooz of the city’s project management unit to come to the podium. She asked why it was advisable to reduce from four lanes to three on a “trunkline.” Pirooz explained that it’s not a matter of whether it’s a trunkline, but rather it’s the number of cars that determines how many lanes are needed. He described how four-lane roads were very common 30-40 years ago. Traffic engineers have found that’s not the best configuration. He described the reduction of conflict points that results from a reduction from four to three lines.

As an example, he pointed to Platt Road, which was reduced to three lanes. Residents, he said, had a lot of concerns about that, before it was implemented, thinking they wouldn’t be able to get onto the road from sidestreets. Looking at the data for accidents, he said, the number of accidents per year was 20-30 per year. But in the last two years it’s down to 6-7. The number of cars on that stretch is 14,000. That compares with 15,500 along the stretch of Jackson Road under discussion.

The city asked MDOT to do the traffic analysis and modeling, and that was presented to the public. Based on MDOT’s own analysis, it’d be relatively easily to do a 4-to-3 lane conversion, Pirooz said. He explained that the reason the city had asked MDOT to do the analysis was that the existing lanes on that stretch are very narrow – they’re 10 feet wide. MDOT won’t build roads with lanes that narrow any more – the minimum is 11 feet and the preference is 12.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he lived near the area and could confirm the narrowness of lanes, and said that narrowness is a concern for a lot of people. Hohnke noted that the four-to-three lane reduction would even out the traffic flow, allow for deceleration, and possibly add bike lanes – that sounds too good to be true, he said. He said he understood that the staff feels the benefits outweigh the costs, but he wanted to know what the costs were – congestion, air quality?

Pirooz allowed there are no guarantees for anything. He said staff is 95% confident that this will work. It’s planned for resurfacing for 2013 or possibly 2014. Once the street is paved, that’s the time to do lane markings. With all projects, he said, staff goes back one year later, and if ever a project like that doesn’t work, it’s as easy to change as grinding off the old paint and putting new paint down.

Hohnke drew out the fact that there could be some additional queuing time, but not that much.

Lumm came back to the issue of the traffic load of the segment of Jackson Road. She noted that in response to a question she’d asked before the meeting, the ADT was projected to be 18,500 in 18 years. She wondered if the city would be looking back then, wondering why this change was made. Pirooz noted that the current level is 15,000 ADT, which is closer to 15 than 20 – and the 18,500 projected in 18 years is still less than 20,000. By then, Pirooz said, the city would be looking at another resurfacing at that time. If you have to change it after 15 years, he said, that’s the nature of traffic engineering.

Mayor John Hieftje and Briere both mentioned the fact that the lane changes are reversible. In an apparent bid to wrap up discussion, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) noted that he himself is not a traffic professional, but the city’s traffic professionals say that there are safety benefits, it’ll be reviewed in a year, and it’s fully reversible – so he’d be supporting the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if the impact on the Platt Road change had been to cause motorists to find alternative routes – he felt like traffic on Platt was lighter since the 4-to-3 conversion. Pirooz told him there hadn’t been a decrease.

Anglin asked about accidents along the stretch. He also pointed out that the decision would affect a lot of people who don’t live in Ann Arbor, who are using the road to come into town.

Outcome: The 4-to-3 lane reduction resolution was approved over the opposition of Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Immediately after the vote Thomas Partridge, called out from his seat in the audience, saying the vote was “unbelievable,” which prompted Hieftje to tell him to be quiet.

Parking Ordinance

At its April 2 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council gave final approval to changes to the city’s off-street parking code.

Parking Ordinance: Background

The first change reduces the exceptions allowed for front open-space parking for sites that have more than one front lot line. Currently, a site with three frontages can have a parking area for two of the frontages – between the building face and the public right of way. The code revision would limit parking areas to a single frontage.

The second change requires that any new driveways serving drive-up windows in the front open space of a site be no wider than 12 feet and provide a raised sidewalk with bollards where the sidewalk crosses a drive-up lane. The change is meant to improve pedestrian safety.

The third change relates to minimum off-street parking requirements in the downtown districts, zoned D1 and D2. Developers currently have the option of making a payment in lieu of providing the required parking. The revision to the ordinance would add the option of signing a contract for parking permits in the city’s public parking system.

During the public hearing, Thomas Partridge called the amendments unclear and confusing. He contended that they deny property owners the ability to use the area in front of their property for parking.

Parking Ordinance: Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by asking for the projected impact on existing and prospective construction. Planning manager Wendy Rampson described the proposed changes in the context of the relatively new area, height and placement revisions (AHP) in the zoning code. In the context of reduced setback requirements for AHP, the proposed amendments were a way to preserve the remaining green space and to prevent it from becoming all driveway. Most existing drive-throughs are not an issue, she said. It’s really just the new proposals – like the like Tim Hortons site plan that would come before the council in a couple of weeks.

City administrator Steve Powers (left) and councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he had a lot of concern about the arrangement by which a developer could contract for spaces in the public parking system. He alluded to a proposed development at 618 S. Main, for which the developer is proposing to build two floors of parking – twice the amount required. He felt the city shouldn’t allow the use of public parking spaces to satisfy the minimum requirement. This is not a good thing as far as he was concerned. He contended that it was tantamount to public bonding.

Rampson explained that when the A2D2 zoning changes were adopted, there were options provided to meet the minimum parking requirements through an easement, or through a formula. Contracting for parking permits is one option that a developer can take that may or may not make sense, she said. In the case of the proposed 618 S. Main project, it doesn’t make sense to the developer, so he’s opted to provide parking on site. One of the benefits to contracting for monthly permits is that it assures a revenue stream for the parking structures, Rampson said. The policy that the council would be considering later in the meeting, as a separate agenda item, allows for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to determine whether parking is available within the public system. It’s not mandatory that the DDA grant the permits, if not enough spaces are available.

Anglin asked Rampson to give an example of a building that has provided its own parking and is successful. Rampson offered Zaragon Place, located on East University. Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, described the special parking permits that are available to downtown residents – the permits cost $30 a month, which allows residents to use the system in an “off-peak way.” She described how some of the users of the $30 permits are restaurant workers.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) worried that a contract could be just one year and that it wouldn’t meet the intent of the ordinance. He was curious about how it’s expected to play out. Rampson noted that the proposed policy the council would be considering cited a contract term of 15 years. Kunselman wondered why that wouldn’t be written into the ordinance instead of considered as a separate policy. Rampson explained that if the council wanted to change the policy it would be easier to change it if it’s a policy as opposed to going through the process of an ordinance change. [An ordinance change requires two readings before the council and a public hearing. ]

Kunselman then asked why the city didn’t make the all development in the downtown area exempt from parking requirements. Rampson explained that the issue was well-debated for two years, as part of the A2D2 rezoning process. She noted that there is only a parking requirement for bonus square-footage. Whatever can be built “by right” is parking exempt.

Kunselman said he was not comfortable contracting out the requirement using the public parking system. He contended that makes it into a quasi-private system.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Pollay to describe contracts with existing developments for parking space – Village Green City Apartments, Cornerhouse Lofts, McKinley Towne Center and others. Briere concluded that what was being proposed was not novel. Pollay concurred that it’s going on now. Mayor John Hieftje added that it’s a use of the parking system as an economic development tool. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said the proposal made sense to her – it addresses the basic objective of providing for the parking needs of projects and it provides flexibility.

Outcome: The council gave final approval to the parking regulation change, over dissent from Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Payment in Lieu of Parking

Also in front of the council for its consideration was the policy by which the minimum required parking component of developments in the downtown D1 and D2 zoning districts can be satisfied off-site from the development. The city is using the acronym CIL for “contribution in lieu” to describe the option. The idea could be familiar to some readers as PILOP, or “payment in lieu of parking.”

If not provided on-site, the policy allows some of the minimum required parking spaces to be provided with one of two basic strategies: (1) commit to a 15-year contract with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to purchase monthly permits in the public parking system at a rate 20% greater than the ordinary price; or (2) pay $55,000 up front before a certificate of occupancy is issued. [.pdf of parking payment in lieu policy]

The Ann Arbor DDA board had approved its recommendation of a PILOP policy over a year and half ago, at its July 7, 2010 board meeting. The DDA’s involvement in the policy formation stems from its role as operator of the city’s public parking system, under contract with the city of Ann Arbor. Part of the methodology in the CIL policy entails that the DDA will research the availability of spaces in the public parking system, when a developer applies for permits under the CIL option.

Outcome: Without deliberating explicitly on the item, which the council did not reach until nearly the end of the meeting, the council approved the policy over the dissent of Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Arbor Hills Crossing Revisions

The council was asked to consider revisions to the building plans for Arbor Hills Crossing, a proposed retail and office complex at Platt and Washtenaw.

The project involves tearing down three vacant commercial structures and putting up four one- and two-story buildings throughout the 7.45-acre site – a total of 90,700-square-feet of space for retail stores and offices. Three of the buildings would face Washtenaw Avenue, across the street from the retail complex where Whole Foods grocery is located. The site would include 310 parking spaces.

According to the planning staff memo accompanying the resolution, the buildings are proposed to remain in the same configuration that the city council approved at its Nov. 21, 2011 meeting. But now, more brick and masonry surfaces and less steel is being proposed. In the city planning staff’s view, the changes – which also include some changes to windows and vertical elements – could not be made as administrative amendments, and needed the city council’s approval.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed that some of the new material included full brick, with some split-faced block. He asked for some additional clarification about decisions to use certain materials in certain locations.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that with more brick and masonry, it appears to be a nice improvement. Given that there were no staff comments on it, she wanted to know what planning manager Wendy Rampson’s thoughts were. Rampson said there weren’t standards for these changes – but she characterized the new materials as “less edgy.”

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Arbor Hills Crossing changes.

Noodles & Co. Site Plan

On the April 2 agenda was a site plan for a new Noodles & Co. restaurant at 2161 W. Stadium Blvd. – site of the former Sze-Chuan West, a building adjacent to Bell’s Diner and Stadium Hardware.

The proposal calls for demolishing the existing 4,300-square-foot restaurant and building a new 2,679-square-foot one-story restaurant with a 615-square-foot enclosed patio at the front of the building. The 1.15-acre site is located on the west side of West Stadium, south of Liberty. The project would also reconfigure the existing parking lot and provide additional landscaping.

The planning commission had given a unanimous recommendation for approval at its March 6, 2012 meeting.

During the project’s public hearing, Thomas Partridge said the city should require businesses to contribute to public transportation for seniors and handicapped people.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if the future use of the parcel would be as a restaurant, something that planning manager Wendy Rampson confirmed. He asked her if she thought 27 parking spaces was adequate for a restaurant. She confirmed that 27 spaces would meet the minimum requirement.

Anglin asked what zoning would be applied to the parcel once is was divided, as proposed in the site plan. Rampson explained that the zoning wouldn’t change. The division of the parcel would be between the carwash and the restaurant site. The zoning wouldn’t change – it would reconfigure the ownership of the parcel.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Noodles & Co. site plan.

Les Voyageurs Site Plan

Another site plan was on the agenda – for a renovation to the Habe Mills Pine Lodge, owned by the Society of Les Voyageurs.

The site had also required a rezoning, which the city council had approved at its March 19, 2012 meeting.

The property owned by the society, at 411 Long Shore Drive near Argo Pond, had been previously zoned public land, even though it’s owned by a private entity. The council approved the rezoning as a planned unit development (PUD), which would allow the group to build a 220-square-foot, one-story addition to the rear of the existing lodge, on its east side. The site plan for that addition was the subject of the council’s April 2 action.

The nonprofit society is a University of Michigan student and alumni club, focused on nature and the outdoors. Named for French-Canadian voyageurs of the Great Lakes fur trade, it was founded in 1907 and is one of the university’s oldest fraternal student groups. The lodge was built in 1925 – about the same time as the city’s first zoning ordinance and zoning map. Five student members live at the lodge, and society alumni gather there for potluck Sunday dinners from September to April.

During the public hearing, Thomas Partridge criticized Les Voyageurs, contending that it didn’t live up to its public responsibilities. He called it a semi-secret society. At a previous meeting, he’d criticized the group based on its French name.

Partridge’s comments led mayor John Hieftje to share his memory of paddling in a canoe on Lake Superior during a historical reenactment. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) made a quip about the society being “elitist” – a reference to Partridge’s remarks.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Les Voyageurs site plan.

Police Detective Vehicles

The council considered the authorization of the purchase of a total of four vehicles for police detectives for a total of $97,383. One of the vehicles was sourced from Red Holman Buick/GMC – a 2012 GMC Acadia for $28,620. The other three were purchased from Signature Ford – a 2013 Ford Explorer for $26,951, a 2013 Ford Taurus for $24,098 and a 2012 Ford Fusion for $17,714.

The city’s contract with the police unions requires that vehicles used by union members will not be driven more than 80,000 miles or six years, whichever comes first. And in the case of the four vehicles being acquired, they’ll replace vehicles that will reach the six-year age limit in the next year. The vehicles that are being retired will be sold at the next city vehicle auction.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council approved the purchase of the detective vehicles on two separate votes.

Fire, Police Retirement/Health

In front of the council for its consideration was initial approval to changes to the employee retirement system to accommodate recent changes in the collective bargaining agreement with the city’s police command officers union and firefighters union. The council also considered initial approval to changes to the retirement health care benefits to reflect changes to those collectively bargained agreements.

Changes to the retirement system include: (1) increasing the pension contribution of command officer members to 6% from 5%; (2) implementing a pick-up feature as permitted by the Internal Revenue Code for the pension contributions of firefighters and command officers, converting their 6% pre-tax contribution to a 6% post-tax contribution; (3) increasing the vesting and final average compensation requirements for firefighters hired after July 1, 2012; and (4) implementing a federal provision that allows eligible retired public safety officers to pay qualified health insurance premiums directly from their pensions.

The change to the retiree health care system will stipulate that new hires after July 1, 2012 will be eligible for an access-only health care plan at the time of their retirement, instead of a city-paid retiree health care plan.

As changes to the city’s ordinances, the resolutions passed by the council on April 2 will require a second and final approval after a public hearing at a subsequent meeting.

Outcome: The council gave initial approval to both employment issues without discussion.

0.17 BAC as Separate Crime

The council considered initial approval to a change in its traffic ordinance to adopt a provision of the Michigan Vehicle Code that establishes driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of more than 0.17 as a separate offense from operating under the influence.

Ann Arbor operating under influence by month (Image links to higher resolution file.)

The Michigan legislature had previously changed the MVC, which Ann Arbor has adopted, to include the separate charge for the very high BAC of 0.17. However, the legislature did not at that time change the Home Rule Cities Act to allow cities to impose the greater penalty of 180 days in jail and/or $700 fine that comes with the BAC 0.17 charge. But in February 2012, the legislature made the change to the Home Rule Cities Act that allows for that penalty. Ann Arbor is making the change to its local ordinance in order to be able to charge drivers with the 0.17 offense.

Records from January 2010 through February 2012 provided to The Chronicle by CLEMIS (Courts and Law Enforcement Management Information System) show three instances of 0.17 offenses – which could not be charged as a separate offense. The CLEMIS records for the same time period also show three reports for the moderately higher BAC level of .08, which could already be charged separately from operating under the influence.

Ordinance changes must receive an initial approval by the Ann Arbor city council, followed by a public hearing and a second and final approval at a subsequent meeting.

Outcome: The council gave initial approval to the BAC ordinance change without discussion.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Litigation, Praise for City Attorney

During communications time, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) mentioned that the city had received very good news, having won some recent rounds of litigation. That included an appeal of a lawsuit originally filed against the city on Oct. 12, 2009 by HDC – the entity whose proposal had been selected in response to a request for proposals for development of the Fifth & William site of the old YMCA building (which has since demolished). The original purchase option agreement for the land was approved on Sept. 6, 2005. The YMCA building formerly offered 100 units of single resident occupancy (SRO) units. When the city council had previously made the decision to purchase the property from the YMCA, many councilmembers expressed a commitment to preserving those 100 units of affordable housing. Subsequently, the building became uninhabitable and the residents had to be relocated. Affordable housing units were part of HDC’s William Street Station proposal.

After encountering various difficulties and attempting to modify its project, HDC and the city agreed to a new purchase option agreement that included specific milestones. That new agreement was signed on Oct. 12, 2007. It included the milestone of obtaining a demolition permit from the city by Oct. 15, 2007. When HDC filed its application for the permit, it contends it was informed by city staff that only the owner of a property could be granted a demolition permit – so HDC could not obtain the permit because it was not the owner. The city still owned the property. HDC complained that the condition was one that was impossible to meet.

A resolution considered by the city council on Nov. 5, 2007 to modify the purchase option agreement by extending it failed on a 5-6 vote. On the side of extending were councilmembers Joan Lowenstein, Leigh Greden, Margie Teall, and Wendy Woods. Against extending the agreement were John Hieftje, Bob Johnson, Ron Suarez, Stephen Rapundalo, Stephen Kunselman, and Christopher Easthope. The failure to extend was the basis of one of the counts alleged in the lawsuit filed in 2009 – that the city failed to act in good faith and deal fairly. In broad strokes, the court said that HDC, as a sophisticated developer, should have known better than to sign an agreement with an impossible condition, and that the city had not breached its contract.

When asked to summarize the case, which the city also won on appeal, city attorney Stephen Postema did not mention the issues involving good faith, but focused on another aspect of HDC’s allegations, which involved a claim that the city was motivated to terminate HDC’s purchase option, in order to prevent handicapped people from living at the site. The court found that the set of facts that HDC had pled did not warrant further discovery. Postema called it a “complete exoneration of the council.”

As a part of his communications, Derezinski asked his colleagues to give Postema a round of applause – for prevailing in the lawsuit as well as for an award he’d received from the Michigan Municipal League.

Comm/Comm: Connecting William Street

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) gave an update on the Connecting William Street project. She indicated that the survey was closed, and while the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority had expected to get around 1,000 responses, they’re received almost double that. They’d heard from around 200 organizations, as well as individuals. The process would continue in an information-gathering phase, she said, before going into a scenario-building phase. The project status is described in detail on the Ann Arbor DDA website.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Alan Haber told the council that he was distressed by the characterization that Smith had given about the survey responses and contended that what people had actually called for was more open space, more green space and more space for people to gather.

Comm/Comm: Fuller Road Station

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) revisited a topic he’s brought up recently during communications time – Fuller Road Station. He complained that while there’s been no official vote on the overall project, taxpayer money is still being spent on the project. He pointed to an Oct. 9, 2009 Fuller Road Station Concept Plan report prepared by the consultant JJR, which identifies two utility systems as needing relocation. [The council voted on the sewer project on June 20, 2011 and reconsidered it at Anglin's request on July 5, 2011. The first vote was unanimous in support, while Anglin dissented on the second vote.] He criticized the failure to identify on the agenda the relationship between the sewer relocation project to the Fuller Road Station project. And he contended that the sewer work was motivated by the Fuller Road Station project.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) responded to the remarks Anglin made by saying that the answer the council had received from city staff was that the work – replacing the sewer lines – needed to be done. Staff had acknowledged that they had moved the timing up a year or two. Many of the councilmembers had supported the work, she said, because it needed to be done.

Comm/Comm: Taxicab Board

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the taxicab board had met the previous Thursday. It had only three members – they’re looking for two more. He made a plea to the public to step up and serve.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Services

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor Democrat, an advocate for the most vulnerable in the city and the state. He called attention to a lack of affordable housing, transportation and health care. He also lamented the lack of enforcement against illegal drugs. What would Jesus advocate on the eve of Easter? he asked. Under the first African American president of the United States, we need to press for the building of a Great Society with access for all to public transportation, free or low cost health care services, and low cost housing, he said.

Comm/Comm: Women’s Rights, Sexual Assault Prevention

Esperanza Orozco began by saying that the subject matter of her remarks was very sensitive. She introduced herself as a survivor of sexual assault. She told the council that her assailant had been locked up for a few days but he’d then been let back out on the streets of Ann Arbor. She said that the man had violated a personal protection order (PPO) several times. She reported that she and some friends of hers had posted flyers with a picture of the man with the intention of alerting the public to the fact that he’s a rapist and a batterer.

But the police showed up and threatened them with charges, Orozco contended, and posed a question: What if the man put up flyers saying she was a prostitute? Orozco said that neither of her friends had been sex workers. In any case, she objected to the comparison of a batterer and to a sex worker. She asked if the city was okay saying, “Shut up, woman!” and silencing victims of rape. She asked if were okay that “the city won’t do shit and if we do something, then we’re vigilantes.” She answered her own question by saying, “If ya’ll don’t do something, I guess we should.” She concluded by saying, “Rape needs to be dealt with. Cut it out or cut it off.”

Orian Zakai spoke in support of Orozco, describing Orozco’s brave decision to leave her partner. The man is still out there and has violated his PPO. When the police report was filed, Zakai said she was perplexed about the way things progressed. Orozco had to tell a difficult story in a public space, with officers coming and going and officers chatting with each other. The front desk officer told her a detective would call a day or two later. Four days later, he had forwarded the prosecutor the file, without making any further inquiry. No charges were filed. She was told to file a report if he violated the PPO, which he did twice. And on the third time AAPD were able to arrest him, but Orozco and her friends were told he would probably be let out in a day or two. They felt frustrated and scared. They were promised a detective would call, when the man was let out. They learned he was out again when they saw him and he waved and smiled.

Alexandra Hoffman alerted the council to the Thursday, April 5 Take Back the Night march. She then read a list of tips for preventing sexual assault that are “guaranteed to work”:

1. Don’t put drugs in people’s drinks in order to control their behavior.
2. If you see someone walking by themselves, leave them alone.
3. If you pull over to help someone with car problems, remember not to assault them.
4. Never open an unlocked door or window uninvited.
5. If you’re in an elevator and someone else gets in, don’t assault them.
6. Remember, people go to the laundry to do their laundry. Don’t attempt to molest someone who’s alone in a laundryroom.
7. Use the buddy system – if you’re not able to stop yourself from assaulting people, ask a friend to stay with you while you’re in public.
8. Always be honest with people. Don’t pretend to be a caring friend in order to gain the trust of someone you plan to assault.
9. Don’t forget you can’t have sex with sometime unless they’re awake.
10. Carry a whistle. If you’re worried that you might assault someone by accident, you can hand it to a friend so they can blow it for you.

Hoffman noted that the satirical list is meant to show that advice is often directed at victims instead of assailants. No violence is private and there are no innocent bystanders, she said.

Occupy Patriarchy T-shirt worn by Alexandra Hoffman.

Mary Kate Bachler introduced herself as a University of Michigan architecture student and Ann Arbor resident. She reported to the council her experience on March 8, International Women’s Day, participating in a public action in front of city hall. The public demonstration was to raise awareness of International Women’s Day, and issues involving sexual assault.

The demonstrators asked people to hang paper flowers on the “phallic statue” [a reference to the Herbert Dreiseitl sculpture] which seasonally is also used as a fountain. The text on the paper flowers asked: What would you do with $750,000 (the cost of the sculpture). The group of 10 attempted to hang the paper flowers around the sculpture. They were met by the chief of police and the mayor, she said, and were told that they had to remove the flowers from the sculpture and a nearby tree, because the sculpture was public art and the tree was public property. Bachler interpreted “public” in that context to mean “off limits to the public.” She ventured that while women walk in fear of being assaulted due to a lack of effective police patrol, the most important players in the city were busy thwarting peaceful protests.

Later, mayor John Hieftje responded to the description that had been given of the International Women’s Day Demonstration. He said that he and then-chief Barnett Jones had told the demonstrators in the nicest way possible that things couldn’t be hung on the artwork. He said he’d reminded people that none of the dollars for that art, as far as he knew, could be spent on a general fund expense. He expressed puzzlement that people would protest against art, and indicated he was still trying to understand that. [Some of the demonstrators carried signs indicating that the city should have spent money on organizations like SafeHouse Center rather than on the Dreiseitl sculpture.]

Thomas Partridge led off his commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, which ended at midnight, by quipping that he felt that way earlier in the meeting it would have been advisable to have a recess to give a few minutes of access to the NCAAA basketball championship game. But there have been some serious issues on the agenda, he said. On the eve of Easter, he said, he was again calling on Ann Arbor to be a friendlier and more respectful society. The story told by the young ladies during their attempt to gain attention on International Women’s Day was shocking, he said. He called for an apology from the mayor and police chief. He called for an effective investigation and prosecution. The disrespectful and insulting treatment of young ladies and the failure to protect the interests of all the young ladies of the city is not something to be glossed over, he said. He called on the council to pass a resolution at its next meeting condemning their treatment.

Odile Hugenot Haber told the council that when she met Orozco, she was shocked to know that when she called SafeHouse, there was no space for her there. [SafeHouse is a shelter for victims of domestic violence.] She talked about the fact that the country was fighting wars that cost so much money, and mentioned her concern that Camp Take Notice, a homeless enclave, might be shut down. As more women are abused and assaulted, she said, there’s no place for them to go. Spending a million dollars on art shows misplaced priorities, she said.

Alan Haber said he was there to support his “sisters.” When a month is set aside to raise awareness of sexual assault, he said, it really does need attention; our vision should be a culture of peace and nonviolence. The need for a demonstration shows that we’re a long way away from that, he said. He attributed the problem to a male patriarchal vision.

Comm/Comm: Speaking Rules

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) made a general request that councilmembers remain aware of the speaking rules and said that she felt the rules were being stretched.

By way of background, those rules include a limit of two speaking turns on any question, with a time limit of five minutes and three minutes for the first and second turns, respectively. As chair of the meeting, it’s the mayor’s responsibility to enforce the rules. However, under Robert’s Rules, which guide the council’s meeting conduct, unless there’s an explicit council rule addressing an issue, any councilmember could interrupt with a “point of order” to force the chair to enforce a rule. Later in the week, Smith showed The Chronicle a stopwatch app that she’d downloaded for her smartphone.

Comm/Comm: Lack of Prosecution

Henry Herskovitz told the council that on Feb. 4, 2012 his group was conducting its weekly vigil (demonstrating against support for Israel outside the Beth Israel synagogue) when he’d noticed someone removing a sign from a windshield of one of his group’s cars and then placing it in his own car. As the man was getting in the driver’s seat, Herskovitz asked him to return the sign. Herskovitz told the council that the man had told him he wasn’t going to get his sign back. So Herskovitz’s group called the Ann Arbor police department dispatch and reported the license plate and car description.

Officer Kevin Kleitsch came out and made a report, Herskovitz said. The case was referred to the detective bureau, assigned to Craig Lee. A month later, Herskovitz said, he looked at a photo lineup and correctly identified the man who’d taken the sign. In spite of the correct identification of the man, and the fact that the license plate was registered to the man that he’d identified, his group had been notified that the city attorney had decided not to prosecute.

Herskovitz described his group as peaceful protestors who’d been in this position before. He then gave other examples, in one case going back to 2006, where offenses were committed against members of his group, and arrests were made, but did not result in prosecution. Without enforcement of such offenses, Herskovitz said that their First Amendment rights are weakened. His group looked to the council to affirm its pledge to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Absent: Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: April 16, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) talk before the start of the Oct. 3 council meeting. (Photos by the writer)

But two agenda items – both related to the future of the block of South Fifth Avenue just south of William – resulted in over an hour of deliberations by the council.

An item added late Monday afternoon gave a glimmer of hope to the Heritage Row planned unit development (PUD), which the council last had on its agenda on Dec. 6, 2010 – nearly a year ago. On Monday, the council voted to suspend its rules, then voted to reconsider the project, and finally voted to postpone it until its Oct. 17 meeting.

By Oct. 17, a set of changes proposed by the development team are to be incorporated into the site plan and zoning regulations for Heritage Row. The developer says the changes to Heritage Row would be necessary, in order for him to diverge from his current intention to build City Place, an already approved “matter of right” project at the same location. Those changes include eliminating any on-site parking requirement, increasing the number of residents, relaxing the energy standards, and not making a commitment to the historical preservation of the existing seven houses on the site. [.pdf of letter from developer]

If the council were to give the new version of Heritage Row initial approval at its Oct. 17 meeting, it would then take a second and final vote on it at a meeting now scheduled for Oct. 24.

In a related action, the council approved a revision to the development agreement for City Place that eliminated the need for the developer to complete off-site utility work before being issued a building permit for that project. Now, that utility work would need to be completed later in the process, before the certificate of occupancy is issued. The relaxation of the timeline was undertaken to allow the developer additional flexibility to discuss a modified Heritage Row, as an alternative to City Place.

In other business, the council again delayed action on a resolution of intent for the use of revenue generated by a proposed street and sidewalk repair millage that voters will be asked to approve at the Nov. 8 election. Questions concerned the need for such a resolution at all, as well as the plan for use of the millage inside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district.

A request for rezoning a medical marijuana business on South State Street was denied by the council, but did achieve three votes on the 11-member body.

The council also approved an easement for DTE to replace a gas main along the north side of Fuller Road.

Heritage Row

Added to the agenda late Monday afternoon was a bundle of resolutions that in concert put the Heritage Row planned unit development (PUD) for South Fifth Avenue back before the council for formal consideration and possible future approval. Approval of the project is contingent on the council’s judgement that the project meets the standard of public benefit required in order to replace the land’s existing zoning with the alternate zoning requested for it.

Heritage Row, as it had been previously designed, consisted of preserving seven existing houses and constructing three apartment buildings behind them, with underground parking.

A different project for the same site, City Place, has already won council approval. That approval was based on the planning staff and city attorney’s judgement that the project met all existing zoning codes and regulations, and could be approved as a matter-of-right project. City Place would require demoliting the existing seven houses, to be replaced with two apartment buildings separated by a parking lot.

City Place is seen by most observers as an inferior project to Heritage Row, and the prospect that City Place will actually be built – based on recent pre-construction meetings and the termination of leases for tenants in existing properties – has prompted the council to take up the issue again.

Heritage Row: Parliamentary Issues

In broad strokes, there were three parliamentary steps for the Heritage Row agenda item, each corresponding to a separate vote.

First, the council needed to suspend two parts of a council rule on reconsideration of previous votes. The council had previously reconsidered the project over a year ago – on July 6, 2010, when the council rejected Heritage Row on a 7-3 vote. The council had initially rejected the project at its June 21, 2010 meeting on a 7-4 vote. The project needed an eight vote super-majority to pass, because sufficient signatures were collected from nearby property owners to force the eight-vote majority.

So some parts of Rule 12 needed to be suspended. It reads [relevant parts in italics]:

RULE 12 – Consideration of Questions
When a question has been taken, it shall be in order for any member voting with the prevailing side to move a reconsideration thereof at the same or the next regular meeting; but, no question shall a second time be reconsidered.

The parliamentary motion to suspend the rules is not subject to debate. This is a point that Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) made on Dec. 6, 2010, when the council had a similar set of motions on its agenda concerning Heritage Row. Citing the parliamentary rule, Hohnke successfully quashed all debate on the issue that evening. At Monday’s Oct. 3 meeting, Hohnke did not choose to invoke this rule, and councilmembers debated the suspension of council rules for an extended period.

Because Hohnke had previously voted with the prevailing side – along with Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – he could then make the motion to reconsider Heritage Row.

The second step of the Oct. 3 process was a vote on whether to reconsider the Heritage Row project.

The third step of the Oct. 3 process was a vote on the project itself, which was presented to the council as an action to postpone a decision until the council’s next regular meeting, on Oct. 17. Part of the motion to postpone included a direction to city staff to incorporate the content of a set of developer-proposed changes into the site plan and zoning for Heritage Row, so that on Oct. 17 those changes would be presented to the council for their initial consideration.

The third step also included a motion to add a “regular meeting” to the council’s calendar for Oct. 24, so that the council could give the project a second and final approval, assuming that it received initial approval at the Oct. 17 meeting. All ordinance changes require two readings by the council. [A PUD project is an ordinance change, because it changes the zoning of a parcel.] The first regular council meeting in November falls on Nov. 10 (due to the Nov. 8 election) and that was deemed by the developer to be too late.

During deliberations, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) questioned whether the revision to the calendar to add an extra meeting constituted the addition of a “regular meeting,” or was rather the addition of a “special meeting.” Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald noted that it had to be a “regular meeting” due to the charter requirement that a second reading of an ordinance cannot come before the next “regular meeting” of the council, after the initial reading. From the city charter [emphasis added]:

SECTION 7.3.
…
(b) Each proposed ordinance shall receive two readings, which may be by title only, unless ordered by the Council to be read in full or in part. After the first reading of a proposed ordinance, the Council shall determine whether it shall be advanced to a second reading. The second reading shall not be given earlier than the next regular Council meeting.

If the Oct. 24 meeting were labeled a “special meeting,” then the council could not take the second vote on the Heritage Row project at that meeting, because that would be earlier than Nov. 10, the next regular council meeting.

The city charter also stipulates that the council must determine its regular meeting times:

SECTION 4.4.
(a) The Council shall fix the time and place of its regular meetings and shall hold at least two regular meetings in each month. If any day prescribed for a regular meeting of the Council is a holiday, such regular meeting shall be held at the same time and place on the next secular day, except that when such holiday is an election day, the meeting shall be held on the following Thursday.

At the Oct. 3 meeting, defending the labeling of the additional Oct. 24 meeting as a “regular meeting,” mayor John Hieftje observed that the charter allows for more than two “regular meetings” in a month.

However, the mechanism the council uses to fix the time of its “regular meetings” is the set of council rules, which it ratifies after installation of new councilmembers each year. In Rule 1, the principle for scheduling of regular meetings, is laid out:

RULE 1 – Time of Council Meetings
Regular meetings of the Ann Arbor City Council shall be held on the first and third Monday of the month at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber at City Hall.

During a recess in the Oct. 3 meeting, after the Heritage Row votes were taken, including the motion to modify the council’s calendar by adding a single “regular meeting,” The Chronicle pointed out to Higgins that the council’s vote to establish a “regular meeting” on Oct. 24 had flouted Rule 1. When the council resumed its meeting, Higgins made a motion to suspend Rule 1, and to re-establish the modification of the calendar to add a “regular meeting” on Oct. 24.

Outcome: Later in the meeting, after a recess, the council unanimously approved the suspension of Rule 1 and the addition of a “regular meeting” to the calendar for Oct. 24.

Heritage Row: Substance of the Letter

Around 4 p.m. on Oct. 3, councilmembers received a letter written by Jeff Helminski representing City Place Ann Arbor LLC, the owner of the City Place project. The letter outlined the expectations for modifying the Heritage Row project that would be necessary for the project’s new ownership group to consider building Heritage Row instead of City Place.

Helminski writes: “The investment perspective of the new ownership group and development team is that the formerly proposed Heritage Row project is not economically viable or financeable.” [.pdf of letter from developer] [.pdf of revisions to supplemental regulations for PUD]

The main points of the letter that likely pose the greatest hurdle include a relaxation of the commitment to historic preservation of the existing houses, a relaxation of the energy-conservation features, an increase to the number of residents, and the elimination of any on-site parking requirement.

Heritage Row: Why Hohnke?

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) sponsored the agenda item related to the Heritage Row project. His has been considered the key vote on the project, which needs an eight-vote majority because of a successful petition by nearby property owners to force the super-majority requirement.

The other three councilmembers on the 11-member council who voted against the project have not indicated any hint that they might be inclined to support it now.

On July 6, 2010, when the council reconsidered the project for the first time, later in that same meeting Hohnke first attempted to get his council colleagues to reconsider establishing a historic district in the area. When that failed, he made a motion to suspend the council rules to reconsider the Heritage Row project, apparently finally ready to change his vote. However, the mayor called a recess to the meeting, and during the break Hohnke apparently changed his mind. When that meeting resumed, Hohnke withdrew his motion.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Administrative Envelope

On Oct. 3, Hohnke led off deliberations on the Heritage Row item. He referred to the complexity of the consideration and the multiple timelines as accounting for the late addition to the agenda. He said the council had anticipated a different process for this project. As a council, they had voted to waive part of the fee for resubmitting the project. [The council made that decision at its Feb. 7, 2011 meeting.]

However, Hohnke said, that initial development team discovered that the Heritage Row project was not financially viable. The new development team is moving forward with the City Place project instead, he said. Hohnke characterized the new team as very gracious about discussing the Heritage Row project. Hohnke allowed that he had not had a chance to speak with all of the neighbors on the block, but that those he’d spoken to have been very constructive. And those who have been closely involved have indicated support, he said.

What he intended to accomplish, Hohnke said, was to create the opportunity to continue conversations about how to modify the Heritage Row project so that it’s financially viable to the developer and continues to provide the beneficial effects to the city as required by a PUD. He alluded to the letter from the development team, and noted that there’s “a lot of devil in the detail” of the letter. The shortest way to communicate the content of the letter, Hohnke said, is that the goal is for the developer to come back with a version of the plan that is “inside the administrative amendment envelope to the existing site plan.” That is, he said, there would be adjustments of the type that could have been approved administratively for the site plan currently on file with the city.

By way of background, Chapter 57 of the city code defines specifically the type of administrative amendments allowable to a PUD site plan [emphasis added]:

Administrative Amendments to Approved PUD Site Plans. A minor change to an approved PUD site plan may be approved as provided in this Chapter for Administrative Amendments to Approved Site Plans, except that the proposed changes shall not alter the fundamental design, conceptual integrity, natural features shown to be preserved, any specific conditions of the PUD development program, the conceptual PUD plan or the supplemental regulations. The following restrictions shall also apply: Adjustment in approved phase lines shall not result in a change greater than 10% of the total gross land area in any phase, or 10% of the number of approved lots, or 10% of the approved maximum building square footage. Any decrease in building size or changes in bedroom counts per dwelling unit shall not reduce the size or number of affordable housing units approved as part of the PUD site plan.

Given the nature of the explicit changes to the supplemental regulations corresponding to the stipulations in Helminski’s letter, Hohnke’s description of a revised proposal that would fall within the envelope of administrative amendments appears questionable.

In a followup phone interview with The Chronicle, city of Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson offered some clarity about the goal of the conversation between the staff and developer. The proposal to be worked out for the Oct. 17 first reading wouldn’t fit within the envelope of “administrative amendment” to the site plan currently on file with the city, Rampson said. Instead, the goal was to alter the site plan and PUD zoning in a way that, if approved by the council on second reading, any additional changes needed by the developer could be made administratively, Rampson said.

Hohnke concluded by saying that the point of suspending the council rules was for the sole purpose of reconsidering Heritage Row. He stressed that the action that night would not be “determinative” of the kind of project that would result. He urged his colleagues’ support of the motion to suspend the rules.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – What Are We Approving?

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Hohnke to explain why he was asking the council to suspend the rules now, some 14 months after the initial vote on the project, and why the developer is not going through a standard PUD process.

Hohnke said there are significant timeline constraints. There are significant financial constraints that the development team is under. Backing up the time of having rent-paying tenants in a new development, Hohnke said, you have a situation where there is not time to have a full process of submitting a new proposal with new supplemental regulations and a new site plan, and going through staff review and the planning commission. The timeline for a full process, he said, is not an option for the development team. The alternative of City Place would be pursued if the full-process option were the only option for Heritage Row. But the council has the opportunity to reconsider a previously submitted site plan, he said.

The flip side to that shortened process is that the development team is then constrained by the existing site plan, Hohnke said. The need to reconsider the existing site plan, he said, is driven by the timelines that drive the financial ability to finance the alternative project.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) ventured that basically it’s because the developer has given tenants notice – that’s what is driving the timeline. The developer could leave tenants in place and go through the process from square one, she said. Hohnke stated that was not the case. He said that when the carrying costs are factored in – something like $14 million – keeping the current tenants in place would cover some, but not enough of the costs to keep the tenants in place and move ahead with a full process. Eliminating the financing carrying costs becomes the critical factor, Hohnke concluded.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said in looking at the reconsideration, there are attachments to the resolution. [.pdf of letter from developer] [.pdf of revisions to supplemental regulations for PUD] She wanted to know if the council would be approving the attachments – because their content gave her great pause, she said.

Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office reviewed for Higgins the set of parliamentary motions described in one of the attachments. [.pdf of parliamentary motions] The first motion was the suspension of rules. The second motion was about the question of the reconsideration. The third motion was to explain the resulting timeline. McDonald noted that one of the attachments is a developer’s letter of requested changes that the city received at 4 p.m. on Monday, which was forwarded to the council.

McDonald stressed that those changes were the developer’s requested changes. McDonald said the city attorney’s office has not had time to review the material. He noted that the third parliamentary motion gave direction to staff to work on incorporating those requests so that council could have a first reading with revised supplemental regulations. The council was not being asked for an approval specifically, he said.

Higgins noted that under the scenario councilmembers were weighing, the council would reconsider the project, then postpone it, giving specific direction to revise the project. She noted the council would be giving direction that staff should spend time on making changes – but she did not agree with many of the changes. The original elements of the project with great public value are being significantly changed, she said. It would be one thing if the direction was being given based on the council’s view of what should happen, she said, but that it appeared that the direction was being given to make modifications based on what the developer wanted.

McDonald acknowledged that the changes were proposed by the developer and had not been reviewed by staff – Higgins was correct. Unless the council provided some other direction, staff would try to check to see if the developer-proposed changes met the PUD standards and would seek to incorporate them as best they could.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Are These Actual Demands?

Hohnke stressed that there is nothing about the letter and the third motion that is constraining. The motion simply directs staff to work with the development team, the council and the community on a “slightly modified PUD.” Hohnke thought it would be helpful to the council for the developer to lay out exactly what he’s suggesting. Because of the accelerated timeline, Hohnke said, it’s not exactly clear to the developer how they need to modify the project to provide financial viability.

Hohnke ventured that the developer is asking for the “maximum envelope.” Hohnke said he would hope that the version the council would see at first reading on Oct. 17 would be “much tighter” on the requirements for renovating the existing houses, height, floor-area-ratio (FAR) and open space requirements. It provides the opportunity to get input to make the project as beneficial as possible, he said.

Hohnke thought the eventual proposal would be different from the outline in the letter – it would be “more beneficial” to the community. At the first reading and at the second reading, the council would have the opportunity to provide additional input. Higgins clarified with McDonald that it would come before the council on Oct. 17, and that it comes back to second reading the very next week on Oct. 24 – at a meeting created through modifying the council’s calendar. Hohnke clarified that given the way weekdays fall this year (with the first day of November falling on a Tuesday), the first regular meeting of the council falls as late as it can possibly come in the month – on Thursday Nov. 10, after the Nov. 8 election. That would be too late for the developer’s timeline, Hohnke said.

With respect to the timeline, McDonald weighed in, saying that the statutory requirement of a 15-day notice before the public hearing on Oct. 24 meant that the public hearing would need to be noticed to the public before the first reading on Oct. 17.

Responding to Hohnke’s mention of opportunities to modify the proposal further at the first and second readings, McDonald advised councilmembers that it was really the occasion of the first reading when they should be considering any possible revisions to the proposal, not the second reading. Material changes made at the second reading would result in an additional reading required before the council, McDonald said.

Higgins lamented the fact that it means it won’t be until the night of the final decision that the council would have the opportunity to hear from the public, and it’s been a very hot topic with the public, she said.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Public Benefit

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted the majority of the public benefit had been removed. [The PUD ordinance stipulates that a public benefit must be provided by a project in order to justify the non-conformance to zoning.] Nothing requires historic preservation of the homes. The developer is cutting back on the affordable housing component. So the question, Kunselman said, is whether the project is a PUD or not. Obviously, he said, Heritage Row did not meet the financial requirements of the developer, because there was too much public benefit and it was costing too much money.

If they’re stripping that out, Kunselman said, maybe the developer needs to do a different project that the developer can afford. What’s wrong with townhomes? he wondered. It’s “mind boggling” Kunselman said, looking at it as someone who had not seen the project from the very beginning. [Kunselman was referring to the fact that a City Place PUD had originally been rejected by the council in January 2009, just after Kunselman left the council, following his defeat in the 2008 Democratic primary by Christopher Taylor. Kunselman won back a seat the following year.]

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) reminded Kunselman that he’d been at the table for the initial Heritage Row vote in the summer of 2010. But she said she had similar concerns as Kunselman. At first glance, she said, it looked like the developer was reducing the public benefit. It wasn’t palatable in the summer of 2010 to some councilmembers, she said, so she was not sure why it would be palatable now, given the reduction in public benefit. She said she was not saying that she wouldn’t continue to support the project – she’d voted for it back in 2010. She found it “kind of awkward” that there is a “bulldozer here and a developer here” and the council is moving towards a weaker set of public benefits than they had the first time around.

Smith said if the preservation of the properties is a public benefit, then she hoped that would be negotiated – at least the facades and as much of the structures as possible. To accept less in public benefit, it would be difficult to agree. She said she’d support it going forward, but she wanted to send the message to be tough in the negotiations.

Hohnke said he agreed with Smith. He felt the historic preservation element of the project was very important. The council had an option for thorough historic preservation, Hohnke reminded his colleagues, which the majority of the council decided not to pursue – despite the unanimous recommendation of the unanimously-appointed historic district study committee to establish an historic district in that area. Whatever way the council had gotten to its current position, he said he didn’t see the value in evaluating past arguments and instead wanted to find a path forward that makes the most sense. If someone wanted to reconsider establishing a historic district, he would be willing to entertain that.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he couldn’t help but think of the phrase: “It’s deja vu all over again.” He ventured that some deathbed conversions are valid and this is one where the council should see what can be done at the last minute to preserve a better project. Derezinski said he’d been supporting the project consistently, because the design was creative and functional, and the public got a lot of benefit out of it. He said Smith is right – as currently described, there’s less public benefit. Giving it a shot would be worth it, he said, so he’d vote for the reconsideration.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said he saw very little utility in reviewing past postions. In his view, it was a reasonable and forward-looking proposal to pursue conversations, and it was to the larger good of Ann Arbor that the council do so. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was very reluctant to see the public benefit scaled down. Mayor John Hieftje said he would join others in being cautious. He ventured that the whole development saga on the block will show up in a planning textbook and it would probably “not reflect brightly on us.” But he said he would support Hohnke’s efforts to pull it out of the fire in the end.

Hohnke stressed that there is a long way to go and said that the probability of success is “well, let’s just say not 100%.” But Hohnke said the thinking was to stay on the ballfield until the last out.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she would vote for the reconsideration on the understanding that the council has not seen the development agreement. She echoed Smith’s thoughts in saying she hoped the council sees something better by the time it comes back. The race is to the swift, Briere said, but it’s also to the most accurate.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said everyone had worked hard for the last four years on this project. He was willing to give it another look. He said that with a change of ownership, a new game has started, and the council has to see who it’s dealing with now. That could lead to surprises in either direction.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said that he, too, would support the project but like others, he remained somewhat skeptical. It’s going to take a Herculean effort to get to some semblence of a modified project, he felt. However, he was willing to give it one last shot. He’d supported it from the very beginning.

Outcome on suspension of council rules: The council voted unanimously to suspend council rules in order to vote on the matter of reconsideration.

Outcome on reconsideration: The council voted unanimously to reconsider the Heritage Row project.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Incorporating the Letter

Before voting on the postponement and the direction given to staff, and the setting of the additional council meeting on Oct. 24, Higgins ventured that the additional meeting would be a “special meeting” not a “regular meeting.” McDonald said the charter required “at least” two regular meetings each month, but that having a third meeting would not make it a special meeting. It needed to be called a “regular meeting” because otherwise the soonest regular meeting after Oct. 17 would be Nov. 10.

Smith asked for clarification on the final paragraph of the motion:

I move that City Council direct the Planning and Development Services Unit and City Attorney’s Office to incorporate the developer’s proposal into the PUD Zoning and Site Plan, and review all required revised plans, regulations and agreements submitted by the developer, prior to Council consideration.

From that Smith concluded that the attachment was to be incorporated. McDonald said that Smith was correct, but that staff had heard some concerns from the council about public benefit and that it would be appropriate for the council to modify that language – if the council wanted to alter the wording, the council could provide specific direction to staff.

Hohnke did not agree with McDonald’s interpretation. Incorporating the developer’s proposal into the PUD site plan does not reference any particular attachment or set of proposals, Hohnke contended. It just asks staff and the developer to work on this project. The developer’s proposal might be modified from the developer’s letter by the time it reaches its first reading on Oct. 17. He asked McDonald to confirm that there’s nothing in the language to require that the “maximum envelope” expressed in Helminski’s letter be incorporated into the PUD zoning and site plan.

McDonald reiterated what he’d already said: If the council wants the staff to negotiate something, it would be helpful to add specific direction in the motion. McDonald indicated that they’d already heard in the discussion that councilmembers had concerns.

Hieftje said he read Helminski’s letter as saying: We’re going to build City Place, but we may change our mind if we can change Heritage Row so that it’s financially viable for us. He said it’d be a mistake not to put those the elements from the letter into the PUD zoning and site plan. Then if councilmembers wants to say no to it, they can do that. Hieftje said he appreciated the straightforwardness of Helminski’s letter.

Higgins said she understood the developer’s starting point, but still felt there needs to be an accounting for what city staff is to do. If there’s no agreement by Oct. 17, then there may be nothing that comes forward anyway.

Kunselman noted that the already-approved motion had put Heritage Row back on the table. He wanted to know if the council could vote for Heritage Row as it was without any of the amendments, but with all of the public benefit in the project, and just vote it up without amendment? McDonald said he didn’t think that would be appropriate. The owner has not asked for reconsideration except together with some changes pursuant to Helminski’s letter. The developer is not asking for reconsideration of the original proposal, and has stated that the original project is not financially viable, McDonald said.

Taylor felt there was a lot of conversation about what it means for it to be the “developer’s proposal” and for his reading, he did not believe the letter constitutes an “in stone” set of deal points that the developer was proposing. The letter is certainly forceful, Taylor said, and articulates a number of business points that the developer wants to achieve. The current resolution, he said, is appropriate. At the point the council receives a proposal in the form of a revised site plan, that would be the appropriate time to consider the public benefit associated with the proposal.

The development team knows what the council is saying, Taylor said. He thought it made a great deal of sense to go forward along the path indicated in the resolution. When the times comes, the council will make the judgement as to whether the public benefit is great enough.

Teall said that in addition to the letter, she was also looking at the supplemental regulations draft. That seemed pretty specific, she said, and she thought it was pretty clear what the developer was saying. She felt like it could easily be an “exercise in futility.” The developer had laid it out very clearly. She said she would not count on a lot of changes from what was indicated.

Rapundalo agreed with Taylor and felt it was a set of parameters or conditions. It’s “the box we’re going to work within.” The developer would come back with a final version and the council could then take it or leave it on its merits, he said. The developer just wanted to let the council know what the key elements were for the developer. He had no problem giving the developer time to work with the staff.

Heritage Row: Council Deliberations – Making Direction Explicit

Derezinski said he felt there was potential ambiguity in the last paragraph. He proposed an amendment to the resolution that gave it the following form [additional material in italics]:

I move that City Council direct the Planning and Development Services Unit and City Attorney’s Office to incorporate the developer’s letter proposal into the previously proposed PUD Zoning and Site Plan, and review all required revised plans, regulations and agreements submitted by the developer, in accordance with the requirements of the PUD ordinance, including making suggested changes, prior to Council consideration.

Taylor said that a number of councilmembers had indicated their dissatisfaction with a number of points articulated in the developer’s letter. In the amendment, the council would be instructing staff to incorporate the letter into the site plan amendments, without regard to whether the developer might choose to rethink the requirements.

Taylor said he wouldn’t support the amendment because of the injection of the mention of the letter. The goal is to receive the developer’s last, best offer. Let’s wait and see what the developer brings to the staff – if it’s exactly what’s in the letter, councilmembers can vote on it as they will, Taylor said.

Briere confirmed with Hohnke that the letter and revised supplemental regulations had just arrived late that afternoon and McDonald had indicated he had not yet reviewed it. To her, she said, that indicated it was put together “in a hurry.” Hohnke replied to Briere by saying that “overnight is a generous description.”

Hohnke then said he felt the council was “over-thinking it.” City staff had asked the developer to provide the letter and revised supplemental regulations merely to provide the council with an understanding of the “maximum envelope” the developer is considering. It was not intended to lay out clearly specifically what they’re driving at. It was meant to “set some stakes in the ground.”

Briere replied that if the letter is just concepts, then the council was not actually seeing the developer’s proposal that night. She wondered if the council would see the proposal before the evening of Oct. 17. Hohnke said it would come sooner than that, because it would be an agenda item and would be distributed on Wednesday afternoon [Oct. 12] before the council meeting. There would be plenty of time to review it. If that was the case, Briere ventured, the council should be content to wait.

Higgins said two paragraphs in the letter were of concern to her:

I encourage you to take the necessary actions to allow our team and the City to continue a productive dialog in pursuit of the creative solutions necessary to devise an alternative development plan that meets the requirements of all involved.

Following is a summary of the revisions to the former Heritage Row supplemental regulations necessary to facilitate a change of direction from City Place to an alternative plan

Higgins said that read to her as exactly the things the developer needed to have in order to diverge from constructing City Place. That’s saying to her these are things they need to have. Maybe that’s a starting point, but the council will have to see if that meets the PUD ordinance. Then the council could see if there is a way to meet in the middle. She supported the amendment.

Kunselman suggested taking the course of striking all reference to the developer. Then the staff and the developer can work through whatever they want. At Hieftje’s request, McDonald offered that the council’s conversation had made clear what their concerns were and the council’s position with regard to Helminski’s letter. McDonald said he did not think that Derezinski’s amendment would require staff to follow Helminski’s letter. The amendment added some clarity that the staff needed to respond to the appropriateness of the proposal with regard to the PUD ordinance, McDonald said.

Higgins said she appreciated hearing from the city attorney’s office, but she also needed to hear it from the city administrator, because he would be handling it. “Do you have clear direction to move forward and have this dialogue?” she asked city administrator Steve Powers. His one-word reply: “Yes.”

Hieftje said he wouldn’t support the amendment, saying the way the resolution had come to the council was fairly simple, cut-and-dried.

Outcome on Derezinski’s amendment: The council approved the amendment on a 6-5 vote. Voting for it were Anglin, Smith, Derezinski, Kunselman, Teall and Higgins. Voting against it were Hieftje, Briere, Rapundalo, Taylor and Hohnke.

Some confusion ensued when the mayor misheard the report from the clerk that the amendment had been approved.

Outcome on the main motion: The council voted to postpone consideration of Heritage Row until Oct. 17.

City Place Construction Sequence

Also considered by the council at its Oct. 3 meeting was a request to modify the original development agreement for City Place. The intent was to relieve the timeline pressure on the developer to start utilities work immediately. The original agreement was standard for the city of Ann Arbor. It called for utilities work on water mains and storm sewers to be completed before construction could start.

The revised agreement on City Place doesn’t require the utilities work to be completed until later – before a certificate of occupancy is issued. So the revision gives the developer added flexibility to enter into negotiations with the city on the resubmittal of Heritage Row, which would require different utilities work.

City Place Construction: Council Deliberations

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said the intent of the resolution has two elements: the assignment of the project to the new ownership; and modification of the construction sequence.

Hohnke asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain the rationale for the standard requirement that off-site utility work be completed before on-site construction starts. Rampson said that if a building gets built without public utilities, you would have a completed building with no utilities in place. The standard requirement avoids that situation, she said.

Hohnke drew out the fact that Zaragon II had been a project where a pitted water main had slowed down work on off-site utilities and that the city had worked with the developer to allow off-site work and on-site construction to go on concurrently – the idea of allowing the adjustment of the requirement was not unprecedented.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) ventured that if Heritage Row were to be approved, the resolution would be moot.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was worried about the certificate of occupancy and wondered if the state statute stipulated when a certificate of occupancy could be granted. He indicated he would not be voting for it, based on that consideration.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she could imagine that the council would approve the resolution on the construction sequence. She said she could also imagine that in three weeks, the council would not approve Heritage Row. She asked what the options were on that scenario. She wanted to know if the council could revisit the resolution and remove the arrangements about construction sequencing.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald indicated that would not be appropriate – the developer asked for the construction sequence change to allow reconsideration of Heritage Row. The development team wanted to make sure they weren’t put at a loss with respect to carrying costs, with the construction season now coming to a close. Once that’s approved, he said, it would be in place permanently. Briere confirmed there would be no opportunity to revisit the issue.

In light of Kunselman’s expressed concern, Hohnke asked for confirmation from McDonald that the language had been reviewed and approved by the city attorney’s office.

Outcome: The council approved the alteration in the construction sequence with apparent dissent from Anglin, Briere and Kunselman, but no roll call vote was taken.

Intent on Street/Sidewalk Tax

Again on the council’s agenda, after being postponed at its last meeting, was a resolution of intent for the use of proceeds from a street/sidewalk repair millage that will be on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Voters will be asked to approve two separate proposals: (1) a 5-year renewal of a 2.0 mill tax to support street repair projects; and (2) an 0.125 mill tax to pay for sidewalk repair.

The resolution of intent would specify that the street repair millage will pay for the following activities: resurfacing or reconstruction of existing paved city streets and bridges, including on-street bicycle lanes and street intersections; construction of pedestrian refuge islands; reconstruction and construction of accessible street crossings and corner ramps; and preventive pavement maintenance (PPM) measures, including pavement crack sealing. [.pdf of resolution of intent]

The resolution of intent would stipulate that sidewalk repairs inside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district will not be funded by the sidewalk repair millage, except when the sidewalks are adjacent to single- and two-family houses. A recent meeting of the DDA’s operations committee revealed a measure of discontent on the DDA’s part about the intended restriction inside the DDA district and the lack of communication from the city of Ann Arbor to the DDA about that issue.

The resolution states that both inside and outside the DDA district (otherwise put, throughout the city), the sidewalk repair millage would be used only to pay for sidewalk repair adjacent to property on which the city levies a property tax. One impact of that resolution of intent, if it’s adopted, is that the city’s sidewalk repair millage will not be used to pay for repairs to sidewalks adjacent to University of Michigan property.

Intent on Sidewalk/Streets: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) who sponsored the resolution, began by noting that a phrase had inadvertently been dropped from the language of the resolution of intent in the editing from the last council meeting. She asked that it be re-inserted. It was part of the statement that the accounting for how the millage money would be spent would be separate, even though the revenue would be deposited into the same fund. Briere said this was a commitment that staff had made during the public information meetings about the millage. She moved an amendment that made the change.

Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, said that in the staff’s discussions with the public there was general support for flexibility in the sidewalk millage. The city may need to spend more than .0125 mills, or less, depending on the need. But McCormick said the city is committed to tracking what it’s spending on each kind of activity: sidewalk repair and bridges/street repair. It won’t be in separate funds, but the city will track it, she said. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked if McCormick saw any problems with the language in the resolution of intent. She told him she saw no problems whatsoever.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked about the DDA exclusion. She didn’t think the DDA was excluded in the ballot language, just in the resolution of intent. McCormick could not confirm Smith’s statement, saying she wished she had it in front of her. However, she did confirm for Smith that the exclusion was part of the discussion the city staff had with the public.

Smith asked what portion of the city’s sidewalks are inside the DDA district. McCormick didn’t know. Smith then asked what the revenue from the millage would be for the city compared to the DDA’s tax capture in the district – Smith ventured it was roughly a 2/3 to 1/3 split. McCormick said she could not speak to those numbers. [For Chronicle reporting on this, see: "Committee Briefed on Downtown Sidewalks"]

Smith then focused on the qualitative aspect of the exclusion instead of dwelling on the quantitative angle. The idea is that all properties inside the DDA would be excluded, except single-family houses and duplexes. McCormick contended that it’s consistent with what the DDA has done with sidewalk corner ramps. Smith asked if the DDA maintains responsibility for the sidewalks in the downtown – yes, answered McCormick. What about the vaults? Smith asked. McCormick characterized that as a private property issue. Smith asked if city staff would do sidewalk inspections inside the DDA. At that point, mayor John Hieftje asked Smith if she intended to be talking on the topic of the amendment. She replied, “Oh, I’m way off the amendment!” The council then approved the amendment Briere had suggested and Smith continued with her line of questions.

McCormick explained that city staff “could be available” for sidewalk inspections inside the DDA district, but that it has not been discussed. Smith inquired about the property across from the University of Michigan – like on State Street along the Diag – how will the city treat that? McCormick said she wished that Homayoon Pirooz, the city’s head of project management, were at the meeting – she couldn’t answer at that level of detail. Smith then apologized for not having it dawn on her until this point to ask about the DDA issue, and noted that no staff was present to address her questions. At that point, Smith moved for a postponement, saying, “I would beg indulgence to postpone for another two weeks.”

Derezinski asked if there was any timing problems associated with a delay. McCormick indicated there was not a problem – the idea is to have something in place before the Nov. 8 ballot.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) reminded her colleagues that when the issue was before the council at its previous meeting, they’d talked about using a fact sheet to tell people how the money will be spent. She asked if there was anything in the resolution of intent that is not in the fact sheet. McCormick described the language in the fact sheet and in the resolution of intent as “mutually supportive.” Higgins ventured that if the fact sheet is even more detailed than the resolution of intent, she was not sure the council needed to pass a resolution.

Hieftje noted that the conversation seemed to be wandering from the issue of postponement. Briere said she’d rather vote it up or down, instead of postponing. But in arguing for a resolution of intent instead of just a fact sheet, she reported that when she looked for fact sheets for the current millage, they’d disappeared. But a resolution of intent for the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage remained in the public record – you can find it again 20 years later. The fact sheet, however, can no longer be found on the city’s website. She said she agreed with whatever the rest of the council decides what to do, as long as they do something by the time of the election.

Briere said that Smith hadn’t noticed that the DDA exclusion was already in the resolution for the ballot language. A fact sheet is created for the public to present at public meetings, but a resolution is for the council to have a record to refer to in the future. It would be a benefit to future members of the council who want to know why previous members did what they did, she said.

The motion to postpone was then withdrawn in order to continue debate on the motion itself.

Higgins said she thought that Pirooz had the old fact sheet. She suggested that a way to approach the issue would be to do things administratively (with a fact sheet) instead of legislatively (with a resolution). The fact sheet is more detailed anyway, Higgins said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he was a little confused. He noted that the city staff drafted a fact sheet. What’s new this year on the fact sheet is preventive maintenance, which was not done in the past, he said. How does staff determine to take a reconstruction millage and do preventive maintenance? If the council passes a resolution, then when the staff holds public meetings, they could say the council has approved preventive maintenance.

Hieftje then asked McCormick how the street repair millage works for streets in the DDA district. McCormick explained that historically, in the old contract under which the DDA manages the public parking system, the DDA made a contribution to the street millage fund for maintenance of on-street parking lanes. Under the new contract, she explained, it’s a formulaic approach in which a lump sum payment is made by the DDA to the city, based on a percentage of gross parking revenues. Hieftje stated that his understanding is that the DDA has taken care of sidewalk repair for property owners.

Smith responded to Hieftje by saying that the way the resolution is worded, the DDA appears to be responsible for repairs but would not receive the full benefit of the millage, but would instead receive only a portion – due to the TIF capture. Based on her back-of-the-napkin calculations, it would be around $15,000, Smith said. Hieftje contended that the DDA had been handling sidewalk repair in the downtown all this time on their own. Smith countered, saying she was not sure that’s accurate.

Smith then reintroduced her motion to postpone. Hieftje said he’d support the postponement, given the uncertainty about the situation with the DDA sidewalks.

Briere took the perspective that staff has set its budget based on the expectation of doing things a certain way. If the resolution of intent were amended, and it changed the responsibility of who repaired sidewalks inside the DDA district, Briere wanted to know if that would significantly affect the budget. McCormick replied that it was hard to say. If more had to be spent on sidewalks, then less would be spent on bridge and street repair, she said.

Briere said given that the staff set the language in the ballot based on a set of assumptions. Briere did not have a problem with clarifying the situation with the DDA sidewalks, but only if it affects what the council decides. What benefit would the information bring to deliberations? she asked.

Outcome: The council approved postponing the resolution of intent on the use of street/sidewalk repair millage funds, over the dissent of Kunselman.

Rezoning for Med Marijuana

At its Oct. 3 meeting, the council was asked to rezone a South State Street property, so that it could be used as a medical marijuana dispensary.

The owner of Treecity Health Collective, a dispensary at 1712 S. State, had requested that the city planning commission recommend the location be rezoned from O (office) to C1 (local business). The owner had also asked that the area plan requirement for that location be waived. However, at their Aug. 16, 2011 meeting, planning commissioners recommended denial of the requests, based on a staff recommendation, stating that C1 zoning is not consistent with adjacent zoning, land uses and the city’s master plan.

And at their Sept. 19 meeting, councilmembers were hesitant to vote down the rezoning, and instead decided to delay their vote. The council is looking ahead to another rezoning request in the same vicinity on South State – for Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky – and appears keen to treat them in parallel fashion. At its Sept. 8 meeting, the city planning commission recommended denial of Biercamp’s rezoning request, which would allow the sausage business to sell a greater variety of products beyond those manufactured on the site.

The Treecity Health Collective opened in 2010. This summer, the council approved amendments to the city’s zoning ordinances that prevent medical marijuana dispensaries from operating in office zoning districts – those changes were set to take effect on Aug. 22, 2011. Rather than relocate the dispensary, the business asked for the zoning change. The property – located on the west side of State, south of Stimson – is owned by Francis Clark.

A recent court of appeals ruling has raised legal questions about the existence of dispensaries under Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Act. However, the Ann Arbor city council decided at its Sept. 6 meeting to proceed with the appointment of four out of the five members of its medical marijuana licensing board and subsequently appointed the fifth member. That body met for the first time on Sept. 21.

Medical Marijuana Rezoning: Public Commentary

Dennis Hayes began by quipping that just when the council thought they could get rid of him, he was back again. He told councilmembers that Treecity Health Collective has been working hard to comply with numerous requests from the city. Treecity has been in contact with the city attorney’s office and the planning staff and and have been quite diligent, he said. He understood that the requested zoning by Treecity is not part of the master plan, but he thinks it’s an appropriate use. It’s a nice space that was built up quite nicely, he said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and local attorney Dennis Hayes.

Hayes also mentioned that city planning staff has demanded information about the operation of medical marijuana businesses, based on a court of appeals decision from a couple of weeks ago: People v. McQueen. Hayes criticized the city attorney for adopting the Michigan attorney general’s analysis of the lawsuit, which is a disservice to the law and to the office of the attorney general, Hayes said. The attorney general was dealing with medical marijuana patients by “taking a chainsaw” to the statute, he said.

Hayes encouraged the councilmembers who are lawyers to read the language in the McQueen case. He said he did not think the language in the case stands for the proposition that the city attorney has asserted. The case simply says you can’t sell it for profit in Michigan, which is not news, he said.

One of the problems on a larger scale, he said, is that it’s difficult to find places to accept medical marijuana collectives. He hoped that the approval process with the licensing board would take that into account.

Medical Marijuana Rezoning: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) led off deliberations saying she was a bit conflicted. She said the staff recommendation against the rezoning is based on the idea that rezoning would go against the city’s master plan. But she said that in going over the notes from the planning commission, she’d noticed that changes to the zoning are not to be undertaken “except to correct an error in the Chapter, because of a change in municipal policy, or because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the municipality generally, to rezone an area, extend the boundary of an existing Zoning District or to change the regulations and restrictions thereof.”

Smith said she felt the Produce Station, located nearby at 1629 S. State St., has changed the particular area tremendously. She did not feel it’s strictly speaking a “spot zoning,” as the planning staff had concluded. Smith invited Wendy Rampson, head of city planning, to come to the podium and help her to go through her thoughts. Why wasn’t changing conditions pertinent in this case?

Rampson told Smith that it is pertinent – for the whole State Street corridor, viewed from Stimson down to Ellsworth. The planning commission grappled with that, but it is a small piece of land, Rampson said, so to take one piece out of context wasn’t appropriate. There wasn’t sufficient justification for the rezoning.

Smith said it seemed that the row of 10 houses on the west side of the street had retail-like businesses. Did that have any relevance? Rampson told Smith that in looking at the whole corridor it would be relevant. Alluding to the use of the existing property as a medical marijuana collective, Rampson said there are some current uses that were determined without the benefit of permits. She noted that the property on which the Biercamp business is located was annexed into Ann Arbor from Ann Arbor Township with zoning grandfathered in from the township, even though the business hadn’t originally been legally established in the township.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said that as the city council representative on the planning commission, he agreed with what Rampson said. Once you start, it’s a slippery slope, he cautioned. This rezoning request, said Derezinski, underscores why the city needs to have a corridor study. It reminded him of the R4C/R2A situation, in which the zoning needed to accomodate the changes that are happening. [The city formed an advisory committee to study R4C/R2A zoning. A final recommendation hasn't yet been presented.] After the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, he said, the State Street corridor was the planning commission’s second priority.

Alluding to the planned construction of a Costco at the intersection of State and Ellsworth, Derezinski noted that the corridor would soon include a big-box store. Any consideration of rezoning should be done comprehensively, he said – that was the reason for the planning commission action on this matter.

From left: Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), and Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Rampson to describe conditional rezoning. He wanted to know if that would still be an option that could be pursued if the council decided to deny the current rezoning request.

Rampson indicated that it could be brought back as a conditional rezoning request. The business had contacted the city about that option and informational materials had been provided, she said. She described conditional rezoning as allowing a property owner to come to the city with a request and voluntarily restrict itself to a particular use, in order to proceed with a particular zoning.

For example, Rampson said, a restriction could be to use it as a medical marijuana dispensary. A business at the location of Ellsworth and Platt is the one example of the application of this kind of tool in the city, she said. That business is restricted from alcohol sales, she said. She called it a relatively new tool.

Rampson invited assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald to comment. He characterized conditional rezoning as a really broad statute that the legislature created where a property owner can “offer and voluntarily accept a condition on zoning.”

As far as the timing issue, Rampson said a new request could go to the planning commission, or the current request could be paused at this point. The challenge for this petitioner, Rampson said, was the timing related to the medical marijuana licensing ordinance.

Kunselman thought this situation was a good example of where conditional rezoning would work. The business is already operational under the current condition, he said. If it comes back as a request under conditional rezoning, he said, he would support it.

Outcome: The council voted against approval of the rezoning request, with dissent from Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere and Sandi Smith.

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) District

The council was asked to consider a resolution to establish an Energy Financing District and a Property Assessed Clean Energy program (PACE). The council had formally expressed its intention to establish an Energy Financing District and a PACE. The vote came after a formal public hearing.

The resolution of intent refers to a report, which describes in detail the project and property eligibility for PACE, as well as project size, application process, and financing, among other elements.

At its March 7, 2011 meeting, the council had voted to set up a $432,800 loan loss reserve fund to support the city’s planned PACE program. The money for the fund comes from an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) awarded to the city by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Through its PACE program, the city of Ann Arbor will help commercial property owners finance energy improvements through voluntary special assessments. By establishing a loan loss pool, the city can reduce interest rates for participating property owners by covering a portion of delinquent or defaulted payments. [Some previous Chronicle coverage of PACE: "Special District Might Fund Energy Program"]

PACE: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as an advocate for senior citizens and disabled persons who need the advantages of the improvements. He applauded this step, but called attention to the fact that most of the benefits are generally aimed at businesses – the most profitable businesses. There should be an “equal rights amendment,” Partridge said, to make it available to residents as well. He told the council they should ensure the district is as wide as possible – the entire county is possible.

Conan Smith is a Washtenaw County commissioner from Ann Arbor and is married to state Sen. Rebekah Warren, who has claimed a lot of the credit for the PACE legislation. Smith appeared during public commentary to say how excited he was about it. It’s one of the best things we can do, Smith said, and the fact that Ann Arbor is at the forefront is something to be proud of. The “green economy” is important for the future, he said. At the county level, Smith said, he would like to look at the work that is happening in the city and try to replicate that in smaller units of government across the county.

Smith noted that the the smaller townships wouldn’t be able to offer the bonds necessary for the program, but he thought that funding could be aggregated at the county level so that the program could be expanded. He thanked the council for taking the lead on the issue. He also thanked city environmental coordinator Matt Naud and others for their work on the issue.

PACE: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) [not related to Conan Smith] said she was pleased to see the program come forward. She described the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s energy grant program as a kind of “pilot program” for PACE. She hoped eventually it would be available for residential properties. It would result in better buildings and less waste on energy.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for clarification about what properties are eligible. Wendy Barrot, who is administering the program for the city of Ann Arbor, explained that if a property has three or more units, it’s eligible. Mayor John Hieftje ticked through names of people he wanted to thank for moving the program forward.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to establish the PACE district.

Annexations: Scio to Ann Arbor

The city council was asked to consider annexations of six properties on the west side of the city, all inside a well prohibition zone that was expanded in March 2011. The expansion of the zone came as a result of a consent agreement between the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment, which relaxed environmental cleanup requirements on Pall Corp. The previous prohibition zone had been established because of 1,4 dioxane groundwater contamination caused by the Pall’s Wagner Road facility, formerly owned by Gelman Sciences.

Annexation will allow these properties to connect to city of Ann Arbor water services. Pall has paid all petition filing fees as well as the connection and improvement charges for water and sanitary sewer service that are related to the annexations. All of the parcels are currently part of Scio Township. They will be annexed with the R1C (single-family residential) category. These annexations are not part of the systematic township-to-city annexation strategy authorized by the city council at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting.

[Google map of well prohibition zones and property locations] [.jpg of map with well prohibition zones and property locations]

Annexations: Public Hearings

Each annexation included a public hearing. Thomas Partridge spoke at only one of them.

Partridge introduced himself as a past candidate for the county board and for the state senate, and asked the council to delay action on all the annexation resolutions. It’s taking property away from the townships along with the property tax revenue that townships need. He called for state legislation to make consolidation of city and county governments possible, similar to what is being contemplated in the Grand Rapids area.

During council communications following the public hearings, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave a reminder to the public that each of the properties being annexed has its own reasons. The dioxane plume might have something to do with it, she said. She stressed that this is not a “cluster” that is part of the city’s recently enacted strategy for systematically annexing township islands into the city. She noted that all of the property owners are asking to leave Scio Township and join the city of Ann Arbor.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the annexations on separate votes.

DTE Gas Line Easement

On the council’s Oct. 3 agenda was a resolution granting an easement to DTE Energy for the installation of a gas main pipe north of Fuller Road in Fuller Park. The easement includes a number of requirements on DTE related to the gas line installation. DTE will need to use horizontal boring, instead of trenching, for the section of pipe near the Fuller Road pool entrance.

The easement also includes a number of requirements to protect trees in the vicinity. For example, no roots greater than two inches in diameter are to be cut except with authorization of a city forester, and no equipment can be stored under the dripline of any city-owned tree.

DTE Easement: Public Commentary

Rita Mitchell addressed the council on the grant of easement to DTE. The council information packet provides maps and the resolution, but no documentation of the language for the agreement between the city and DTE. She said that she felt it was important that the council and the public really understand what’s in the agreement. She criticized the fact that the context for the change is not provided – the location of existing gas lines and the reason for making the change is not provided. So she urged the council to defer action.

Mitchell said she believed the easement work was an attempt to move ahead with the Fuller Road Station without labeling it as such on the agenda. [Fuller Road Station is a proposed large parking structure, bus depot and possible train station, to be built on city-owned property in partnership with the University of Michigan. It has been criticized for its location on land designated as parkland. A surface parking lot is currently located on the site.]

Mitchell wanted to know what the city cost will be? Will the land that’s being granted belong to DTE? If so, that would be giving away parkland without a vote by the public, she said. Is the easement revocable? If it’s not, then it’s a gift, she said. She told the council that they are the ones who control the parkland and that they need to follow Chapter 34 of the city code in making their decision. [Chapter 34 concerns the grant of gas franchise.]

DTE Easement: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked who’s being served by the utilities work. Paul Ganz – DTE Energy regional manager for the counties of Ingham, Jackson, Livingston and most of Washtenaw – described it as a “garden variety easement request” to replace infrastructure that serves the entire city. It’s part of a federally-mandated effort to make sure gas infrastructure meets all new specifications, he said.

A high-pressure main will be replaced, Ganz said. It would provide service from the Maiden Lane regulator. The main serves a vault that disperses gas throughout that area of the city. It is typically at around 300 pounds of pressure. By way of comparison, Ganz said, a house is served at about 1/4 pound of pressure or the city hall at around 2 pounds of pressure.

Ganz said he expected the work would be completed in about four weeks. It’s a typical agreement that is struck between MichCon and municipalities. He noted that it sometimes requires the city and his company to work around each other, and said he appreciated consideration they received from the city of Ann Arbor staff.

Briere asked why the main was not installed under the road instead of in the park. The answer, from Barbara Rykwalder of DTE, was that they did not want to obstruct traffic on Fuller Road.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got confirmation that there’s an existing pipeline with probably an existing easement.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if there was any relation of the project to Fuller Road Station. Rykwalder explained that the work to be done is due purely to a federal mandate – the pipeline needs to be replaced and DTE was abiding by a federal mandate.

Anglin then asked if the city would still own the land. Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office explained that an easement granted use of land, but ownership would remain with the city.

Work Session: Nov. 14

The council was asked to consider a resolution to add a work session to its calendar for Nov. 14, 2011. At the council’s Sept. 19 meeting, the council had voted to postpone consideration of a proposed amendment to the city’s public art ordinance – councilmembers expressed an interest in having a working session on the topic before voting on the proposed amendment to the public art ordinance. The public art ordinance taps 1% of all capital improvement project budgets to pay for public art.

The resolution itself did not specify the topic of the working session. It simply indicates: “Due to the numerous activities developing in the City, it is necessary to schedule an additional work session to bring Council up to date;”

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to add a Nov. 14 work session to the calendar.

Ann Arbor Housing Commission Liaison

Near the conclusion of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje seemed prepared to forgo any additional transactions after confirmation of some appointments to the city’s human rights commission. But Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reminded Hieftje that at the previous meeting, on Sept. 19, Hieftje had said he would be nominating Margie Teall (Ward 4) as the council’s liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

The revelation at that Sept. 19 meeting also came at Kunselman’s prodding, after Kunselman had offered at the Sept. 6 meeting to serve as the replacement for Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) as liaison. Derezinski had asked to be excused from that position, in order to serve on the city’s public art commission, after Jeff Meyers resigned from that post.

Hieftje made the nomination of Teall as housing commission liaison.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Teall’s appointment as council liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

Habitat for Humanities Lawsuit Settlement

A late addition to the agenda asked the council to authorize settlement of a lawsuit. The authorized settlement resulted in the payment of $229.12 by Habitat for Humanities to the city of Ann Arbor. One of the defendants in the suit was the University of Michigan.

In contrast to the city of Ann Arbor, the university’s legal department makes its litigation reports easily accessible to the public. From the UM May 2011 litigation report to the board of regents:

Habitat for Humanity of Huron Valley v Angela Rowlands, The Regents of the University of Michigan and its Housing Bureau for Seniors, and the City of Ann Arbor. Washtenaw County Circuit Court. (Judge Archie C. Brown) (Served April 18, 2011 ).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rowlands defaulted on a mortgage which was payable to Habitat for Humanity. The Housing Bureau for Seniors holds a second mortgage on the property. Habitat claims that defendants Regents and the City claim an interest in the property but that such interests are subordinate to the mortgage interest of Habitat. Plaintiff Habitat seeks payment of the note and mortgage, plus costs and attorney fees, from defendant Rowlands or, in the alternative, asks the court to allow the mortgage to be foreclosed and the premises sold at public sale with the proceeds paid to Habitat. Habitat also asks the court to determine that the interests held by the Regents and the City are subordinate to Habitat’s interests.

Outcome: Without comment, the council approved the settlement of the case involving Habitat for Humanities.

Fuller Road Station, Transportation

Although the council had an item on its agenda in the same geographic vicinity as the proposed Fuller Road Station – the DTE gas main easement – there were no items involving a vote specifically on that project. However, public commentary on that easement (from Rita Mitchell, see above) raised questions about the possible connection of that work to the planned transit station and parking structure.

Other parts of the meeting also included discussion of the proposed Fuller Road Station.

Fuller Road Station: Public Commentary

Libby Hunter delivered her public commentary, as has become her custom, in the form of some familiar tune with revised lyrics. The tune was “This Land Is Your Land,” featuring commentary on the proposed Fuller Road Station. Lyrics  included “This park’s not made for you and me” and “It’s Go Blue land,” a critical allusion to the University of Michigan’s role in the proposed deal. A reference to mayor John Hieftje was also included in the lyrics: “He stole our park land.”

Fuller Road Station: Council, Administrator Communications

During a slot on the agenda reserved for council communications, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he wanted to read aloud a communication he’d received from a constituent about Fuller Road Station. The project seemed to be proceeding without an “absolute vote” of the council, he said. The communication indicated strong opposition to any planning for Fuller Road Station without a public referendum. The current proposal for the land is in the form of a lease, which seemed like a way to circumvent the requirement that the sale of city parkland be subjected to a public referendem. Having a referendum, even on the lease of the land, would abide by the spirit of the charter requirement.

Responding to Anglin, Hieftje said he had some news about the Fuller Road Station project, pointedly referring to the portion of Fuller Park where the project is to be built as the “paved parking lot across the street from the Fuller Park pool and soccer complex.” He said the federal government had previously awarded $2.8 million for the first phase of the Fuller Road Station, and the news was that the funds had now been formally obligated.

Hieftje also described the action by the Michigan state legislature as “tremendous news” for rail transportation in Michigan because $160 million had been secured in federal matching funds, which will come with an additional $200 million – bringing a total of roughly $380 million to the state. That will ensure the purchase of the rail line between Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and that the improvements needed to bring the track up to standards necessary for high-speed rail are made, Hieftje said. The track improvements needed for commuter rail will be part of that, he said.

Hieftje said he had told the city’s transportation program manager Eli Cooper to take up the issue of finding locations for possible sidings with Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). MDOT already owns the trains, he noted, and he’d learned on NPR that the sale of the rail from Norfolk Southern might come as early as next week. [A deal was announced on Wednesday, Oct. 5.]

From left: Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and city administrator Steve Powers.

Briere responded to the mayor by thanking him for the update. She said she was grateful he had mentioned the rolling stock, and that it was good to remind people that what they’re waiting on is the track. When the sale is completed, Briere said, the 25 mph limit on trains could be lifted, once the track is brought up to standard. Hieftje stated that Norfolk Southern has known for the last 1.5-2 years that it would be selling the track. He likened the situation to that of a homeowner who has already sold their house – you don’t spend a lot of money fixing it up.

Hieftje followed up again on the rolling stock by noting that the cars, outfitted with new seats, had received crash test certification.

From city administrator Steve Powers’ communications, one highlight involved transportation. He noted that the Oct. 10 city council work session would focus on the high-capacity connector feasibility study. [For background, see: "AATA: Transit Study, Planning Updates"]

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: ICMA Visitors

At the city planning commission’s Sept. 8 meeting, Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, had told commissioners about some visitors from Indonesia that the city is hosting through an International City/County Management Association (ICMA) sustainability fellows program. At Monday’s council meeting, she introduced them: Olah Sajekti and Cesaria Hafstuti.

Comm/Comm: Government Consolidation

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) responded to comments by Thomas Partridge during a public hearing on annexations into Ann Arbor suggesting the consolidation of different levels of government. Derezinski said the council is not unaware of the One Kent proposal to which Partridge had alluded. [Reporting on the One Kent proposal from Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy: "Update on One Kent Local Government Consolidation Proposal"]

Derezinski said that councilmembers had talked to Grand Rapids mayor George Heartwell. The council is trying to get more regional collaboration, Derezinski said. The Grand Rapids proposal has been talked about a long time, he said– as long ago as back when he practiced law there in the 1970s.

Derezinski said that not all regional governments work, but some do. Indianapolis is a good example of one that works, he said. In the conversations about consolidation, there is a lot of emphasis on power sharing, which is a main obstacle. There are differences between Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids, he noted. But Grand Rapids is a comparable city to Ann Arbor in terms of the future of the state, he contended. “Stay tuned on that one,” Derezinski said. “There’s a lot more to come.”

Comm/Comm: Partridge

Thomas Partridge told the council that he had been a witness to history when John F. Kennedy came to Ann Arbor and proposed the Peace Corps, as well as when Lyndon Johnson had proposed the Great Society program. Partridge asked the council to remember the efforts in the 1960s to improve society, mentioning programs like Head Start. All issues are ultimately tied to the issue of civil rights, he said. He called on the council, in light of the unfinished work of the 1960s, to prioritize an agenda to address the need for affordable housing by requiring that every developer develop quality housing, not aimed at students.

At the conclusion of the council’s meeting during public commentary time, Partridge criticized bullying being perpetrated by Republican leaders in the state. He said he was disappointed that state representatives did not attend the council meeting to talk about their efforts in the legislature to stop the dishonorable bullying being carried out in the state of Michigan. Partridge said that in 2010 he had run for the senate seat now held by Rebekah Warren, but that she doesn’t appear at council meetings to convey what her stances are and what her votes are. [Warren attended part of the meeting that night in connection with the establishment of a PACE district – she played a role in enacting the state's enabling legislation.]

Comm/Comm: League of Local Government

Kermit Schlansker proposed a league of local governments that would include the city, county and state, and that could finance pilot projects that are important to the needs of the people, he said. Progress would then not be contingent on the uncertainties of national politics. As an example, he suggested a car specified as a four-passenger, hybrid car costing less than $18,000, built in the U.S. and getting 45 mpg. If the sale of 10,000 such cars were guaranteed, then the car would be built, he suggested. Schlansker went on to describe how a league of local governments could support energy farms.

Comm/Comm: Palestine

Henry Herskovitz told the council he wanted to address an issue of fairness. He drew an analogy from the local city code to international politics. He noted that Ann Arbor requires a window-unit air conditioner to be in the rear. If he wanted to install it on the side, he had to get support from his neighbors, he said. His neighbors’ opinions matter more, when it comes to his air conditioner, and that makes sense, he said. The opinion of someone who lives miles away, he said, should matter less.

Herskovitz continued by noting that in this summer’s edition of the Washtenaw Jewish News, Victor Lieberman appeals to the United Nations vote of 1947 to argue for the legitimacy of the state of Israel. The outcome of that vote, Herskovitz said, was 33-13, with 10 abstaining. Applying Ann Arbor’s doctrine of fairness, the votes from those countries that would be most impacted by creating a new state in that area should count for more. The group that was most impacted by the decision – Palestineans – had no vote whatsoever. He showed the council a map of the world.

Countries that voted no in 1947 included Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and Yemen. Those are neighbors to Palestine, he said, and their votes should have counted more than the votes of those far away. Countries that voted yes in 1947 included the United States, Canada, Brazil, Bolivia, Norway, Australia and New Zealand. The 1947 vote didn’t represent the interests of those people who were most impacted by the decision. The unfairness of that decision, Herskovitz concluded, undermines the claim, based on the 1947 vote, to the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Monday, Oct. 17, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

Voters will be asked to approve two separate proposals: (1) a 5-year renewal of a 2.0 mill tax to support street repair projects; and (2) a 0.125 mill tax to pay for sidewalk repair.

The resolution of intent would specify that the street repair millage will pay for the following activities: resurfacing or reconstruction of existing paved city streets and bridges, including on-street bicycle lanes and street intersections; construction of pedestrian refuge islands; reconstruction and construction of accessible street crossings and corner ramps; and preventive pavement maintenance (PPM) measures, including pavement crack sealing.

The resolution of intent would stipulate that sidewalk repairs inside the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority district will not be funded by the sidewalk repair millage, except when the sidewalks are adjacent to single- and two-family houses. Both inside and outside the DDA district (otherwise put, throughout the city) the sidewalk repair millage would be used only to pay for sidewalk repair adjacent to property on which the city levies a property tax.

One impact of that resolution of intent, if it’s adopted, is that the city’s sidewalk repair millage will not be used to pay for repairs to sidewalks adjacent to University of Michigan property.

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]

Jonathan Bulkley gently shushes his granddaughter as mayor John Hieftje reads aloud a proclamation honoring him. Bulkley is a long-time University of Michigan professor and board member of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. (Photo by the writer.)

However, considerable public commentary at the council’s Tuesday meeting – held a day later than usual due to the Labor Day holiday – was connected to appointments to the city’s medical marijuana licensing board. Advocates for access to medical marijuana tied their remarks to that agenda item, though none of the speakers had any apparent issue with the proposed constitution of the board. Instead, they expressed concerned that a recent court of appeals ruling makes the legality of certain dispensary operations uncertain.

On the council’s side, the unusual focus on appointments came during the usually perfunctory vote on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority appointments. That vote was drawn out by a request from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) to separate out the three appointments for separate roll-call votes. The votes on the reappointment of John Mouat and the new appointment of Nader Nassiff were unanimous. But Kunselman wanted to cast a lone vote of opposition against the reappointment of Joan Lowenstein to the board.

The other non-unanimous vote of the evening came on the reconstruction of a pedestrian bridge over Malletts Creek in the Lansdowne neighborhood. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked his colleagues to indulge him in a two-week postponement on that project, so that he could achieve a clearer understanding of the public-private character of the project and its potential legal liabilities. His colleagues, who indicated they were already familiar with the longstanding issue of the bridge, were disinclined to grant the postponement. So Derezinski voted against the $120,000 project, which will be paid out of the city’s major street fund.

In other street fund expenditures, the city council approved a roughly $550,000 increase in the amount of its contract with Barrett Paving Materials Inc. to undertake additional street repair projects in the 2011 construction season. Progress on the scheduled projects had been sufficiently rapid that it was possible to add the additional work.

Land purchase and lease was the topic of three items on the agenda. In one, the city authorized a $100/month month-to-month lease of part of the city-owned 415 W. Washington building to the Kiwanis Club for storage for the club’s warehouse sale. The council also approved the use of $82,500 from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage to purchase an Eden Court parcel located next to the Bryant Community Center. And the council held a closed session under the exemption in the Open Meetings Act that allows for such a session for the purpose of land acquisition.

In other business, councilmembers gave initial approval to a change in the city’s pension ordinance, approved the allocation of some money already budgeted for human services, and OK’d the allocation of community events funding.

In his communications time, Kunselman foreshadowed an upcoming issue for the council – the relationship between the street millage and the public art program. First Kunselman offered to fill the slot as council liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. Derezinski had stepped out of that role in order to serve on the city’s public art commission. At Tuesday’s meeting, Kunselman also reiterated his position that the city’s public art program takes money from dedicated millages in a way that is not legal. In response to his comments, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) encouraged Kunselman to take the action he felt was appropriate to rectify that situation.

Among the proclamations made at the start of the meeting was one honoring Jonathan Bulkley for his service to the University of Michigan, the state of Michigan and the nation. Bulkley had addressed the council at its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting in support of the council’s resolution on the greenway – he’s a board member of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy.

Med Marijuana Board Appointments

On the council’s agenda was a resolution to confirm appointments to the city’s medical marijuana licensing board: Patricia O’Rorke, James Kenyon, John McKenna Rosevear – all members of the public – and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) from the city council. The fifth member of the board, who is required to be a physician under the city’s medical marijuana licensing board bylaws, has not yet been nominated.

Medical marijuana was the topic of public commentary from a half dozen speakers at the start of the meeting.

The Ann Arbor city council gave final approval to its medical marijuana licensing and zoning ordinances at its June 20, 2011 meeting.

At the city planning commission’s meeting on Sept. 8, Wendy Rampson – head of the city’s planning staff – indicated that applicants for licenses are welcome to submit information to the city in connection with license applications, but staff have ceased their review activity pending further direction.

The pause in activity and the concern from members of the public at Tuesday’s council meeting were prompted by a recent court of appeals ruling that has been interpreted by some to mean that dispensaries are not legal. [.pdf of the McQueen case ruling]

Medical Marijuana: Public Commentary

Shelly Smith introduced herself as a Washtenaw County resident for several years. She said the McQueen case ruling was not good for the city or for Michigan. First, if the decision is upheld, then on top of the many who are unemployed already, you would have to add 100 more in the immediate area plus five empty buildings and, she estimated, $30,000 in lost rent.

Second, it’s a decision that goes against democratic principles – the majority of citizens voted to have safe, legal access to powerful natural medicine. Third, it restricts access for patients who have chronic pain. It’s the first time in years they’ve had access to a quality of life that is not too expensive, she said.

Mark Passerini told the council that the controversial court decision had forced tens of thousands of patients statewide back to a state of limbo. The intent of the Medical Marijuana Act, he said, was to afford patients safe access. Experience has shown that it’s unrealistic for patients to have to rely on a sole caregiver for their medicine. It takes a seasoned cultivator four months to grow one plant – four months during which that patient might have to do without their medicine. Most caregivers are also not willing to bear the expense or gain the expertise to make edibles, tinctures or topicals – those are all different means of delivering medicine to patients. What if their caregiver is out of town? What if there’s a power outage and the crop fails?

Are the 100,000 patients in Michigan just flat out of luck? he asked. The Medical Marijuana Act should not be regarded as something that was short-lived, but rather something that is a model for the future.

He noted some recent headlines from across the country. At the end of July, in Seattle the mayor and city council enacted a measure to regulate the existing 70 storefront medical marijuana dispensaries. California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that explicitly acknowledged the legality of local cannabis distribution centers. Colorado has licensed over 700 dispensaries. The New Jersey governor said that he was moving ahead with the state’s medical cannabis program, despite threats from federal authorities. A bill in Illinois is expected to pass in the next six months, which specifically calls for a dispensary in each of Delaware’s 59 senate districts. Lansing mayor Virg Bernero called the McQueen ruling “a terrible setback” and said that the court subverted the will of the people, Passerini reported.

Cocaine is a schedule 2 drug but marijuana is a schedule 1 drug alongside heroin, PCP and meth. That classification – as a drug that has no medicinal value – contradicts countless studies and research, 16 different state laws and the medical professional, Passerini said. It also contradicts a U.S. patent for the medicinal qualities of cannibis, he said: patent number 6630507. Passerini asked the council to continue with the licensing process and not to take any steps backwards.

Koos Eisenberg told the council she’s been an Ann Arbor taxpayer since 1995. And since April she has been a medical marijuana patient. Having medical marijuana dispensaries in Ann Arbor is important to her based on three concepts, she said: (1) security and safety, (2) education, and (3) alternatives to caregivers.

The additional security offered by dispensaries includes the fact that they’re covered by cameras. Only patients are allowed into the facility. The product is tested for quality, and she does not have to be a part of the “drug culture.” With respect to education, she said she’d learned about different strains of medical marijuana that are appropriate for her medical needs. She’d learned about options like “vaporizing,” which are safer for her lungs. Ann Arbor dispensaries also give her a chance to meet and talk with other patients. She has easier access to dispensaries than to her caregiver, she said. Her caregiver has been robbed. She expressed the hope that a just, safe and advantageous solution could be found for everybody.

Francesca Loria told the council about a conversation she’d had with friend who is a University of Michigan doctor. Her friend had acknowledged the benefits of cannabis in connection with glaucoma and cancer, she said. But the conversation made her realize there was a deep-seated prejudice against medical marijuana for other purposes. Her physician friend would not prescribe it, Loria reported, and would instead opt for prescription drugs for pain. Why would you need a prescription, when there’s a plant? she asked. She quoted statistics on the number of deaths annually due to prescription drugs and alcohol, but contended that the number of deaths caused by marijuana is zero. There are countless stories about people who’ve been helped by a plant, she said.

Dori Edwards introduced herself as a retired Waldorf instructor, who’d moved to Ann Arbor 15 years ago. It was the only place in Michigan that reflected her liberal ideals, she said. She appreciated the fact that the city of Ann Arbor was going to help. After the McQueen ruling, her Treecity Health Collective shut its doors. She had to turn away patients in wheelchairs and walkers. She had to say “I can’t give you any medicine.” One patient told her he would have to drive to Detroit, where he used to get it. She applauded council for taking a stand. She told the council that Treecity’s policies are within the law and that Treecity tries to regulate product so that it’s clean. She thanked the mayor for the speed with which he’d appointed the licensing board.

Chuck Ream reported that his medical marijuana business had been robbed by masked men with guns. He said his employees would have called the police, but the robbers were themselves police. He described the police as “thugs, pure and simple” who were trying to protect their jobs. Ream blamed much of the activity on the Edward J. Byrne Memorial Justice grants, which he said need to be eliminated. He told the council that no warrant was shown and no charges were filed. But the police stole the license application that he was preparing to submit to the city, he said. The council should defend the city charter or resign, he said. He then quoted from the city charter:

(d) No Ann Arbor police officer, or his or her agent, shall complain of the possession, control, use, giving away, or sale of marijuana or cannabis to any other authority except the Ann Arbor city attorney; and the city attorney shall not refer any said complaint to any other authority for prosecution. (e) No Ann Arbor police officer, or his or her agent, shall complain and the city attorney shall not refer for prosecution any complaint, of the possession, control, use, giving away, sale or cultivation of marijuana or cannabis upon proof that the defendant is recommended by a physician, practitioner or other qualified health professional to use or provide the marijuana or cannabis for medical treatment. (Amended by election of November 2, 2004

Ream attributed the raid on his business to a call from a “crazy lady” to the police, who had referred her to LAWNET [the Livingston and Washtenaw Narcotics Enforcement Team]. But that should not be possible, he said, based on the city charter. The officer at the raid said it was due to two people who had expired registry cards – if that was the case, they should have been given a ticket, he said. Ream told the council that slavery is gone, women can vote, children can go to school instead of working in a factory – it would soon be the case that access to medical marijuana will be seen the same way. The mayor needs to get back on board and not make any more damaging statements, Ream said. It’s now time to implement what the voters said they wanted.

Medical Marijuana Licensing Board: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) sought input from city attorney Stephen Postema. Postema described the city’s ordinance as allowing dispensaries when they are compliant with state law. However, in his remarks Postema indicated the unlikelihood that a dispensary could be compliant with the state law. He cited the McQueen decision as well as the county prosecutor’s press release, which explained that the prosecutor’s office would rely on that ruling in determining whether to prosecute.

Councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

However, Postema said that whether the council should appoint a board is a policy issue for the council to decide.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he thought the Medical Marijuana Act would continue to be around and would continue to be interpreted, so it’s appropriate to have that advisory board. Postema indicated that he felt the Supreme Court was unlikely to change the law. But he stressed that the courts are not the last word in our legal system. He ventured that the the law might be changed through the legislature or a citizen’s initiative.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the city’s ordinance does not deal with different business models for dispensaries. What the court of appeals had ruled out, she said, was patient-to-patient sales. Ann Arbor’s ordinance requires people to follow state law. It’s not something that will go away, she said.

Briere indicated that she felt the council should obey its own ordinance by appointing the licensing board. Whether anyone can legally be granted a license is a separate issue. The licensing board doesn’t act except through the council, she said. Mayor John Hieftje said he was in favor of going ahead with the appointment of the board.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appoint four members of the medical marijuana licensing board.

Communications: Housing, Art, Street Millage

Some of the council communications were related, though they came at different times during the meeting.

During the initial communications slot on the agenda, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the mayor had asked for volunteers to replace Tony Derezinski (Ward 3) as the council’s liaison to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. As a former housing commission liaison, Kunselman said he’d be willing to step up and serve.

By way of background, Derezinski had agreed to serve on the city’s public art commission as a replacement for Jeff Meyers, who resigned this summer. But in order to take on that responsibility, Derezinski said, he needed to step down as housing commission liaison.

From Sabra Briere (Ward 1) came the heads-up that in two weeks she hoped to bring a resolution of intent for how the city expects to account for and spend the money from the street millage, which the city is asking the voters to renew at the Nov. 8 general election. [One possibility is that such a resolution of intent might exclude the street millage revenues from use by the city's Percent for Art program.]

During his council communications slot at the end of the meeting, Kunselman addressed the question of the city’s Percent for Art program. He observed that city staff had been quoted in the media about the legality of the city’s funding methodology for the program. [One percent of all capital improvement projects is set aside to be spent on public art, capped at $250,000 per project. That includes projects paid for with dedicated millage funds like the street millage and the parks and capital improvements millage.]

Kunselman acknowledged that Briere had indicated she’d be bringing forward a resolution of intent for how the street millage money would be spent, if voters where to re-approve it in November.

Kunselman said the state law indicates a need to have a clear statement on how a dedicated millage will be spent. He dismissed any explanations that had been given to justify the spending, based on states other than Michigan.

He noted that within Michigan, Tuscola County had offered the following explanation in a document posted on its website:

The Board of Commissioners does not have the legal authority to remove funds from the special purpose millage accounts for any purpose other than what the voters in Tuscola County approved the funds to be spent on. Simply put the Board of Commissioners can not reallocate funds from one account to another.

Kunselman noted that he’s said it time and time again: The city’s public art program illegally takes money from millages, because the program doesn’t serve the purpose of the millages.

Despite comments city staff, Kunselman said, there is no policy. Until the community gets an opinion from the city attorney as required by the city charter, he said, he would continue to say it’s illegal. Tuscola County has put its view in writing to give their voters confidence, Kunselman said.

Following Kunselman’s remarks, Briere encouraged him to take appropriate action to get his concerns addressed.

DDA Appointments

On the agenda was a resolution to reappoint Joan Lowenstein and John Mouat to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board and to appoint Nader Nassif.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje before the Sept. 6 meeting.

When the reappointments came before the council, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked that the vote on their confirmations be split.

The vote on Nassif was not deliberated.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appoint Nader Nassif to the DDA board.

For Lowenstein, Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who also serves on the DDA board, said that everyone is very familiar with Lowenstein through her previous service on the city council and planning commission. She described Lowenstein as thoughtful and generous with her time. Smith said she was eager to have Lowenstein serve another four years. Mayor John Hieftje, who also serves on the DDA board, said that Lowenstein really digs into things and does a great job. He said Lowenstein was an excellent chair last year. Kunselman did not comment.

Outcome: The council voted to reappoint Joan Lowenstein to the DDA board, with dissent from Kunselman.

For John Mouat, Smith described how she had enjoyed working with Mouat over the last four years. He’d taken over the chairmanship of a new committee – the transportation committee. She described his skill set as an architect of municipal buildings as valuable for the DDA board. She concluded that she highly supported Mouat as a member of the DDA board. Hieftje echoed Smith’s sentiments. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) drew out the fact that some of the appointments to the DDA board have certain criteria – some positions are reserved for those who work for a downtown business, for example. From the state statue Act 197 of 1975:

Not less than a majority of the members shall be persons having an interest in property located in the downtown district or officers, members, trustees, principals, or employees of a legal entity having an interest in property located in the downtown district. Not less than 1 of the members shall be a resident of the downtown district, if the downtown district has 100 or more persons residing within it.

Hieftje noted that Nassif had a law office downtown, so he was not an at-large appointment.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to reappoint John Mouat to the DDA board.

Lansdowne Pedestrian Bridge

Before the council for its consideration was approval of a $120,000 change to its fiscal year 2012 budget to include an expenditure from its major street fund to reconstruct the pedestrian bridge in the Lansdowne neighborhood. The bridge, located in Ward 4, connects Morehead and Delaware drives.

Councilmembers Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

The bridge has been a topic of neighborhood concern dating back at least to the 2010 Ward 4 Democratic primary race between Margie Teall and Jack Eaton, a race won by the incumbent Teall. The neighborhood association owns the structures under the bridge (a “weir” or short dam-like structure), while the city owns the bridge itself. Based on remarks from a candidate forum from that year, the pedestrian bridge has now been out of service for about three years.

The resolution altering the major street fund budget was sponsored by Ward 4 councilmembers Teall and Marcia Higgins.

Lansdowne Pedestrian Bridge: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wanted more information to come forward before voting. He noted that there were private-public issues as well as a potential liability issue for the city. He said he would like the council’s indulgence to wait another two weeks. So he moved to postpone the issue. The motion nearly died for lack of a second, but Sandi Smith (Ward 1) finally raised her hand.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked how a two-week delay would affect construction timing. Sue McCormick, the city’s public services area administrator, explained that the project would start next spring or summer, so a two-week delay would not have a negative impact. Higgins said the issue has been worked on for 12 years and the issues are known. [The bridge is in her ward, and she faces a general election challenge from Republican Eric Scheie.]

Derezinski countered Higgins by saying that if it had taken 12 years, the two additional weeks was not too much to ask. Mayor John Hieftje said he’d had an opportunity to learn about the issue and did not feel the need to postpone. He called it unfortunate that there’s not more information in the staff memo.

Outcome on postponement: The motion to postpone failed, with only Derezinski supporting it.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Lansdowne bridge project over Derezinski’s dissent.

Additional Allocation for Street Repair

The council was asked to approve a $550,040 increase to the contract with Barrett Paving Materials Inc. – the contractor that handles street repair work for the city. The money will be spent on additional work that can now be done because, according to the city, the 2011 street repair work is ahead of schedule.

The proposed additional work will be done on: (1) the outbound lane of Miller Avenue between Seventh Street and Chapin; (2) on North Division Street between Ann and Detroit streets; and (3) on Oxford Street between Hill Street and South University Avenue.

The work on Oxford Street could start either during the 2011 construction season or in 2012, depending on how talks go with the University of Michigan about the university’s contribution to the project.

Part of the approval authorized by the city council included $80,000 worth of crack-sealing work to be done yet this year on several different streets.

The city’s original contract with Barrett Paving Materials Inc. was for $3,710,953.

At the council’s meeting, Liz Rolla, senior project manager with the city, reviewed the streets and the repair activities that are planned to be done with the additional funds. She noted that some of the additional work had already been done – on Spring Street. She suggested that some councilmembers might remember the gnomes and flamingos that had been placed by neighbors on a particularly bad stretch of pavement.

About the work on Oxford Street, Rolla noted that it was paved as a residential street, but now has bus traffic. The University of Michigan had agreed to contribute to the project in proportion to its street frontage.

Rolla noted that crack sealing can give a street another 3-5 or up to an additional 7 years of life.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the additional money for street repair.

Lease of 415 W. Washington to Kiwanis

On the agenda was a resolution to approve a month-to-month lease with The Kiwanis Club of Ann Arbor Foundation Inc., effective Sept. 7, 2011 for the bay of the 415 W. Washington building. That building is just down the street from the Kiwanis building at the southwest corner of First and Washington, where the club’s resale shop is located.

The Kiwanis Club needs the additional space for its warehouse sale. The club will pay a rental rate of $100 per month during the life of their tenancy.

A hint that some kind of agreement between the city and Kiwanis could be in the works came at the council’s Aug. 15 meeting, when Kiwanis board member Kathy Griswold mentioned the possibility during her public commentary.

At that time, Griswold had indicated that although nothing had been promised, it was possible that the city might be able to provide an alternate location for the Kiwanis Club’s warehouse sale, previously held at Airport Boulevard Building #837.

The 415 W. Washington building and land parcel are the focus of a renewed effort by the city, begun in February 2010, to redevelop the land. The effort includes city staff, councilmembers and advocates for the arts and for the Allen Creek greenway. The council received an update on that effort earlier this year. The group involved in trying to redevelop the land had identified funds that had allowed the hiring of a grant writer, and it was hoped that $100,000 could be found to support further studies.

During the brief deliberations, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) complimented the staff in their work to make the lease happen. Mayor John Hieftje said he was happy that Kiwanis would be able to use the space. He described it as a raw space, that works for storage. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) echoed what Hohnke said, describing Kiwanis as a wonderful organization, which is evident to people who see the work they do at the weekly rummage sale on a Saturday morning, he said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the lease of 415 W. Washington to Kiwanis.

Acquisition of Eden Court Property

The council was asked to appropriate $82,500 from its open space and parkland preservation millage to acquire the property at 5 W. Eden Court. The Eden Court property is immediately adjacent to the city’s Bryant Community Center, located in a neighborhood south of I-94 and east of Stone School Road.

The 2011 taxes on the property were estimated at $1,400, which would be eliminated from the city’s tax base, once the property becomes public land. The parcel could be used to expand the community center’s programming services. It could also be used in other ways in support of the city’s park and recreation system.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked Joan Doughty of the Community Action Network (CAN) to answer some questions about the Bryant Community Center. In 2008, the nonprofit CAN took over the community center, Doughty said. She described how CAN has outgrown the space – they have to use shifts for the after-school program. Older kids arrive first, have a snack and do homework, then go home. Younger kids then arrive, have their snack and do homework, and then the older kids return. There’s no room for an office and or food distribution, she said.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she supported the center, but was concerned when the city removed affordable housing and did not add to its stock. Smith wanted to know if there was enough space on the existing site to add to the facility. Doughty said there was not room. Doughty acknowledged that yes, it’s hard to lose affordable housing. She described how the person who is moving out is happy to be leaving because of the drainage issue in the neighborhood – he’s not too happy to be living there. The loss of one housing unit means the ability to serve additional people, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that the proposal before the council was a purchase of property, but to make it functional, additional funds would be needed. Where would that money come from? Sumedh Bahl, community services area administrator, explained that federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds would be used.

Kunselman then asked Mary Jo Callan, head of the city/county office of community development, about building additional affordable housing. In the neighborhood, he said, Habitat for Humanity has built one house and rehabbed one. He asked if the city could acquire tax-foreclosed property from the county and turn it over to Habitat for Humanity. Callan acknowledged that yes, that’s a model used in other communities. So Kunselman said he wanted to bring that to the attention of his council colleagues: The city has first dibs on tax-foreclosed property, and the city would be seeing some more of these situations. So he’d be looking for their support for that.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) asked Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) if the purchase had been reviewed by the park advisory commission. [The purchase is being made out of the open space preservation millage, which has two components – land outside the city and parkland inside the city. Hohnke serves on the greenbelt advisory commission, which handles open space preservation outside the city. Taylor is one of two council representatives to the park advisory commission. PAC has a land acquisition committee that handles open space preservation millage recommendations inside the city.]

Taylor said he didn’t recollect if there was a conversation at PAC – if there was, it wasn’t a big discussion. Bahl confirmed that it had been reviewed by PAC.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) drew out the fact that the amount of impervious surface on the parcel would remain the same – there would be no increase.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Eden Court purchase.

Human Services Allocations

The council was asked to allocate the additional $85,600 for human services it had previously approved as part its 2012 fiscal year budget in May 2011. The nonprofit entities receiving additional funding through the increased allocation were already slated for support – it was a matter of distributing the additional funds.

Both in terms of percentage increase and total dollar amount, Legal Services of South Central Michigan received the largest increase in support for its program to prevent evictions. The program was allocated an additional $55,816, bringing its total to $157,055. [Google spreadsheet breaking down additional allocations]

The additional funds were allocated in a way that most programs received a 2.7% increase compared to the amount they’d previously been allocated. The staff memo accompanying the resolution acknowledges the apparent proportional discrepancy, explaining that it “reflects a redistribution in which funder is funding the contract. Some contractors have funding from more than one funder and some funders have funding from just one funder. But the total allocation for each agency is the amount that all funders agreed upon based on the evaluation score, and the fund distribution formula.”

Human Services Allocations: Public Comment

Lily Au began with complimentary words for The Ann Arbor Chronicle but quipped that its editor, Dave Askins, was not her friend – he had not friended her on Facebook. She addressed the issue of coordinated distribution of human services funding – an approach whereby the city, the county, the Urban County, the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation and Washtenaw United Way together work to allocate funding to different nonprofit organizations.

Au noted that the human services funding goes through the city/county community development office, which she said charges administrative costs that are too high. She contended that most Ann Arbor residents don’t know about the coordinated approach – the city council had approved it without much discussion. She pointed to a possible conflict between AnnArbor.com’s coverage of the issue and the fact that its vice president [Laurel Champion] serves on the board of directors of the United Way.

Au criticized the United Way expenditures on pension and retirement. A new expense item this year for United Way is called “functional expenses,” which Au contended is related to the coordinated funding.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without discussion to allocate the additional money as recommended.

Pension Ordinance Change

Before the council for its consideration was initial approval to an ordinance change that increases the city’s pension vesting period for non-union employees hired after July 1, 2011 – from five years to 10 years. It also changes the final average compensation computation so that it’s based on the the last five years of employment, not the last three years.

The preparation of the ordinance change came at the direction of the city council, which passed a resolution at its June 6, 2011 meeting asking the city administrator to bring forward ordinance revisions that for non-union employees would change health care benefits and aspects of the city’s pension plan.

Specifically, the June 6 resolution pointed to ordinance revisions that would base the final average contribution (FAC) for the pension system on the last five years of service, instead of the last three. Further, employees would be vested in the pension plan after 10 years instead of five. Finally, all new non-union hires would be provided with an access-only style health care plan, with the opportunity to buy into whatever plan active employees enjoy.

At its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting, the council gave final approval to an ordinance change that addressed the health care provision from the June 6 resolution. That ordinance change distinguishes between “subsidized retirees” and “non-subsidized retirees.” A non-subsidized retiree is someone who is hired or re-employed into a non-union position with the city on or after July 1, 2011. In their retirement, non-subsidized retirees will have access to health care they can pay for themselves, but it will not be subsidized by the city.

The ordinance change that was given initial approval at the council’s Sept. 6 meeting addresses the retirement plan portion of the June 6 resolution. All ordinance changes require approval by the council at two separate meetings, in addition to a public hearing on the change before the final vote.

The city expects that when it reaches a point when all non-union employees have been hired under the revised pension plan, the city’s costs will be $230,000 less than they would be under the current plan.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without discussion to give initial approval to the change in its retirement ordinance.

Community Events Funding

The council was asked to authorize the allocation of $43,378 to various groups in support of events they sponsor. The largest grant was to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival – for $25,000. Most of the rest of the grants were for $1,000 to cover the city’s costs for placement of street barricades.

Awardees included the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau, Arbor Brewing Company, the University of Michigan’s Alice Lloyd Scholars Program, and the Main Street Area Association, among others. [Google spreadsheet of awards]

The council committee recommending the award amounts consists of Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) thanked Smith and Teall for taking on the task and doing a great job.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the community events disbursements.

Gallup Boat Access Study

Another request before council related to a $7,500 grant agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources (MDNR) to perform a preliminary engineering study for Gallup Park boating access site improvements. The Gallup Park boating dock does not meet current standards for barrier-free access, pedestrian/vehicle access, and parking.

The money will be spent out of the 2012 fiscal year park maintenance and capital improvements millage budget. The city council had applied for the grant from MDNR on March 21, 2011.

During the brief deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the city had applied to the state for the boat launch access improvements at the same time as it applied for a grant for Gallup Park generally and for a skatepark. She asked for an update on those grants. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl told Briere that “the letter is in the mail,” he’s been told. [By that he did not mean that approval was imminent, but that a notification about whether the grants had been approved would be forthcoming.]

Mayor John Hieftje remarked that in conjunction with the new Argo Dam bypass channel, it means there will be a lot of new opportunities for boating.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize the grant.

Federal Grant for Crime Mapping

Councilmembers were asked for authorization to use $27,996 for crime-mapping work, if the money is awarded by the U.S. Dept. of Justice through an Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grant.

The funding would be used to create a specific, geospatial crime-mapping dashboard – a Law Enforcement Information Dashboard (LEID). According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the LEID would be shared with the CLEMIS consortium (Courts and Law Enforcement Management Information System), which includes multiple law enforcement agencies in the region.

During the public hearing on the grant award, Thomas Partridge applauded the efforts of the city to apply for and receive the grant. He suggested that instead, the funds could be going to “drug courts.” He described the amount of money as small compared to the problem of illegal drugs.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously without discussion to authorize the grant application.

Cleaning Contract

On the agenda was a resolution to authorize a $580,680 cleaning contract with Kristel Cleaning Inc. for janitorial service at the city’s municipal center, Wheeler Service Center, the water treatment plant, the Ann Arbor Senior Center and various smaller locations.

At a budget retreat in early 2011, public services area administrator Sue McCormick had brought up the topic of the frequency of cleaning:

The increases include restoration of janitorial services from three days per week to a five-day service. That move from five-day service down to three-day service, McCormick said, proved to be the “worst thing we could have done.” Exacerbating the issue is the age of the building, and there’s ongoing construction adjacent to the building, plus the fact that more people will be returning to work there. So next year’s budget proposes five-day service – an additional expense of $33,500 per year. In the new municipal center, McCormick said, a three-day-a-week janitor service would be a “recipe for decline” in the new building.

The contract with Kristel called for a 5-day-a-week cleaning schedule for the municipal building.

At Tuesday’s council meeting, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wanted to understand what factored into the frequency of cleaning: Does it depend on the number of public visitors or the number of people who work there? What what are the problems with a 3-day schedule? Alluding to the fact that the city had dropped down to a 3-day schedule from a 5-day schedule, mayor John Hieftje suggested that it would be appropriate to ask if the city is spending more for cleaning now than three years ago. Interim city administrator Tom Crawford said “fruit flies and critters like that” were an example of some problems with the 3-day schedule.

After hearing that there was no particular urgency to getting the contract approved, Smith moved for a postponement.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the cleaning contract.

Communications and Comment

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

At the top of the brick column is a new wireless network router that now offers the public wireless access to the Internet. It was not noted during the meeting, but after installation of the hardware a few weeks ago, the wireless service was turned on last week and was used by The Chronicle to report its Civic News Ticker items during the meeting.

Comm/Comm: Video Surveillance

During her communications time, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) told her colleagues that on Sept. 19 she expected that a proposed ordinance would be before them that would regulate video surveillance. [Smith has previously updated the council on that ordinance.] She described how the ordinance specifies that security cameras can’t be in residential neighborhoods. It doesn’t affect whether security cameras can be in locations like parking structures, she said. If it’s not on the Sept. 19 meeting agenda, it could be expected after that.

Comm/Comm: PAC report on Fuller Road Station

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is one of two ex officio council representatives to the city’s park advisory commission. He reported that at its last meeting, the commission had a discussion about Fuller Road Station and the Border to Border trail. PAC had passed a resolution that identifies a number of items, including the fact that trail improvements should be prioritized over bicycle amenities within the station. PAC is also interested in ensuring that the non-motorized trail system be a jointly funded enterprise by university, city and county. [Chronicle report of the PAC meeting: "Action on Argo Headrace, Trails Near Fuller"]

Comm/Comm: Fuller Road  Station

Libby Hunter delivered her public commentary in the form of a song, as has become her habit over the last two years. The lyrics, sung to the tune of Simon and Garfunkel’s “The Boxer,” featured the refrains “lie, la, lie” directed pointedly at mayor John Hieftje. The subject of her complaint was the proposed Fuller Road Station: “Tell me please Mayor Hieftje / Is it true what we’ve been told / That you gave away our park / For a pocketful of nothing / Empty promises.”

Comm/Comm: New City Admin – Thank You to Crawford

During his communications, mayor John Hieftje noted that the new city administrator, Steve Powers, would be arriving soon. [Powers starts the job on Sept. 15.] Meetings are being set up for Powers with all councilmembers, the mayor said. Hieftje thanked Tom Crawford for his service as interim administrator. Crawford is the city’s chief financial officer, and has served as interim administrator over the last four months since the departure of Roger Fraser.

Comm/Comm: Proclamations

At the start of the meeting, several proclamations were made. One honored the Thunderbolts, a ball team that has helped maintain the city’s Southeast Area park. Alan Tanabe accepted the proclamation given by mayor John Hieftje.

Hieftje also declared September as Hunger Action Month.

Hieftje presented Nick Shannon with a proclamation acknowledging Shannon’s winning a 2011 All-America City Youth Award.

Jonathan Bulkley, a long-time professor with the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources & Environment, was also on hand to receive a proclamation for his service to the University of Michigan, the state of Michigan and the nation. Bulkley had addressed the council at its Aug. 4, 2011 meeting in support of the council’s resolution on the greenway. He serves on the board of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy. His granddaughter Nina accompanied him at the podium.

Comm/Comm: Remembering 9/11

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor Democrat, an advocate for the most vulnerable residents. He told the council it’s a serious week when the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 falls. So he called on the mayor and council to honor victims and families of that tragedy. He asked them not to raise funds to create memorials, but to honor the people who gave their lives, not in vain, but in full purpose of furthering the American economy.

Partridge said that the council should honor them by calling on people of all political persuasions and all faiths including Islamic, Christian and Jewish religions – all major and not-so-major faiths – to honor a commitment by resolving conflicts with non-violence.

Partridge concluded quickly by asking councilmembers to support the recall of Gov. Rick Snyder. He asked them to fully fund affordable housing, transportation, health care, and education.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Absent: Mike Anglin

Next council meeting: Sept. 19, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]